Govt-Ombudsman overlapping

Press, 11 February 1983, Page 15

Govt-Ombudsman overlapping

By

BRIAR WHITEHEAD

The Chief Ombudsman, Mr George Laking, the man who is investigating the Rural Bank loans to the Auckland businessman, Mr John Spencer, has his conflicts — not only in feeling for the exact edges of his brief at times, but in seeing some special commissions set up at considerable public expense to do the Ombudsman's job. The Oakley Committee of Inquiry report, released on Wednesday, lends weight to his contention. In its preliminary comments, the committee says: “The material in the Ombudsman’s report and the conclusions to which he came have not influenced us in any way ... Nevertheless, we note that the conclusions we have quite independently reached are not in conflict with the conclusions to which he came.” (The Ombudsman. Mr L. J. Castle, had just completed an investigation of several months into the running of Oakley Hospital when the special commission of inquiry was set up to look into “procedures • at Oakley Hospital and related matters.") Unnecessary duplication of functions has been troubling the Chief Ombudsman for

some time, and he plans to air his feelings in his annual report to Parliament this year.

Mr Laking is now into his second five-year term as Chief Ombudsman. He retires in another two years. He was once Ambassador to the United Nations, and Acting High Commissioner to London. The North Island town in which he was born — Onehunga — has the unusual distinction of having produced every New Zealand High Commissioner to London between 1936 and 1961, with one exception. In the 19705, Onehunga came up with another London High Commissioner. It also gave New Zealand its first woman Mayor, and its first woman president of a political party, Mrs Sue Wood.

Mr Laking was offered the Ombudsman's job in 1975, two years after he retired as head of the Prime Minister's Department and Secretary of Foreign Affairs. He knows a good deal, therefore, about the operations of the Government departments into which he conducts many of his investigations — and a good deal, too, about inbuilt resistance to

change. The Ombudsman’s Office is reponsible to Parliament. The Chief Ombudsman gives his consent to request by the Government that he start an investigation only if the Opposition also approves. That way he escapes charges that he is the instrument of one party or the other and retains public confidence as an impartial figure, Mr Laking says. The Ombudsman’s Office costs about $700,000 a year to run. Wages and salaries for two Ombudsmen and 13 investigating officers comprise the greatest sum — almost $600,000. Making use of the office's staff for $700,000 a year is a better proposition than setting up a special commission at some expense to do work within the competence of the office, Mr Laking adds. The investigation into the affairs of the Wellington District Court was within the competence and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman’s Office, Mr Laking says. The special commission was set up last year to do the task after

court clerks were charged with defeating the course of justice in their handling of minor offence notices. The commission would be looking at the administration of the court, something the Ombudsman was empowered to do. It would not be examining and commenting on judicial decisions — something which was also outside the powers of the Ombudsman's Office. "I appreciate that it is the prerogative of the Government to decide how it wants to handle these matters,” Mr Laking says. “But we have a potential that has not been fully used. “Some aspects of the Oakley Hospital inquiry did need a separate inquiry, but I don’t know that any consideration was given to using Mr Castle.” (Mr Castle’s investigation was into the failure of the Auckland Hospital Board to implement the recommendations of another special commission of inquiry into the board’s running of Oakley.) Mr Laking says that he had not suggested to the Government that it should

use the Ombudsman’s Office instead. However, he has made his point to the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, and the Attorney-General, Mr McLay. Tm not saying. ‘Anything you can do, we can do better’,” he adds. “But we are the least expensive exercise in this field that the Government can contemplate.”

Nor does he say that the Ombudsman’s Office should usurp the role of existing channels for redress, but that the Government should not set up new agencies and bodies when the Ombudsman’s Office could perform as well and for no extra cost. “There are times when they might more seriously consider whether this office might be the more appropriate way to handle it.” Mr Laking’s other conflict is in knowing just how far an investigation can go without overstepping the bounds of office.

As a creature of statute, his powers are set out in the Ombudsmen Act, 1975. They do not encompass philosophy or policy-making, but stick to the hard lines of articulated policy and to look for mis-

takes of fact and breaches of law.

But he is also able to look for the unreasonable or unjust, or discriminatory practice or omission.

Where does this take him in his Rural Bank loan's investigation? Mr Laking says he has jurisdiction to investigate any deviations from the rules controlling loans from the bank, but he thinks he would exceed his powers — even those of identifying the unreasonable or discriminatory practice — if he started arguing the rights and wrongs of loans to the wealthy (versus loans to the have-nots) in farming, especially if increases in national production and export earnings are the express designs of the loans.

Nor does he feel his investigation should become an examination of the Spencer family's business affairs. He will certainly look at the even-handedness of the Rural Bank in interpreting the Government’s policy, he says, and may be led into examining bank loans to the rest of the Spencer family. The' Ombudsman’s Office receives between 1200 and

1600 complaints a year from people aggrieved by decisions — or omissions — of departments, local authorities, and ad hoc bodies. The office books show 300 under investigation now. Some can be dealt with by a telephone call and a request to see the files — something like three weeks. The longest

running case on the books now was filled in February, 1980.

Only 15 to 20 per cent of complaints fill out into wellgrounded grievances, Mr Laking says, and increasing numbers of these are settled without any need for a formal recommendation from the Ombudsman.