Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

‘Visionary legislation'

PA Wellington The Government’s intention to establish a Human Rights Commission has been praised by two Ombudsmen — who have called the proposal visionary and beneficial.

In individual submissions to the select committee considering the Human Rights Commission Bill, the Chief Ombusdman (Sir Guy Powles) and the Ombudsman (Mr G. R. Laking) strongly supported the concept of the legislation. Sir Guy said the establishment of the commis-

sion would be “a marked step forward in the social field, which could have profound beneficial effects on New Zealand society.” Mr Laking said the proposal was “another experiment of equal or greater vision” than the original establishment of an Ombudsman’s office in 1962.

“I am convinced that the objections relating to the possible joint operations of the two offices wholly outweigh the advantages — and that the proper course to adopt is separate and independent co-existent systems,” said Sir Guv.

“There is a good provision requiring that the race relations conciliator shall be a member of the commission,” he said. In his submissions, Mr Taking said the success or failure of the commission would be determined by the same considerations which had applied to the

office of the Ombudsman — sound legislation, public and Parliamentary support and the personality of the commissioners.

It' was inappropriate, he said, that an Ombudsman should be a member of the commission, because a clash of interests might arise.

Rather, as the conduct of the Ombudsmen and their staff would be subject to review by the commission, equally, the action of the commission should be subject to review by the Ombudsmen. Mr taking said it was undesirable that a complainant should be able to have an investigation of one complaint made by two different bodies. Instead, both the Om- ’ budsmen and the commis- ' sion should have the discretion to refuse to in- ’ vestigate a matter which had been fully and properly investigated by the other body.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19770324.2.86

Bibliographic details

Press, 24 March 1977, Page 14

Word Count
318

‘Visionary legislation' Press, 24 March 1977, Page 14

‘Visionary legislation' Press, 24 March 1977, Page 14