Ombudsman queries powers of entry

Press, 5 August 1976, Page 1

Ombudsman queries powers of entry

PA Wellington The right of authorities to enter private property has come in for close scrutiny by the Chief Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles).

In his annual report tabled in Parliament yesterday Sir Guy said that, in the course of investigating a complaint against the Valuation Department, he had been concerned to find that there seemed to be a large number of legislative provisions authorising governmental officers—both at central and local level—to enter property of private people. This led him to undertake a more extensive survey. There were at least 150 statutes authorising entry by central or local government officers to private property. "Moreover, in recent years it appears that there has been an average of four or five acts passed each year by Parliament containing such ah authorisation.

“The number of statutory provisions authorising entry to private property by Government officials is, therefore, neither small nor diminishing,” Sir Guy said.

The next most striking feature of the statutory provisions was that the vast majority of them authorised entry in circum-

stances which would not be permitted under common law. “Under the rules of common law as evolved in England and developed in New Zealand entry on to private property may be undertaken if it is with the consent of the occupier, or with the approval of an independent judicial officer, or if it is undertaken in times of actual emergency —either personal or public —to protect life or property, and subject to the payment of compensation.”

While there were some statutes which authorised entry in situations which could be regarded as emergency situations — for instance the public safety, conservation, civil defence, forest and rural fires and children and young persons acts—these were few in number and their provisions were rarely restricted to emergency situations.

He said that no doubt obtaining the consent of the occupier or approval of the court might take time, but he believed that in non-emergency situations this should be done before the entry was undertaken.

Another striking discovery was that few statutory provisions required an official entrant to identify himself. There was also little provision for compensation when entry —authorised or not —

caused undue interference with private property. The inquiry into the Security Intelligence Service last year effectively added six months work to the duties of the Ombudsman. Sir Guy Powles reported. It had been necessary to open a special office. Sir Guy said that the year had been difficult but challenging, his office shouldering virtually the whole of the responsibility for planning the extension of his office’s jurisdiction into the local body field, for designing the organisation and for making submissions to the Government and for putting the resulting decisions into effect. His office had the largest number of complaints received, but was able to investigate fullv only 407 of them compared with 554 for the year ended March 31. 1975. “This drop is an indication of the reduction in the effective investigating strength which the circumstances of the year brought about,” Sir Guy said. Complaints received during the year totalled 1301. Most of them were directed against the Justice, Post Office, Social Welfare and Inland Revenue departments.

There were 17 complaints found justified against the Inland Revenue and Post Office, 13 against the Social Welfare Department and eight against the Justice Department.