Public Servants in the New Zealand Ombudsman System

Abstract

C ONCERN ABOUT THE INCREASING INFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT over the life of a citizen has prompted a quest for protective devices to insure that the citizen receives fair treatment from administrative authorities. The Scandinavian institution, Ombudsman, adopted by New Zealand in 1962, has caught the imagination of administrators, legislators, political scientists, and lawyers.' The Ombudsman is an impartial government officer who reviews complaints from citizens against administrative decisions. With access to departmental files, he has the power to criticize and to make recommendations to the departments; he has no powers of enforcement. Proponents of the system see the Ombudsman as a nonpolitical and easily accessible channel to be used by the citizens in challenging the fairness -not merely the legality-of an administrative ruling. The functioning of the Ombudsman Office in New Zealand affords some interesting data regarding two areas of inquiry.2 First, have the investigations and findings of the Ombudsman impaired the efficiency of the public service? And second, how do the public servants themselves view the Ombudsman system? In the United States the response to the Ombudsman proposals have been glacial.3 It appears that some legislators and public servants approve what they see on the surface, but, as in the case of the iceberg, are fearful of what lurks below. Legislators are apprehensive lest the Ombudsman undermine their