annual report 2005–2006 - Ombudsman · 2016-02-18 · being ‘trampled underfoot by...

Comm

onwealth O

mbudsm

an Annual Report

2005–2006

annual report 2005–2006

ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANii

© Commonwealth of Australia 2006

ISSN 0814–7124

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by anyprocess without prior written permission from the Australian Government, available from the Attorney-General’s Department.

Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth CopyrightAdministration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600, or posted athttp://www.ag.gov.au/cca.

Produced by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, CanberraDesign: RTM Design, CanberraProofreading and indexing: WordsWorth Writing, CanberraPrinting: National Capital Printing, Canberra

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 iii

ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANiv

GUIDE TO THE REPORTWhen developing the content of our annual report, we set out to meet not only the parliamentary reportingrequirements but also to provide information to the community about the diverse nature of the complaintshandled by our office.

There are a number of target audiences for our report, including members of parliament, Australian Governmentdepartments and agencies, other ombudsman offices, the media, potential employees and consultants, and thegeneral public who deal with government agencies.

As some parts of the report will be of more interest to you than others, you can read this page to help work outwhich parts will be more useful. Each part is divided into sub-parts.

OverviewIncludes the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s review and organisation overview. The review is an executivesummary of the principal developments affecting the office’s work during the year and its more significantachievements. The overview outlines the office’s role, responsibilities, outcome and output structure andorganisational structure.

Performance reviewDetails performance against the office’s two outputs, comments on the management and accountabilitydevelopment and operation of the office’s governance arrangements, outlines the challenges facing the officein complaint handling, and the work the office does to foster and promote good government administration.

Oversight of Australian Government agenciesFocuses on particular issues that arose in investigating complaints about individual agencies, providesexamples of the diversity of complaint issues about government, how the Ombudsman’s office helped people toresolve their complaint issues, and general administrative problems across government agencies.

AppendixesThe appendixes include occupational health and safety reporting; freedom of information reporting; a list ofpapers and presentations by staff; tables setting out the numbers of complaints received about individualAustralian Government agencies; a list of major consultants engaged during the year; and financial statements.

We have also included a list of tables and figures (contained in the body of the report), a glossary of terms, anda list of addresses for our offices in each state and territory capital city.

CONTACTING THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANEnquiries about this report, or any other information contained within, should be directed to the Director of Public Affairs.

If you would like to make a complaint, or obtain further information about the Ombudsman:Visit: Ground Floor, 1 Farrell Place, Canberra ACT 2600Write to: GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601Phone: 1300 362 072 (local call charge)Fax: 02 6249 7829Email: [email protected]: www.ombudsman.gov.au

The Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2005–2006 is available on our website under publications.

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 v

CONTENTS

Transmittal letter iii Contacting the Commonwealth Ombudsman ivContents vForeword 1

OverviewChapter 1—Ombudsman’s review 4Complaint and inspections workload 4Financial performance 5Public administration 5Developing role of the Ombudsman 6International cooperation 7Key strategic achievements 7Challenges 8The year ahead 9

Chapter 2—The organisation 11History and establishment 11Role and functions 11Organisation and structure 12Outcome and output structure 13

Performance reviewChapter 3—Performance report 17Performance at a glance 17Output 1—Review of administrative action 19Output 2—Review of statutory compliance in specified areas 26

Chapter 4—Management and accountability 28Corporate governance 28External scrutiny 32People management 33Financial management 35Information technology 37

Chapter 5—Challenges in complaint handling 40Public contact 40Work practice changes 41Data management 42Referrals to agencies 42Outreach into regional areas 43Service delivery to Indigenous Australians 43Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants 45

Chapter 6—Promoting good administration 47Submissions, reviews and research 47Cooperation with other oversight agencies 49Own motion and major investigations 50International cooperation and regional support 51Cooperation among Australian Ombudsmen 53

Oversight of Australian Government agencies

Chapter 7—Looking at the agencies 56Australia Post 58Australian Taxation Office 61Centrelink 66Child Support Agency 71Defence 74Immigration 78Law enforcement 87Other agencies 94Freedom of information 100

Chapter 8—How the Ombudsman helped people 104Pinpointing the issue in dispute 104Dealing with urgent and pressing issues 104Detoxifying the relationship 107Placing an item on the legislative or policy agenda 107Surmounting barriers 110

Chapter 9—Problem areas in government decision making 112Administrative irritants 112Complexity 113Administrative drift 115Unhelpful legalism 116Other issues 117

Appendixes

Appendix 1—Occupational health and safety 120Appendix 2—Freedom of information statement 121Appendix 3—Papers and presentations by staff 125Appendix 4—Statistics 128Appendix 5—Consultancy services 134Appendix 6—Financial statements 135

References

List of tables and figures 176Glossary 177Compliance index 179Alphabetical index 181Contacts 188

ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANvi

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 1

A foundation task of the new CommonwealthOmbudsman office in 1977 was to make itselfknown and understood by Australians. One amusingway of doing this was with billboards that invitedpeople to contact the Ombudsman if they werebeing ‘trampled underfoot by officialdom’, ‘strangledby bureaucratic red tape’, or were having theirproblems ‘swept under the carpet’.

Those stereotypes of government are still with us,but the situation of the Ombudsman’s office haschanged markedly. This annual report contains manyexamples of the constant growth, adaptation andmaturation of the office.

An outward change is in the structure andappearance of the office, which now wears the hatsof seven Ombudsman roles—CommonwealthOmbudsman, ACT Ombudsman, Defence ForceOmbudsman, Taxation Ombudsman, ImmigrationOmbudsman, Postal Industry Ombudsman, and LawEnforcement Ombudsman. That change in structurewas explained in the foreword to last year’s annualreport. Government and the public now expect anoversight agency to have both a generalist role thatcovers most functions and problems in government,as well as a specialist understanding and distinctiveprofile in some areas being monitored.

The cascade of ‘Os’ on the cover to this year’sannual report depicts this change in the office andits diversity of functions.

An area of important change is immigrationoversight. This is a traditional function of the office,but now with specialist functions and activity in thecombined role of Commonwealth and ImmigrationOmbudsman. One new function is to prepare areport on each person held in immigration detentionfor more than two years. During 2005–06, my officefinalised 66 reports that were tabled in theParliament, with many more in preparation. Thisreporting role is a new type of function for anOmbudsman’s office, and has required us to develop

foreword

Commonwealth Ombudsman, Prof. John McMillan.

a format for examining and reporting on each caseafter consultation with the department and theperson in detention. The function has also providedan opportunity for the office to demonstrate that theunderlying Ombudsman values—independence,impartiality, integrity, accessibility, professionalismand team work—can suitably be adapted to a rangeof different oversight tasks.

The more active role of the office in immigrationoversight has occurred in other ways. Among themare the investigation of 248 individual cases referredto the office by government; participation in thedepartment’s newly-established committees toprovide advice on training, detention health, andvalues and standards; and the instigation of newown motion projects on matters such as complainthandling, notification of review rights, andcompliance operations.

The new role of Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO)poses a challenge of a different kind. The PIOjurisdiction extends to private postal operators thatare registered with the PIO scheme, as well asAustralia Post. It is a new step for the office todevelop an Ombudsman scheme covering bothpublic and private sector bodies. The core principlesof good complaint handling and administrative

FOREWORD

ANNUAL REPORT 2005–2006 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN2

investigation apply equally to both, but there aredifferences. The criteria for administrativedeficiency are not identical, reflecting the fact thatprivate sector functions are commercial and notstatutory in nature. There is also a different methodfor classifying the investigation of complaints, sincethe cost of investigations is charged to theparticipants in the scheme.

Private sector activity also comes under the scrutinyof the Commonwealth Ombudsman through a recentamendment to the Ombudsman Act 1976 thatconfers jurisdiction over Commonwealth serviceproviders. My office can now investigate complaintsabout government contractors providing goods andservices to the public under a contract with agovernment agency. This extended jurisdictionconfirms the role the office has long played indealing with complaints that arise withinimmigration centres and the Job Network. Thejurisdiction is also important to oversight of theWelfare to Work program, which incorporates alarge role for private sector bodies in activities suchas job referral, job capacity assessment, andfinancial case management.

The other new Ombudsman role to be developedduring 2006–07 is that of Law EnforcementOmbudsman. This again is a traditional function ofthe office, to be modified under a new statutoryframework for dealing with complaints and conductissues in policing. The Ombudsman retains acomplaint investigation function (notably for seriousconduct issues), but will otherwise play a moreactive role in oversighting and auditing the waypolicing agencies handle complaints and conductissues. This monitoring and auditing role adds tothe office’s existing (and growing) function ofinspecting the records of law enforcement agenciesto examine their compliance with statutory controlsapplying to telecommunications interception andaccess, electronic surveillance and controlledoperations.

These and other changes in the work of the officehave fed into a general review of methods andoperations that commenced in the last reportingyear and was completed in 2006. Innovations thatare described in this report include theestablishment of the Public Contact Team as thefirst point of contact with the office; theintroduction of a new complaints management and

recording system; the conduct of an active outreachprogram, especially in rural and regional Australia;and more active engagement with other publicsector and industry ombudsman offices to shareexperience and initiate research projects.

Individual complaint handling across all areas ofgovernment remains the core function of the office.In 2005–06, we handled over 17,000 individualapproaches and complaints that were withinjurisdiction. Those figures alone demonstrate theneed for a vibrant Ombudsman’s office to whichpeople can turn with unresolved problems andgrievances about government agencies.

Another side to those complaints is that they shedlight on newly emerging problems withingovernment; some problems transcend theresponsibility of individual agencies but neverthelessarise within government. This and previous annualreports have drawn attention to those issues in thechapters on ‘Problem areas in government decisionmaking’, ‘Challenges in complaint handling’ and‘How the Ombudsman helped people’. Thecomplexity of legislation and government programs,and the complications that poses for members of thepublic, is one such theme taken up in this report.Another is the importance of internal complainthandling in agencies and the Ombudsman’s role inexternally scrutinising that activity.

This period of change and growth in theOmbudsman’s office (staff numbers have risen from82 in 2003 to 146 this year) has been possible andseamless only through the professionalism andcommitment of the staff. They have continuedefficiently to resolve tens of thousands of individualapproaches and complaints, while developing newroles, activities and work practice methods. Thetotal staff commitment has been displayed in manyways, ranging from the 100% staff voting approvalof a new certified agreement to the voluntary effortof many staff to befriend and play host to manyvisitors from Asian and Pacific ombudsman offices.Together with my two Deputy Ombudsmen, RonBrent and Vivienne Thom, I would like toacknowledge the key role this staff effort hasplayed in the work of the office over the past year.

John McMillanCommonwealth Ombudsman

FOREWORD

overview

Chapter 1—Ombudsman’s review 4

Chapter 2—The organisation 11


CHA

PTER1

OM

BU

DSM

AN

’S REVIEW

This has been a year of change for theCommonwealth Ombudsman’s office. New workpractices, a new complaints management systemand the formation of the Public Contact Team havebeen key activities during the year.

The core activity of the office is to handlecomplaints and enquiries from members of thepublic about government administrative action. Thisobjective is captured in the office’s outcome —administrative action by Australian Governmentagencies that is fair and accountable. We deliveredon this objective by helping people to resolvecomplaints about government agencies, byfostering improved government administration andby focusing on integrity and legislative compliancein agency administration.

We investigated complaints made about 104Australian Government departments and agencies.The complaints ranged across the spectrum ofgovernment activity. Remedies and assistance wereprovided to thousands of people around the country.We also made submissions to parliamentary andgovernment inquiries, to contribute to theimprovement of Australian Governmentadministration.

‘The complaints ranged acrossthe spectrum of governmentactivity.’

Other major activities included the investigation onthe Ombudsman’s initiative, or ‘own motion’, of theadministrative actions of Australian Governmentagencies; and inspection of the records of agenciessuch as the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and theAustralian Crime Commission (ACC), to gauge theircompliance with legislative requirements applyingto selected law enforcement and regulatoryactivities.

In its 29 years of operation, the Ombudsman’s officehas been able to stimulate improvements in

government administration, through the experienceand insights gained from handling complaints.Improvements have occurred in, for example, thequality of decision making, internal complainthandling, transparency, record keeping,communication with the public, sensitivity toindividual needs, and government accountabilitygenerally.

COMPLAINT AND INSPECTIONSWORKLOADIn 2005–06, we received a total of 28,227approaches and complaints (29,323 in 2004–05).The pattern of complaints was similar to theprevious year, with the majority (75%) ofcomplaints received about five agencies—AustraliaPost, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO),Centrelink, the Child Support Agency, and theDepartment of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs (DIMA).

The number of total complaints to the Ombudsmanin the past three years has been fairly stable. Therehas, however, been a steady increase in the numberof more complex matters brought to the office andin complaints that alleged systemic problems inpublic administration (see agency-specific sectionsin Chapter 7). There was a decrease of 10% in thenumber of approaches to the office relating to outof jurisdiction matters and requests for information,but the overall number of approaches is similar tothe number received in previous years.

‘We received a total of 28,227approaches and complaints ...’

This year, we investigated 35% (6,176 issues) of allcomplaint issues finalised (33% in 2004–05) andidentified agency error or deficiency in 1% (14% in2004–05), and no error or deficiency in 11% (43%in 2004–05). In the remaining 88% of issues, thecomplaints were resolved without the need to

ombudsman’s review 1


CHA

PTER1

OM

BU

DSM

AN

’S REVIEW

determine whether there was agency deficiency orerror. See Chapter 3—Performance report for anexplanation of why fewer findings of administrativedeficiency were recorded.

The Ombudsman is responsible for monitoring theintegrity of the records of telecommunicationsinterceptions, use of surveillance devices andcontrolled operations conducted by the AFP and theACC and some state law enforcement agencies. Weinspected the records of the AFP on eight occasionsand the ACC on six occasions for statutorycompliance, adequacy and comprehensiveness.

Until 2006, the Ombudsman also had responsibilityfor auditing the use of compliance powers in theWorkplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by members ofthe Building Industry Taskforce. That framework hasbeen replaced by the Building and ConstructionIndustry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth). We inspectedthe taskforce’s records for the 12 months ending 12 January 2006.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCEIn 2005–06, the office’s operating revenues were$18.384 million and operating expenses were$17.318 million, resulting in a net surplus of $1.021million. The surplus is due primarily to the delaysinvolved in implementing several large projects. Theoffice received an unqualified audit opinion on its2005–06 financial statements. We will continue toexamine our priorities and processes to ensure thatwe provide the best outcome to the Australiancommunity.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONThrough our complaint handling and investigativework, we come into contact with most aspects ofAustralian Government. We see it as a distinct role ofthe Ombudsman—as stated in our strategic plan—to‘contribute to public discussion on administrative lawand public administration’ and to ‘foster good publicadministration that is accountable, lawful, fair,transparent and responsive’. We mainly do this bymaking suggestions and recommendations toagencies, conducting own motion investigations tohelp foster improvements in systemic issues, andmaking submissions to government andparliamentary inquiries.

In 2005–06, we published reports on seven ownmotion and major investigations. Four of theinvestigations related to DIMA; one to each of theAustralian Defence Force and the ATO; and theother investigation to the quality of freedom ofinformation processing by Australian Governmentagencies. To the extent possible, we publish ourreports on own motion investigations in full or in anabridged version on our website atwww.ombudsman.gov.au.

We also commenced several own motioninvestigations, which we expect to complete early in 2006–07.

‘We published reports on seven own motion and major investigations.’

The Ombudsman made submissions toparliamentary inquiries and commented on a rangeof administrative practice matters and legislativeproposals during the year. Examples includesubmissions to the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalReferences Committee regarding the administrationand operation of the Migration Act 1958, and to theSenate Legal and Constitutional LegislationCommittee’s inquiry into the provisions of the LawEnforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, theLaw Enforcement Integrity Commissioner(Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006and the Law Enforcement (AFP ProfessionalStandards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. TheOmbudsman also appeared before the SenateCommittee on Mental Health and the ParliamentaryJoint Committee on the Australian CrimeCommission.

By fostering improved government administration,we can strengthen the community’s confidence inthe integrity and professionalism of government andwe can support fairer and more accountablegovernment.

‘Through our complaint handlingand investigative work, wecome into contact with mostaspects of AustralianGovernment.’

Jack Richardson prizeIn 2002, the Ombudsman’s office established theAustralian National University (ANU) JackRichardson Prize in Administrative Law inrecognition of the contributions made by the firstCommonwealth Ombudsman, who was also aformer professor of law at the ANU. The annualprize is for the best essay by an undergraduatestudent in Administrative Law. This year’s JackRichardson Prize was awarded to John Altin.

DEVELOPING ROLE OF THE OMBUDSMANThe Ombudsman’s office, though well established,is part of a system of government that isundergoing constant change. Several such changesin 2005–06 affect the work of the Ombudsman.

Review of Commonwealth OmbudsmanlegislationWork continued on the review, initiated in 2003–04,of the Ombudsman Act 1976. The review is lookingat ways to improve and modernise the legislativeframework for the office, with a view to puttingproposals to government for the enactment of anew Ombudsman Act.

Changes made to the Ombudsman Act in 2005relate to jurisdiction over Commonwealthcontractors, disclosure of documents to theOmbudsman, and oversight of law enforcement andthe postal industry. Those changes picked up someof the issues that had earlier been identified in thereview of the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman’sreport to the Prime Minister in January 2006 madefurther recommendations for improving andsimplifying the framework for administrativeinvestigation in the Act, and addressing some ofthe difficult interpretation and jurisdictional issuesthat can hinder efficient investigation. We expectto receive a response to our report following thegovernment’s consultations in early 2006–07.

Immigration OmbudsmanIn June 2005, Parliament enacted amendments tothe Migration Act 1958 that give the Ombudsman anew statutory role of reviewing the cases ofpersons held in immigration detention for morethan two years (cumulative); a follow-up review is

conducted every six months if a person remains indetention. This statutory reporting role enhancesthe capacity of the office to oversight theadministration of important and sensitivelegislation that can have a major impact on people’s lives.

In July 2005, a report from an independent inquiryconducted by Mr Mick Palmer into the immigrationdetention of Ms Cornelia Rau was followed by anintense public and political focus on immigrationissues. Arising from this report, the governmentenhanced the role of the CommonwealthOmbudsman in immigration matters. Thegovernment amended the Ombudsman Act toconfer the title of Immigration Ombudsman;provided the office with supplementary funding;and gave the Ombudsman the added responsibilityof investigating over 200 cases referred by theMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairsof Australian citizens or other people lawfully inAustralia who had been in immigration detention ormay have been removed from Australia. See the‘Looking at the agencies—Immigration’ section ofChapter 7 for information on immigration-relatedmatters.

Postal Industry OmbudsmanParliament passed legislation to establish the officeof Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO) in April 2006.The legislation confers the title of Postal IndustryOmbudsman on the Commonwealth Ombudsman.The jurisdiction of the PIO extends to private sector


CHA

PTER1

OM

BU

DSM

AN

’S REVIEW

Jack Richardson Prize winner John Altin with DeputyOmbudsman, Dr Vivienne Thom.


postal operators who register to participate in thescheme. The PIO has the normal powers of anombudsman to require information or documentsand to publish findings. The PIO is required by theOmbudsman Act to observe procedural fairness ininvestigations.

During the year, we set up the framework forhandling PIO complaints. The PIO scheme will beginby 6 October 2006, when regulations setting outhow to calculate investigation fees have beenfinalised.

Law Enforcement OmbudsmanIn June 2006, the Australian Parliament enactedmajor reforms to the AFP complaint-handlingsystem, which also reforms the Ombudsman’scurrent role in overseeing complaints about thealleged conduct of AFP members. These reformsare contained in the Law Enforcement (AFPProfessional Standards and Related Measures) Act2006, which is awaiting proclamation.

The proposals contained in the Act are based onthe findings of a review of AFP professionalstandards conducted by Justice William Fisher AO,QC, in 2003 (the Fisher review). The Fisher reviewrecommended that the AFP adopt a managerialmodel, or administrative approach, in dealing withprofessional standards issues, with a greateremphasis on managing performance and changingpoor behaviour.

The Act designates the CommonwealthOmbudsman as the Law Enforcement Ombudsman.In that role the office will oversee complainthandling and conduct issues in the AFP as well asinvestigating more serious conduct issues. Duringthe year, we made changes to our complaintsmanagement system and adapted work practices tomeet the changing role of the Ombudsman inhandling complaints about the AFP.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONThe Ombudsman’s international program continuedto expand during the year. Funding from AustralianAgency for International Development (AusAID)programs supported our international activities tofacilitate the exchange of specialist advice,training, technical assistance and support to the

National Ombudsman Commission of Indonesia, theThailand Ombudsman, and the ombudsmen in theCook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu.

During the year, ombudsmen from Fiji, Papua NewGuinea and Samoa visited our Canberra office,providing a valuable opportunity to exchangeknowledge and ideas.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office is wellplaced to continue to play a key supporting role indeveloping and enhancing ombudsman officesthroughout the Asia–Pacific region.

KEY STRATEGIC ACHIEVEMENTSAchievements for 2005–06 include the following.

■ We received 28,227 approaches andcomplaints, finalised 17,508 complaint issues,and handled 10,843 approaches related to outof jurisdiction matters and requests forinformation.

■ We completed seven own motion and majorinvestigations, which contained a total of 51individual agency recommendations—agenciesaccepted 49 of the 51 recommendations.

■ We rolled out a new complaints managementsystem, supported by new work practices onthe conduct of investigations, a comprehensiveonline work practice manual, and training for staff.

CHA

PTER1

OM

BU

DSM

AN

’S REVIEW

Commonwealth Ombudsman, John McMillan (second from left)with the Samoan Ombudsman, Maiava Toma, the ChiefOmbudsman of Papua New Guinea, Ila Geno, and the FijianOmbudsman, Walter Rigamoto, in Canberra, August 2005.

■ We established the Public Contact Team toreceive and assess all telephone approaches tothe office, to enhance overall performance andensure consistency at a national level.

■ We developed and implemented policies andprocedures for our enhanced role andresponsibilities in immigration oversight.

■ We established improved oversight of the useof surveillance devices.

■ We conducted a five-day AdvancedInvestigation Course, with Ombudsman staff,representatives from other governmentagencies, and AusAID-sponsored participantsfrom the Thailand Ombudsman’s officeattending the course.

■ In conjunction with the Merit ProtectionCommissioner, we surveyed 140 AustralianGovernment agencies on their practices andprocedures in relation to whistleblowers, andcommenced a survey of approximately 6,000employees in 30 selected agencies.

■ We conducted 104 outreach activities, whichtogether covered all states and territories.

■ We commissioned a market research companyto conduct a public awareness benchmarksurvey, which showed that 74% of rural andregional Australians recognise theCommonwealth Ombudsman as a complaintresolution agency.

■ We launched a new internet site with a webcontent management system framework and an

enhanced search facility. We improved contentand added features, including an improvedonline complaint form.

■ We hosted several senior-level delegationsfrom other countries, including fromBangladesh, Canada, China, India, Indonesia,Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam inaddition to major international cooperationactivities.

■ We successfully negotiated a new three-yearcertified agreement that was endorsed by all ofthe 91% of staff who voted.

■ The Ombudsman and staff delivered over 45papers and made presentations at conferencesand seminars held around Australia.

CHALLENGESThe office also faced major challenges, some of acontinuing nature, including:

■ maintaining an effective national officestructure that integrates the work of all staff ina consistent manner

■ maintaining the traditions and stability of theoffice, while responding to increases in the sizeand functions of the office

■ balancing the urgent and immediate pressuresof resolving individual complaints with thebroader gains achievable by careful targeting ofmajor and systemic issues in own motion andmajor investigations.


CHA

PTER1

OM

BU

DSM

AN

’S REVIEW

Participants in the Ombudsman’s Advanced Investigation Course, August 2005.


THE YEAR AHEADIn the coming year, the Ombudsman’s office aims to:

■ consolidate the office’s work practice changesintroduced in 2005–06

■ increase the emphasis on timeliness, qualityassurance and consistency in complainthandling

■ exploit the efficiencies of our new complaintsmanagement system and work practices totarget review of selected categories ofadministrative decisions in key agencies

■ establish an inspections and monitoringfunction to oversee DIMA’s complianceactivities, including its use of search and entrypowers and removal operations

■ pursue the review of the Ombudsman Act 1976to establish a modernised framework foradministrative investigation

■ commence operation of the Postal IndustryOmbudsman scheme

■ implement changes to manage AFP complaintsin line with the reforms contained in the LawEnforcement (AFP Professional Standards andRelated Measures) Act 2006

■ implement strategies to deal more effectivelywith persistent complainants to the office

■ implement a redeveloped intranet site for theoffice

■ continue to build the profile of the office and todevelop the office’s outreach program to ruraland regional Australia.

CHA

PTER1

OM

BU

DSM

AN

’S REVIEW


We established the Public Contact Team (PCT) in February 2006 to provide a responsiveservice to telephone complaints to the office. The PCT is located in our Canberra officeand handles the majority of telephone contacts the office receives from acrossAustralia.

Close to one third of the calls to the office are outside the Commonwealth Ombudsman’sjurisdiction; PCT members advise callers on where to take up those complaints. PCTmembers advise many other callers on how to make a complaint in the first instance tothe agency they are complaining about, and make a preliminary assessment of othercalls to gauge if an Ombudsman investigation is warranted. When complaints requiremore expert analysis or sustained investigation, they refer them to the most appropriateinvestigation officer in a specialist team or in one of our state or territory offices.

Since its establishment, PCT members have dealt with over 24,000 telephone calls. Manybenefits have flowed from centralising the management of approaches to the officethrough the PCT. Less complex enquiries are handled more efficiently; there is moreconsistency in responding to calls and in entering data into the office’s complaintsmanagement system; emerging problem areas in government administration are easierto detect; and investigation officers have more time for specialised investigation.

Recently the PCT began dealing with email enquiries and complaints submitted usingour on-line complaint form. Over the coming year, the team will take over the initialhandling of all written approaches to the office.

public contact—consistency in approach

FeatureFeature


HISTORY AND ESTABLISHMENTThe office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman wasestablished by the Ombudsman Act 1976, and isadministered by the Prime Minister. In 1971, theCommonwealth Administrative Review Committeeissued a report recommending the establishment ofa Commonwealth Ombudsman. The committeeproposed a new and distinctive system ofadministrative law in Australia. It envisaged thatthe Ombudsman would play a part, along withcourts and administrative tribunals, in examininggovernment administrative action.

The office commenced operation on 1 July 1977.Since then, seven Commonwealth Ombudsmenhave been in office. Over time the responsibilitiesof the Ombudsman have expanded to cover:

■ complaints about the Australian Federal Police—1981

■ complaints about freedom of information—1982

■ Defence Force Ombudsman role—1983

■ compliance auditing of AFP and National CrimeAuthority (now Australian Crime Commission)telecommunications intercept records—1988,with added responsibilities of monitoringcontrolled operations in 2001 and auditingsurveillance device records in 2004

■ Australian Capital Territory Ombudsman—1989

■ Special Tax Adviser function—1995

■ assessing and reporting on the detention oflong-term (two years or more) immigrationdetainees—2005

■ Immigration Ombudsman role—2005

■ Commonwealth service providers—2005

■ Postal Industry Ombudsman role—2006

■ Law Enforcement Ombudsman role—2006.

ROLE AND FUNCTIONSThe office of Commonwealth Ombudsman exists tosafeguard the community in its dealings withgovernment agencies, and to ensure thatadministrative action by Australian Governmentagencies is fair and accountable. The Ombudsmanhas three major statutory roles:

■ Complaint investigation: the investigation andreview of the administrative actions ofAustralian Government officials and agencies,upon receipt of complaints from members ofthe public, groups and organisations

■ Own motion investigation: the investigation, onthe initiative or ‘own motion’ of theOmbudsman, of the administrative actions ofAustralian Government agencies—oftenarising from insights gained from handlingindividual complaints

■ Compliance auditing: inspection of the recordsof agencies such as the Australian FederalPolice (AFP) and Australian Crime Commission,to ensure compliance with legislativerequirements applying to selected lawenforcement and regulatory activities.

‘The CommonwealthOmbudsman exists to ... ensure that administrativeaction by AustralianGovernment agencies is fair and accountable.’

The complaint and own motion investigation rolesof the Ombudsman are the more traditionalombudsman roles that constitute the bulk of thework of the office. The guiding principle in anombudsman investigation is whether theadministrative action under investigation isunlawful, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive,improperly discriminatory, factually deficient, or

CHA

PTER2

THE O

RGA

NISATIO

N

the organisation 2

otherwise wrong. At the conclusion of theinvestigation, the Ombudsman can recommend thatan agency take corrective action. This occurs eitherspecifically in an individual case or generally by achange to relevant legislation, administrativepolicies or procedures.

