The ombudsman and the courts

Front

Why did parliament establish the ombudsman in the first place?

Back

Parliament recoginized that the demand for administrative justice has been exponentially growing, to the point where the courts cannot possibly bear the burden of hearing every litigation against the state.

Front

What is the irony with an ever expanding state being neccecary for executive accountability?

Back

Because the state is ever expanding (due to being involved in healthcare, welfare etc) Parliament has provided mechinisms such as the ombudsman, in order to lift the burden off the courts, thus allowing for faster and more efficent executive accountability in NZ.

Front

Has there been a practical case where the courts may have been burdened with too many litigations against the state?

Back

Yes, in fact, since the covid 19 pandemic, there has been a growth in formal complaints given to the ombudsman, that the courts cannot possibly bear the burden of hearing.

Front

What is one way in which the ombudsman is a superior executive accountaility mechinism as compared to ministerial responsibility?

Back

Ministers such as MP's, do not have access to documents that are held within the executive. However, the ombudsman are able to view documents that are held within the executive and decide wether or not they can be witheld under the official information Act, thus allowing more executive accountability on the part of the ombudsman, as compared to ministerial responsibility.

Front

What is one way that the ombudsman is a superior executive accountability mechinism as compared to the courts in NZ?

Back

In order to make a successful claim for judicial review of the executive, citizens have to present evidence to the court that proves that the executive has done something wrong. In other words, the burden of proof is on the citizen. However, the ombudsman just has to hear a complaint from a citizen, and then they have to investigate any evidence that proves that the complaint is substantive.

Front

What is another way that the ombudsman is a superior executive accountability mechinism as compared to the courts in NZ?

Back

The courts in NZ are limited to specific remedies set out by case law and statute. However, the ombudsman can give quite practical remedies/redress for executive breaches, such as requiring that the state issue a formal apology.

Front

Why hasn't there been a rejection of the ombudsman's reccomendations in decades, and how does this lead to more exective accountability in NZ?

Back

The political cost of rejecting the ombudsman's reccomendations are very high, meaning that even if the ombudsman cannot hold the executive to account due to it's reccomendations being rejected, the political consequenses of rejecting the ombusmans reccomendations can still hold the executive to account in NZ.

Front

Are the courts permmited to judically review the decions of the ombudsman? Why/why not?

Back

Under section 25 of the Ombudsman Act, the courts cannot judically review, decions of the ombudsman unless those decions were made without the authority of jurisdiction.

Front

Discuss s25 of the ombudsman Act in terms of what intervening ability it gives to courts on the decions of the ombudsman.

Back

Section 25 of the ombudsman Act is innapplicable to investigations of the ombudsman concerning witheld information under the official informations Act. This means that courts can judically review a decion of the ombudsman that concerns witheld information under the official informations Act.

Front

How often do courts judicially review decions of the ombudsman concering witheld information under the official informations Act?

Back

Not very often, in fact the courts seldom judicially review decions of the ombudsman concering witheld information under the official informations Act.