The Press SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1968. The Ombudsman Turns To Parliament

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31730, 13 July 1968, Page 12

The Press SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1968. The Ombudsman Turns To Parliament

The Ombudsman’s report to Parliament this year records from the usual readiness with which his recommendations have been received. He has exhausted, without success, all the courses open to him to remedy what he considers to be an injustice. Only Parliament can now act on the report that the Ombudsman, its own servant, has submitted on a section of the Social Security Act and on the administration of the section by the Social Security Commission. The Act gives the commission a discretion to reduce the rate of a monetary benefit being paid to a person who receives a pension from overseas. It may reduce the benefit by an amount not exceeding the rate of the overseas pension. The Ombudsman has examined the complaints of several persons who consider that the exercise of this discretion has been unfair. He says in his report that it is perfectly proper for Parliament to decide that public funds should not have to meet the costs of what it considers to be duplicate benefits. That is obviously what Parliament intended when it included this section in the Act Having in mind the universal superannuation benefit, which is not subject to a means test the Ombudsman was at a loss to understand why such a benefit should be reduced when the overseas pension (often a war pension, “ honourably earned ”) meant no cost to New Zealand’s public funds, and when any other kind of income from overseas would not disqualify a person from receiving the full superannuation benefit in New Zealand. He found that the commission justified its action on the ground of its being a practice of long standing and that the commission considered its action fair. The" commission acted on a Ministerial direction in interpreting the section. When the Ombudsman asked the Government to consider both the policy and its administration the Government confirmed the commission’s practice.

Having been informed by the Ombudsman that, in his view, the section permits an injustice, Parliament should now have the opportunity to reconsider this section of the Act The Government may feel that for reasons not apparent in the extensive inquiries of the Ombudsman, the section does not permit injustice. But its reasons should be made known, and thrown open to discussion by the public, who have learnt to respect the Ombudsman’s regard for the principles of justice—and of ordinary fair play. A private member’s bill seeking the amendment of the section would provide the opportunity for Parliament to consider its servant’s report