A key objective of the Ombudsman is to foster goodpublic administration within Australian Governmentagencies, ensuring that the principles and practicesof public administration are responsive to theinterests of members of the public.

The role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman isprincipally performed under the Ombudsman Act1976 (Cth) (Ombudsman Act), the Complaints(Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 (Cth) (ComplaintsAct) and the Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT).

The Commonwealth Ombudsman can considercomplaints about almost all Australian Governmentdepartments and agencies and most contractorsdelivering government services to the community.

The Ombudsman Act also confers four specialistroles on the Ombudsman:

■ Defence Force Ombudsman—handlinggrievances lodged by serving and formermembers of the Australian Defence Force

■ Immigration Ombudsman—handlingcomplaints about the Department ofImmigration and Multicultural Affairs

■ Postal Industry Ombudsman—handlingcomplaints about Australia Post and privatepostal operators registered with the PostalIndustry Ombudsman scheme

■ Taxation Ombudsman—handling complaintsabout the Australian Taxation Office.

Other specialist roles relate to:

■ Australian Federal Police—under theComplaints Act, the CommonwealthOmbudsman and the AFP are jointly responsiblefor managing complaints about AFP members.These members may be employed ininternational, national and ACT communitypolicing duties.

Reforms to the AFP complaint-handling system,which change the Ombudsman’s current role, arecontained in the Law Enforcement (AFPProfessional Standards and Related Measures)


CHA

PTER2

THE O

RGA

NISATIO

N

Executive team (from left) Ron Brent (Deputy Ombudsman),John McMillan (Commonwealth Ombudsman) and VivienneThom (Deputy Ombudsman).

Act 2006, which is awaiting proclamation. TheAct designates the CommonwealthOmbudsman as the Law EnforcementOmbudsman.

■ ACT Ombudsman—the CommonwealthOmbudsman is also the ACT Ombudsman inaccordance with s 28 of the ACT Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988(Cth). The role of ACT Ombudsman is performedunder the Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT), and isfunded in accordance with a memorandum ofunderstanding between the CommonwealthOmbudsman and the ACT Government. The ACTOmbudsman submits an annual report to theACT Legislative Assembly on the performance ofthe ACT Ombudsman function.

ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE

The national office of the CommonwealthOmbudsman and the office of the ACT Ombudsmanare co-located in Canberra. The CommonwealthOmbudsman also has offices in Adelaide, Brisbane,Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

The Ombudsman and the two Deputy Ombudsmenare statutory officers appointed under theOmbudsman Act (Cth). Staff are employed underthe Public Service Act 1999.

Deputy OmbudsmanVivienne Thom

Deputy OmbudsmanRon Brent

Senior Assistant OmbudsmenSenior Assistant Ombudsmen

Law Enforcementand PostalVicki Brown

Taxation, Defenceand Public AffairsDamien Browne


OUTCOME AND OUTPUT STRUCTUREOur strategic plan provides broad direction forour work and the Portfolio Budget Statementsdefine one central outcome for the office,supported by two outputs.

The central outcome is administrative actionby Australian Government agencies that isfair and accountable. The supporting outputsare the:

■ review of administrative action

■ review of statutory compliance in specified areas.

Details of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’sachievement of the outcome and outputs arein Chapter 3—Performance Report.

CHA

PTER2

THE O

RGA

NISATIO

N

The office comprises a range of functional elements:

■ central office functions and responsibilities(including human resources, information technology,financial services, records management and publicaffairs) and the principal specialist teams are basedin the national office in Canberra

■ offices throughout Australia handle complaintsand undertake some specialist work. A SeniorAssistant Ombudsman supervises the state andterritory offices, and complaint handling relating to the ACT Ombudsman function.

Details on the office’s senior executive and theirresponsibilities are set out in Chapter 4—Management and accountability.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the organisational structure of the Ombudsman’s office.

FIGURE 2.1 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE AT 30 JUNE 2006

Commonwealth OmbudsmanJohn McMillan

Social Supportand LegalHelen Fleming

State andTerritory OfficesRay Matcham

CorporateMarilyn Prothero

ImmigrationMary Durkin


The Australian and New Zealand Ombudsman Association (ANZOA) provides aforum for ombudsmen from both countries to consult about issues of commoninterest and to develop joint research projects.

Industry-based ombudsmen in Australia and New Zealand, in the banking,finance, insurance, telecommunications and energy sectors, formed ANZOA.Membership later expanded to include the Commonwealth and some StateOmbudsmen. The Commonwealth Ombudsman is a member of the ExecutiveCommittee of ANZOA.

During 2005–06, ANZOA members collaborated on a number of projects,including identifying and addressing systemic issues; external review ofombudsman schemes; internal review of complaint handling by ombudsmen;benchmarking of workloads and efficiency measures; statistical significance ofscheme data; public awareness campaigns; and the use of the term‘ombudsman’.

Our office participated in a joint ANZOA campaign by eleven ombudsmanoffices to provide targeted information to young people about ombudsmanservices. A postcard promoting the fact that everyone has a right to complainwas distributed in education venues, galleries and museums, and cafes andrestaurants across Australia.

Planning is underway for an ANZOA conference on complaint handling andinvestigation in late 2007.

ANZOA released a website in 2005, providing information on the association’sactivities, alternative dispute resolution, and links to members’ websites—seewww.anzoa.com.au.

ANZOA—cooperation among Australianand New Zealand Ombudsmen

FeatureFeature


performance review

Chapter 3—Performance report 17

Chapter 4—Management and accountability 28

Chapter 5—Challenges in complaint handling 40

Chapter 6—Promoting good administration 47


This chapter details the performance of the office based onthe outcome and outputs structure set out in the PortfolioBudget Statements and Portfolio Additional EstimatesStatements 2005–06.

The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has oneoutcome supported by two outputs:

Outcome: Administrative action by Australian governmentagencies is fair and accountable

Output 1: Review of administrative action

Output 2: Review of statutory compliance in specified areas.

Our original price of outputs of $12.495 million wasincreased at Portfolio Additional Estimates. An additional$5.592 million was allocated to allow our office to performspecific reviews relating to immigration detention decisions.

This chapter outlines our achievements against the outputsand broadly explains the ways in which we continue to worktowards the outcome.

CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

performance report 3

PERFORMANCE AT A GLANCETABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF OUTCOME AND OUTPUTS PRICE

A financial overview is provided in Chapter 4—Management and accountability. Full details ofthe total price of agency outputs of theOmbudsman’s office are provided in Note 16 ofthe Financial Statements in this report.

OUTPUT 1 REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Budgeted price of outputs $18.087 m

Actual price of outputs $18.384 m

Budgeted departmental appropriations $17.035 m

Actual departmental appropriations $17.035 m

Budgeted revenue from other sources $1.052 m

Actual revenue from other sources $1.349 m

QUALITY AND QUANTITY MEASURES PERFORMANCE

TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF OUTCOME AND OUTPUTS PERFORMANCE

Quality

Inquiries, approaches and investigated complaintsmeet service standards

Achievement

80% of all approaches and complaints finalisedwithin one month and 93% finalised within threemonths. 54% of investigated approaches andcomplaints finalised within one month and 81%within three months.

Quality

An assessment of feedback received from the publicAchievementFinalised 129 internal reviews at request ofcomplainants; the original decision affirmed in 85% of those reviews.Implemented initiatives to improve the quality andtimeliness of the service provided to bothcomplainants and agencies, including new workpractices, a new complaints management systemand the formation of the Public Contact Team.


CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

OUTPUT 1 REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (cont’d)


TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF OUTCOME AND OUTPUTS PERFORMANCE (cont’d)

Quantity

Number and complexity of complaints/issues receivedand investigated

Achievement

17,384 approaches within our jurisdiction (17,310 in2004–05); 17,508 approach issues finalised, and 6,176issues investigated and finalised (18,939 and 6,198,respectively, in 2004–05).

Quantity

Number of inquiries and approaches received

Achievement

Of the total 28,227 inquiries and approaches received,10,843 inquiries and approaches largely consisted ofmatters outside of our jurisdiction or requests forinformation (12,013 in 2004–05).

Quantity

Number of outreach activities

Achievement

104 outreach activities conducted, involving each stateand territory (65 in 2004–05). We continued work on ourinternational program with ombudsmen offices in theAsia–Pacific region.

Quantity

Number of submissions to government

Achievement

Eleven submissions on issues relevant to theCommonwealth Ombudsman’s office.

OUTPUT 2 REVIEW OF STATUTORY COMPLIANCE IN SPECIFIED AREAS


Quality

Timely completion of the inspecting/reporting schedule

Achievement

All inspections completed according to the statutoryinspection schedule.

Quality

Government and agency acceptance of and satisfactionwith the quality and relevance of inspection findings andrecommendations

Achievement

Law enforcement agencies accepted all of ourrecommendations arising out of our inspection role.

Quantity

Number of inspections completed by category

Achievement

We inspected the records of the Australian FederalPolice on eight occasions, the Australian CrimeCommission on six occasions and the Building IndustryTaskforce on one occasion.

Quality

Response to advice, submissions, services, findings andrecommendations by government agencies and otherorganisations

Agency satisfaction with the quality ofservices/acceptance of findings and recommendations

Achievement

The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairstabled in Parliament 66 reports on the Ombudsman’sreviews into the circumstances of people who had beenin detention for two years or more.

Seven own motion and major investigations conductedand reports publicly released. The reports contained 51individual agency recommendations; all except tworecommendations accepted by agencies.


OUTPUT 1—REVIEW OFADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

1.1—Inquiries, approaches and investigated complaints meetservice standardsIn the past two years, we have reviewed ourinternal complaint-handling processes andimplemented a new complaints managementsystem that adds rigour and increases nationalconsistency in our work practices. Our newprocedures include a five-tiered structure forcategorising and responding to complaints, basedon the type of approach, the degree of effortrequired to resolve a complaint, and any potentialsensitivities. The procedures also require thatapproaches and complaints in particular categoriesbe reviewed for quality assurance purposes.

This more structured approach will provideadditional assurance to government and the publicthat we handle approaches and complaintsefficiently and consistently, and that we haveappropriate levels of quality assurance. The structurealso delineates a clear review path for complainantsdissatisfied with decisions made by our staff.

TimelinessIn 2005–06, we finalised 80% of all approachesand complaints within one month of receipt (in linewith previous years), and finalised 54% ofinvestigated approaches and complaints within onemonth (65% in 2004–05).

Data from our complaints management system isused to monitor response times by the office and toidentify delays in complaint investigation. Withmany of the complaints we investigate we need tofactor in the time that it takes an agency to provideus with information.

The Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act1981 establishes different complaint-handlingprocedures for complaints about the AustralianFederal Police (AFP). The majority of investigationsand conciliations of complaints are first conductedby AFP Professional Standards, followed with areview by our office. This is necessarily a longerprocess than for the handling of generalcomplaints, with 87% of all complaints finalisedwithin six months of receipt (83% last year). Weexpect to reduce the time taken to resolvecomplaints about the AFP as a result of the LawEnforcement (AFP Professional Standards andRelated Measures) Act 2006, which is awaitingproclamation. See the ‘Looking at the agencies—Law enforcement’ section of Chapter 7 for furtherinformation.

The Ombudsman has reported in detail abouttimeliness in the handling of complaints about ACTGovernment agencies and community policing in aseparate report as ACT Ombudsman. This report isavailable at www.ombudsman.act.gov.au.

Figure 3.1 shows the time taken to finaliseapproaches and complaints for the past threefinancial years.

CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

FIGURE 3.1 TIME TAKEN TO FINALISE ALL APPROACHES AND COMPLAINTS, 2003–04 TO 2005–06

Same day 1–7 days 8–30 days 1–3 months 3–6 months Over 6 months

Time2005–062004–052003–04

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Prop

ortio

n of

com

plai

nts (

%)

RemediesAs in previous years, the most common remedy forcomplaints was the provision of a detailedexplanation by an agency of its decision or action.This was particularly the case in complaints aboutpolice, and reflected the ongoing commitment ofthe AFP to conciliation of less serious matters.

A remedy was provided in 19% of complaint issuesinvestigated and finalised (22% in 2004–05). Abreakdown of remedies is provided in Appendix 4—Statistics.

1.2—Assessment of feedback receivedfrom the publicIn 2005–06, we implemented several initiatives toimprove the quality and timeliness of the servicewe provide to both complainants and agencies. Theinitiatives include:

■ creating the Public Contact Team, to provide aresponsive service to callers who need to bereferred to an agency in the first instance, andto ensure that matters needing investigationare appropriately referred to an investigationofficer

■ putting in place new work practices, supportedby a comprehensive work practice manual andthe Professional Standards Team, to ensurethat we continue to provide timely andeffective service

■ setting up a new complaints managementsystem that enables us to identify complainttrends and workload shifts more quickly and toprovide support for our new five-tieredcomplaint management structure.

We took many of these steps because of surveyfeedback from the public and unsolicited feedbackfrom both agencies and individuals. Beingresponsive to public comment about our service, wecreated mechanisms to mandate and communicatebest practice throughout our national officestructure. The tiered structure for complaintmanagement ensures that the office dealsappropriately with any feedback about our service.

‘... creating the Public ContactTeam ... putting in place newwork practices ... setting up anew complaints managementsystem ...’

We apply the same principle to our own operationsthat we promote to other Australian Governmentagencies: specifically, if a person is not satisfiedwith the way in which an investigation has beenhandled they can follow a clear procedure to seekan internal review of the matter.

Our Client Service Charter sets out the internalreview process we offer to complainants. A moresenior officer who was not directly involved inhandling the original complaint carries out eachinternal review.

We received 96 requests for internal review, a 26%decrease on the number of requests received in2004–05. We finalised 129 reviews during the year,including 33 that had been carried over from2004–05 (Table 3.3). The original outcome wasaffirmed in 110 finalised reviews (85%). The officeagreed to conduct additional investigation in 14reviews and agreed to change its decision on theoriginal complaint in five reviews.

Of the 129 reviews conducted, 92% related todecisions or actions of an officer in the course ofcomplaint investigations. Complainants soughtreviews mainly because they believed the decisionwe made or the advice we offered was wrong orthat we failed to address or misunderstood thecomplaint issue.


CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

Members of the Public Contact Team at work.


1.3—Response to advice, submissions, services, findings andrecommendations by governmentagencies and other organisations.

1.4—Agency satisfaction with thequality of services/acceptance offindings and recommendations.This year, the Ombudsman released public reportson seven own motion and major investigations. The reports contained a total of 51 individualagency recommendations—agencies accepted 49 of the 51 recommendations.

■ September 2005—Department of Immigrationand Multicultural Affairs: inquiry into thecircumstances of the Vivian Alvarez matter.

■ October 2005—Australian Defence Force:management of service personnel under theage of 18 years. The ADF did not support therecommendation that it undertake an analysisof the costs and benefits of accepting minorsfor enlistment in the ADF with a view todetermining whether the enlistment age shouldbe raised to 18 years.

■ February 2006—Department of Immigrationand Multicultural Affairs: administration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 as it applies tolong-term permanent residents. DIMA did notsupport one of the recommendations, as it wasconsidered to be a matter for the AustralianGovernment.

■ March 2006—Administration of the Freedom ofInformation Act 1982 in Australian Governmentagencies.

■ March 2006–Australian Taxation Office:administration of the superannuation co-contribution scheme.

■ March 2006—Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs: report on referredimmigration cases: Mr T.

■ April 2006—Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs: management of a frail,aged visitor to Australia.

Two indications of a high degree of satisfactionwith our capacity to conduct thorough, rigorous andfair investigations are that agencies accepted theoverwhelming majority of the Ombudsman’srecommendations and that several of theseinvestigations were conducted at the request of theAustralian Government or the relevant department.

CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

TABLE 3.3 INTERNAL REVIEW OF OMBUDSMAN ACTION, REQUESTS AND DECISIONS, 2005–06

Complainant's reason Outcome Outcome Furtherfor seeking review affirmed varied investigation Total

Decision/action Bias 1 1

Failed to address issue 21 1 6 28

Misunderstood issue 9 2 11

Other 5 5

Wrong 66 3 5 74

Advice Failed to provide 1 1

Other 1 1

Behaviour Harassment 1 1

Practice and procedures Inadequate 2 1 3

Timeliness Delay 1 1

Other 3 3

Total 110 5 14 129

Several current own motion investigations that will be completed in 2006–07 include investigations into:

■ issues relating to the implementation of themarriage-like relationship policy

■ the administration of the pension bonusscheme

■ complaint-handling procedures available in airports

■ the management of complaints aboutunacceptable behaviour in the ADF

■ the complaint-handling process of theMigration Agents Registration Authority

■ the quality of the notification of reasons byDIMA for decisions and review rights forrefused visa applicants.

In June 2005, the Australian Parliament amendedthe Migration Act 1958 to confer on theOmbudsman a new role of reviewing the cases ofpeople who had been in immigration detention fortwo years or more. At the end of June 2006, wehad received 235 reports from DIMA concerning262 people who had been in detention for twoyears or more. We had interviewed 167 peopleand provided reports on 70 cases. The ministerhad tabled responses to 66 of those reports inparliament.

Of the 106 recommendations contained in these66 reports, the minister agreed to 51% of therecommendations, disagreed with 25% anddelayed making a decision on a further 24%. Ofthe reports where the minister disagreed with theOmbudsman’s recommendations, 46% concernedthe grant of a bridging visa and 42% concernedthe Ombudsman’s recommendation that theminister make a decision before tabling the reportin parliament. The remaining 12% involvedconsideration of an alternative to detention, theissue of a permanent visa or the revocation of adecision to cancel a visa.

See the ‘Looking at the agencies—Immigration’section in Chapter 7 for further information onimmigration-related matters.


CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

1.5—Number and complexity ofcomplaints/issues received andinvestigated and number of enquiries and approaches received.

Approaches and complaints receivedIn 2005–06, we received 28,227 approaches andcomplaints, 17,384 of which were within theOmbudsman’s jurisdiction (17,310 in 2004–05).

Approaches to the office ranged from simple contactsthat could be resolved quickly, through to more complexcases that required the formal use of the Ombudsman’sstatutory powers. The decision to investigate a mattermore formally can be made for a number of reasons:

■ need to gain access to agency records by a formalstatutory notice

■ complexity or seriousness of the issue underinvestigation

■ nature of the allegations made by a complainant

■ time taken by an agency to respond to our requestsfor information

■ likely effect on other people of the issues raised bythe complainant.

In addition to the 17,384 approaches about particularagencies within our jurisdiction, we also dealt withapproaches about matters outside our jurisdiction orrequests for information. We received 10,843 of theseapproaches (12,013 in 2004–05). While it is difficult toattribute this decrease to a specific reason, two possiblefactors are greater public awareness of the complaintmechanisms available within agencies, and increasedpublic awareness of the role of the Ombudsman becauseof outreach activities undertaken by the office.

This year, 2,046 approaches and complaints were lodgedelectronically, an increase of 43% from 2004–05. Wehave helped people lodge complaints electronically byimproving our online complaint form on our website. Thenew form provides information at each step of theprocess to help complainants to complete the form andto determine whether their complaint is within ourjurisdiction.

There was a decrease of 15% in the number ofapproaches and complaints lodged in person and anincrease of 3% in the number of written approaches.Table 3.4 details approaches by method received.


In February 2006, we created the Public ContactTeam to manage all initial approaches to the office.This team of 12 people provides a national contactpoint for all telephone approaches and responds toall electronically lodged complaints. The membersof the team enter the details of the complaint onthe complaints management system and assign thecomplaint to the most appropriate investigationofficer. Where necessary, they explain the limits ofthe Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and refer the personto a more appropriate agency. Between February2006 and 30 June 2006, the team handled 24,235telephone calls.

Approaches and complaints by agencyOf the 17,384 approaches and complaints receivedwithin the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, 12,990 (75%)were about Australia Post, the Australian TaxationOffice, Centrelink, the Child Support Agency, andthe Department of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs.

Charts comparing trends over the past five years forthese agencies are included in Chapter 7—Lookingat the agencies.

Approaches and complaints finalised and investigatedWe finalised 16,507 approaches and complaintswithin our jurisdiction (17,441 in 2004–05).

Approaches and complaints made to theOmbudsman often include several issues. Forexample, a complainant may allege not only that adecision was substantively wrong, but also that theagency failed to provide accurate advice, wasunreasonably slow, or that the staff of the agencydisplayed an inappropriate attitude. Similarly,different issues within the same complaint mayresult in different actions by the Ombudsman’s

office. In this example, the office may suggest thatthe complainant pursue internal reviewmechanisms with respect to the agency’ssubstantive decision, but may investigate theissues around delay and service delivery. It is forthis reason that we also report on complaint issuesfinalised by the office.

In 2005–06, 17,508 issues were finalised. Of theissues finalised, we investigated 35% (33% in2004–05). The remaining complaint issues wereusually finalised by referring the complainant to theinternal complaint processes of the agency, ordeciding that investigation of the issue was notwarranted.

Of the issues investigated and finalised, someagency error or deficiency was identified in 1% ofcomplaints (14% last year). No error or deficiencywas identified in 11% of instances (43% last year).In the remaining 88% of issues investigated, weresolved complaints without the need to determinewhether the cause of the problem related toadministrative deficiency, and made nodetermination about the agency’s performance.

This reflects our office’s new emphasis on workingto resolve a complaint efficiently by identifying apractical solution or remedy that assists thecomplainant. Often we can do this withoutdetermining that an agency acted correctly or thatthere was an administrative deficiency in itsconduct. The new approach also acknowledges thatmost complaints are resolved through thecooperation and responsiveness of agencies,without the need for any formal expression ofcritical views.

As a result of this shift, we recorded administrativedeficiency as an outcome of an investigation onlyafter a rigorous internal process, involving sign-offat the Senior Assistant Ombudsman level or above,

CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

Year Telephone Written In person Electronic AFP1 Total

2005–06 22,897 2,383 528 2,046 373 28,227

2004–05 24,561 2,323 623 1,429 387 29,323

2003–04 21,681 2,638 460 1,343 410 26,532

TABLE 3.4 APPROACHES AND COMPLAINTS, BY METHOD RECEIVED, 2003–04 TO 2005–06

1 The AFP’s Professional Standards team notifies the Ombudsman about complaints it receives for Ombudsman staff to oversee the AFP’scomplaint-handling process.

and some contact with the agency. We foundadministrative deficiency in 228 matters this year.

We will review our policy on administrativedeficiency during 2006–07 and consider whether ashift away from recording cases of administrativedeficiency would deny agencies and the publicsome formal feedback on complaint trends andoutcomes.

Causes of complaintFollowing an established trend, the majority (58%)of the complaint issues finalised by theOmbudsman’s office under the Ombudsman Act1976 this year related to the correctness orpropriety of a decision or action of an agency. Theremainder of the complaint issues finalised wereabout procedural matters, such as the accuracy orcompleteness of advice given by agencies (10%),the timeliness of agency action (8%), theapplication of a policy to the complainant’scircumstances (6%), or the conduct of officers inagencies (5%).

Of the complaint issues finalised about the AFPunder the Complaints (Australian Federal Police)Act 1981, 36% related to the alleged conduct ofAFP members, including complaints aboutharassment, attitude, incivility and bias. A further29% arose from police decisions or actions.

Decisions not to investigateThe Ombudsman has a range of discretionarypowers not to investigate matters in particularcircumstances. The most common reason we decidenot to investigate is because the complainant hasnot raised their complaint with the agency. Both the complainant and the agency can benefit fromthis approach.

Many agencies have given attention in recent yearsto the effectiveness of their internal complaint-handling mechanisms, and have appropriateprocedures in place to respond to dissatisfiedclients. The Ombudsman is more likely to accept acomplaint without the matter first being handled bythe agency in the following circumstances: therelationship between the person and the agency isdifficult; the person is unable effectively to managetheir own complaint, whether because of agencyresistance or the person’s inability to articulate their


CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

problem; or it is doubtful that the complaint will behandled adequately by the agency, whetherbecause of the nature of the complaint or theeffectiveness of the agency complaint mechanism.

Complaints carried forwardThe total number of complaints carried forward(past 30 June 2006) was 1,298, compared to 1,137at 30 June 2005, a 14% increase. This backlogoccurred because the complaints are complex andtake longer to investigate.

1.6—Number of outreach activitiesThe two components of our outreach program thisyear were to raise public awareness of our role andto contribute to developing the role of ombudsmenin the Asia–Pacific region.

Raising public awarenessIn March 2006, we commissioned a marketresearch company to conduct a public awarenessbenchmark survey. The survey explored the level ofknowledge of the role of the Ombudsman’s officeamong rural and regional Australians, as well asthe depth of understanding of our role held by ruraland regional community leaders. The generalcommunity was contacted by telephone and askeda series of questions testing the person’s


awareness and understanding of our role. A smallnumber of in-depth interviews were held withcommunity leaders.

Community leaders demonstrated both anawareness and understanding of the role of theCommonwealth Ombudsman. Although only a fewcommunity leaders had contacted our office, thegroup stated that they believed the office wasaccessible and responsive. The survey also showedthat nearly three-quarters of rural and regionalAustralians recognised the CommonwealthOmbudsman as a complaint-resolution agencywhen prompted, although that number was muchsmaller when unprompted.

The market research report was finalised in June2006, and we are considering strategies to respondto the findings and suggestions in the report.

We conducted 104 outreach activities during theyear, which together covered all states andterritories. Members of staff attended presentationskills training in order to better represent the officeat outreach activities.

In November 2005, we established an IndigenousWorking Group to consider the best way ofcommunicating with, and providing service to,Indigenous Australians. We also focused onestablishing closer ties with multiculturalorganisations, in our expanded role as ImmigrationOmbudsman. We held the first of a planned seriesof seminars for federal members of parliament and electorate staff in June 2006.

We reviewed and improved our website to increaseour accessibility to the public, and refined ouronline complaints form to make it easier for peopleto contact us to make a complaint.

Role of the Ombudsman in the regionThis year we have been involved in strengtheningmutual support among ombudsmen in our region.Key geographic areas for our international programhave been two South-East Asian neighbours,Indonesia and Thailand, and countries in the SouthPacific, including Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu and the CookIslands. The Australian Agency for InternationalDevelopment provided funding for these activities.

Further details about our international program arein Chapter 6—Promoting good administration.

1.7—Number of submissions togovernmentDuring the year we made 11 submissions togovernment on a range of issues including:

■ Australia’s extradition regime (Attorney-General’s Department review)

■ ‘Certain Taxation Matters’ within Australia(Joint Committee of Public Accounts and AuditInquiry)

■ administration and operation of the MigrationAct 1958 (Senate Legal and ConstitutionalReferences Committee)

■ Anti-Terrorism (No 2) Bill 2005 (a jointsubmission by the Commonwealth Ombudsmanand the Inspector-General of Intelligence andSecurity to the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalLegislation Committee)

■ provisions of the Telecommunications(Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 (SenateLegal and Constitutional LegislationCommittee)

■ provisions of the Law Enforcement IntegrityCommissioner Bill 2006, the Law EnforcementIntegrity Commissioner (Consequential andTransitional Provisions) Bill 2006 and the LawEnforcement (AFP Professional Standards andRelated Measures) Bill 2006 (Senate Legal andConstitutional Legislation Committee)

■ mental health (an oral submission to theSenate Select Committee on Mental Health)

■ Australian Crime Commission (an oralsubmission to the Parliamentary JointCommittee on the Australian CrimeCommission)

■ reforms to Australia’s military justice system(Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeLegislation Committee)

■ Draft Performance Audit Work Program for2006–07 (Australian National Audit Office)

■ Work Program for Reviews for 2006 (Inspector-General of Taxation).

CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT

OUTPUT 2—REVIEW OF STATUTORYCOMPLIANCE IN SPECIFIED AREAS

2.1—Timely completion of theinspecting and reporting schedule

2.2—Government and agencyacceptance of and satisfaction with thequality and relevance of inspectionfindings and recommendations

2.3—Number of inspections completedby categoryThe Ombudsman is required by three Acts toinspect the records of the AFP and the ACC: theTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act1979 (TI Act), the Surveillance Devices Act 2004,and the Crimes Act 1914. It is our practice to makea report to each agency on the outcome of eachinspection. These reports make recommendationsto improve compliance where appropriate. Weencourage agencies to comment on draft reportsand recommendations before they are finalised.

All of the Ombudsman’s recommendations inreports following finalisation of inspections in2005–06 were accepted by the AFP and the ACC.

We inspected the records of the AFP on eightoccasions, the ACC on six occasions, and theBuilding Industry Taskforce on one occasion.

Telecommunications interception recordsUnder the TI Act, the Ombudsman has to inspectthe records of the AFP and the ACC to ensure theyconduct telecommunications interception activitiesin accordance with the Act.

