Editorial

On the inside of the front cover of the annual report of the Ombudsman for last year, there is this quotation: "...and like a knight in shining armour, the Ombudsman ventures forth with steadfast watch in the daily defence of the legitimate rights and aspirations of citizens...". The quote is by Sir John Robertson, former chief ombudsman of New Zealand and president of the International Ombudsman Institute.

It is a most appropriate opening to a report that uncovers in the clearest manner worrying shortcomings in the relationship which, with justification, the ombudsman expects to have with parliament, the institution to which his office is directly accountable.

In this respect, the report is a sad account, for the institution of the ombudsman will not serve as the shield in defence of the citizen's rights as effectively as the office is meant to be unless there is an effective link between it and parliament.

Of course this is not to say that the office is not fulfilling its functions. The ombudsman himself reports that most institutions cooperated well and responded promptly and seriously to the thrust of the enquiries made. He sees welcome signs of progress in the decision-making process and in the behaviour of the public sector. "As a consequence, the government's administrative arm now operates in a way that is generally recognised to be more balanced, fair and equitable and business is conducted in a more consultative manner."

But then there are matters over which a much greater commitment ought to be shown by the authorities to clear up muddy waters. The ombudsman uses a more subtle way to describe cases of unsatisfactory response. He says the generally favourable relations that exist between his office and its stakeholders are at times clouded by the fact that some public bodies persist in their failure to correct grievances and to repair instances of malaise in their operations.

Quite rightly, the ombudsman finds this unacceptable, "especially in instances that were brought to the attention of the authorities concerned in reports prepared by the office". Who is going to put these bodies on the right track, who is going to make them deal with these instances of malaise in their operations? The appropriate institution is parliament. Which is why the ombudsman then goes straight into the heart of the matter - the link between his office and parliament. Up to now at least, this link takes the form of an annual meeting with the House Business Committee, which the ombudsman finds insufficient to deal adequately - and we would add, meaningfully - with his reports.

The ombudsman has good reason to complain that no examination, review or discussion ever takes place on the special reports and other documents his office draws up. This means in effect that in instances where the ombudsman's recommendations are not accepted by the public body concerned or where administrative faults are brought to the attention of members of parliament, these cases are not properly discussed either by the House Business Committee or by the whole House.

Surely this is an unacceptable situation, one that the House ought to look into with energy and enthusiasm if it wants to give added flesh to the institution it had established. It is time for parliament seriously to consider the ombudsman's concern and do its best to put the institution on a sounder basis in the interest of the citizen.