The AFP and ACC regularly liaise with Ombudsmanstaff on current and emerging issues that havebeen noted in the inspections. We also discuss howwe expect AFP and ACC staff to administertelecommunication interception warrants.

In 2005–06, we carried out two inspections of theAFP and two inspections of the ACC. These

inspections continue to form a core element of thework of the Ombudsman’s Inspections Team.

The TI Act also requires the Ombudsman to reportto the minister in writing before 30 September eachyear on the results of the inspection of each agencyduring the preceding financial year. In accordancewith this obligation, we provided reports to theminister on each agency within the nominatedtimeframe.

Surveillance device recordsWe carried out two inspections of the records ofthe AFP and the ACC during the year. As theSurveillance Devices Act 2004 commenced only inDecember 2004, we also informally inspected theAFP’s records to give feedback on their compliancewith the legislation before the first formalinspection.

Controlled operations recordsIn 2005–06, we inspected the controlled operationsrecords of the AFP and the ACC on two occasions.In addition, we conducted a separate inspection ofthe records relating to the AFP’s annual report.

In November 2005, a report on the outcome ofinspections for 2004–05 was provided to theSpeaker of the House of Representatives and thePresident of the Senate as required by Part IAB ofthe Crimes Act 1914.

Building industry taskforce recordsSection 88AI of the Workplace Relations Act 1996expanded the Ombudsman’s role to include areview of the use of some coercive powers by theSecretary of the Department of Employment andWorkplace Relations and his delegate, the Directorof the Building Industry Taskforce.

During the year, we developed an inspectionmethodology and Ombudsman staff inspected therelevant taskforce records for the 12 months ending12 January 2006. A report will be tabled inparliament when the review is finalised in2006–07.


CHA

PTER3

PERFORM

AN

CE REPORT


Ombudsman offices are now established in over 100 countries, having crossedpolitical, cultural and language barriers. There is close internationalcooperation between those offices to promote good governance principles. Inthat spirit, the Commonwealth Ombudsman worked closely with theOmbudsmen of Indonesia and Thailand on several activities and visited bothoffices in 2005–06.

One activity was a 10-day information technology (IT) workshop in Canberrafor Indonesian and Thai officers. Our IT staff provided specialist sessions, anda facilitator helped participants to convert the information into a formatadapted to the language, culture, enabling legislation and operating systemsof their individual offices.

With the NSW Ombudsman’s office, we conducted a 10-day ‘Train the Trainer’course for Thai Ombudsman staff. By the end of the course, Thai staff hadproduced documents in the Thai language that were culturally appropriate andconsistent with the Thai Ombudsman legislation for their own in-houseinvestigation training.

Thai Ombudsman staff also completed the Commonwealth OmbudsmanAdvanced Investigation Course, and participated in a number of outreachactivities to familiarise themselves with different outreach approaches forcommunity and business groups and politicians.

Activities conducted with the National Ombudsman Commission of Indonesiafocused on decentralising complaint services in Indonesia to promotecommunity awareness of the ombudsman role. During 2005–06, incollaboration with the Western Australian and New South Wales StateOmbudsmen, we planned a multi-year program to further supportdecentralised ombudsman services and to strengthen core ombudsmanfunctions in Jakarta.

international program—Indonesia and Thailand regional cooperation

FeatureFeature

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Senior executive and responsibilitiesThe Governor-General appointed Prof. John McMillanas Commonwealth Ombudsman in May 2003 and Mr Ron Brent as Deputy Ombudsman in June 2003.During 2005–06, a second Deputy Ombudsmanposition was created. Dr Vivienne Thom wasappointed to the position in March 2006 for a five-yearperiod. The remuneration for the Ombudsman andDeputy Ombudsmen is determined in accordance witha ruling by the Remuneration Tribunal. Note 11 in theFinancial Statements details executive remuneration.

The organisational structure was further modified inJune 2006, when a new Senior Assistant Ombudsmanwas appointed to manage the office’s humanresources, financial management, recordsmanagement, information technology andprofessional standards teams.


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

management and accountability 4

Executive and Senior Management Team (standing from left) Marilyn Prothero, Damien Browne, Mary Durkin, Ray Matcham; and (sittingfrom left) Vicki Brown, Ron Brent (Deputy Ombudsman), John McMillan (Commonwealth Ombudsman), Vivienne Thom (DeputyOmbudsman), Helen Fleming.

The office’s Executive team comprises theOmbudsman and two Deputy Ombudsmen. TheExecutive and six Senior Assistant Ombudsmencomprise the senior management team.

At 30 June 2006, the office’s senior managementteam and their areas of responsibility are:

Mr Ron Brent, Deputy Ombudsman—main areas of responsibility:

■ Corporate—Ms Marilyn Prothero, Senior Assistant Ombudsman and ChiefFinance Officer

– corporate services comprising finance,human resources and records management

– information technology andcommunications infrastructure

– professional standards and special projects.


■ Social Support and Legal—Ms Helen Fleming,Senior Assistant Ombudsman

– specialised advice and complaint handlingrelating to the Department of HumanServices (including Centrelink and the ChildSupport Agency) and relevant policydepartments.

– in-house legal advice and policy service tosupport staff in performing their functions.

■ State and Territory Offices—Mr Ray Matcham,Senior Assistant Ombudsman

– management and oversight of state andterritory offices (Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin,Hobart, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney), whichhandle complaints and undertake somespecialist work

– complaint handling relating to the ACTOmbudsman function

– Public Contact Team, which provides anational point of contact for all approaches tothe office made by telephone, email or onlineform.

Dr Vivienne Thom, Deputy Ombudsman—mainareas of responsibility:

■ Immigration—Ms Mary Durkin, SeniorAssistant Ombudsman

– specialised advice and complaint handlingrelating to the Department of Immigrationand Multicultural Affairs

– reviewing the cases of detainees who havebeen held in immigration detention for twoyears or more

– investigating immigration detention casesreferred by the Minister for Immigration andMulticultural Affairs, concerning Australiancitizens or other people lawfully in Australiawho were held in immigration detention ormay have been removed from Australia.

■ Law Enforcement and Postal—Ms Vicki Brown,Senior Assistant Ombudsman

– complaint handling and investigating lawenforcement activities relating to AustralianGovernment law enforcement agencies

– inspecting the records of law enforcementagencies for statutory compliance, adequacyand comprehensiveness

– specialised advice and complaint handlingrelating to Australia Post and registeredpostal operators of the Postal IndustryOmbudsman scheme.

■ Taxation, Defence and Public Affairs—Mr Damien Browne, Senior AssistantOmbudsman and Special Tax Adviser

– specialised advice and complaint handlingrelating to the Australian Taxation Office

– specialised advice and complaint handlingrelating to the Australian Defence Force, theDefence Housing Authority and theDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs

– public affairs and outreach, includingmanagement of the office’s websites andinternational program.

Corporate planning and reviewDuring the year, we reviewed our strategic plan tobuild on achievements over the past three yearsand to reflect priorities for 2006–09. Strategicpriorities identified for 2006–07 are to:

■ consolidate the office’s work practice changesintroduced in 2005–06

■ identify systemic issues for investigation

■ continue to build the profile of the office

■ increase the emphasis on timeliness, quality assurance and consistency in complaint handling

■ exploit the efficiencies of our new complaintsmanagement system and work practices totarget review of administrative decisions in key agencies.

The office’s strategic plan informs its internalbusiness plans. There are clear links between theobjectives and the key measures of success of thestrategic plan and the goals and directions set inthe business plan for all teams and for staffmembers in their individual performanceagreements. As a result, performance agreementsare closely linked to business plans.

Management committeesManagement committees assist the Executive withdecision making in key areas.

CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

Internal Audit CommitteeAs required by the Financial Management andAccountability Act 1997, the office has an InternalAudit Committee. The committee met twice duringthe year. The committee’s role is to review, monitorand where necessary recommend improvements tointernal control, financial reporting, internal auditfunctions, external audit processes, and the officeprocess for monitoring compliance with legislationand government policy directives.

At 30 June 2006, the committee comprised Mr RonBrent, Deputy Ombudsman (Chair), Ms HelenFleming, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Mr RayMatcham, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, and MrJoe D’Angelo, Chief Finance Officer, Department ofthe Senate.

Representatives of the Australian National AuditOffice (ANAO) and the office’s internal auditor,Walter Turnbull, are invited to advise the committeeon specific issues, as appropriate.

Information Technology Steering CommitteeA Deputy Ombudsman chairs the InformationTechnology (IT) Steering Committee, which met fourtimes during the year. The committee:

■ oversees the development and maintenance ofIT strategy and governance

■ determines priorities and directions forinfrastructure, application development andmaintenance, and project development

■ makes recommendations to the Ombudsmanabout major IT infrastructure decisions andmajor expenditure proposals.

Occupational Health and Safety CommitteeThe office’s Occupational Health and SafetyCommittee is made up of elected representativesfrom each state office and is chaired by the HumanResources Manager, who represents management.The committee provides its recommendations andgives advice to the Workplace RelationsCommittee. The committee met twice during theyear. Appendix 1 gives more information onoccupational health and safety.

Workplace Relations CommitteeA Deputy Ombudsman chairs the WorkplaceRelations Committee. It consists of employee,

management and union representatives, and is themain consultative body on workplace conditionswithin the office. The committee met twice duringthe year.

Work Practice Steering CommitteeThe Work Practice Steering Committee wasestablished in May 2006, with the first meetingheld in June. A Deputy Ombudsman chairs thecommittee, which includes representatives from anumber of specialist teams and state offices. Thecommittee’s role is to consider and make decisionson work practice-related issues and to providerecommendations and/or advice to the Executive,where appropriate.

Corporate governance practices

Risk managementThe Internal Audit Committee oversights the office’srisk management activities, which have beenincorporated into the Ombudsman’s planning andoperations and the management of contractors. Theoffice’s risk management policy and proceduresspecify how to:

■ create, maintain and continuously improve riskmanagement standards

■ establish, maintain and continuously improve arisk register

■ help to prioritise and schedule risk controlimprovements in each of the office’s costcentres

■ report to the Internal Audit Committee andExecutive on risk improvement and compliance

■ raise awareness among staff about riskmanagement.

The office participated in the annual Comcover RiskManagement Benchmarking Survey, and feedbackwas provided to the Internal Audit Committee.

Business continuity planningChanges to the office’s information technologyinfrastructure delayed finalisation of the businesscontinuity plan. The draft business continuity planidentifies and assesses risks that could disruptservices and functions and presents plans to avoidor minimise the impact of hazardous incidents.


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY


The plan will be finalised in 2006–07 and tested aspart of its implementation.

Fraud prevention and controlThe Ombudsman’s office complies with theCommonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines through:

■ undertaking a fraud risk assessment

■ preparing a fraud control plan

■ ensuring the appropriate fraud prevention,detection, investigation and reportingprocedures are in place

■ collecting and reporting annual fraud controldata to the Attorney-General’s Department.

The office reviewed its fraud risks and controls in2004–05. The risk of fraud remains low.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman CertifiedAgreement 2005–2008 includes the AustralianPublic Service Values, as specified in s 10 of thePublic Service Act 1999, and the values adopted bythe Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office in itsStrategic Plan 2006–2009. The importance of thevalues is reinforced in induction documentation andtraining for staff and in internal documents,including the Workplace Diversity Plan and theWorkplace Harassment Policy.

The key values of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’soffice are: independence, impartiality, integrity,accessibility, professionalism and teamwork.

Commonwealth Disability StrategyThe office is committed to the CommonwealthDisability Strategy to ensure equality of access tothe services of the Commonwealth Ombudsman forpeople with disabilities, and to eliminatediscriminatory practices by staff. We endeavour tomeet our obligations under the DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1992 through implementation ofthe Commonwealth Disability Strategy and theOmbudsman’s Disability Action Plan 2005–2008 andWorkplace Diversity Plan 2002–2006.

The office’s operations encompass the activities ofregulator, service provider and employer.

RegulatorThe Ombudsman does not directly enforce thedisability discrimination legislation, but provides a

complaint-resolution service under statute for theAustralian Government. This can includerecommendations on enforcement of legislativeobligations that apply to Australian Governmentagencies. The Ombudsman seeks to promoteawareness of services in all areas of the Australiancommunity, and provides an online complaintlodgement facility on the office’s website.Ombudsman staff regularly liaise with communityorganisations to promote awareness of theOmbudsman’s services.

ProviderThe Ombudsman has an established internalcomplaints and review process, which allowscomplaints about the office’s decisions and servicequality to be resolved quickly, fairly and informally.The office’s complaint and grievance mechanismsare set out in our Service Charter. We seek topromote awareness of the office’s role and servicein all areas of the Australian community.

An important element in redeveloping theOmbudsman’s website in 2005–06 was to ensurethat the site was accessible to as large a proportionof the community as possible. To achieve this weused the priority 1 and 2 checkpoints of the WorldWide Web Consortium (W3C) Web ContentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0 as our benchmark.Activities included testing colour contrast forpeople with vision impairments, limiting the use ofgraphics, simplifying navigation and providing a sitemap, separating document formatting from contentwith style sheets, providing text equivalents fornon-text elements, and improving metadata.

CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

Homepage of new Commonwealth Ombudsman internet site(www.ombudsman.gov.au)

EmployerThe Ombudsman’s Workplace Diversity Plan aims toensure that in working to achieve the goals of theoffice, the diverse background, skills, talents andviews of staff are recognised, encouraged andvalued, and that all staff are aware of the value ofcreating a culture of workplace diversity. The planprovides for the following measures to assist staffwho have particular needs.

■ All employment policies and procedures complywith the requirements of the DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1992 and are communicatedin a manner that is responsive to the needs ofemployees.

■ Employment policies and procedures are madeavailable in a format suitable to the needs ofprospective employees. Appropriate material isprovided in hard copy to prospective employeeswhen they seek details of employmentopportunities, as well as on the office’s websitein accessible formats.

■ Managers and recruiters apply ‘reasonableadjustment’ principles.

■ A flexible approach is applied to managingemployees with special needs as provided inthe workplace diversity plan.

■ Training and development programs considerand respond to the needs of people withdisabilities and include information ondisability issues where they relate to thecontent of the program.

■ Complaint and grievance mechanisms,including access to external mechanisms, are inplace to address issues and concerns raised bystaff and the public.

Environmental mattersSection 516A of the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires theOmbudsman to report on the office’s environmentalperformance and its contribution to ecologicallysustainable development.

The Ombudsman continued to encourage staff tomanage all resources, including energy, prudentlyand in an ecologically responsible manner. Policyguidance is provided on conservation of energy in

use of lighting and computer equipment. Materialsent for recycling includes toner/printer cartridges,paper and paper products, and classified waste.

Service charterWe are committed to providing the best servicepossible to the community. The CommonwealthOmbudsman Service Charter is available on ourwebsite. It outlines the service that can beexpected from the office, ways to provide feedbackand steps that can be taken if standards are notmet.

Where a complainant disagrees with ourconclusions and decision about a complaint, theymay ask for the matter to be reconsidered, and ifthey are still not satisfied, for a review of how theinvestigation was conducted. A more senior officernot previously involved in the matter will conductthe review to determine whether the conclusionreached was reasonable, justified and adequatelyexplained to the complainant. Only in exceptionalcircumstances will more than one review beundertaken. We report on reviews in Chapter 3—Performance report.

In last year’s report we stated that we wouldreview the office’s service charter and themechanisms for monitoring, responding to andrecording complaints about our service. This reviewwas held over until 2006–07 following the beddingdown of the office’s revised work practices and newcomplaints management system.

We report against timeliness in complaint handlingin Chapter 3—Performance report.

EXTERNAL SCRUTINY

Privacy legislationThe Ombudsman’s office is subject to the PrivacyAct 1988. We continually assess our compliancewith the Information Privacy Principles, whichdetermine the way the office deals with personalinformation.

The Ombudsman provided information to thePrivacy Commissioner for inclusion in the PersonalInformation Digest. The Commissioner did not issue


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY


any reports about the actions or practices of theoffice under s 30 of the Privacy Act in 2005–06.

During 2005–06, the Privacy Commissionercommenced an investigation into an alleged breachof privacy by the Ombudsman’s office. A member ofstaff of the Ombudsman had made enquiries of agovernment agency about a matter that had beenraised with our office, but at a point when thecomplainant did not consider he had complained.The alleged breach had occurred two years before acomplaint was made to the Privacy Commissioner.The Commissioner decided that the Ombudsman’soffice had already taken action, through theestablishment of the Public Contact Team, thatwould prevent any problem arising in future fromuncertainty about the stage reached in thecomplaint process. The Ombudsman consideredthat the actions of his office were reasonable in thecircumstances.

In last year’s annual report, the Ombudsmanreported on an Administrative Appeals Tribunal(AAT) decision in relation to compensation for aperson whose personal information had been foundby the Privacy Commissioner to have beenwrongfully disclosed to the Ombudsman’s office byan ACT Government agency: Rummery and FederalPrivacy Commissioner and Anor [2004] AATA 1221.The Ombudsman was concerned that the AAT’sdecision would lead to reluctance by agencies todisclose information to the Ombudsman in theabsence of a formal statutory notice.

In late 2005, Parliament passed the Migration andOmbudsman Legislation Amendment Act 2005. Aprovision of the Act provides that a disclosure ofpersonal information to the Ombudsman will betaken to be authorised by law (and not a breach ofprivacy) if made with the authority of the agencyand requested by the Ombudsman or believed to berelevant to an investigation. The Act also makes itpossible for agencies to disclose, withoutcompulsion or fear of the consequences,information that might be protected by secrecyprovisions or that might otherwise compromise aclaim for legal professional privilege.

Litigation and legal issuesIn 2005–06, the Ombudsman’s office was therespondent in five matters brought to the AAT by

former complainants who had made requests underthe Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

In one set of three matters (Bienstein andCommonwealth Ombudsman [2005] AATA 1227),the AAT affirmed exemptions claimed by the officeand not previously conceded, and accepted theoffice’s decision not to press its position oncharges. In another matter (Bartucciotto andCommonwealth Ombudsman [2005] AATA 1109),the AAT confirmed exemptions claimed by theoffice, except for one part document concededduring the hearing. Another application to the AATwas made late in the reporting year. In Appendix 3—Freedom of Information Statement, this reportnotes a query raised by the Ombudsman in thecontext of a current review of the Ombudsman Act,as to whether the Ombudsman’s office should besubject to the FOI Act.

In our 2004–05 annual report, we referred to anapplication before the Federal Magistrates Courtfor an extension of time in which to seek review of a decision made by the Ombudsman’s office. On18 August 2005, the court refused the applicationand awarded costs against the applicant.

Section 35 of the Ombudsman Act provides that theoffice is not compellable to provide, to a court ortribunal, information or documents obtained by theoffice in discharging its functions. We customarilyrely on that statutory non-compellability whenrequired by subpoena or discovery to produceinformation for the purposes of a legal proceedingto which we are not a party.

PEOPLE MANAGEMENTDuring 2005–06, the Ombudsman’s office managedits employees in accordance with the conditions ofour Certified Agreement and a number of AustralianWorkplace Agreements (AWAs) as well as withinour obligations under the Public Service Act 1999.

Workplace relationsOn 15 December 2005, the Australian IndustrialRelations Commission certified a new agreement.The Certified Agreement remains in force until 30 September 2008.

The agreement focuses on people, remunerationand employment arrangements, working

CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

environment and lifestyle, further streamlining ofpersonnel practices and processes, and performancemanagement and improvement to underpin salaryincreases. Conditions are provided for SeniorExecutive Service (SES) staff under AWAs. A total of143 employees were covered under the office’sCertified Agreement. As statutory officers, theOmbudsman and two Deputy Ombudsmen are notincluded.

The Certified Agreement does not make provision forperformance pay. Salary advancement through paypoints within each classification is linked toperformance, in accordance with the policyparameters for agreement making in the AustralianPublic Service. SES AWAs provide for annual salaryadvancement within the range based onperformance.

The office’s Workplace Relations Committeecontinues to provide a forum for discussion ofissues surrounding implementation and operationof the agreement. It also provides a consultative,advisory and information-sharing mechanism formanagement and employees on matters affectingemployment conditions in the office.

Staffing profileAs at 30 June 2006, the actual number ofemployees was 153, which included theOmbudsman and two Deputy Ombudsmen, who are statutory appointments. This total figureincludes seven employees on long-term leavewithout pay. The number of full-time employeeswas 133 and the number of part-time employeeswas 13. The full-time equivalent number ofemployees for the year was 140.

During the year, 38 employees were engaged on anongoing basis and 17 ongoing employees left theoffice, equating to a turnover rate of 12% (16% inthe previous year). Given the nature of the office’swork and the fact that we run eight officesthroughout Australia, the turnover is notdisproportionate.

The numbers of ongoing and non-ongoingemployees, by gender and APS classification andsalary range, are shown in Table 4.1. The sevenemployees on long-term leave without pay underthe Prime Minister’s Directions 1999 are notincluded in the table. Table 4.2 provides the office’sstaffing profile by location.


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

Classification Salary range Ongoing Non- Ongoing Non- Ongoing Non-$ ongoing ongoing ongoing

APS1 32,933–36,400 - - - - - -

APS2 37,271–41,331 - 1 - - - 1

APS3 42,454–45,821 - - 3 1 3 1

APS4 47,315–51,373 9 1 13 3 22 4

APS5 52,774–55,961 2 - 10 - 12 -

APS6 57,000–65,476 7 4 21 3 28 7

EL1 73,071–78,905 15 1 20 1 35 2

EL2 84,278–95,548 9 2 8 3 17 5

SES above 98,741 2 - 3 1 5 1

Statutory officers 2 - 1 - 3 -

TOTAL 46 9 79 12 125 21

TABLE 4.1 STAFFING PROFILE, BY LEVEL AND GENDER, AT 30 JUNE 2006

Men Women Total


Career development and trainingCareer development and training focused oncontinuous improvement of organisationalperformance through analysis of needs. In 2004–05,we employed a consultant to review the office’straining and development program. In 2005–06, we continued to implement the review’srecommendations.

A focus for training sessions this year was toimprove consistency in approach by all staff acrossour eight offices when dealing with complaints, andto better equip staff to move into supervisory andmanagement roles within the office.

Training and development sessions were conducted in:

■ investigations and on-the-job training

■ alternative dispute resolution

■ management essentials

■ presentation skills

■ performance management

■ leading and working in small teams

■ general information.

Training sessions were also conducted for all staffon the office’s new work practice changes and newcomplaints management system. See also Chapter 5—Challenges in complaint handling.

The office also provided study assistance for stafftaking courses at educational institutions andsupported staff attendance at courses, seminarsand conferences.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Financial performanceRevenue received from ordinary activities was$18.384 million in 2005–06.

The office received $17.035 million in appropriationrevenue, $5.6 million more than in 2004–05. Sincethe 2005–06 Budget, the office has receivedadditional funding of $19.083 million over fouryears to implement:

■ the Palmer Implementation Plan—an expandedrole in handling and investigating immigrationcomplaints and broader immigration detentionissues

■ migration legislation amendments—a specificrole of reviewing the cases of long-termdetainees.

Total expenses for the office were $17.318 million,leading to a surplus in 2005–06 of $1.021 million,primarily due to delays in implementing the aboveinitiatives.

Financial positionThe office’s total equity—that is, sum of theoffice’s assets less its liabilities—has increased by$2.110 million, due mainly to a surplus in the2005–06 year and equity injection of $1.089 millionin relation to the Palmer Implementation Plan andmigration legislation amendments.

CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

Location Men Women Total

Australian Capital Territory 39 64 103

New South Wales 4 10 14

Northern Territory - 1 1

Queensland 2 6 8

South Australia 1 4 5

Tasmania 1 - 1

Victoria 5 5 10

Western Australia 3 1 4

TOTAL 55 91 146

TABLE 4.2 STAFFING PROFILE, BY LOCATION AND GENDER, AT 30 JUNE 2006

Assets fall into four main categories:

■ cash

■ infrastructure, plant and equipment

■ intangibles (non-physical assets such as software)

■ receivables (amounts due to be paid to the office).

‘Other non-financial assets’ relate to prepayments.

The office’s total assets increased to $6.920 millionin 2005–06 from $4.081 million in 2004–05. Theincreases arose primarily out of an increase inundrawn appropriations, due to the delays inimplementing the two major initiatives noted above.The proportion of each type of asset held during2005–06 is set out in Figure 4.1.

Financial assetsThe Statement of Financial Position shows cashholdings of $0.333 million. This compares with the$2.157 million held in 2004–05. The decrease incash holding is offset by the increase in undrawnappropriations. It reflects the government’s policy todraw cash down from appropriation on a ‘just-in-time’ basis.


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

FIGURE 4.1 OFFICE ASSETS BY CATEGORY AT30 JUNE 2006

63%

24%

6%

5% 2%

receivables infrastructure

intangibles cash

other

Non-financial assetsThe office’s non-financial assets increased to$2.274 million in 2005–06 from $1.668 million in2004–05, primarily due to purchases of informationtechnology assets.

LiabilitiesTotal liabilities increased by $0.731 million to$4.112 million in 2005–06, compared to $3.381million in 2004–05. The increase was primarily dueto increases in employee accruals and creditors.

PurchasingThe Ombudsman’s office is committed to achievingthe best value for money in its procurementpractices. Purchasing practices and procedures areconsistent with the Commonwealth ProcurementGuidelines and are set out in the Ombudsman’sChief Executive Instructions.

Consulting servicesThe office engages consultants when the expertiserequired is not available within the organisation, orwhen the specialised skills required are notavailable without diverting resources from otherhigher priority tasks. In accordance withprocurement guidelines, consultants are selected byadvertisement, panel arrangements or selectivetendering. The main categories of contracts relateto information technology, financial services, humanresources services, and policy, governance and legaladvice.

During 2005–06, six new consultancy contracts,with a value of $10,000 or more, were entered into,involving total actual expenditure of $380,893. Inaddition, two ongoing consultancy contracts wereactive during the 2005–06 year, involving totalactual expenditure of $58,107. See Appendix 5—Consultancy services for details of new consultancycontracts. Details are also available atwww.ombudsman.gov.au.

Table 4.3 shows expenditure on consultancycontracts over the three most recent financial years.


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

TABLE 4.3 EXPENDITURE ON CONSULTANCY CONTRACTS, 2003–04 TO 2005–06.

Year Number of consultancy contracts Total actual expenditure

2003–04 9 $278,565

2004–05 5 $122,999

2005–06 6 $439,000

Competitive tendering and contractingIn 2005–06, we continued to outsource activitiesrelating to the provision of financial services andpayroll and recruitment services as set out below:

■ DuesburysNexiaFinancial services to the value of $524,610were contracted for the period 1 July 2005 to30 June 2008, including a two-year option. Thisarrangement followed market testing in 2004and evaluation of the qualitative benefits ofaccess to accounting expertise. We have foundthat maintaining sufficient depth of accountingexpertise in a small agency is difficult.

■ United Group Human Resources ServicesPty LtdA new provider for payroll services through theDepartment of Prime Minister and Cabinet(PM&C) to the value of $210,100 wascontracted for the period 24 February 2006 to23 February 2009. Rel Corp ManagementServices Pty Ltd provided the office’s payrolland recruitment services through PM&C untilMarch 2006. Recruitment is now managed in-house.

Contractual provisions allowing accessby the Auditor-GeneralThe office’s standard contract templates include anANAO audit clause. All contracts signed in thereporting period of $100,000 or more provided forthe Auditor-General to have access to thecontractor’s premises.

Exempt contractsNo office contracts that cost more than $10,000including GST have been exempted by theOmbudsman from being published in AusTender onthe basis that it would disclose exempt mattersunder the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYThe Information Technology Steering Committeecontinues to guide activities aimed at improvingthe office’s use and management of informationtechnology to support the performance of itsfunctions.

In 2005–06, we completed several information andcommunications technology projects:

■ implementation of a new complaintsmanagement system, involving extensivefunctional and specification development,analysis of office work practices andworkflows, reporting requirements andintegration requirements with other officeproducts such as email

■ implementation of an automatic calldistribution system to manage calls to thePublic Contact Team in Canberra

■ implementation of a dedicated TCP/IP WideArea Network, replacing Frame Relay Services

■ upgrade of network speed/capacity to ourAdelaide and Perth offices

■ launch of a new internet site using a webcontent management system framework andan enhanced search facility. Content wasimproved and new features added including animproved online complaint form.

During the year, we also began several IT projectsfor completion in 2006–07:

■ installation of a secure network access formobility and remote access

■ connection to Fedlink (a secure communicationchannel between the Ombudsman’s office andother Australian Government agencies)

■ evaluation of options for network architectureenhancements, such as replacing ageinghardware, changing the operating system andimproving backup and recovery software.


CHA

PTER4

MA

NA

GEM

ENT A

ND

ACCO

UN

TAB

ILITY

The approach entry screen in Resolve, the office’s new complaints management system.


The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office is part of a global network of bodies with thesimilar objective of promoting principles of administrative justice and goodgovernance. Our office is well placed to provide practical assistance and peer supportto Ombudsman offices in neighbouring countries to achieve this objective.

With funding assistance from AusAID, we conducted a needs assessment in 2004–05for the ombudsmen of Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands, andthe Public Commissioner of the Royal Kingdom of Tonga. The assessment identifiedareas of common need where we could work with these offices to:

■ reduce the sense of isolation of Pacific island offices and foster regional group cohesion

■ improve staff skills and knowledge in core ombudsman functions in those offices

■ provide access to legal resources

■ share management, strategic planning, business planning and budget experience

■ improve basic information technology skills.

This year, we addressed some of those needs by supporting the development of aPacific island ombudsman network, which includes Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands. The network provided thesecountries with access to legal advice, assisted in strategic planning in individualoffices, shared experienced investigation officers from Australia to work in variuosoffices, and had our most senior officers brief ombudsmen and their staff aboutmanagement and strategic planning processes. The network has increased morale and skills within the various ombudsman offices.

international program—Pacific islandsregional strengthening

FeatureFeature

This chapter looks at some of the areas we havebeen working on over the past two years to improvethe efficiency and effectiveness of complainthandling and investigation within the office.

We recognise that if we are to continue to maintainrelevance and effectiveness in a strategic manner,we need to evolve with the changing environmentin which we operate. At times we criticise otheragencies and recommend that they implementbetter and fairer systems and procedures. Thisunderscores the importance of being rigorous in ourown work practices and continually striving forimprovement.

In the past two years, we have reviewed many ofour internal policies and processes to evaluate theirquality, consistency and accountability. As a result,we adopted a new approach to complaintresolution, created the Public Contact Team (PCT) tomanage more efficiently the approaches we receive

annually, and introduced a new complaintsmanagement system. We also responded tofeedback on the difficulties people sometimesexperience when we refer them to the agency theyare complaining about, and collaborated with otherombudsmen in Australia about the management ofunreasonable complainant conduct.

PUBLIC CONTACTOur national structure, with investigation officerslocated in each Australian capital city, is a strengthof the office. Historically, approaches andcomplaints were mostly handled in the state officesin which the contact was received. A review of ourinternal processes made it clear that it was time tochange this practice and to use the nationalstructure in a different and more effective manner.Over time there had been an increase in the volumeand complexity of cases coming to the office, with


CHA

PTER5

CHA

LLENG

ES IN CO

MPLA

INT H

AN

DLIN

G

challenges in complaint handling 5

Public Contact Team members.


a heightened risk that work practices in respondingto those initial contacts would vary betweenoffices. This limited our capacity to:

■ align complaints with the investigation officerswith the most appropriate skills

■ allow investigation officers to concentrate onmore complex cases or investigations

■ ensure national consistency in our response tocomplaints and enquiries

■ recognise national trends in complaints andtrouble spots in government administration.

In February 2006, we created the PCT to addressthese issues. The PCT comprises 12 people locatedin Canberra who:

■ provide a national point of contact for alltelephone approaches to the office

■ respond to all electronically submittedcomplaints

■ provide greater uniformity in data entry

■ provide a physical reception and point of firstcontact for residents of the ACT andsurrounding regions.

Between February 2006 and 30 June 2006, the PCThas handled 24,235 telephone calls.

Public contact officers (PCOs) and investigationofficers have different roles. PCOs do notinvestigate complaints—they manage initialapproaches to the office and resolve less complexcases. PCOs routinely refer a person back to anagency if the person has not yet discussed theirproblem with the agency, or provide advice onwhere to seek alternative assistance if thecomplaint is not within our jurisdiction. As 36% ofapproaches are outside our jurisdiction, the work ofthe PCOs ensures that people are efficientlyreferred to the appropriate agency for assistanceand that the time of investigation officers is nottaken up in providing this advice.

The PCT has enhanced our ability to provide anationally consistent service. During the initialcontact with a person, a PCO clarifies the scope of a person’s complaint and the remedy they seek,and enters data into the office’s complaintsmanagement system, such as personal details,details of the agency and issues complained about.If further investigation is needed, the PCO forwards

the complaint to an investigation officer with therelevant specialist skills to handle the complaint.

The PCT’s role allows investigation officers to focuson approaches and complaints of a more complexnature and spend less time on routine publiccontact work and preliminary complaint analysis.Investigation officers will also have greatercapacity to undertake own motion and other cross-agency investigations, increasing our capacity toimprove government administration generally.

The number of investigation officers located in eachstate office has either been retained or increased.With the introduction of the PCT, the state officesnow have a strengthened capacity to undertakeoutreach activities and to interact with AustralianGovernment agencies in their state.

WORK PRACTICE CHANGESWe have also taken a new approach to managingand handling complaints. In October 2005, weimplemented a five-tiered structure for categorisingand responding to complaints, based on the type ofapproach, the degree of effort required to resolve acomplaint, and any potential sensitivities. Thecategories range from simple contacts that can beresolved without investigation through to theformal use of the Ombudsman’s powers. This tieredstructure ensures that complex or sensitive mattersare assigned to senior, experienced officers anddelineates a clear path for internal review.

We have also refined our complaint-handlingobjectives and the way we record complaintstatistics. The emphasis in our work is on assistingcomplainants and giving them practical remediesfor redressing their grievances. In many cases, wecan provide assistance or a remedy without havingto reach a firm view on whether an agency’sadministrative processes were deficient.

‘... complex or sensitive mattersare assigned to senior,experienced officers ...’

Sometimes it can be difficult or unproductive toform an objective view on deficiencies in agencyprocesses. For example, many people who complainto the office have misunderstood or been confused

CHA

PTER5

CHA

LLENG

ES IN CO

MPLA

INT H

AN

DLIN

G

about advice given by an agency. Generally, suchcomplaints are most efficiently resolved throughcooperation and responsiveness by agencies,without the Ombudsman needing to formallyexpress critical views.

This change is reflected in the statistics in thisannual report. The remedies provided during theyear to people who approached the office are setout against the relevant agency in Appendix 4—Statistics. The most common remedy provided tocomplainants was a better or more detailedexplanation by an agency of its decision or action,and expedition of an action.

Nevertheless, an important part of the work of theoffice is to decide whether there was anyadministrative deficiency by an agency. To do sofeeds into the systemic work of the office; it is alsoan important message to an agency about itsadministrative performance and can help theagency improve its administrative processes. In linewith other work practice changes, a recording of‘administrative deficiency’ is signed off at theSenior Assistant Ombudsman level or above, andeach finding is individually notified to an agency.

These and other changes to the work practices ofthe office were introduced by thorough workpractice training for all staff members, acomprehensive online work practice manual, andthe creation of the Professional Standards Team.The Professional Standards Team is responsible forimplementing changes to improve the consistency,efficiency and effectiveness of complaint handlingin the office. We also established the Work PracticeSteering Committee to drive the changemanagement agenda and to promote continuousimprovement and consistency across the office.

DATA MANAGEMENTAs reported in the Ombudsman’s annual reports in2003–04 and 2004–05, a major project for theoffice has been the development of a newcomplaints management system to meet thechallenge of better alignment with other systemsand activities in the office. This computer-basedsystem is integral to the effective management ofindividual complaints and the collection of datafrom those complaints.

The new system (Resolve) supports the office’swork practice changes and provides significantenhancements over the previous system used since2001, including:

■ improved network response times

■ simplified data entry and more effective datacapture

■ capacity to structure workflows

■ improved reporting capability

■ increased user assistance

■ simplified system administration

■ standard application interface to allow forfuture development

■ greater interoperability with other officeproducts and systems.

A key feature is the strength of Resolve’s workflowcapability. This allows the office to build inprocedures to the complaints management systemthat will help investigation officers manage bothindividual complaints and complaint workloads. Weexpect this will lead to greater efficiency and betterservice delivery to people using the office.

‘... a major project for the officehas been the development of anew complaints managementsystem ...’

During January and February 2006, the Resolvecomplaints management system was ‘rolled out’ toeach of the Ombudsman’s eight offices. The rolloutwas supported by comprehensive training sessionsfor staff, followed by work practice training.

While Resolve has better statistical reportingcapability, the transition from our previouscomplaints management system has made it hardto align statistics this year. In 2006–07, it will bepossible to provide more reliable statisticalreporting.

REFERRALS TO AGENCIESThe Ombudsman has discretionary power to declineto investigate a complaint, unless it has first beenraised with the agency concerned. The results of aMay 2004 client satisfaction survey andconclusions drawn from a 2005 sample study into


CHA

PTER5

CHA

LLENG

ES IN CO

MPLA

INT H

AN

DLIN

G


the referral of taxation complaints suggest thatmany people do not follow our advice to first raisetheir complaint with the agency involved.

With the creation of the PCT we can better controlthe guidance and advice we offer people whenreferring them back to an agency. As a large part ofthe PCT’s work is referral work, we train PCOs tomake referrals appropriately. In an attempt to limit‘complaint fatigue’, PCOs give the person thecontact details for an agency’s complaint area andadvise them to contact our office again if they arenot satisfied with an agency’s response.

Part of the training for PCOs is about when todepart from usual practice and refer a complaint toone of our own investigation officers rather thananother agency. This may be more suitable if, forexample, the person needs assistance inarticulating their complaint with an agency, or ifprevious interaction between an agency and thecomplainant has been problematic.

OUTREACH INTO REGIONAL AREASA priority in 2005–06 was to build on the office’soutreach activities to more effectively target keystakeholders in rural and regional Australia.

Awareness surveyA market research company surveyed 1,282 peoplein rural and regional areas to establish a benchmarklevel of awareness of the office. The researchresults indicated a high level of promptedawareness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman,with 74% of respondents having heard of theoffice. However, the survey also indicatedconfusion in the community about the roles ofdifferent ombudsman offices in Australia.

Outreach activitiesWe conducted 104 outreach activities across allstates and territories, achieving our aim ofconducting or participating in an average of at leastone focused outreach activity each week during theyear. One outreach activity was a seminar forfederal parliamentarians and their electorate staffin Victoria, which we held in Melbourne in June

2006. It was the first of a series of such seminars tobe held in all states in 2006–07. Another activityinvolved our staff visiting rural and regionallocations, such as the Pilbara region of WesternAustralia. During the Pilbara visit, we participatedin the local FeNaCLNG mining community festival inKarratha and talked to community groups in PortHedland and other small towns in the region.

‘We conducted 104 outreachactivities across all states andterritories ...’

During the year, Ombudsman staff madepresentations at a wide variety of functions todiverse audiences. There was an emphasis thisyear on establishing relationships with multiculturalorganisations, particularly those representingrefugees, in the light of the office’s expandedfunction as Immigration Ombudsman. Staff alsomade presentations at accountancy and taxationorganisations to highlight the Taxation Ombudsmanrole, and at Defence Force establishments tohighlight the Defence Force Ombudsman role.

In 2006–07, we intend to build further on ouractivities over the past two years, to draw on theresults of the benchmark survey to better targetoutreach activities and to measure theeffectiveness of our outreach program over time.

SERVICE DELIVERY TO INDIGENOUSAUSTRALIANSIn November 2005, the Ombudsman established anIndigenous Working Group to review the office’scommunication with, and service delivery to,Indigenous Australians. We recognise that wecannot by ourselves overcome the cultural andother barriers that lead to Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander peoples being under-represented inapproaches to the Ombudsman’s office.Implementing a culturally appropriate service is along-term process requiring initiative in addressingissues of concern to Indigenous people and thedevelopment of partnerships with Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander organisations andcommunities.

CHA

PTER5

CHA

LLENG

ES IN CO

MPLA

INT H

AN

DLIN

G


CHA

PTER5

CHA

LLENG

ES IN CO

MPLA

INT H

AN

DLIN

G

Area

s vi

site

d du

ring

outre

ach

activ

ities

in 2

005–

06.

Balli

naGu

nned

ahKe

mps

eyLi

smor

eTa

mw

orth

Gosf

ord

Mai

tland

New

cast

leN

owra

Sing

leto

nW

ollo

ngon

g

Albu

ryBo

urke

Brew

arrin

aCo

bar

Dubb

oLi

ghtn

ing

Ridg

eN

ynga

nW

agga

Wag

gaW

alge

tt

Cairn

sM

t Isa

Tow

nsvi

lle

Bund

aber

gGy

mpi

eHe

rvey

Bay

Mac

kay

Rock

ham

pton

Berri

Echu

caKe

rang

Mild

ura

Shep

parto

nSw

an H

illW

odon

gaBe

ndig

oHo

rsha

m

Arar

atBa

llara

tM

oeSa

leTa

ralg

onW

arra

gul

Mt G

ambi

erPo

rt Au

gust

a

Broo

me

the

Kim

berle

y re

gion

Karra

tha

the

Pilb

ara

regi

onPo

rt He

dlan

d

Alba

nyBu

nbur

yEs

pera

nce

Wag

in

Cabo

oltu

reCa

loun

dra

Good

naIn

ala

Ipsw

ich

Mar

ooch

ydor

ePi

ne R

iver

sRe

dlan

d Ba

yTo

owoo

mba


CHA

PTER5

CHA

LLENG

ES IN CO

MPLA

INT H

AN

DLIN

G

The working group is developing a program ofconsultation with a range of Indigenous groups andindividuals. This program is designed to improve ourunderstanding of:

■ Indigenous people and communities’ experienceswith and perceptions of the Ombudsman’s office

■ forms of communication that work best forIndigenous people who might want to complain tothe Ombudsman

■ key issues about how government agencies deliverservices to Indigenous people and communities.

It is intended that the outcomes of this consultationprogram will inform the office’s handling of complaintsfrom Indigenous Australians and our program of ownmotion investigations.

DIFFICULT OR UNREASONABLE CONDUCTBY COMPLAINANTS Many complaint-handling agencies have to deal withcomplainants who engage in unreasonable conduct:they can be verbally or physically aggressive,unreasonably demanding, excessively persistent orunwilling to accept the decision of the office to concludean investigation. Such unreasonable conduct can placean inequitable demand on resources and can causedistress for staff.

When reviewing our work practices, we clarifiedour policies to reflect the need for balancebetween complainant expectations and thedemands placed on the office. Part of thechallenge for the office is to instil confidence instaff that it can be wise and defensible toconclude an investigation against the wishes of acomplainant.

‘... we clarified our policies toreflect the need for balancebetween complainantexpectations and the demandsplaced on the office.’

More can always be done to develop complaint-handling policies and strategies that strike anappropriate balance. To that end, we areparticipating in a cross-agency project, coordinatedby the NSW Ombudsman’s office, to develop andtrial management strategies for people whoexhibit unreasonable conduct. The aim of theproject is to develop strategies across ombudsmanoffices nationally to ensure that unreasonableconduct is managed consistently and that a high-quality service is provided without reinforcinginappropriate conduct or placing our staff at risk.This work will continue into 2006–07.


The Australian Parliament enacted a new legislative framework in 2002 to deal withthe threat of terrorism, by discouraging and preventing terrorist attacks.

To address concerns that the legislation went further than was needed andunnecessarily infringed on fundamental human rights and freedoms, s 4 of theSecurity Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 provided that a ‘public andindependent review ... of the operation, effectiveness and implications’ of the newlegislation was to be undertaken three years after its commencement. The reviewwas to be undertaken by a committee of statutory office holders and nominees of theAttorney-General and the Law Council of Australia.

The Security Legislation Review Committee was convened by the Attorney-General,the Hon. Phillip Ruddock MP, in October 2005. Membership of the committeecomprised:

■ The Hon. Simon Sheller AO QC, Chair, former NSW Supreme Court Judge

■ Mr Ian Carnell, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

■ Ms Karen Curtis, Privacy Commissioner

■ Mr Graeme Innes AM, Human Rights Commissioner

■ Prof. John McMillan, Commonwealth Ombudsman

■ Mr John Davies APM OAM, former ACT chief of police (Attorney’s nominee)

■ Ms Gillian Braddock SC, Barrister (Law Council nominee)

■ Mr Dan O’Gorman, Barrister (Law Council nominee)

The Committee received 35 submissions, held eight days of public hearings, andreported to the Attorney-General in April 2006. The report was tabled in the House ofRepresentatives in June 2006, and was considered at a public hearing by theParliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in July 2006.

The Committee accepted the need for special counter-terrorism legislation, but maderecommendations for reforming the procedure for listing an organisation as a‘terrorist’ organisation, and for repealing or re-drafting offences that were thought tobe too broad (such as ‘associating’ with a terrorist organisation).

The Committee’s report is available at http://www.ag.gov.au/slrc.

security legislation review

FeatureFeature


Much of the work of the CommonwealthOmbudsman’s office involves investigatingindividual complaints and administrative problems.The matters that are investigated constitute only asmall fraction of the total number of transactionsand administrative actions that governmentagencies undertake each year. A core objective ofan ombudsman’s office is to move beyond thoseindividual problems and to foster good publicadministration that is accountable, lawful, fair,transparent and responsive. The individualproblems provide an excellent window to viewgovernment in the broader setting.

This chapter discusses some of the ways theOmbudsman’s office has promoted goodadministration. Drawing on insights gained incomplaint investigations, we made submissions toparliamentary and other government inquiries. Wealso initiated or participated in projects, describedin this chapter, that aim for systemic reform onmatters such as the use of automated decisionmaking and protection of internal whistleblowers.Own motion investigations undertaken by the officeare described in other chapters, and briefly noted inthis chapter. Cooperation with other oversightagencies, and with ombudsman offices in Australiaand the Asian and Pacific regions, enables us toundertake joint projects, share best practiceexperience and develop a mutual support network.

SUBMISSIONS, REVIEWS AND RESEARCH

Parliamentary committees and submissionsDuring the year, the Ombudsman and staff madesubmissions and appeared before parliamentarycommittees inquiring into aspects of governmentadministration and proposed legislation. The officemade submissions to three inquiries or reviews by

the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee: itsinquiry into the Administration and Operation of theMigration Act 1958; its review of theTelecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill2006; and its review of the Law EnforcementIntegrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and the LawEnforcement (AFP Professional Standards andRelated Measures) Bill 2006.

Our two appearances before the Parliamentary JointCommittee on the Australian Crime Commissionwere to contribute to its review of the AustralianCrime Commission Act 2002 and to provide anannual report on the Ombudsman’s inspection ofrecords relating to controlled operations. We alsoappeared before the Senate Select Committee onMental Health (concerning immigration issues) andthe Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeLegislation Committee (concerning reforms toAustralia’s military justice system).

The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General ofIntelligence and Security made a joint submissionto and appeared before the Senate Legal andConstitutional Legislation Committee inquiry intothe provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005.We made a written submission to the JointCommittee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiryinto the administration of the taxation legislation(discussed in Chapter 9—Problem areas ingovernment decision making).

The committee hearings are always challenging,especially when the terms of reference are broad orthere is a heightened media interest in headlineremarks. However, parliamentary inquiries providea unique opportunity for the Ombudsman’s office toconvey our experience over a large range of topicsto parliamentarians. We understand this to be ofvalue to parliamentarians, as indicated by acomment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee onthe Australian Crime Commission in a report in July 2005.

CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N

promoting good administration 6

The Committee also wishes to acknowledgethe assistance provided by the CommonwealthOmbudsman, Professor John McMillan, andhis staff. The Commonwealth Ombudsmanplays a vital role in accountability mechanismsof the ACC, through investigating complaints,and auditing records. The Committeeconsiders that regular discussions andexchange of information with the Ombudsmanis vital to maintaining the overall effectivenessof the accountability regime. In addition to thebriefing on telecommunication interceptsrequired by statute, Professor McMillan hasmet with the Committee privately on severaloccasions and the Committee appreciates hisinsights and experience.

The Ombudsman was a member of the SecurityLegislation Review Committee, which wasestablished by statute in 2005 to review thecounter-terrorism legislation enacted in 2002. Thestatutory membership comprised a former judge, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human RightsCommissioner, the Inspector-General of Intelligenceand Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, anominee of the Attorney-General, and two nomineesof the Law Council of Australia. The committeereceived public submissions and conducted publichearings in February and March 2006. Its report wastabled in Parliament on 15 June 2006.

‘... parliamentary inquiriesprovide a unique opportunity forthe Ombudsman’s office toconvey our experience ...’

Whistleblowing projectIn 2004–05, we reported that the CommonwealthOmbudsman’s office was taking a leading role in anational research project: Whistling while theywork: internal witness management in theAustralian public sector. This is a three-yearcollaborative national research project into themanagement and protection of internal witnessesin the Australian public sector.

The protection of whistleblowers and other internalwitnesses of corruption, misconduct andmaladministration remains a challenge in public

sector governance. This project aims to identify andpromote current best practice in workplaceresponses to public interest whistleblowing, bydrawing from the experiences and perceptions ofinternal witnesses and managers. This will enableus to identify strategies for preventing, reducingand addressing reprisals and other related conflicts.

During 2005–06, the Ombudsman and the MeritProtection Commissioner sent a joint letter to theheads of approximately 140 Australian Governmentagencies inviting participation in the project’s firstsurvey into agency practices and procedures. Asurvey of agency employees was commenced,involving 30 selected government agencies andapproximately 6,000 of their employees. The projectis expected to generate several major reports andpapers, with the first to be finalised in 2007.

Automated assistance in administrativedecision makingThe Administrative Review Council (ARC) releaseda report about Automated Assistance inAdministrative Decision Making (AAADM) inNovember 2004. That report commented on thevarious ways in which AAADM uses computersystems to automate or guide administrativedecision making on matters ranging from thecalculation of payment rates to the assessment ofeligibility for beneficial schemes.

Representatives from the Ombudsman’s office areparticipating in an Advisory Working Groupestablished to address the ARC’s recommendations.Our representatives are also members of asubgroup that is developing a better practice guideon transparency and accountability in the designand implementation of AAADM systems. Theproject will be completed in 2006–07.

Review of extradition law and practiceIn December 2005, we were invited to contribute tothe Attorney-General’s review of Australia’sextradition regime. Extradition is of criticalimportance in effectively combating transnationaland domestic crime. A review of current legislationand processes was considered necessary to ensurethat the extradition process is efficient andresponsive to the heightened need for cooperativelaw enforcement arrangements between countries.


CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N


We provided a response in March 2006 to adiscussion paper prepared by the Attorney-General’sDepartment. Our comments were drawn from thecomplaints we received about extradition, as well asour understanding of good administrative practice. Inparticular, we noted the importance of providingsufficient safeguards where individual liberty is atrisk. We suggested there might be a role for theOmbudsman in auditing the briefing papers preparedwithin government to inform extradition decisions.This audit would not affect individual decisions, butcould increase public confidence in the process andprovide the department with feedback about thequality of its briefs.

COOPERATION WITH OTHER OVERSIGHT AGENCIESThe Ombudsman’s office is one of manyindependent statutory agencies that discharge a‘watchdog’ role in relation to government. Some ofthose agencies have a similar role to theOmbudsman of receiving and investigatingcomplaints from the public, initiating inquiries intosystemic issues in government administration, orauditing compliance by agencies with legislativerequirements. Examples are the Inspector-Generalof Intelligence and Security (IGIS), the AustralianNational Audit Office (ANAO), and the PrivacyCommissioner. Given our similar objective ofoversighting and improving governmentadministration, we have looked for ways to workcooperatively with these agencies, to complementeach other’s work and to avoid unnecessaryduplication of effort.

‘... we have looked for ways to ...avoid unnecessary duplicationof effort.’

Inspector-General of Intelligence and SecurityIn December 2005, the Ombudsman and the IGISsigned a memorandum of understanding thatformally recognises the strong ties between the two offices.

The Ombudsman and the IGIS worked closelytogether during the year, discussing common issues

CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Ian Carnell, and Commonwealth Ombudsman, John McMillan, sign amemorandum of understanding.

that arose in handling complaints and inspectingthe records of Australian Government agencies.They worked together in preparing a jointsubmission to the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalLegislation Committee inquiry into the provisions ofthe Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005. When the IGIS iseither absent from the country or on extendedleave, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is appointedto serve as acting IGIS. The Ombudsman and theIGIS are both members of the ARC, and both servedon the Security Legislation Review Committee in itsinquiry into Australian counter-terrorism legislation.

Inspector-General of the AustralianDefence ForceThe Ombudsman works closely with the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) toensure the most appropriate agency coordinatesissues within their particular areas of responsibility.This approach has proven effective in dealing withpersistent complainants, in finalising complaintsthat have become protracted, and in avoidingsuccessive investigation of the same complaintissue by both organisations.

We also participate in joint training activities. TheDeputy Ombudsman regularly presents at IGADFtraining courses, and a similar level of involvementfor IGADF staff is planned for Ombudsman trainingcourses. We have also discussed the possiblebenefits of secondments to each office. In May2006, Ombudsman staff and the IGADF, with a

number of other Defence complaint-handlingagencies, participated in a cost of conflict seminardealing with the problem of managingunreasonable complainant behaviour.

Administrative Review CouncilThe Ombudsman is an ex-officio member of theARC, established by the Administrative AppealsTribunal Act 1977 Part V. The council providesadvice to the government on administrative lawreform in Australia. The Ombudsman was activelyinvolved in many projects undertaken by the councilduring the year, including the publication of thecouncil report The Scope of Judicial Review. Thework of the council is more fully covered in aseparate annual report prepared by the council.

Liaison with Australian National Audit OfficeDuring the year, the Deputy Ombudsman and theDeputy Auditor-General met to discuss co-operationon areas of joint interest with a view to holdingregular liaison meetings.

The Special Tax Adviser also met with ANAO staff todiscuss ATO performance audits on the cash economytaskforce, superannuation lost members list, andhigh-risk refunds. The discussions involved a briefoutline of the complaints profile for the area underaudit and an explanation of our experience andunderstanding drawn from the complaints wereceived. The very low level of complaint about thecash economy taskforce and the superannuation lostmembers list suggested no notable problems withATO administration of these areas as they affectindividual taxpayers. We provided more usefulfeedback about the high-risk refund audit, particularlyas complaints about delay are often sourced to issuesof the treatment of high-risk refunds.

Information privacy principlesThis year we initiated a collaborative project withthe Australian Public Service Commissioner, theInspector-General of Intelligence and Security andthe Privacy Commissioner about the effect on theAustralian Government complaint system of theInformation Privacy Principles (part of the PrivacyAct 1988). The project focuses on InformationPrivacy Principle 11 (IPP11), which constrains the

public disclosure of personal information, includingpersonal information about the staff of AustralianGovernment agencies.

IPP11 is especially relevant when a complaintagency has to decide, in finalising an investigation,whether the information or explanation that isgiven to the complainant can include findings orviews that are critical of an agency staff member.The same issue arises more generally forgovernment agencies when making a public reporton a complaint investigation or administrativeinquiry undertaken by the agency.

This project will be completed in 2007 aftergovernment agencies have been consulted.

OWN MOTION AND MAJORINVESTIGATIONSThe Ombudsman can conduct an investigation as aresult of a complaint or on his own motion, orinitiative. During the year, we publicly releasedreports on seven own motion and majorinvestigations. Those reports, which are more fullydescribed in Chapter 7—Looking at the agencies,made recommendations designed to producesystemic improvement in the administrativeprocesses of government agencies. The reportscontained a total of 51 individual agencyrecommendations—agencies accepted 49 of the 51recommendations. The generic issues taken up inthose reports included the need for better trainingand clearer guidance for government officers, forfurther review of some contentious features ofagency administration, and for senior levelengagement in resolving problems of the kindaddressed in those reports.

Four of the investigations dealt with mattersrelating to the Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs (DIMA). The topics of thosefour reports were: the immigration detention andremoval from Australia of an Australian citizen, MsVivian Alvarez; the immigration detention of anAustralian citizen, Mr T; the administration of s 501of the Migration Act 1958; and the management ofa frail aged visitor to Australia, Mrs Agha.

The other three investigations dealt with theAustralian Defence Force’s management of servicepersonnel under the age of 18; the Australian


CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N


Taxation Office’s administration of the SuperannuationCo-contribution Scheme; and the administration of theFreedom of Information Act 1982 in AustralianGovernment departments and agencies.

Ongoing investigationsDuring the year, we commenced a number of ownmotion investigations that will be completed in2006–07. These include investigations into:

■ issues relating to the implementation of themarriage-like relationship policy, outlined in‘Looking at the agencies—other agencies’section in Chapter 7

■ the administration of the pension bonusscheme, outlined in ‘Looking at the agencies—Centrelink’ section in Chapter 7

■ complaint-handling procedures available inairports, outlined in Chapter 9—Problem areasin government decision making

■ the management of complaints aboutunacceptable behaviour in the AustralianDefence Force

■ the complaint-handling process of theMigration Agents Registration Authority,

■ the quality of the notification of reasons byDIMA for decisions and review rights forrefused visa applicants.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ANDREGIONAL SUPPORTThe office’s international program is focused onstrengthening mutual support among ombudsmenin our region through exchanging knowledge andskills. We are fostering this agenda withplacements, seminars and training activities. In2005–06, investigative, information technology (IT)and training officers from our office worked directlywith staff with similar skills from other ombudsmanoffices in our region.

Key geographic areas for international programinvolvement are two near South-East Asianneighbours, Indonesia and Thailand, and somecountries in the South Pacific, including Fiji, theCook Islands, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa,Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. TheAustralian Agency for International Development

(AusAID) has provided financial support for many ofthe office’s international program activities.

‘The office’s internationalprogram is focused onstrengthening mutual supportamong ombudsmen in ourregion ...’

Participation in the international program offersmany benefits to our staff, including an increasedfamiliarity with the people of our region, a sense ofaccomplishment in collegiate work across borders,a sharpening of skills and ideas, and a much betterunderstanding of the many common purposes weshare with our neighbouring ombudsmen. Thechallenge for our office is having sufficient staff toparticipate in the program. We have met thatchallenge by building networks with Australianstate ombudsmen and the New ZealandOmbudsman, who have generously assisted withstaff and support for the international program.

ThailandThe Thai Ombudsman’s office has developedstrongly since it was established in January 2000.Over that period, our office supported ThaiOmbudsman staff through training in complexinvestigations and generalist ombudsman issuesaimed at improving an understanding of theombudsman role.

The rapid development of the Thai Ombudsmanstaff resulted in a more specialist approach in2005–06, including support for IT, outreach andtraining activities. We worked with the New SouthWales Ombudsman to provide a two-week ‘trainthe trainer course’ for 10 Thai Ombudsman staff;and the Commonwealth Ombudsman worked withthe three Thai ombudsmen in Bangkok andpresented a seminar to staff. The Thai Ombudsmanprovided financial support for these activities, inaddition to that provided by AusAID and theCommonwealth Ombudsman.

Pacific islands regional strengtheningIn 2005–06, our work centred on creating acollegiate regional network with the South Pacificombudsmen. We commenced a trial of short-term

CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N

activities to support the exchange of information,staff and ideas across the network. Ultimately, weenvisage that the network will be self-sustaining. Itpresently consists of the CommonwealthOmbudsman, the New Zealand Ombudsman, thestate ombudsmen of New South Wales (NSW),Queensland (Qld), and Western Australia (WA) andombudsmen institutions in the South Pacific nations.

A deputy ombudsman worked with the Ombudsmenfrom Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu onstrategic and business planning. Legal counsel fromthe New Zealand Ombudsman’s office and ouroffice helped the Tongan Ombudsman and staffdraft enabling legislation for the ombudsmanfunction in Tonga.

Papua New Guinea In 2005, we entered into a three-year twinningprogram with the Ombudsman Commission of PNGthat includes staff placements for professionaldevelopment. Our office supports three placementsfrom PNG to Australia each calendar year and twoplacements from Australia to PNG.

In 2005–06, two officers from the CommonwealthOmbudsman’s office were placed with the PNGOmbudsman’s office (the first for three months andthe second for four months) to work with staff in thehead office in Port Moresby and in the Kokoporegional office.

Two officers from the PNG Ombudsman’s officeeach worked in Australia for two months, honingtheir investigation skills. One officer worked mainly


CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N

Rohan Anderson of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office, assists the Solomon Islands Ombudsman to promote the role of theombudsman to school children at Betikama College, Honiara.

in our Hobart office, and also worked with stafffrom the Tasmanian Ombudsman’s office. The otherofficer worked in our Canberra office.

During the year, we hosted an IT scoping missionfrom the PNG Ombudsman’s office. There wasparticular interest in our experience inimplementing a new complaints managementsystem and revising our online work practicemanual and intranet.

A deputy ombudsman also visited PNG to assistwith the strategic planning for the OmbudsmanCommission.

IndonesiaThe National Ombudsman Commission (NOC) ofIndonesia is a small office that provides ombudsmanservices to approximately 240 million people livingon 6,000 islands. In recent years we have assistedthe Indonesian Ombudsman and his staff byproviding training in Australia, internationalnetworking, decentralisation activities and ITplanning. In 2005–06, we focused ondecentralisation activities and IT planning, andprovided support to assist the NOC in ninedecentralisation activities that included work toestablish offices and take complaints from locals.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman visited Indonesiain September 2005 as a member of a high-levelAustralian delegation to scope a program of publicsector governance reform. This is part of theAustralia Indonesia Partnership for Reconstructionand Development.


Following the high-level visit to Indonesia, theOmbudsman took a coordinating role in bringingtogether representatives from the NSW and WAombudsmen offices to work with our office and theNOC in developing a three-year program to June2009. The program will build on activities to providecitizens across a larger part of Indonesia withgreater access to more effective and sustainablecomplaint management services. We will continueto support the strengthening of both the centralNOC office in Jakarta and the establishment ofdecentralised regional services in Indonesia.

Other international activitiesAnother means of international cooperation hasbeen to host senior-level delegations from severalforeign offices, including from Bangladesh, Canada,China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Laos, Malaysia,Taiwan and Vietnam.

In November 2005, the CommonwealthOmbudsman participated in the 9th AsianOmbudsman Association Conference, held in HongKong. The Ombudsman presented a paper ‘Freedomof information and whistleblower legislation: anAustralian perspective’.

COOPERATION AMONG AUSTRALIANOMBUDSMENWe enjoy a close working relationship with thelarge number of public and private sectorombudsman offices established in both Australiaand the Asia–Pacific area. Those relationships are

strengthened by the Ombudsman's participation ingroups such as the Australian and New ZealandOmbudsman Association (ANZOA) and theInternational Ombudsman Institute (IOI).

The IOI, which is an international association ofpublic sector ombudsman offices, is divided intoregions. The local region, the Australasia andPacific Ombudsman Region (APOR), has establisheda mutual support network for ombudsman offices inthe Pacific region. The APOR members meetannually: the annual meeting was held in Perth inApril 2006, hosted by the WA Ombudsman.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman is a member ofthe Executive of ANZOA, which is an association ofsome industry and public sector ombudsmanoffices. Projects on which ANZOA has been activeduring the year include external review ofombudsman schemes, internal review of complainthandling by ombudsmen, benchmarking ofworkloads and efficiency measures, statisticalsignificance of data, and the use of the term‘ombudsman’.

The deputy ombudsmen from all of the stateombudsmen offices and our office meet twice ayear to discuss issues of common concern. Thenetwork of deputies is also used more informally todeal with a range of shared issues. One specificexample is a joint project that was initiated by theNSW Ombudsman’s office on the most effectivehandling of difficult complainant behaviour. Thisproject is in its early stages and will continue into2006–07. Further information is in Chapter 5—Challenges in complaint handling.

CHA

PTER6

PROM

OTIN

G G

OO

D A

DM

INISTRATIO

N

Ombudsman linkages design and planning workshop and launch held in Perth in May 2006, culminating in the signing of a statement ofunderstanding. Seated left to right: Commonwealth Ombudsman, John McMillan, Chief Ombudsman of the NOC, Antonius Sujata, andWestern Australian Ombudsman, Deirdre O’Donnell.

oversight of australian government agencies

Chapter 7—Looking at the agencies 56

Chapter 8—How the Ombudsman helped people 104

Chapter 9—Problem areas in government decision making 112

As in previous years, the majority of approachesand complaints received within the Ombudsman’sjurisdiction (75%) concerned the five AustralianGovernment agencies listed below. This chapterfocuses on particular issues that arose during2005–06 in investigating complaints about theseagencies.

■ Centrelink—7,095 approaches and complaints

■ Child Support Agency—1,891 approaches andcomplaints

■ Australian Taxation Office—1,451 approachesand complaints

■ Australia Post—1,303 approaches andcomplaints

■ Department of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs—1,250 approaches and complaints.

This chapter also looks at three other specialisedareas of our complaint work: the AustralianDefence Force, handled by the Ombudsmandischarging the role of Defence Force Ombudsman;the Australian Federal Police, handled under theComplaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981;and the handling by agencies of freedom ofinformation requests.

The ‘Other agencies’ section of this chapterprovides examples of complaints received aboutagencies such as the Department of Employmentand Workplace Relations, Telstra Corporation, theAustralian Securities and Investments Commission,and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

While the discussion and analysis of complaintsarising in specific areas of government illustratesthe role of the Ombudsman, it does not fully portraythe diversity of the work of the office. The issues

raised in complaints to the Ombudsman are mostlyabout difficulties that arise between people andgovernment generally rather than about specificproblems areas. We take up some of these generalthemes in other chapters of this report (Chapter8—How the Ombudsman helped people, andChapter 9—Problem areas in government decisionmaking). Difficulties that commonly arise are aboutinadequate explanation of adverse decisions,deficient record keeping, delay in decision making,and discourtesy by agency officers.

The focus on complaints about specific agenciesdoes not by itself accurately portray the standard ofadministration in those agencies. Issues have beenselected in part to show the aspects of governmentabout which people approach the Ombudsman. Acommon feature of each of the agencies is thatthey engage daily in a high number of directtransactions with members of the public. Whilecomplaints to the Ombudsman are only a minorfraction of the decisions and actions taken eachyear by agencies, they illustrate the difficulties thatpeople face in dealing with government and to thatextent provide valuable insight into the operation ofgovernment.

‘... complaints to theOmbudsman are only a minorfraction of the decisions andactions taken each year byagencies ...’

Figure 7.1 shows approaches and complaintsreceived from particular agencies. A detailedbreakdown of complaints by portfolio and agency isin Appendix 4–Statistics.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIES

looking at the agencies 7


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIES

FIGURE 7.1 APPROACHES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED WITHIN JURISDICTION, BY AGENCY, 2005–06

41%

11%8%

7%

7%

5%

4%

3%

14%

Defence agencies Other agenciesACT Government agencies

AFPDIMAAustralia Post

ATOCSACentrelink

Australia Post is an incorporated governmentbusiness enterprise wholly owned by the AustralianGovernment. It operates under the AustralianPostal Corporation Act 1989 (Postal Act).

Under the Postal Act, Australia Post’s primaryfunction is to supply postal services withinAustralia, and between Australia and othercountries. Australia Post can also undertake otherbusiness functions that are incidental to its postalfunctions or that can be carried on as part of thatbusiness.

In recent years, Australia Post has expanded itsretail and agency functions to provide a widevariety of services. Approaches and complaintissues to our office remain largely about AustraliaPost’s most traditional functions—sending andreceiving letters and parcels.

In 2005–06, we received 1,327 approaches andcomplaints about Australia Post. Of these, 1,303

were within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction(1,190 in 2004–05), an increase of 9%. Figure 7.2shows the trend in complaints about Australia Post.

‘... issues to our office remainlargely about Australia Post’smost traditional functions—sending and receiving lettersand parcels.’

MAIL SERVICESWe find that people who approach our office with acomplaint about Australia Post often have a highexpectation of the quality of the delivery serviceAustralia Post provides. This can extend toexpecting Australia Post to carry uninsured valuableitems and to be liable if an item goes missing or is damaged.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIA PO

ST

looking at the agencies

australia post

FIGURE 7.2 AUSTRALIA POST COMPLAINT TRENDS, 2001–02 TO 2005–06

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Num

ber o

f app

roac

hes

and

com

plai

nts

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Year


Under the Postal Act and the Australia Post Termsand Conditions, Australia Post has limited liabilityfor loss and damage incurred through the carriageof ordinary post. We explained those limits onliability to numerous complainants.

In some cases, we asked Australia Post to paycompensation above the legal limit. For example, aperson complained that a package containingcontact lenses sent via Express Post had been lefton top of the letterboxes at her block of units, as itwas too bulky to fit in her letterbox. The packagewas opened and the contents, worth $224, werestolen. A neighbour found the empty envelopenearby.

The delivery officer claimed he left a card so thepackage could be collected at the post office.Australia Post initially offered the maximum $50compensation. We found it difficult to reconcile thecomplainant’s version of events with that of thedelivery officer. The complainant provided us withthe empty envelope, supporting her claim that thepackage had been delivered.

Australia Post investigated further, and found thatthe article would not have fitted in the letterbox. Inthis situation, the delivery officer should have left acard advising the addressee to collect the parcelfrom the post office. While emphasising that theconditions on the Express Post satchel specificallywarn against posting valuable items, Australia Postdecided to pay the full cost of the contact lenses asa gesture of goodwill.

INCORRECT ADVICECustomers of Australia Post rely on advice given tothem by Australia Post staff and agents. This is tobe expected, and reflects the high level of trust thatcustomers have in Australia Post. We investigatedcomplaints where individuals relied on the advicethey were given and suffered loss as a result. Inthese circumstances we recommendedcompensation be paid above the limit of AustraliaPost’s liability.

In one case we investigated, a man paid cash ondelivery for motorcycle handlebars worth severalhundred dollars, and took delivery of them in thepost office. He immediately saw the handlebarswere the wrong ones. An Australia Post employee

suggested he send them back ‘return to sender’,although he had paid the delivery fees andtechnically should have paid postage to resendthem. The ‘return to sender’ option provided noinsurance on the handlebars, which went missing.Initially Australia Post argued it was liable for onlythe $50 maximum compensation for ordinarypostage. After further discussion, Australia Postagreed to refund the full cost of the handlebars.

We investigated two complaints where AustraliaPost gave incorrect advice about the purchase ofWestern Union money orders. Two members of thepublic were told, on separate occasions, that therecipient of a money order would require the moneytransfer control number (MTCN) before being ableto access the money order. This advice wasincorrect.

Both complainants had sent a money orderoverseas to buy goods, expecting to provide theMTCN, and therefore release the money, when theyreceived the goods. However, the overseasrecipient was able to access the moneyimmediately and the goods did not arrive.

Australia Post initially considered that the primaryredress was against the sender of the products andthe complainants should have put in place propermechanisms to protect themselves whenpurchasing from overseas. While not disputing thelegal correctness of this position, we suggested toAustralia Post that the complainants would nothave conducted their business dealings in this wayif an Australia Post employee had not given themincorrect advice.

After further discussions, we agreed there wasfault on both sides, and Australia Post refundedhalf of the amount of the money order. AustraliaPost also conducted training at the particular postoffice to ensure that correct advice is given in the future.

COMPLAINT HANDLINGAustralia Post’s Customer Contact Centres (CCCs)handle most complaints about postal services. Wenormally ask a person to contact the CCC in the firstinstance and to contact our office again if they aredissatisfied with the resolution provided by theCCC. During the year, we investigated some

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIA PO

ST

matters that had not yet reached a resolution,but had stalled within the CCC.

In one case, a customer contacted the CCCbecause of failures to redirect his mail asrequested. Largely because of the problemsencountered, the customer extended hisredirection for another six months and askedAustralia Post to refund the $34.50 fee.Australia Post closed the initial complaint aweek after it received it without advising thecustomer. When he called about progress threeweeks later, Australia Post reopened the matterand investigated it, but did not process thecustomer’s request for a free extension of hismail redirection.

After experiencing continuing problems with theredirection of his mail, the customer called againthree weeks later and repeated his request for afree extension. After numerous phone calls inthe following month, Australia Post advised thathe might receive a three-month refund.

At that point, the customer complained to ouroffice. After we raised the central issues withAustralia Post, the customer received his six-month refund. Australia Post also explained whythe matter had taken so long to resolve andacknowledged that the complaint could havebeen handled better.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIA PO

ST

POSTAL INDUSTRY OMBUDSMANOn 29 March 2006, Parliament passed legislation toestablish the office of Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO). The PIO scheme will commence operation by 6 October 2006.

As Australia Post will automatically become a member ofthe scheme, the PIO will take over the existing role of theCommonwealth Ombudsman in investigating complaintsagainst Australia Post. Participation by private postaloperators in the PIO scheme is voluntary. Fees charged forinvestigations will fund the PIO.

The PIO will have available the normal powers of anombudsman when investigating a complaint to:

■ require information or documents

■ publish findings

■ make a formal report to the Minister forCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts, which can be tabled in the Parliament.

The PIO is required by the Ombudsman Act to observeprocedural fairness in investigations.

During 2005–06, we worked on establishing contactswithin the postal and courier industries to provideinformation about the PIO scheme. The office is alsosetting up a framework for handling PIO complaints and for determining and charging investigation fees. The PIOwebsite at www.pio.gov.au has more information aboutthe scheme.


The Commonwealth Ombudsman has always dealtwith complaints about the Australian TaxationOffice (ATO). In 1995, the Ombudsman was giventhe title of Taxation Ombudsman to give a specialfocus to the office’s handling of tax complaints inrecognition of the unequal position of taxpayersand the ATO. In fulfilling this function, the TaxationOmbudsman is supported by the Special TaxAdviser, a small Tax Team dedicated to dealing withtax matters, and generalist complaint investigationofficers in the Ombudsman’s offices in eachAustralian capital city.

The Taxation Ombudsman is the only externalcomplaint-handling agency for taxpayers withcomplaints about the ATO. The TaxationOmbudsman also continues to identify systemicissues and remedies arising from individualcomplaints, and works with other external oversightbodies such as the Inspector-General of Taxationand the Australian National Audit Office to improveaspects of tax administration.

Our specialist Tax Team continues to monitorcomplaints to identify emerging complaint trendsthat may warrant more active intervention by theSpecial Tax Adviser or the Taxation Ombudsman.

This role was strengthened in 2005, enabling theTax Team to focus its attention increasingly onproviding tax-related technical and contextualadvice to our generalist investigation officers, andto commence project work on areas of interest intax administration. For example, during 2005 weidentified an increase in complaints aboutsuperannuation co-contributions, initiated a projectto analyse such complaints, and issued a report inMarch 2006. Further information on our program oftax projects is provided on page 63.

‘The Taxation Ombudsman is theonly external complaint-handling agency for taxpayerswith complaints about the ATO.’

COMPLAINTS OVERVIEW In 2005–06, the Ombudsman received 1,523approaches and complaints about the ATO, 1,451 ofwhich were within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction(1,633 in 2004–05). Figure 7.3 shows the trend incomplaints about the ATO.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIAN

TAXATIO

N O

FFICE


australian taxation office

FIGURE 7.3 AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE COMPLAINT TRENDS, 2001–02 TO 2005–06

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Num

ber o

f app

roac

hes

and

com

plai

nts

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Year

There has been a steady decline in the number oftax complaints over the last few years. We havepreviously attributed this to the bedding down ofthe new tax system and the resolution of many ofthe mass-marketed scheme issues that dogged theATO in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This year,we believe the continuing decline in the number oftax complaints is due to improvements in ATOadministration, and particularly to the increasingeffectiveness of the ATO’s internal complaintsprocess.

We received complaints across the full range ofATO activities and products, including debtrecovery, superannuation and the goods andservices tax (GST). Complaints about ATO debtrecovery action and the accuracy, clarity andtimeliness of ATO advice continued to dominate.

TAX ENVIRONMENTThe greatest challenge for those working in the taxfield is the ever-increasing complexity of tax lawand the tax system. The Taxation Ombudsman playsan important role in assisting taxpayers to find theirway through this complexity, as well as pointing outto the ATO ways in which processes andinformation might usefully be simplified. Theunderlying approach to the Taxation Ombudsmanrole is to find practical solutions to administrativeproblems.

The challenge for the ATO is to developmechanisms and strategies that balance the taxsystem’s complexity. Administrative systems andreview processes that enable taxpayers tochallenge ATO decisions are important mechanismsfor achieving that balance. The ATO has formalobjection and review processes, as well as aninternal complaint-handling service—ATOComplaints—that it substantially revamped after areport in 2003 by the Taxation Ombudsman. TheATO’s positive response to that report has resultedin a system that reflects best practice complaintmanagement principles and that maintains aconsistent approach across the ATO. For example,the new centralised complaint-recording system inthe ATO includes an area dedicated to tracking,monitoring and resolving potential systemic issues;this enables the ATO to respond effectively toissues that have the capacity to impact on largenumbers of taxpayers.

‘The ATO’s positive response toour report has resulted in asystem that reflects bestpractice complaint managementprinciples ...’

The ATO’s responsiveness suggests a culturalcommitment to complaint resolution within theagency. This commitment perhaps offers taxpayersbetter remedial options than externally imposedrules. While there is always room for improvement,the ATO’s progress during the year in this area isacknowledged. For example, we understand thatapproximately 66% of all complainants using ATOComplaints receive a satisfactory outcome as aresult of ATO complaint-processing action. Thissuggests that in some cases the ATO may notalways get it right initially. However, it alsosuggests that the ATO has in place mechanismsthat provide appropriate remedial options.

Another way to address tax complexity is for theATO to have effective education and informationstrategies in place to assist taxpayers to betterunderstand the tax system and how to comply withit. We are satisfied with the ATO’s action in thisregard as evidenced by improvements to the ATOwebsite and tax agents’ portal, and the ATO’spublication of its approach to key issues such as itscompliance strategy. Where appropriate, we makesuggestions about how the ATO might improve itsadvice to taxpayers. In one case, we asked the ATOto consider changes in the way it responded toenquiries about eligible termination payments andadvised taxpayers that income below the thresholdmay affect other entitlements such as the seniorAustralian tax offset. The ATO agreed and changedthe written guidance it provided to staff on this matter.

UPDATE ON REFERRAL SURVEY PROJECTOur usual practice is to suggest to complainantsthat they first try to resolve their concerns directlywith the ATO as we consider the agency shouldfirst have the opportunity to correct any perceivedproblems. We will either suggest they contact theATO, or we may offer to transfer their complaintdirectly, with the understanding that thecomplainant can contact us if dissatisfied with the outcome.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIAN

TAXATIO

N O

FFICE


Last year, we reported that we had commenced apilot project to test the effectiveness of ourcomplaint referral process. We surveyed a smallsample of tax complainants, who we had referredback through ATO Complaints to obtain feedback onwhether the advice we provided was useful inprogressing their complaints. Generally, the surveyproduced a positive result about the serviceprovided by the Ombudsman’s office. The resultsindicated a moderate level of complainant confusionabout the advice provided to them and highlightedthe need for more work in skilling our staff toprovide appropriate advice. The survey alsoindicated there was a high percentage ofcomplainant satisfaction with the complaint transferservice provided for written complaints.

The area of greatest concern was the low rate oftake-up when we advised complainants to contactATO Complaints directly. We raised this issue withthe ATO, and ATO Complaints is exploring whatsteps it might take to better encourage complainantsto make contact if they have problems or concerns.We identified changes to our own work practices tohelp increase this take-up rate and we are workingwith the ATO to make the referral process as easyand efficient for complainants as possible.

PROJECT WORKTowards the end of 2005, the Taxation Ombudsmanimplemented a work program of internal andexternal tax projects to carry forward to the end ofthe 2005–06 financial year. Internal projects look atways in which the Ombudsman’s office can improveits own policy, procedures and decision making tomore effectively manage tax complaints, such as thereferral survey project described above. Externalprojects generally examine individual tax complaintsto assess the health of specific areas of taxadministration, identifying any potential problemareas in the ATO’s administration and makingrecommendations where appropriate.

In designing the project program, we avoided anyoverlap with the work of the Inspector-General ofTaxation and the Australian National Audit Office,identifying instead areas that complement theirwork. We aim to work closely with our fellow‘watchdogs’ in feeding into improvements to taxadministration. Because of the knowledge we havegained through handling individual complaints, we

can bring to these broader projects a valuableperspective on the impact that governmentadministration can have on individuals.

By using those complaints as a window to taxadministration, and with almost thirty years’experience in handling complaints both about the ATOand across Australian Government administration, wehope to provide useful observations and commentaryon the health of the system of tax administration andto identify improvements that should benefit alltaxpayers. We also hope that the projects willimprove our understanding of tax administration, tothe benefit of individual taxpayers who come to uswith their problems. We also plan to engage morewith the tax profession to identify possible topics forfuture projects.

‘We aim to work closely with ourfellow ‘watchdogs’ in feedinginto improvements to taxadministration.’

Internal projects we initiated during the yearinclude:

■ construction of a revised list of ‘issue strings’,which is an internal Ombudsman office devicefor classifying the different issues and sub-issues in complaints. This supports investigationofficers in analysing and investigating issues inindividual tax complaints, and provides for moreeffective statistical reporting and systemic trendanalysis

■ analysis of the way we have exercised thestatutory powers in the Ombudsman Act todecline to investigate tax complaints receivedby the office. The aim of this project was tofacilitate the appropriate exercise of thosestatutory discretions, by developinginstructional material to assist investigationofficers, particularly where taxation legislationprovides for formal and informal review rights.

External projects we initiated include the review ofATO administration in areas such as the use ofgarnishee powers, the compromise of taxationdebts, superannuation co-contribution payments,remission of the general interest charge, andrelease from tax debts because of financialhardship.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIAN

TAXATIO

N O

FFICE

We also have an ongoing outreach project focusedon tax agents, to help and encourage them to raiseissues of concern with this office. We want toanalyse the issues they raise and identify areas thatwe consider merit further examination.

Issues relating to some of the external projects the TaxTeam undertook during the year are outlined below.

SUPERANNUATION CO-CONTRIBUTIONThe Superannuation Co-contribution Scheme (SuperCo-contribution), effective from 1 July 2003, aims toassist eligible individuals to save for their retirementby providing matching government contributions forpersonal superannuation contributions. In March2006, we issued a report on the ATO’sadministration of Super Co-contribution.

Our review of complaints relating to Super Co-contribution did not disclose any major concernswith, or systemic problems arising from, ATOadministration of this scheme. As an example,almost a third of the complaints about Super Co-contribution related to concerns that the informationabout the scheme in ATO advertising was notsufficient for a person to make an informed decisionon whether they met the requirements. However, wefound that the advertising was clear in outlining thepurpose of the scheme and basic eligibility criteria.In all cases, the advertisements clearly advisedpeople about how and where they could seek furtherinformation. While we considered that the ATOadvertising achieved an appropriate balancebetween simplicity and sufficiency, we alsoacknowledged that all government agencies grapplewith the perennial problem of how much informationis enough.

We suggested the ATO review its own complaintsprofile in relation to Super Co-contribution. We mayrevisit our review of the scheme at some futurestage to see if there have been any changes ofsignificance.

DEBT COLLECTIONMost taxpayers accurately declare their income, paydue tax and have a relatively incident-freeinteraction with the ATO. Where due tax is not paid,the ATO has a responsibility to collect outstandingdebts as fairly and effectively as possible. In

general, the ATO encourages voluntary compliance.It will help taxpayers who find it difficult to meettheir obligations by allowing flexible paymentarrangements. Increasing or persistent non-compliance is likely to attract progressively moresevere sanctions.

Not surprisingly, a significant proportion ofcomplaints received about the ATO (12% in2005–06) relate to debt recovery. For this reason,our project work program this year has had aparticular focus on aspects of the ATO’s debtcollection and receivables policy, with projectsrelating to release from taxation debts on serioushardship grounds and the use of garnishee action torecover tax debts.

Release from debtA taxpayer who is unable to pay a debt can apply tothe ATO for whole or partial release from the debtdue to serious financial hardship. Hardship in thesecircumstances is considered to be where payment ofthe debt would mean that a person would be unableto provide food, accommodation, clothing, medicaltreatment, education or other necessities forthemselves, their family or other dependants.

Before September 2003, the former Tax Relief Boarddecided hardship applications and complaints aboutits decisions could be made to the Ombudsman.Hardship decisions are now made by theCommissioner of Taxation and are reviewable by theSmall Taxation Claims Tribunal.

Our examination of the ATO’s handling of hardshipapplications indicates no major problems, a positionconfirmed by the falling number of complaints tothis office.

‘Our examination of the ATO’shandling of hardshipapplications indicates no majorproblems ...’

The Small Taxation Claims Tribunal has upheld,partially or fully, only a small percentage of theobjections pursued through it, which also also givesa measure of confidence in the primary decisions.We also noted an improvement in the timeliness ofdecision making since the Commissioner tookresponsibility for deciding hardship applications.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIAN

TAXATIO

N O

FFICE


Garnishee actionWhere a tax-related liability is payable, theCommissioner of Taxation may issue a noticerequiring a person who owes money to the taxpayerto pay that money to the Commissioner instead. Thispower enables the Commissioner to collect the tax-related liability without proceeding to judgment orexecution. A third party is treated as owing money invarious circumstances, including where that personholds money for or on account of the taxpayer, forexample a bank or similar institution. Although onlya small number of our complaints relate to garnisheenotices served on banks and other third parties, werecognise that the impact of garnishee action on anindividual can be significant.

Taxpayers often see garnishee action as beingpremature, intrusive and generally unwelcome.Given that the Commissioner is targetingoutstanding debt, and garnishee action may be apart of any debt recovery strategy, we felt it timelyto examine the ATO’s approach to garnishee action.

We examined the ATO’s approach to garnisheeaction as reflected in complaints received betweenJuly 2003 and November 2005. We identified 44such complaints, and we investigated approximately25% of them. In those cases, we generally found theATO had acted reasonably in taking garnisheeaction. We found that it took such action generallyonly after other attempts to recover the debt hadbeen unsuccessful, which was in line with the ATO’sadvice to us and its policy guidelines.

CASE MANAGEMENTTaxpayers often have to deal with different parts ofthe ATO when managing their tax affairs, particularlyif they have a number of problems or one problemwith many aspects. A small business person mayface several problems simultaneously, such as beingsubjected to a GST audit, being behind with somerelated lodgements and payments, and havingdifficulties in meeting superannuation guaranteecontributions. Many taxpayers find it difficult tounderstand the tax system and how they might bestresolve their problems.

In these circumstances, we may suggest that theATO take a case management approach to aparticular complaint. This means that one ATOofficer will coordinate different areas of the ATO in

seeking to resolve a complaint that has differentcomponents. We found the ATO agreeable to suchan approach and generally found it to be effective.

One unemployed complainant had an ATO debt of$32,000 relating to self-assessed tax liabilities, GSTand general interest charges. At our request, ATOComplaints appointed a case officer, who monitoredthe progress of aspects of his complaint. The ATOreleased him from part of the debt on hardshipgrounds and agreed to payment arrangements forthe remainder of his debt.

‘... we may suggest that the ATOtake a case managementapproach to a particularcomplaint.’

In another case, an elderly taxpayer was havingdifficulty in comprehending his Pay As You Goobligations and was confusing these with the formerprovisional tax system. The usual approach ofwriting to the taxpayer about his concerns hadproved ineffective, and the ATO agreed to oursuggestion that an experienced ATO case officerwork with him to sort out his current problems andto help him avoid such problems in future.

One of our aims in the coming year is to encouragethe ATO to take a more systematic approach to usingcase managers to help people through these kinds of issues.

THE YEAR AHEADDuring 2006–07, we intend to continue the internaland external project schedule we began this year.The project schedule will include:

■ a review of the effectiveness of the ATOadministration relating to matters such assuperannuation guarantee

■ debt collection payment arrangements

■ data matching bank interest

■ tax issues for Indigenous communities

■ audit activity of work-related expenses

■ ‘conferencing’ for tax disputes

■ call management capability and delivery

■ lodgement compliance penalties and prosecution

■ issues around the private health insurance rebate.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESA

USTRA

LIAN

TAXATIO

N O

FFICE

Centrelink is responsible for delivering a widerange of programs and payments on behalf of anumber of Australian Government agencies. Thisoffice receives more approaches and complaintsabout Centrelink than about any other agency,consistent with the high volume and complexity ofthe services it provides.

In 2005–06, Centrelink approaches and complaintsaccounted for 42% of all approaches andcomplaints to the Ombudsman. We received 7,333approaches and complaints about Centrelink, 7,095of which were within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction(7,699 in 2004–05). This was a decrease of 8%.Figure 7.4 shows the trend in complaints aboutCentrelink.

The Ombudsman investigated 29% of complaintsreceived about Centrelink. The majority ofcomplaints were about the Newstart Allowance(19%), the Family Tax Benefit (16%), the DisabilitySupport Pension (14%), the Parenting Payment(12%) and service delivery (9%).

We also received complaints about a large range ofother issues, including correspondence withcustomers, information stored on customer files,the pension bonus scheme, the internal reviewprocess, nominees and banning customers.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH CUSTOMERSDuring the year, the Ombudsman receivedcomplaints that highlighted problems in the contentand style of Centrelink correspondence. Among theissues were the clarity and consistency ofCentrelink decision letters and notices, the use oftemplates and standard letters, the absence ofreasons and information for Centrelink decisions,and the adequacy of key information printed on theback of the notices. We raised all these issues withCentrelink during the year in the context of itsLetters Improvement Project. We discuss some ofthese issues below, and in Chapter 9—Problemareas in government decision making.

‘... the Ombudsman receivedcomplaints that highlightedproblems in the content andstyle of Centrelinkcorrespondence.’

Decision lettersComplaints about decision letters focused on eitherthe absence of reasons for Centrelink decisions, orthe adequacy of reasons. If the reasons for a


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCEN

TRELINK


centrelink

FIGURE 7.4 CENTRELINK COMPLAINT TRENDS, 2001–02 TO 2005–06

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Year

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Num

ber o

f app

roac

hes

and

com

plai

nts


decision are inadequate, a Centrelink customer maylack the necessary information or understanding tomake an informed choice about whether to seekreview of the decision.

One example is grant letters, which often containinformation about the start date of a payment andthe rate to be paid. The letters report a person’sincome and assets as a combined figure, ratherthan as separate components. This can leave thecustomer uncertain as to what Centrelink took intoaccount in the assessment. Unless customers seekfurther detail from Centrelink, they cannot identifydiscrepancies in the data. In particular, where thedecision is favourable (such as a grant of paymentor increase in rate) most customers are likely toassume that the decision is correct, when that maynot be the case.

A customer who does not check with Centrelinkruns the risk of being underpaid or incurring arecoverable debt. In one complaint that weinvestigated, Centrelink failed to correctly calculatefinancial information provided by the customer. Thedecision letter advised of a reduced rate of agepension and only stated the total assets andincome used in the assessment. As the letter didnot provide sufficient information to allow thecustomer to realise Centrelink’s mistake, thecustomer was underpaid over an extended period.Compensation in the amount of the underpaymentwas paid under the Compensation for Detrimentcaused by Defective Administration (CDDA)scheme.

In another complaint, a customer was unaware thatcalculation of his age pension rate had beenincorrectly based on his being a homeowner, whichresulted in a lower rate of pension being paid. Thedecision letter failed to include that information,making it difficult for the individual to determinethe accuracy of his payment.

Templates and standard lettersThe use of templates and standard letters canassist in controlling the consistency and quality ofcorrespondence. A possible drawback is that atemplate letter will not be tailored to thecircumstances of the recipient. Generally, it isimportant that template letters are of good qualityand do not contain irrelevant or incorrectinformation.

In a number of complaints we received, thedecision letter from the Authorised Review Officerused the standard phrase ‘I have not had anyprevious involvement in your case’. This phrase wasused even when the same officer had consideredan earlier review request from the same customer.

Another source of complaints was the use ofincorrect codes for standard letters, wherecustomers were incorrectly advised they werereceiving a different payment, or about activitiesbeing undertaken with their payment.

INFORMATION STORED ON CUSTOMER FILESWe investigated a complaint from a Centrelinkcustomer who had requested to see the content ofher Centrelink file under the Freedom ofInformation Act 1982. Among the information sheobtained was a copy of an article she had writtenthat had been published in the local press andwhich Centrelink had placed on her file. Theindividual was apprehensive that this article wouldprejudice any future dealings she may have withher local Centrelink office. As a result of ourinvestigation, Centrelink developed nationalguidelines on the storage of media articles bycustomers, and how to respond to complaints onthat issue.

PENSION BONUS SCHEMEIn March 2006, we commenced an own motioninvestigation into the pension bonus scheme,because the number of complaints about theprogram was disproportionate to its size.

The pension bonus scheme is an incentive programthat rewards people who qualify for receipt of theage pension but continue working instead ofclaiming their pension. Centrelink administers thescheme and pays a tax-free, lump-sum bonus whenthe person eventually retires and claims the agepension. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA)administers a parallel pension bonus scheme.

‘... the number of complaintsabout the pension bonusscheme was disproportionate to its size.’

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCEN

TRELINK

A person must register for the scheme and will notbe eligible for the maximum bonus payment untilthey have been working for five years after theirinitial registration. During those five years, there isno legislative requirement for the customer tocontact the agency. This presents particularchallenges for the agency’s administration of thescheme in terms of provision of information andstaying in touch.

The rules of the scheme, particularly those relatedto claiming the bonus, are complicated and not wellunderstood by Centrelink staff or customers. Forexample, to be paid a bonus the person must havepassed a work test throughout the period they havedeferred claiming the age pension, and must claimwithin 13 weeks of when they cease work or fail topass the work test. They must also simultaneouslylodge a claim for their bonus and a claim for theage pension.

In some instances, complainants received noinformation about the work test requirements, andafter deferring their claim for over four years foundout they had failed the work test in the first yearand were therefore not entitled to receive a bonusat all.

It can be difficult to decide when to claim a bonusbecause it is calculated on the rate of age pensionwhen the pension is first granted. For instance, if aperson has not made decisions about theirsuperannuation and termination payments orceased work entirely, the initial rate of pensionwould be reduced and result in a smaller bonusbeing paid. However, the person generally has only13 weeks from when they retire to make a claim orthey risk losing all or part of their bonus. Generally,Centrelink encourages people who register for thescheme to see a Financial Information Service (FIS)officer about the optimum timing to claim theirbonus.

The majority of complaints made to this officeabout the pension bonus scheme are because thecomplainant received a smaller bonus than theyhad expected. Often they were not referred to a FISofficer and did not understand the factors affectingthe amount of bonus payable. For similar reasons,the pension bonus scheme is over-represented inthe volume of complaints about CDDA claimsreceived about Centrelink.

As part of our investigation, we are examining theunderlying causes for:

■ complaints received by the Ombudsman

■ customers appealing against their assessment

■ customers seeking compensation under theCDDA scheme.

We are also examining the processing guidelinesprovided to Centrelink staff, the promotionalmaterial used to inform customers and potentialcustomers about the scheme, the registration andclaim procedures and forms, and the arrangementsin place for ongoing contact with members of thescheme. The chief purpose in this part of theinvestigation is to gauge whether the problems thatare encountered by Centrelink customers stem fromthe way the scheme is being administered. We willalso examine whether these administrativedocuments and arrangements accurately reflect thelegislation.

We are currently analysing data from Centrelinkand the DVA and hope to complete our report inlate 2006. We will draw from the experiences ofboth agencies to identify areas for improvedadministration. We will make recommendationsafter consulting the service delivery agencies anddiscussing policy-based issues with the relevantpolicy department, such as the Department ofFamilies, Community Services and IndigenousAffairs (FaCSIA), the Department of HumanServices (DHS), and the DVA.

ONGOING ISSUESSome of the issues outlined in the Centrelinksection of our 2004–05 annual report are ongoing.These issues involve Centrelink’s internal reviewprocess, its nominee arrangements and theabsence of national guidelines for banningcustomers from contacting staff.

Internal review processIn last year’s annual report we identified twoproblems with Centrelink’s internal reviewprocess—delays and appeal fatigue. A further areaof complaint that came to notice this year related tothe internal review path adopted by Centrelink.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCEN

TRELINK


We received complaints where Centrelinkconsidered cases under the CDDA scheme (which isa non-statutory scheme), when it would have beenmore appropriate to allow the case to be resolvedunder the social security law.

Some customers had delayed pursuing review bythe Social Security Appeals Tribunal pending adecision about their claim for compensation. Insome cases, the compensation decision decliningpayment had taken several months, well outside the13–week period allowed for the customer to lodgean appeal with the Tribunal and be able to receivefull arrears from the date of the original decision inthe event of a positive outcome. In other cases, thecomplainant was not aware that their case hadbeen referred for consideration for compensation.

The Ombudsman participated in a Centrelinksteering committee made up of representatives fromboth Centrelink and external organisations. Thecommittee considered the internal review processwithin Centrelink about decisions made under thesocial security and family assistance laws. Weunderstand that Centrelink is yet to make finaldecisions on the committee’s recommendations.

NomineesA Centrelink customer can authorise a person ororganisation to act and make changes and/orreceive payments on their behalf. This person ororganisation is called a nominee.

We keep receiving complaints about thesearrangements, which continue to be problematic.These complaints raised the question of whetherCentrelink is being sufficiently rigorous in itsoversight of nominee arrangements.

In one case, a public trustee advised Centrelink oftheir appointment as a woman’s financialadministrator and requested that her social securitypension be paid to them as the woman’s nominee.At the time, the woman was also receiving anotherallowance that continued to be paid to her carer.Centrelink acknowledged that they should havereviewed the appropriateness of continuing tomake payments to her carer. This may well haveprevented a dispute when Centrelink subsequentlygranted the woman family tax benefit and paid alump sum to her carer.

We plan to do further work with Centrelink onthese aspects of the process in the coming year.

Banning customersLast year, we reported that we had received anumber of complaints from customers who hadbeen banned from either attending Centrelinkoffices or having telephone contact with staff. Wenoted that although we found that the decisions toban the individuals concerned were notunreasonable, these complaints highlighted thatCentrelink did not have national guidelines for theprocess of banning customers. Centrelink indicatedthey would develop national guidelines to beimplemented in the first half of 2005–06.

At 30 June 2006, the absence of nationalguidelines for staff on banning customers fromcontacting Centrelink staff is still an issue.However, significant progress has been made ondeveloping national guidelines for dealing withdifficult customers and it is expected that these willbe available to all Centrelink staff later in 2006.

‘... the absence of nationalguidelines for staff on banningcustomers from contactingCentrelink staff is still an issue.’

WELFARE TO WORK INITIATIVESPreparation for the implementation of the Welfareto Work initiatives in July 2006 was a major topicof discussion and liaison between theOmbudsman’s office and Centrelink this year. Thepolicy and assessment processes draw together anumber of Australian Government agencies as wellas contracted services providers. The interactionthat Centrelink establishes with these agencies andproviders will be critical to their administration ofthe initiative.

We met with other relevant government agenciesto discuss the Welfare to Work initiative, includingthe Department of Employment and WorkplaceRelations (DEWR), DHS, FaCSIA, and the ChildSupport Agency. We also attended Centrelink’smonthly Community Reference Group meeting. Thereference group comprises national representatives

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCEN

TRELINK

of peak community groups, and provided a valuableforum to present information about the extendedrole of the Ombudsman, in particular around thecomplaint and appeal processes.

Responsibility for Welfare to Work initiativesextends across a number of government and non-government agencies. Individual complaints may berelated to the work of those agencies that haveresponsibilities under the scheme, includingCentrelink, DEWR and DHS. A large proportion ofelements of Welfare to Work will be delivered bycommunity-based agencies such as job networkproviders, job capacity assessors and welfareagencies. These agencies will make decisions andrecommendations that will affect the lives ofpeople claiming income support payments.

Under changes made to the Ombudsman Act 1976in December 2005, the Ombudsman has jurisdictionto investigate the actions of ‘Commonwealthservice providers’ as if those actions had beenmade by the relevant department or authority. ACommonwealth service provider is a contractor orsubcontractor that provides goods or services for oron behalf of an Australian Government agency, to aperson other than an agency. This effectively meansthat the Ombudsman now has authority toinvestigate complaints about organisations that arecontracted to the Commonwealth as job networkproviders, job capacity assessors and financial casemanagers. The complexity of the process ofcomplaint investigation is expected to increasebecause of this.

From 1 July 2006, an individual who fails to meetspecific obligations required under Welfare to Workor who has a third ‘participation failure’ recorded,will incur an eight-week non-payment period.Centrelink staff will assess those people who are

subject to the eight-week non-payment period todetermine if they meet the criteria for beingclassified as ‘exceptionally vulnerable’. Those whohave children or who are considered exceptionallyvulnerable will be referred to communityorganisations for financial case management.

The role of the financial case manager will be toassess what, if any, financial assistance anindividual should be given, up to the amount theindividual would have received in fortnightlypayments if they had not incurred the eight-weeknon-payment period. The financial assistance willbe in non-cash forms except in exceptionalcircumstances. There are criteria for what expensescan be considered ‘essential’ for payment by thefinancial case managers.

Given the impact of these measures on theindividuals affected by them, we anticipate that wewill receive complaints about many related issuesincluding:

■ job capacity assessments and their resultingdecisions and recommendations

■ reasons for and impacts of failing to meetspecific obligations

■ reasons for and consequences of non-paymentfor an eight-week period

■ decisions by the financial case manager aboutwhich expenses are considered ‘essential’.

The role of Centrelink in the Welfare to Workinitiative is pivotal. In some cases, Centrelink willbe the relevant service delivery agency for aspecific function such as job capacity assessmentsor financial case management; in other cases,Centrelink will refer the client to a contractedexternal agency.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCEN

TRELINK


The Child Support Agency (CSA) was established in1988 to administer the Child Support Scheme,which provides for the assessment, collection anddisbursement of child support. The scheme wasdevised to enable compulsory payment of childsupport based on the relative incomes, earningcapacities and care responsibilities of both parents.

The Child Support Scheme operates under twostatutes—the Child Support (Registration andCollection) Act 1988 and the Child Support(Assessment) Act 1989. Together, those Actsprovide for registering child support cases,calculating child support assessments, recoveringmoneys owed for child support and disbursing childsupport payments. Payers are those parentsresponsible for paying child support, while payeesare those parents entitled to receive child support.

In 2005–06, the Ombudsman received 1,927approaches and complaints about the CSA, 1,891 ofwhich were within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction(2,094 in 2004–05)—a decrease of 10%.Approaches and complaints about the CSAaccounted for 11% of all complaints received by theOmbudsman this year. Figure 7.5 shows the trend incomplaints about CSA.

The main complaint themes that featured this yearwere about the ongoing issue of the CSA’sregistration and interpretation of court orders, theaccuracy of its advice to parents, and its actions inwithholding or disbursing child support funds. Abrief description of the scope of our investigationsin these areas follows.

COURT ORDERS AND AGREEMENTSAlthough most child support assessments are madeaccording to the formula set out in the child supportlegislation, some clients negotiate their own childsupport agreement or obtain a court order thatestablishes the rate of child support payable.Agreements and court orders can be registeredwith the CSA, and the CSA can take on theresponsibility of collecting child support on behalfof the payee. At the end of June 2005, 5.3% of allactive child support assessments were based onagreements or court orders (up from 4.6% at June 2004).

In the Ombudsman’s 2004–05 annual report, wedrew attention to errors in registering agreementsor court orders and failures to properly inform

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCH

ILD SU

PPORT A

GEN

CY


child support agency

FIGURE 7.5 CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY COMPLAINT TRENDS, 2001–02 TO 2005–06

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Num

ber o

f app

roac

hes

and

com

plai

nts

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Year

clients of the effect (or lack thereof) that particularprovisions would have on their child supportarrangements. These issues continue to be thesubject of many complaints to the Ombudsman.

In one complaint that we investigated the payeeclaimed that the CSA had failed to correctly advisehim in advance of its interpretation of a clause in aprivate child support agreement between him andhis ex-wife. The parties had included a provision intheir agreement that allowed either parent towithdraw from the arrangement if they weredissatisfied. This provision required the withdrawingparent to indicate their intention during a certainperiod at the end of each financial year, but did notclearly state to whom the written notification shouldbe given.

In line with his understanding of the terms of thisarrangement, the payee wrote to the CSA, advisingof his intention to withdraw from the agreement andasking that an assessment under the child supportformula be generated. The CSA subsequentlyadvised the payee that his letter did not meet therequirements of the agreement, as he was requiredto advise the payer (as the other party to theagreement) rather than the CSA. By the time thepayee received this advice, the allocated withdrawalperiod had lapsed and the payee was thereforeunable to withdraw from the agreement for anotheryear.

The payee lodged a claim with the CSA forcompensation, and later complained to theOmbudsman when the CSA refused that claim. Itmay be that the CSA’s interpretation of the relevantagreement was not unreasonable, yet the complaintnevertheless enabled us to highlight with the CSAthe importance of clarifying the intention andpractical impact of court orders and agreements atthe time of registration, rather than some months oryears later.

ACCURACY OF ADVICEThe CSA had 732,634 active cases at 30 June 2005,47.8% of which were registered for collection ofchild support by the CSA. With so many active casesto handle, CSA officers are responsible for providingwritten and verbal advice to a significant section ofthe Australian community.

In 2005–06, the Ombudsman received a number ofcomplaints about the accuracy of the advice providedby the CSA and the impact of this advice on therecipients. Two common themes in the complaintswere that the CSA was alleged to have providedincorrect advice about the operation of the childsupport scheme or had failed to provide adequateadvice about a client’s child support responsibility.

In one investigation, the payer’s tax refund had beenintercepted by the CSA so that the money could beapplied to reduce her child support arrears. Whenshe later contacted the CSA to request that themoney be returned to her on the basis of hardship,she was advised by the CSA client service officer toobtain a stay order to prevent the CSA fromdisbursing the money to the payee. She proceeded toseek legal advice and file the appropriateapplications, incurring the related costs. When sheadvised the CSA of her progress in this matter, shewas advised that the money had already beendisbursed to the other parent.

The advice to this payer to obtain a stay order wasincorrect, as a stay order can only be obtained whena change of assessment or departure orderapplication is in progress. The client service officershould have invited the payer to provide details ofher assets and liabilities and request the CSA toconsider releasing all or part of her refund on thebasis of hardship. Such a request would then havebeen considered in accordance with the CSA’sprocedural guidelines.

As a result of the Ombudsman’s involvement in thismatter the CSA offered to reimburse the payer for herlegal costs, under the Compensation for Detrimentcaused by Defective Administration scheme.

WITHHOLDING AND DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT FUNDSThe CSA has an obligation to collect overdue childsupport amounts where an appropriate source canbe identified and to disburse these amounts topayees. The CSA can, however, decide that it isappropriate to negotiate the refund of some or all ofa collected amount to the paying parent on the basisof demonstrated hardship. In some instances it hasbeen the CSA’s practice to place a ‘hold’ on thepayment to prevent it from being disbursed until theCSA has considered the payer’s hardship application.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCH

ILD SU

PPORT A

GEN

CY


During the year, the Ombudsman received a number ofcomplaints about this issue. These complaints cameboth from payees (who were unhappy theirdisbursements had been delayed) and from payers(who complained that the CSA had disbursedpayments to payees despite an oral agreement todelay them while considering a hardship request).

In the course of investigating these complaints webecame aware that the CSA’s current policy of delayingdisbursement pending the determination of hardshiprequests is contrary to the payment provisions of s 76of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988. The Act clearly states that, on or before the firstWednesday following the end of the month, a payee isentitled to receive any collected amount that is owedto the payee. There is no provision in the Act for apayment to be delayed for any reason.

We highlighted this issue with the CSA in early 2006,and we are continuing to work with the CSA to identifyan appropriate resolution to the current inconsistency.

EMERGING ISSUESThe Ombudsman’s office cannot conduct thorough andefficient investigations unless agencies respondquickly to requests for information and documents.Although most general enquiries from our office to theCSA were addressed in a timely manner, in a smallnumber of instances our investigation was hindered bya significant delay in obtaining information anddocuments from the CSA.

We also experienced some difficulties in promptingthe CSA to instigate internal action to remedy anidentified problem.

We initiated discussions with the CSA’s executiveabout the resolution of these issues and will continueour focus on these matters in 2006–07.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESCH

ILD SU

PPORT A

GEN

CY

FUTURE DIRECTIONSThe CSA and the child support scheme was thesubject of much public discussion in 2005–06. InJune 2005, the Ministerial Taskforce on ChildSupport publicly released its report, In the BestInterests of Children. The taskforce made 30recommendations for reform to child supportlegislation and to the way in which the CSAdelivers its services. A number of theserecommendations also have implications for otherareas of government including Centrelink, FaCSIA,the Attorney-General’s Department, and thosecourts with family law jurisdiction.

The government responded to the taskforce’s reportin February 2006, agreeing to accept the majority ofits recommendations. The first phase of changes,including an increase to the minimum weekly rateof child support and a reduced income cap for highearners, take effect from 1 July 2006. Anotherreform to be implemented in January 2007 is thatdecisions made by the CSA will be subject toreview by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.Most significantly a new child support formula willbe implemented from 1 July 2008.

It is unclear at this stage what, if any, effect thechild support reforms will have on the number ortype of complaints to the Ombudsman’s office. Aswith any substantial legislative change, it ispossible that in the early years there will be anincrease in complaints while parents adjust to thenew child support regime. We will track theprogress of these changes and ensure our staff aregiven training on the technical changes to the childsupport law and on the CSA’s new service delivery model.

Complaints relating to Defence fall into twocategories: the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO)jurisdiction, covering employment-related mattersfor serving and former members of the AustralianDefence Force (ADF); and the CommonwealthOmbudsman jurisdiction, covering complaints aboutadministrative actions of the Department ofDefence, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs(DVA), the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) andDefence Service Homes.

We received 750 Defence-related approaches and complaints, 690 of which were within theOmbudsman’s jurisdiction (662 in 2004–05). Table 7.1 shows the trend in Defence complaints.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCEWe received 121 approaches and complaints aboutthe Department of Defence (125 in 2004–05). Therelative stability in complaint numbers observedover recent years has continued. Importantly, theproportion of protracted and older complaints hasbeen reduced, reflecting action taken by thedepartment to improve access by Defencepersonnel to internal complaint-handling processes.The newly established Fairness and ResolutionBranch in the department has played a key role asthe conduit between operational areas and ouroffice, facilitating the timely flow of informationand monitoring and following up on complaints.

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCEWe received 286 complaints from serving andformer members about the actions and decisions ofthe Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army andthe Royal Australian Air Force (298 in 2004–05).

An important distinction in the work of our office inrelation to ADF complaints is that we consideremployment complaints if they come from peoplewho are serving or have served in the defenceforces. Types of complaints can include access toentitlements associated with conditions of service,promotion, posting, return of service obligation,termination of enlistment or appointment, pay andallowances, medical categorisation, debtmanagement and Defence’s internal handling of complaints.

The office is pleased that in the past twelve monthsit has been able to finalise complaints about ADFmatters more quickly. By 30 June 2006, only fourcomplaints had been open for six months or more.The improvement in our performance can beattributed to a more effective working relationshipwith the department and the ADF, and thedepartment’s implementation in 2005 of a numberof the recommendations made by the jointOmbudsman and Department of Defence review ofthe effectiveness of the Redress of Grievance (ROG) process.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESD

EFENCE


defence

Agency 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Royal Australian Navy 68 67 50

Australian Army 205 170 159

Royal Australian Air Force 79 61 77

Defence Housing Authority 23 24 27

Department of Defence 135 125 121

Department of Veterans’ Affairs 172 203 253

Other (see breakdown for 2005–06 in Appendix 4–Statistics) 8 12 3

Total 690 662 690

TABLE 7.1 DEFENCE-RELATED APPROACHES AND COMPLAINTS, 2003–2004 TO 2005–06


Review of the ADF redress of grievance systemReleased in April 2005, the Review of AustralianDefence Force Redress of Grievance System 2004report recommended changes to improve theprocess and reduce the time taken by the ADF toinvestigate complaints from members. As at June2006, the department advised that 23 of the 72recommendations made in the review had beenimplemented. The other recommendations shouldbe implemented within the agreed timeframes.

The Department of Defence took an important stepin streamlining the ROG process by establishing theFairness and Resolution Branch. The branch wasformed in January 2006 by amalgamating a numberof complaint agencies within the Defenceportfolio—the Complaint Resolution Agency, theDefence Equity Organisation and the Directorate ofAlternative Dispute Resolution.

It is encouraging to note that there has been asignificant improvement in the department’shandling of ROGs over the past year, with areduction in both the number of cases awaitingallocation to a case officer and the time taken tofinalise ROGs. There has also been a reduction inthe number of complaints to the Ombudsman aboutROG processes.

Senate inquiry into the effectiveness ofthe military justice systemOn 5 October 2005, the government announced itsresponse to the recommendations of an inquiry intothe effectiveness of the military justice systemconducted by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defenceand Trade References Committee. The then ministerfor defence, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill, notedthat implementation of recommendations from thejoint Ombudsman and Department of Defencereview of the ROG process would ‘improve theaccountability, impartiality and timeliness ofprocessing and monitoring’. The government alsoadvised that a decision had been made not tocreate an Administrative Review Board asrecommended by the committee, noting that theDFO already provides an independent and externalcomplaint-handling mechanism for members of the ADF.

The Senate committee conducted a further hearingin June 2006 to consider the action taken by thegovernment in response to the earlier report. TheOmbudsman appeared before the committee andreported on the positive steps that had been takenwithin Defence during the previous year to meetmany of the criticisms made in earlier reports.Much of the reform was in response to the jointreview of the ROG process.

‘Much of the reform was inresponse to the joint review ofthe ROG process.’

Young people in the militaryIn October 2005, we published a report of an ownmotion investigation into the ADF’s management ofservice personnel under the age of 18.

The investigation was initiated in 2003 afterseveral serious complaints were received fromparents of young people in the ADF. The chieffindings of the investigation were that:

■ establishments and commanding officersrequire a comprehensive and unambiguousdefinition of the ADF’s duty of care to minors sothat a consistent level of care can be providedto all minors within the ADF

■ many training establishments are yet todevelop a culture that allows trainees to feelconfident about seeking support whileundergoing training

■ commanding officers require support so thatthey can deliver appropriate care to minors.

In responding to the report, the Chief of theDefence Force (CDF), Air Chief Marshal AngusHouston AO, AFC, advised that the ADF willimplement all but one of the recommendations. Therecommendation that was not accepted was thatthe ADF analyse the costs and benefits of acceptingminors for enlistment in the ADF with a view todetermining whether the enlistment age should beraised to 18.

A key recommendation accepted by the CDF is theneed to seek legal advice on the extent of the ADF’sduty of care to minors and how that should be

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESD

EFENCE

interpreted in service and training establishments.The CDF has advised that once the extent of theduty of care has been defined, proceduralguidelines for commanding officers and trainingofficers will be developed to meet the gapidentified in current reference material.

Other recommendations, when implemented, willhave a positive impact on the selection and trainingof instructional and support staff in trainingestablishments, the provision and access to healthservices for trainees, and the capture of feedbackfrom trainees about their experiences.

‘A key recommendation is theneed to seek legal advice on theextent of the ADF’s duty of careto minors ...’

The CDF also announced that many of therecommendations in the report would be extendedto all young members in their first year of serviceand not merely to those members under the age of18. This is a pleasing response to the report.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRSServices administered by DVA affect the lives of upto half a million Australians. These services includeservice pensions, income support supplement andallowances, disability pensions, war widows’ andwidowers’ pensions, allowances, special purposeassistance, Defence Service Home Loans Schemeassistance and concession cards.

We received 276 approaches and complaints, 253of which were within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction(203 in 2004–05), an increase of 25%. A continuingconcern in our investigation of these complaintshas been delays in receiving responses to ourenquiries from the DVA.

Consequently, we have worked with the DVA toachieve more timely responses to our queries andresolution of complaints. We introduced regularmonthly meetings with representatives of the DVAto discuss outstanding complaint issues. SeniorOmbudsman staff discussed more complex andprotracted complaints with their DVA counterpartsin an effort to find a productive resolution toparticularly difficult cases.

This consultation resulted in a reduction in the timetaken to handle DVA complaints. By 30 June 2006,only five DVA complaints had been open for sixmonths or more. This achievement is particularlysignificant given that more complaints werereceived in 2005–06 than in previous years.

F-111 (fuel tank) deseal/resealprogramsShortly after the F-111 aircraft entered service withthe Royal Australian Air Force in 1973, it wasdiscovered that the sealant in the integral fueltanks of most of the aircraft had degraded to thepoint that extensive maintenance was required. Aprogram adapted from the United States Air Forcewas introduced requiring fuel tanks to be desealedand then resealed to correct the problem andprevent serious fuel leaks. Over the course of thenext 27 years, four separate ‘deseal/reseal’programs were conducted. In 2000, it wasdetermined that the deseal/reseal processes couldbe damaging to the health of the individualsinvolved and the programs were discontinued.

As a result of the findings of a board of inquiry, thegovernment implemented a series of health careschemes to provide treatment for personnelaffected by involvement in deseal/reseal work. InAugust 2005, the government announced ex gratialump sum payments of $10,000 or $40,000 fordefined groups of F-111 deseal/reseal participants.The payments are in addition to assistanceprovided for medical treatment.

As the payment arrangements had the capacity togive rise to complaints to our office, the DVAbriefed us on the mechanism used prior to thegovernment’s announcement and on how theyintended to consider complaints from unsuccessfulapplicants. This enabled us to understand how theDVA would be assessing claims and identify anypotential problems with the process before anyclaims were lodged.

The DVA advised that at 30 June 2006, 1,131applications had been received and 715 had beendetermined. Sixty-two of the applications assessedwere unsuccessful. Between August 2005 and June2006 we received 28 complaints from unsuccessfulapplicants.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESD

EFENCE


Decisions made under this ex gratia scheme cannotbe appealed to the Veterans’ Review Board or theAdministrative Appeals Tribunal. The Ombudsmanis not authorised to review the definitions thatdetermine which groups of individuals are eligiblefor a payment (as these criteria were adopted bythe Minister for Veterans’ Affairs). However, wecan consider the process undertaken by the DVA todetermine an application, ensuring that theapplication has been considered thoroughly andfairly against the established criteria, taking intoaccount all relevant information.

DVA staff have consistently demonstrated awillingness to respond quickly to our enquiriesabout the deseal/reseal ex gratia paymentdecisions, which has enabled us to finalisecomplaints in a timely manner.

Military Rehabilitation andCompensation Scheme The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2004 was enacted in July 2004. All claims relatingto injury, disease or death due to service in the ADFare dealt with under this Act. In 2005–06, wereceived a range of complaints about theprocessing of claims under the provisions of theMilitary Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme(MRCS). Often the cause of complaint was the timethe DVA took to determine a claim. Ourinvestigations established that the delays were notgenerally due to the DVA’s inaction. Often theprocessing of a claim was suspended while theDVA awaited the receipt of documentation from theclaimant or the ADF. We understand that the ADFand the DVA are working to improve liaison and

communication so that MRCS claims can bedetermined more quickly.

In one case, a member complained that hisapplication for payment of a specific allowance hadbeen refused. We established that while themember’s claim had been correctly assessedaccording to the current policy, the outcome did notappear consistent with the intention of thelegislation. Enquiries with the DVA and theDepartment of Defence confirmed that themember’s claim had highlighted a deficiency in theexisting provisions.

Following discussions between the DVA and thedepartment, action was taken to rectify thedeficient provisions. An additional allowance wasalso added to the schedule of available paymentsas a result of the investigation of this case.

DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITYThe DHA is responsible for providing housing andrelocation services for all members of the ADF. Therole includes providing property maintenance asrequired. DHA staff also calculate all allowancesand entitlements for ADF personnel who aremoving to a new posting as part of the relocationprocess.

We received 27 approaches and complaints aboutthe actions and decisions of the DHA (24 in2004–05). The majority of the complaints wereabout the suitability of housing provided orrelocation entitlements. In most cases we wereable to resolve the matter quickly through informalliaison with DHA representatives.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESD

EFENCE

The role of the Ombudsman’s office in oversightingimmigration changed substantially during 2005–06.The change followed the report prepared by formerpolice commissioner Mick Palmer, Inquiry into theCircumstances of the Immigration Detention ofCornelia Rau (Palmer report). The changes stemmedalso from vigorous debate in parliament and thepublic about the rules governing immigrationdetention and compliance.

The title of Immigration Ombudsman was conferredon the Ombudsman, with the responsibility ofundertaking a more intensive oversight role inrelation to immigration administration. The officehas responded by establishing a more activeprogram of visiting detention centres, andmonitoring and inspecting immigration complianceactivity.

A new function was also conferred on the office, ofconducting a review of the case of each detaineewho has been held in immigration detention formore than two years, and thereafter every sixmonths for those who remain in detention. Theoffice was also asked by the AustralianGovernment to investigate over 200 cases in whichAustralian citizens or people lawfully in Australia

had been either held in detention for some periodor removed from Australia.

In addition to those new functions and activities theoffice has continued to discharge its accustomedrole of handling complaints about immigrationmatters.

COMPLAINTS OVERVIEWThe Ombudsman responded to a steady flow ofcomplaints about immigration matters in 2005–06.Overall we received 1,300 approaches andcomplaints about DIMA,1,250 of which were withinthe Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (873 in 2004–05).This represents a 43% increase on the number ofapproaches and complaints, and is the highestnumber the office has dealt with about DIMA in anyone year. The probable reason for the increase isthe higher profile of the office in discharging theoversight role of Immigration Ombudsman.

The team reviewing the circumstances of peoplewho have been held in detention two years or morealso handled complaints that have not beenincluded in those statistics. Figure 7.6 shows thetrend in complaints about DIMA.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION


immigration

FIGURE 7.6 DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINT TRENDS, 2001–02 TO 2005–06

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Year

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Num

ber o

f app

roac

hes

and

com

plai

nts


Issues arising in complaint handlingComplaints about DIMA can be categorised intothree distinct areas: migration issues, which areusually about decisions on visa applications;immigration detention issues raised by or on behalfof detainees; and other issues such as freedom ofinformation applications and citizenship processes.This year complaints about detention issuesreplaced complaints about migration issues as thelargest category.

The office investigates a higher proportion of theapproaches and complaints received about DIMA(45% in 2005–06), compared to the average rate ofinvestigation across all Australian Governmentdepartments and agencies (35% in 2005–06). Wehave discussed this issue with DIMA, pointing outthat Ombudsman staff will not refer a complainantto an agency unless the staff are confident that theagency’s complaint-handling system is adequate todeal with the particular complaint. We recognisethat a project is underway within DIMA to developan improved complaint-handling system. It is anissue that we will continue to monitor.

The following two cases illustrate the kinds ofissues that arise in the Ombudsman’s complaintjurisdiction.

The investigation of a complaint about DIMA’spolicy on conjugal visits at immigration detentioncentres led to reconsideration of the policy. Thecomplaint highlighted the lack of clear guidelinesas well as the inconsistent and restrictiveapplication of the policy. The initial response wereceived from DIMA was that a conjugal visit wouldnot be facilitated where it is requested by adetainee’s partner who is not in immigrationdetention. DIMA argued that to allow such visitsmight compromise the good order and security ofthe detention facility. After discussion of the issueat a senior level between our offices, DIMAindicated that policy and operational guidelineswould be reviewed to allow for conjugal visits aspart of the wider review of its visits policy flowingfrom the Palmer report.

Another complaint investigation concerned thedetention of a husband and wife and their twochildren, who had their bridging visas cancelledwhen they went to renew them at a DIMA office.They were detained at the same time. They

complained to the Ombudsman that it wasunnecessary to cancel their bridging visas anddetain the whole family, and that they were notgiven the opportunity to pick up their car or collectpersonal items and medication from their homebefore being taken into detention. TheOmbudsman’s investigations supported thecomplainants’ broad claims and proposed a seriesof remedies, which included compensation and thewaiver of debts resulting from detention.

DIMA acknowledged that the situation might havebeen handled with more care. The department didnot reinstate the visas, but did offer to facilitate arequest to waive their debts, to improvedepartmental officer awareness of the protocolsand procedures for detaining people, and to writeto the family apologising for any distress its actionshad caused.

Administration of s 501 of the Migration ActFollowing a number of complaints to theOmbudsman from long-term permanent residents ofAustralia whose visas had been cancelled oncharacter grounds, the Ombudsman decided toconduct an own motion investigation into DIMA’sadministration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958(Migration Act). The report of this investigation wasreleased in February 2006.

Under s 501, the Minister for Immigration andMulticultural Affairs (or delegate) can cancel thevisa of a non-citizen who is unable to satisfy theminister that they are of good character, mostcommonly because they have a criminal record. The person can be removed from Australia aftertheir visa is cancelled. Some of the people to whoms 501 has been applied are long-term permanentresidents of Australia, who have lived here withtheir families since infancy and have well-established family and community ties, includingparental responsibilities. They have served, or areserving, the correctional sentence imposed afterconviction for their criminal activities. While ourinvestigation did not question the underlying policyof protecting the Australian community from non-citizens who have committed serious crimes, itassessed whether the highest standards ofprocedural and substantive fairness were observedin cancellation decisions.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION

The report concluded that in a majority of the casesthat were examined in this investigation, therewere significant omissions or inaccuracies in theinformation provided to the decision maker. Giventhe gravity of the decisions, it could be expectedthat a higher standard of procedural fairness shouldhave been observed.

‘The report concluded that in amajority of the cases ... therewere significant omissions orinaccuracies ...’

The investigation made nine recommendations,including that DIMA should:

■ develop guidelines for sourcing the informationon which to base a decision to cancel the visaof a long-term non-citizen; reliable informationshould be obtained on matters such as the bestinterests of family members, and theimplications for the health of the visa holder oftheir removal from Australia

■ develop quality assurance mechanisms toensure consistency in the decisions made bydelegates of the minister, and to ensure thatvisa holders are warned of the possibility ofvisa cancellation and have the opportunity torespond to the documents on which a decisionmay be based

■ provide advice to government on whether s 501should be applied to residents who came toAustralia as children, have strong family andcommunity ties to Australia, and have livedhere for more than ten years before committingan offence.

DIMA agreed to the recommendations relating toprocedural deficiencies in the administration of s 501 in the report and indicated that it hasintroduced a help desk to provide assistance todecision makers applying the relevant legal andpolicy framework. A ‘sensitive case’ register hasalso been developed for referring cases to seniormanagement as early as possible in the decision-making process. DIMA advised that it was an issuefor government as to when and whether s 501should be applied to those who have lived inAustralia for more than ten years.

DETENTIONIn 2006, the Ombudsman’s office expanded itsprogram of visits to detention facilities. Visitsenable us to take complaints, provide informationabout the Ombudsman to detainees and theirrepresentatives, resolve complaint issues, andidentify emerging issues for further investigationwith DIMA. Two issues that attracted specialattention during our visits are mental healthconcerns and restrictive accommodationarrangements.

Mental healthThe mental welfare of those in detention wasraised often with the office during the year.Sometimes it was said that detention hadexacerbated a mental health problem a person hadprior to their detention; at other times it wassuggested that a person’s period in detentioncaused their mental health to deteriorate. Suchissues were raised frequently with the office duringits review of those who have been held in detentionfor more than two years. In some reports on thosecases, the Ombudsman recommended that a personwho had been held in detention for a long time bereleased and be granted a permanent visa. Theperson’s mental illness could then be addressed ina different context to detention. We alsoencouraged DIMA to ensure that individuals whoare released into the community after long periodsof detention are provided with medical andpsychiatric assistance.

In one case (reported as Immigration Report No.36, 2006), a man who arrived in Australia by air in1999 with his wife and three children claimedpolitical asylum before being cleared byimmigration authorities. He and his family werethen detained in an immigration detention centre.His wife and children were released fromdetention and granted protection visas in August2000, but the man remained in detention becauseof concerns about his character. He appealed thedecision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal(AAT), the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court;the Full Court upheld his appeal and sent the caseback to the AAT. The AAT set aside the decisionand allowed him to lodge a fresh application for aprotection visa.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION


Ombudsman staff interviewed him in detention inlate 2005. A psychiatric report received by theOmbudsman noted that the man was suffering frommajor depression and that ‘indefinite detention andconsequent separation from his wife and familycontributed directly to the onset and perpetuation ofpsychiatric illness’. He had been placed on suicidewatch many times. The medical report also spoke ofthe effect of his detention on his children, statingthat ‘their preoccupation with their father and senseof perplexity and shame about his detention limitstheir peer relationships ... [They] will never arrangeto do anything with friends at the weekend in casethey are able to visit their father’.

The Ombudsman recommended to the minister on 17 January 2006 that the man be released fromdetention pending any final decision on hisimmigration status. He was granted a permanentprotection visa on 31 January 2006 and releasedfrom detention.

Restrictive detentionWe continued to monitor the use of restrictiveaccommodation arrangements in detention facilities.As mentioned in last year’s annual report, we havepaid close attention to the use of the Red Onecompound at Baxter Immigration Detention Facility.DIMA, in collaboration with GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd(GSL), addressed many of the issues we hadpreviously raised about Red One, in the context ofdeveloping a new generic operational procedure for‘Management Support Unit—Transfer andAccommodation’.

We welcomed this review of the operationalprocedures. However, we note that DIMA envisagesmaking further changes as an outcome of a muchbroader review of immigration detention policy andprograms following the Palmer report. We willmonitor this ongoing review, as well as the use ofrestrictive accommodation arrangements inimmigration detention facilities, including the RedOne compound.

COMPLIANCEComplaints were received this year about DIMA’suse of its compliance powers, particularly the qualityof information relied on to issue a search warrant,the manner in which warrants were executed and

the lack of documentation by DIMA officers of whatoccurred. We are establishing an inspection andmonitoring function to oversee DIMA’s complianceactivities, including its use of search and entrypowers and removal operations. This will bring theoversight arrangements for DIMA more into linewith oversight in other areas of governmentadministration that involve use of coercive warrantpowers.

Two cases illustrate some of the problems that canarise in compliance. In one case, a personcomplained to the Ombudsman that DIMA hadunduly delayed responding to his complaint that itsofficers had behaved inappropriately at the time ofcancelling the visa of his then fiancé. Ourinvestigation of this complaint unearthed significantbreaches by DIMA officers of the department’sprocedures concerning privacy, the visa cancellationprocess, dealing with conflicts of interest andpursuing prosecution action. We were alsoconcerned with the way DIMA had dealt with theperson’s complaint before it was brought to theOmbudsman. We recommended improving staffawareness of the relevant procedures, strengtheningmechanisms to monitor compliance with theprocedures, apologising and paying compensation tothe complainant, and that DIMA consider theadequacy of its code of conduct guidelines andassociated procedural matters. DIMA accepted thebulk of the recommendations. Among the steps sincetaken by DIMA are the issuing of a comprehensiveset of guidelines (National Fraud InvestigationsGuidelines) to all investigations staff in September2005 and the drafting of new code of conductguidelines.

In the second case, a community organisationcomplained to the Ombudsman about how one oftheir clients had been treated by a DIMA complianceofficer. The person was initially detained foroverstaying his visa. He had advised DIMA officerson a number of occasions that he feared execution ifreturned to his home country and that he wished tolodge an application for a protection visa. DIMAfailed to provide him with the documentation,instead informing the embassy of his home countryof his details and seeking to arrange return traveldocuments.

Following our investigation, DIMA acknowledgedthat it should have given him the relevant visa forms

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION

when he first requested them, which may havemeant he did not have to spend almost two years indetention. Following his release on a protectionvisa, DIMA agreed to apologise to the complainantand direct him to the relevant compensationscheme, to draw the seriousness of the issue to theattention of departmental officers, and to reviewinstructions to ensure that clearer advice isprovided to staff.

‘... DIMA agreed to apologise tothe complainant and ... to drawthe seriousness of the issue tothe attention of departmentalofficers ...’

REPORTING ON PEOPLE HELD INDETENTION FOR TWO YEARS OR MOREThe Migration Act was amended in June 2005 toconfer upon the Commonwealth Ombudsman thespecific role of reviewing the cases of people heldin immigration detention for two years or more.Section 486O of the Migration Act provides that theOmbudsman, upon receiving a report from DIMA, isto provide the Minister for Immigration andMulticultural Affairs with an assessment of theappropriateness of the arrangements for theperson’s detention.

DIMA must give its report to the Ombudsman nolater than 21 days after a person has been indetention for two years. If the person remains indetention, new reports to the Ombudsman are to beprepared every six months. The Ombudsman isrequired to undertake an assessment, even if theperson has since been released from detention.

The Ombudsman’s report on a person is to beprovided to the minister as soon as practicable andthe minister is required to table the report in theparliament, suitably modified to protect privacy,within 15 sitting days. A copy of the report withidentifying details deleted, together with theminister’s tabling statement, is published on theOmbudsman website at www.ombudsman.gov.au.

The Ombudsman can use the investigation powersconferred by the Ombudsman Act. These includethe powers to obtain information or documents

from an agency, to interview people, and to enterpremises such as a detention centre.

Each person on whom a report is prepared is givenan opportunity to be interviewed and to provideadditional information. Each report deals with thecircumstances of a person’s detention, visa claimsand litigation, their health, family issues, attitude todetention or removal, problems occurring indetention, and recommendations on matters suchas detention arrangements and whether thegranting of a visa should be considered. The reportis made available to the relevant person when theminister has tabled the report in parliament.

During the year, our priority was to prepare reportson those who had been in detention the longest,and on those who presented with mental health orother significant health concerns, or whose familymembers were affected directly or indirectly bytheir detention.

Progress on the oversight functionIn July 2005, we recruited and trained new staff todischarge this function, fitted out new premises,and commenced work on initiating a tenderingprocess to provide the office with translation,interpreting and transcription services.

DIMA initially identified 149 persons who had beendetained for two years or more and an additional 77 persons who had been detained for more than18 months but less than 24 months. In conjunctionwith DIMA, the Ombudsman set priorities andsought urgent reports on all people who had beenin detention for a lengthy period, who sufferedsignificant health problems, or who had acompelling reason for an early report.

We conducted our first interview with a person indetention on 29 July 2005. By the end of August2005, we had interviewed all the people who hadsuffered mental health problems serious enough tocause their admission to Glenside Hospital inAdelaide. We sent the first reports to the ministeron 12 October 2005. On average, we took fourmonths to prepare a report on people within thatpriority group.

At the end of June 2006, we had received 235reports from DIMA concerning 262 people who had


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION


been in detention for two years. In 65 cases we hadreceived a second report (covering 75 people),where the person had been in detention for afurther six months since the first report wasreceived. We had interviewed 167 people, andprovided reports on 70 cases. The minister hadtabled responses to 66 of those reports.

Of the 66 reports containing 106 differentrecommendations, the minister agreed to 54 (51%)of the recommendations, disagreed with 26 (25%)and delayed making a decision on a further 25(24%). One recommendation was no longer relevantbecause the person had left Australia.

Of the 26 recommendations where the ministerdisagreed with the Ombudsman, 12 (46%)concerned the grant of bridging visa; 11 (42%)concerned the Ombudsman’s recommendation thatthe minister make a decision before tabling of thereport in parliament; and the remaining three (12%)involved consideration of an alternative todetention, the issue of a permanent visa or therevocation of a decision to cancel a visa.

‘We had interviewed 167 people,and provided reports on 70 cases.’

It should be noted that this data is an analysis ofthe responses in the minister’s statements tabled inparliament. The Ombudsman is aware that on someoccasions a decision providing a different outcomehas followed the tabling statement.

REFERRED IMMIGRATION DETENTION MATTERSIn July 2005, the Australian Government asked theOmbudsman to take responsibility for completingthe investigation of the removal from Australia ofan Australian citizen, Ms Vivian Alvarez. Theinvestigation could be completed using the existingteam that had been assembled under Mr NeilComrie (a former Victorian police commissioner).The government also asked the Ombudsman toinvestigate a further 199 immigration detentioncases. The Ombudsman accepted the request, andadvised that these matters would be investigatedas an own motion investigation under s 5 of theOmbudsman Act 1976. At 30 June 2006, a further48 matters had been referred for investigation.

Additional staff were recruited and trained, and wefirst identified and investigated the most difficultand complex cases. The cases were categorised sothat similar matters could be investigated at thesame time to maximise efficiency, still allowing afull investigation of each individual case.

The common issue in all cases is that a person whowas taken into detention was later released withtheir computer record marked with the descriptor‘not unlawful’. This might mean that they shouldnot have been detained or could no longer lawfullybe detained. For example, in some cases the personwas an Australian citizen, or they held a visa thatentitled them to live in the community, orsomething had occurred (such as a court case)which meant they should no longer be detained.The core issue in each investigation is whether allor any part of the person’s detention was unlawfulor wrongful. A subsidiary issue in some cases iswhether there is a systemic problem in DIMAadministration that needs to be addressed, orwhether a remedy should be provided to a personwho was wrongly detained.

The cases have been divided into seven categoriesthat raise some of the following issues.

■ Children in detention: was a child taken intodetention when the child was an Australiancitizen or lawful non-citizen, or was a child indetention released at an appropriate time, forexample, when the child became a citizen ontheir tenth birthday by operation of theAustralian Citizenship Act 1948, or when anissue concerning the child’s paternity wasresolved?

■ Data problems: did DIMA hold incorrect orout-of-date data on a person that led either totheir initial or continuing detention?

■ Mental health: did DIMA detain a personbecause they failed to take proper account ofthe person’s mental illness when attempting toidentify the person or their immigration status?

■ Validity of notification: was a person notnotified of a decision in accordance with theprocedures in the Migration Act and detainedwhen the person still held a valid visa?

■ Srey case: was a person taken into detention,or held in detention longer than necessary,

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION

because the decision of the Federal Court inChan Ta Srey and Minister for Immigration &Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA1292 was not applied to their circumstances?

■ Other legal issues: was a person wronglyheld in detention because of some other legalmisunderstanding or deficiency, or did theimmigration status of a detained person changebecause of a subsequent legal action?

■ Detention process issues: was there aprocedural deficiency in DIMA administrationthat led to the initial or continuing detention ofa person?

Progress on the referred cases The office’s initial target was to complete all theinvestigations by 30 June 2006. We were unable tobecause the investigations were more complex andtime consuming than first thought and thegovernment referred additional matters to theoffice. By 30 June 2006, we had published tworeports; and completed the draft of one furtherreport relating to the detention of a mentally illperson, sought comments from individual DIMAemployees and submitted the draft to DIMA. Wehad finished investigating more than 60 individualcases and prepared them for comment by DIMA.We had also nearly completed reports relating tothe categories of children in detention, data issuesand mental health issues; we expect to releasethese reports in the first half of 2006–07.

Published reportsWe published the first report, Inquiry into theCircumstances of the Vivian Alvarez Matter, inSeptember 2005. This report found that Ms Alvarez,an Australian citizen, had been wrongly removed tothe Philippines. The report made 12recommendations, all of which were accepted byDIMA. These included recommendations to:

■ redress a negative culture in the BrisbaneCompliance and Investigations Office andexamine whether a similar problem existed inother compliance areas in the department

■ conduct a thorough and independent review ofDIMA information management systems and ITtraining requirements

■ take steps to improve departmentaladministrative practices on matters such asrecord keeping, interviewing people indetention, dealing with known or suspectedmental health problems, providing health andmedical assistance, and arranging the removalof a person from Australia

■ investigate further whether some officers hadacted in breach of the Australian Public ServiceCode of Conduct in relation to Ms Alvarez.

The next report, released in March 2006, dealt withthe circumstances of the detention, on threeseparate occasions totalling 253 days, of Mr T, amentally ill Australian citizen. Mr T’s mental illness,his homelessness, and his lack of English languageskills and an effective personal social supportstructure, all contributed to his repeated detentionby DIMA and DIMA’s prolonged inability to correctlyidentify him. Evidence gathered during theinvestigation revealed many of the systemicfailures in immigration administration that hadpreviously been identified in the reports into thecircumstances of the detention of Cornelia Rau andVivian Alvarez.

The report on Mr T highlighted serious problems inthe management of people with a mental illness.Building on the recommendations in the Alvarezand Rau reports, the report drew attention to anumber of shortcomings in immigrationadministration and detention management,including:

■ inadequate detention release procedures,which in this case failed to ensure continuity ofcare upon release for a person suffering frommental illness

■ poor record-keeping practices

■ inconsistent and inadequate file and datasystem input

■ a lack of understanding by officers of languageand naming conventions

■ deficient use of interpreters.

The practice of taking suspected unlawful non-citizens into detention on a Friday and notinterviewing them until the following week was ofparticular concern. The Ombudsman raised thisconcern during the course of the investigation and


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION


DIMA immediately took steps to stop this practice.DIMA accepted all of the Ombudsman’srecommendations.

Management of a frail aged visitor to AustraliaAnother matter that was referred to theOmbudsman was the case of Mrs Agha, a frail agedvisitor from Lebanon who died shortly afterattending a medical examination in Melbournerequested by DIMA. The Ombudsman investigatedthe administrative actions of the department in thiscase, following a request from the Secretary. TheOmbudsman found no evidence to support aconclusion that the actions of DIMA officersconstituted ‘harassment’, as had been claimed insome media reports.

The Ombudsman found a number of deficiencies inadministration, but concluded that although theerrors were not, on their own, of major concern,their cumulative effect put unnecessary stress onMrs Agha and her family. Areas highlighted forreview by DIMA included:

■ adequacy of the management of healthassessments at overseas posts for elderlypersons seeking to travel to Australia

■ adequacy of the guidelines for grantingbridging visas in cases such as this, and theperiod for which visas are granted

■ adequacy of the advice provided to visitorsabout conditions attached to their visa

■ effectiveness of the departmental proceduresfor identifying matters that require urgentattention or senior management supervision.

‘The Ombudsman found no evidence to support aconclusion that the actions of DIMA officers constituted‘harassment’…’

DIMA has accepted the recommendations and theOmbudsman will seek a formal progress reportagainst each of them within six months.

STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPSIn the new Immigration Ombudsman role we haveimplemented an active consultation program, bothwithin and outside government.

Over the past year we have focused on developinga positive working relationship with DIMA. Wehave regular liaison meetings and briefings toestablish effective communication on all aspects ofimmigration administration and detention. We alsoparticipate in more formal arrangements thatstrengthen external oversight of immigrationactivities. Senior representatives of theOmbudsman’s office are members of DIMA’s Valuesand Standards Committee, the Detention ServicesSteering Committee and the Detention HealthAdvisory Group.

In April 2006, DIMA’s Secretary issued a directive toall staff emphasising the department’s focus onimproving accountability in decision making:

A strategic theme of the department’s work isto ensure we have ‘fair and reasonable’dealings with all our clients. Being ‘fair andreasonable’ in DIMA is to provide clients withaccurate, consistent and relevant informationabout our products and processes; a clearview of next steps, remaining requirementsand likely timeframes, as well as options as tohow they might contact us and lawful,sensible decisions based on all of a client’scircumstances.

DIMA has actively sought input from theOmbudsman’s office on policy and proceduralchanges, both in direct response to ourrecommendations and in DIMA’s general program ofreform. We welcomed the opportunity to assist thedepartment in reviewing its operating instructionson privacy, in developing training modules forcompliance officers, in commenting on theguidelines on the Minister’s Detention InterventionPowers, and in clarifying the information to beprovided to visitors to immigration detentionfacilities. We also provided advice to GSL, theoperator contracted by DIMA to manage detentionfacilities, who requested urgent advice on theprocess for relocating detainees when VillawoodImmigration Detention Centre was vacated brieflydue to concerns about asbestos.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION

A similar effort has been made to engage withinterest groups and non-government agencies thattake an interest in immigration issues. During theyear, we consulted a broad range of organisationsand community groups across the country, from theMental Health Council of Australia to AmnestyInternational, legal aid commissions, migrationagents and refugee advocacy and support services.These consultations ensure that we have acomprehensive understanding of immigration anddetention issues. They also assist us in meetingdetainees who are now living in the community,and in improving public awareness of the scope andpotential of the Ombudsman’s role in this area.

‘... we consulted a broad rangeof organisations and communitygroups ...’

FEEDBACK FROM COMPLAINANTSThe guiding principle in ombudsman work is to beimpartial and balanced in dealing with eachcomplaint and problem that comes to the office.This is essential if the Ombudsman’s findings andrecommendations are to be accepted by thegovernment and public alike.

The preceding discussion has outlined the stepstaken by the office to secure government confidencein our immigration oversight work and governmentacceptance of the Ombudsman’s recommendations.Though harder to gauge, public acceptance isequally important, especially in an area as sensitiveand complex as immigration administration. Thisarea illustrates well the maxim that at the end ofevery government decision or program is anindividual who is affected in a unique andunscripted manner. We therefore close this sectionwith a couple of anecdotes from the last year that

provide a poignant reminder of the importance ofthe Immigration Ombudsman function.

We sent a copy of the report Administration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 as it applies tolong-term residents, with DIMA’s response to it, tothose who were used as case studies in theinvestigation. One person we wrote to at theVillawood Immigration Detention Centre rang andsaid that he had been dealing with the issue of hisvisa cancellation and his removal from Australia fora number of years; he had appealed to thedepartment, the AAT and the courts; and they hadall rejected his claims. He had given up hope; evenhis solicitors could not do anything for him. Hethought no-one cared about what happened topeople like him and that there was nowhere hecould turn for assistance. He said that as he wasreading the report, he felt for once that there wassomeone out there who understood the issues, whocared about the plight of people like him, and whowas willing to investigate the issue.

Another person who had been detained for manyyears was admitted to hospital with majordepression with psychotic features, anxiety andcomplex post-traumatic stress disorder. On 9 December 2005, the Ombudsman recommendedin a two-year detention report that the minister useher discretion under the Migration Act to decidethat the person not be returned to an immigrationdetention facility. The minister tabled theOmbudsman’s report in parliament on 28 March2006; two days later a decision was made to allowhim to live in the community on a residencedetermination while a decision was being madeabout his permanent status in Australia. He rangthe Ombudsman’s office to thank us for the report,saying that it was honest, kind and just. He waspleased that the report picked up the issues he hadbeen talking about for years.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESIM

MIG

RATION


This section provides an overview of the work ofthe Ombudsman’s office in oversighting theAustralian Federal Police (AFP) and the AustralianCrime Commission (ACC). Table 7.2 lists the areasof law enforcement that come within theOmbudsman’s independent complaint and oversightrole and the legislative underpinning for each role.

The Ombudsman continued to deal with complaintsfrom members of the public against the actions ofthe officers of these law enforcement agencies. Wealso started a number of special investigations,conducted jointly with the AFP Commissioner. TheOmbudsman was also closely involved indeveloping legislation to modernise the AFPcomplaint-handling system.

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICEDuring 2005–06, most of the Ombudsman’s lawenforcement work involved complaints frommembers of the public about the conduct of AFPofficers. Many of these complaints arose from theAFP’s community policing role in the ACT. TheOmbudsman submits an annual report to the ACTLegislative Assembly on the performance of the

ACT Ombudsman function, which includes ACTPolicing (see www.ombudsman.act.gov.au).

Another significant area of complaint was theconduct of the Australian Federal Police ProtectiveService officers, arising from their higher securityprofile at Australian airports. A small number ofcomplaints were also made about the conduct ofAFP and Protective Service officers in theirinternational deployment role in Solomon Islandsand Papua New Guinea

The complaints about community policing, airportsecurity and international deployment reflect thehigh level of public contact involved in those areasof policing. The highest frequency complaints aboutthe AFP, in its national and international policingroles, involved issues of:

■ surveillance or unwarranted scrutiny

■ rudeness at Australian airports

■ property handling

■ disclosure of information

■ excessive use of force

■ requests for compensation.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T


law enforcement

Legislation Function

Investigating complaints about AFP members in international, national and community policing roles

Monitoring the practices and procedures of the AFP

Inspecting compliance with the record-keeping requirements of the Act

Reporting to parliament on the adequacy and comprehensiveness of controlled operations records

Reporting to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian CrimeCommission about the ACC’s involvement in controlled operations

Investigating complaints from people placed on the National Witness Protection Program or from unsuccessful applicants

Investigating complaints about AFP members relating to detention of suspected terrorists and about questioning warrants

Ombudsman Act 1976 Investigating complaints about the ACC and CrimTrac

Surveillance Devices Act 2004 Inspecting compliance with the Act

TABLE 7.2 LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Complaints (AustralianFederal Police) Act 1981

Telecommunications (Interceptionand Access) Act 1979

Crimes Act 1914

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002

Witness Protection Act 1994

Australian Security IntelligenceOrganisation Act 1979

Many of the complaints about these issues wereresolved without the need for an investigation, orwere not substantiated on investigation.

Complaints about the AFP are managed under theComplaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981(Complaints Act). The Law Enforcement (AFPProfessional Standards and Related Measures) Act2006 will replace the Complaints Act. This isdiscussed further under ‘The Fisher reforms’ onpage 90.

ComplaintsIn 2005–06, we received 801 complaints about theconduct of the AFP, 769 of which were within theOmbudsman’s jurisdiction (696 in 2004–05), anincrease of 10%. We finalised 723 complaints (751 in 2004–05). Figure 7.7 shows the trend incomplaints about the AFP.

Fluctuations in complaint numbers have occurredover the past seven years and are not easilyexplained. However, some of the increase can beattributed to a steady rise across the range ofnational complaints, with a small number ofinternational complaints due to the AFP’s ongoingcommitment to overseas deployments. Furthercomplaints may have arisen from the increase inAFP staffing numbers during the year.

Security vettingSome complaints received by the office this yearraised the question of whether security-vettingmethods employed by the AFP accord with goodadministrative practice. We have decided toexplore the matter further by conducting an ownmotion investigation into AFP security vettingduring 2006–07.

One issue to be examined is whether there areadequate procedural safeguards in the securityvetting process for those subject to an adversedecision. The AFP is responsible for processing alarge number of security clearances each year, andhas had to develop a streamlined vetting process todeal with the volume of work. It is neverthelessimportant that procedural fairness is observed inthe process and that there is an opportunity foradverse decisions to be reviewed.

Another issue raised in some of the complaints tothe Ombudsman is the efficiency of the vettingprocess in dealing with difficult issues, such aschecking a person’s overseas background, criminalhistory or personal integrity. The own motioninvestigation will look at whether candidates forsecurity vetting are disadvantaged when difficultissues arise.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T

FIGURE 7.7 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMPLAINT TRENDS, 2001–02 TO 2005–06

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

760

780

Num

ber o

f com

plai

nts

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Year


Practice and procedural guidelinesRegular access by Ombudsman staff to current AFPPractice and Procedural Guidelines is a necessarypart of our work. The Complaints Act enables theOmbudsman to gain access to AFP documents byissuing a statutory notice, but this level of formalitycan be unproductive. We generally rely on agenciesto make documents available without a formalnotice.

During 2005–06, the AFP was reluctant, and insome cases refused, to provide copies or access torelevant AFP Practice and Procedural Guidelineswithout a formal notice. The Ombudsman wrote tothe AFP in April 2006, pointing to the need forongoing access by Ombudsman staff to documentswithin the AFP’s Corporate Governance Frameworkcontained on the AFP’s intranet. The AFP respondedpositively by granting two Ombudsman staff accessto its intranet in June 2006. This access will enablethe office to more efficiently handle investigations.

Review of management of property andexhibitsThe Ombudsman conducted an own motioninvestigation in 1999 into the procedures forhandling property and exhibits, following an AFPinternal review. The investigation found there wasa need for improved registry practices andprocedures for exhibit recording and managementof property and exhibits.

Following complaints received this year about theloss of property seized by the AFP, we areconsidering a review to assess the adequacy of theAFP’s current guidelines on handling property andexhibits and how effectively changes resulting fromthe recommendations of the 1999 own motioninvestigation have been implemented.

Special investigationsOmbudsman staff are conducting two specialinvestigations under the Complaints Act. One of theinvestigations is looking at the interviewingtechniques used by the AFP Professional Standardswhen interviewing other police about conductmatters. The other investigation stems from acomplaint that the AFP did not conduct an adequateinvestigation into a sensitive personal issue thecomplainant had earlier raised with the AFP.

Critical incidentsThe AFP notifies the Ombudsman of all criticalincidents involving the actions of AFP officers.During 2005–06, two incidents were reported tothis office about AFP ACT Policing matters.

The first incident concerned the death of a youngwoman after she was struck by a vehicle that wasbeing pursued by an AFP vehicle in the Canberracity centre on 30 July 2005.

It is generally not our policy to become activelyinvolved in the investigation of critical incidents. Inthis case, the Ombudsman requested regularupdates on the investigation due to the seriousnessof the incident and community concern about policepursuits.

The regular updates allowed our office to monitorthe progress of the police internal investigation andto clarify issues as they arose. The AFP alsoprovided a copy of the final report of itsinvestigation for our comment. We were generallysatisfied with the quality of the investigation, butfelt that some issues dealt with in the reportrequired further consideration, particularly inrelation to the police pursuit. The AFP agreed andtook up those issues in a revised report.

Further involvement by this office in the AFP’sinvestigation was discontinued pending a decisionby the Coroner as to whether to hold an inquiry. TheOmbudsman supported the option of holding acoronial inquiry to provide a public forum where allinterested parties would have an opportunity tomake submissions. At 30 June 2006, the Coronerhad not yet decided whether to hold an inquest.

On 23 May 2006, the AFP notified the Ombudsmanof a second critical incident. It involved anintoxicated person with disabilities who wasarrested under the Intoxicated Persons (Care andProtection) Act 1994 (ACT). The person sustained abroken collarbone during the intake process in theACT’s City Watch House. The Ombudsman decidednot to investigate, as the AFP advised that thecomplainant had withdrawn the complaint. Thismatter is within the scope of an own motioninvestigation the Ombudsman is consideringconducting in 2006–07 to look at current practicesand procedures in relation to a number of systemicissues identified in complaints received involvingthe processing of intoxicated people since 2001.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T

Australian Federal Police Protective ServicesIn 2005–06, we received 36 complaints about theconduct of officers of the Australian Federal PoliceProtective Service (AFPPS) (46 in 2004–05). Sixty-eight per cent of the complaints were about issuesarising at airports, which may be related to thehigher visibility of AFPPS officers at airports due toincreased security measures.

There was a matching increase in the number ofcomplaints made about some other AustralianGovernment agencies with a role in managingAustralian airports. Many of the complaintsstemmed from the increased scrutiny of the publicat airports by public and private sector securitypersonnel. An issue that we highlighted, and thatwe have taken up in a separate own motioninvestigation, is the effectiveness of complainthandling at airports. There is further discussion ofthis own motion investigation in Chapter 9—Problem areas in government decision making.

The Fisher reformsThe Australian Parliament recently enacted majorreforms to the AFP complaint-handling system,which flow on to the Ombudsman’s current role inoverseeing complaints about the conduct of AFPmembers. The reforms are contained in the LawEnforcement (AFP Professional Standards andRelated Measures) Act 2006, which passed throughparliament on 23 June 2006 and is awaitingproclamation.

The Act is based on the findings of a review of AFPProfessional Standards conducted by JusticeWilliam Fisher AO, QC in 2003 (the Fisher review).The Fisher review recommended that in dealingwith professional standards issues the AFP adopt amanagerial model, or administrative approach, witha greater emphasis on performance managementand changing poor behaviour. The Ombudsman wasconsulted on the reforms and supported theintroduction of the new complaint-handling modelin the Act.

The reforms streamline the current system. Atpresent, the Complaints Act requires all complaintsfrom members of the public to be dealt with jointlyby the AFP and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.This has resulted in disproportionate resources

being allocated to minor complaints, and causesdelay in the resolution of more serious matters. It isalso likely to mislead people into thinking that theOmbudsman has been more actively involved inconducting an investigation than is sometimes thecase.

The new model removes the requirement for jointhandling of all complaints. AFP line managementwill deal with minor matters, providing a faster andmore efficient method for resolving these issues.The AFP will notify the Ombudsman’s office of moreserious complaints, allowing us to decide whetherto become further involved in their resolution; theAFP will have primary responsibility for resolvingthe complaints. The categorisation of complaintsinto minor or serious matters will be agreed by theAFP Commissioner and the Ombudsman and set outin a legislative instrument to be made under thenew Act.

The Act designates the CommonwealthOmbudsman as the Law Enforcement Ombudsman.In this role, the office will oversee complainthandling and conduct issues in the AFP andinvestigate more serious conduct issues.

‘The Act designates theCommonwealth Ombudsman as the Law EnforcementOmbudsman.’

The new model also requires the Ombudsman toaudit the records of all AFP complaints on at leastan annual basis. During the first few years of thenew system, we will conduct more frequent audits.This new auditing obligation will ensure that thequality of AFP complaint-handling procedures isassessed and reviewed on a regular basis.

It is anticipated that the increased flexibility of thenew system will allow the Ombudsman’s office toincrease its focus on serious complaints and allowmore time to undertake own motion investigationsinto systemic issues arising in the AFP.

AFP powers to combat terrorismAmendments to the Australian Security IntelligenceOrganisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) allow police toenter and search property to arrest and detainpersons on behalf of the Australian Security


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T


Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Those amendmentsto the ASIO Act preserve the complaint role of theCommonwealth Ombudsman under the ComplaintsAct, by confirming that a person taken into detentioncan complain about the actions of AFP members.

We received one complaint in 2005–06 under thesenew provisions. Our initial enquiries with the AFPidentified that the complaint related to issuesinvolving the NSW Police, and the matter wasreferred to the NSW Ombudsman for attention.

Anti-Terrorism ActIn November 2005, the Ombudsman and theInspector-General of Intelligence and Securityprovided a joint submission to the Senate Inquiry intothe Anti-terrorism (No 2) Bill 2005. The jointsubmission recognised their shared interest inoversighting law enforcement and securityintelligence activities that have a potential to infringethe liberty of individuals or adversely affect them.

In May 2006, the AFP briefed the Ombudsman onnew procedures to be adopted in relation to ControlOrders and Preventative Detention Orders containedin the anti-terrorism legislation that was enacted inJune 2004. That legislation likewise preserves theright of any person detained under the preventativedetention provisions to contact the CommonwealthOmbudsman under the Complaints Act.

The AFP has produced a document setting out anindividual’s rights that will be handed to all detaineesand persons subjected to Control Orders. These rightswill include contact telephone numbers for theCommonwealth Ombudsman on a 24–hour basis.

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSIONComplaints about the ACC are managed under theOmbudsman Act. While the ACC is not required toproactively report complaints to the Ombudsman’soffice, we continue to have an open workingrelationship with the ACC. The ACC notifies theOmbudsman’s office about significant matters,allowing us to consider whether furtherinvestigation by Ombudsman staff is warranted.

In 2005–06, we received nine complaints about theACC (12 in 2004–05). While we are not obliged torefer all complaints to the ACC, it was highlyresponsive to the complaints that were referred.

One complaint we investigated involved a registeredinformant. The complaint related to an agreementbetween the informant and the agency aboutsecurity measures for the informant. Thecomplainant believed that the ACC had not met therequirements of the agreement. The ACC advised usthat the offer made to the registered informant inthe agreement was still valid, but due tocommunication difficulties between the ACC andthe informant, the matter remained unresolved. Weadvised the informant that the offer was still open.The ACC has advised us that the security measuresare now being put in place.

MONITORING AND INSPECTIONSACTIVITIESSignificant new functions were added to theOmbudsman’s inspecting functions of monitoringlaw enforcement agencies’ compliance withspecified legislation. These arose from the passage,firstly, of amendments to the Telecommunications(Interception) Act 1979 (renamed theTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act1979) (TI Act) and, secondly, of legislation toestablish an office of Law Enforcement IntegrityCommissioner (Law Enforcement IntegrityCommissioner Act 2006). The office madesubmissions about both pieces of legislation to theSenate Legal and Constitutional LegislationCommittee.

‘Significant new functions wereadded to the Ombudsman’sinspecting functions ...’

The amendments to the TI Act authorised lawenforcement agencies to access storedcommunications. The Ombudsman has a newfunction of monitoring and reporting on agencies’compliance with the procedures governing that newpower. As there is a greater number of agenciesauthorised to access stored communications thanare authorised to access telecommunications, thenumber of agencies requiring inspection by theOmbudsman’s office will increase.

The Ombudsman’s inspection role in regard totelecommunications interception has also beenextended by the same legislative amendments tocover B-party warrants. A warrant of that type can

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T

be used to intercept a communication occurringbetween people who are not suspectedoffenders.

The new office of Law Enforcement IntegrityCommissioner (LEIC) will be authorised toexercise the same coercive powers as the AFPand the ACC to undertake telecommunicationsinterception and to access stored communicationsunder the TI Act, to use surveillance devicesunder the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and tocarry out controlled (covert) operations under Part1AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Crimes Act). The useof those powers by the Commissioner will besubject to regular inspection and monitoring bythe Ombudsman’s office.

Passage of the Building and Construction IndustryImprovement Act 2005 brought to an end theBuilding Industry Taskforce and the function ofthe Ombudsman under the Workplace RelationsAct 1996 to review the use of coercive powers bythe taskforce. We conducted a final review of thetaskforce’s use of coercive powers before itceased to exist. The new body that replaces thetaskforce, the Australian Building andConstruction Commissioner, will be subject to thejurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the same wayas other Australian Government agencies.

The office’s monitoring and inspection role nowencompasses:

■ telecommunications intercepts by the AFP,ACC and LEIC

■ access to stored communications by the AFP,ACC, LEIC and other Commonwealth andState law enforcement agencies

■ use of surveillance devices by the AFP, ACCand LEIC and, in some instances, use ofCommonwealth powers by State lawenforcement agencies

■ controlled (covert) operations by the AFP, ACCand LEIC.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T

Telecommunications interceptionsUnder the TI Act, the Ombudsman is required toinspect the records of the AFP and the ACC to ensurethe accuracy of records and the extent to which theagencies have complied with the provisions of the Act.A report on these inspections is then presented to theagency and to the Attorney-General. Reports on theresults of the inspections undertaken in 2004–05 werepresented to the Attorney-General in September 2005.

We carried out two inspections of each agency in2005–06. The reports provided to the agencies aftereach inspection concluded that generally there was ahigh degree of compliance with the detailed record-keeping requirements of the TI Act. We maderecommendations after each inspection and bothagencies implemented a range of measures aimed atimproving compliance.

Surveillance devicesThe Surveillance Devices Act 2004 came into operationin December 2004 and a program of two inspectionseach year for law enforcement agencies wascommenced in 2005. The first inspections of recordsunder the Surveillance Devices Act were held at theAFP in October 2005 and at the ACC in November2005.

Although we identified some compliance issues,overall there was a satisfactory level of compliance,particularly taking into account the challenge faced byboth the AFP and the ACC to settle procedures underthe new regime within a short time. It was apparentthat the ACC, in particular, had done a considerableamount of work to ensure that their law enforcementofficers complied with the Act.

Both the AFP and the ACC responded positively to ourrecommendations to amend templates or procedures toensure compliance.

We conducted further inspections of surveillancedevice records at the ACC in February 2006 and theAFP in April 2006.


Controlled operationsControlled operations can be broadly described ascovert operations carried out by law enforcementofficers under the Crimes Act for the purpose ofobtaining evidence that may lead to the prosecutionof a person for a serious offence. These operationsmay also result in law enforcement officersbehaving unlawfully if they take part in controlledoperations without a controlled operationscertificate.

The Ombudsman has an oversight role in ensuringthat controlled operations are approved andconducted in accordance with Part 1AB of theCrimes Act and that information in formal reports iscomprehensive and adequate. At present, relatively

low numbers of controlled operations areundertaken in the federal law enforcement arena.

During the year, we conducted four inspections ofcontrolled operations records, two at the AFP andtwo at the ACC. We found that both agencies aregenerally complying with the requirements of theCrimes Act and providing comprehensiveinformation in formal reports. We provided reportson the inspections to both agencies, and briefed theParliamentary Joint Committee on the AustralianCrime Commission.

An annual report on controlled operations for2004–05 was presented to parliament in November 2005.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESLAW

ENFO

RCEMEN

T

The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsmanextends to nearly all Australian Governmentagencies. However, the vast majority of thecomplaints we receive relate to the agenciescovered earlier in this chapter. The remaining 2,451(14%) of the approaches and complaints wereceived within our jurisdiction in 2005–06 relatedto 90 Australian Government agencies.

The consistently high numbers of approaches andcomplaints about some agencies has resulted intheir being included in our ‘top ten other agencies’for several years (Table 7.3). Although FaCSIA doesnot make the top ten list, we comment on somenoteworthy issues raised in complaints about it.

Common themes in the complaints we receiveabout most agencies are to do with matters such asrecord keeping, oral advice and agency complainthandling. We also receive a rich diversity ofcomplaint issues about government. The diversityof the issues illustrates the challenge thatgovernment agencies face in maintaining a highstandard of administrative practice and servicedelivery. This section provides some examples.

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT ANDWORKPLACE RELATIONSWe received 394 approaches and complaints withinthe Ombudsman’s jurisdiction about the Departmentof Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR).We finalised 376 approaches and complaints,which contained 388 issues. Issues aboutemployment programs managed by DEWR,primarily the Job Network, accounted for 176 (45%)of the 388 issues finalised in 2005–06. Thiscompares to 152 (41%) in 2004–05. The increase incomplaint numbers is not statistically significant inthe context of the scope of activity in the JobNetwork program, but it is an issue that we willmonitor in 2006–07. The introduction of theWelfare to Work initiative on 1 July 2006 makes itall the more important to keep an eye on complainttrends in this area.

In our last two annual reports, we reported on thesteps taken by DEWR to address systemic problemswe had identified about the administration of theGeneral Employee Entitlements and RedundancyScheme (GEERS). The number of approaches andcomplaints about GEERS has declined markedly inthe past year: 121 issues (31%) of the 388 DEWRcomplaint issues finalised (163, or 44%, in 2004–05).


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESO

THER A

GEN

CIES


other agencies

TABLE 7.3 APPROACHES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED WITHIN THE OMBUDSMAN’S JURISDICTION ABOUTTOP TEN OTHER AGENCIES 2003–04 TO 2005–06

Agency 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 295 352 394

Telstra Corporation 101 115 210

Australian Securities and Investments Commission 114 129 183

Medicare Australia (formerly the Health Insurance Commission) 137 179 149

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 99 82 136

Department of Health and Ageing 101 93 132

Australian Customs Service 73 84 115

Family Court of Australia 90 79 88

Comcare 116 94 85

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia 78 67 71


The decline in GEERS complaints follows theintroduction by DEWR of improved processes thataddressed identified problem areas. An importantstep was an improvement in the detail provided toapplicants in decision notification letters.

There was also an increase (though small in overallterms) in the number of complaints about TradesRecognition Australia (TRA). TRA providesinternational skills assessment for people intendingto migrate to Australia and domestic skillsassessments for Australian residents. The increasein complaint numbers may stem from an AustralianGovernment decision to increase the targets forskilled migration, which led to a significantincrease in the number of applications TRAprocessed in 2005–06.

One of the main areas of complaint about TRA hasbeen its delay in processing applications. Duringthe year, TRA streamlined its assessment processesand delay is no longer an issue of concern for ouroffice. We will continue to monitor developments incomplaint issues, as we expect the trend ofincreasing complaint numbers to continue in2006–07 as TRA processes a large number ofapplications.

TELSTRA CORPORATIONWhile the Commonwealth Ombudsman retainsjurisdiction over Telstra, we have investigated veryfew Telstra complaints since the introduction of theTelecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO)scheme. Most approaches to our office aboutTelstra relate to disputes over billing, contracts,faults or customer service. Generally, we advise aperson complaining about Telstra to raise theirconcerns with the TIO. (In 2004–05, the TIOreceived 78,915 complaints abouttelecommunication suppliers.)

The Ombudsman receives a small number ofcomplaints about Telstra that fall outside thecharter of the TIO. One example was a complaintabout Telstra’s response to a ‘000’ emergencycall. In that case, the complainant was leftlistening to a recorded message for between fourand five minutes when she called an ambulanceafter a child was rescued unconscious from aswimming pool.

The child survived the accident, and althoughTelstra provided the complainant with an apology,she wanted to ensure that such a delay did notoccur again. In response to our investigation,Telstra advised that the delay was a result of anunprecedented demand placed on the ‘000’ servicebecause of bushfires in South Australia. We wereable to provide the complainant with specificdetails about the delay and the steps Telstra hadtaken to address the problem. The complainant wassatisfied that the delay was an isolated incidentand that Telstra was doing what it could to ensure areliable emergency call service.

‘We were able to provide thecomplainant with specificdetails about the delay and thesteps taken to address theproblem.’

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES ANDINVESTMENTS COMMISSIONMost complaints we receive about the AustralianSecurities and Investments Commission (ASIC) fallinto two broad categories: complaints about ASIC’scompany registry functions under the CorporationsAct 2001; and complaints about the way in whichASIC discharges its role as corporate watchdog,particularly regarding the investigation of allegedbreaches of company law.

Registry function complaintsA common ground of complaint is that a penaltywas imposed on a company for failing to pay anannual review fee or other charge. Although ASIChas to impose a late fee, in certain circumstances itmay waive the fee on application by the companyaffected. It is a prerequisite for waiver that thecircumstances leading to the fee being imposedwere beyond the control of the company or itsofficers or agents.

In some cases, companies have complained to usthat a penalty was imposed for non-payment of afee, even though the company had not received aninvoice for the fee. In response to our enquiries,ASIC advised that annual fees are payable on acompany’s annual review date regardless of

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESO

THER A

GEN

CIES

whether a reminder or invoice is sent, and that it isthe company’s responsibility to be aware of itsreview date and pay any fees due accordingly. Wehave concluded that, generally speaking, thisinterpretation of the relevant legislation isreasonably open to ASIC.

A number of complaints arose from the changes tothe company reporting rules in the CorporationsLegislation Economic Reform Program (CLERP) 7reforms of 2003. Some people complained that theywere charged a penalty for failing to provideinformation that they had provided before 2003.Before the CLERP 7 amendments there was norequirement for ASIC to record details of somematters. That requirement was imposed in 2003and, consequently, companies had to submit thisinformation again.

In response to our queries, ASIC explained that apenalty was imposed on a company if it failed torespond to a notice requiring it to submit theinformation again. The fact that a company hadprovided information in the past did not excuse itfrom responding to a notice requiring it to providethe information again. As in the case of penaltiesfor non-payment of fees, it was open to theaffected companies to apply to ASIC for waiver ofthose penalties. This could occur where a companywas able to show that the failure to respond to anotice was outside the control of the company, itsofficers or agents.

Corporate watchdog complaintsWe receive a number of complaints each yearabout ASIC declining to investigate allegations ofbreaches of the laws governing corporations ordeclining to take regulatory action in relation tosuch breaches.

ASIC has wide legislative discretion to decidewhich allegations it investigates. Often our role isto explain the nature of that discretion tocomplainants and the fact that it is lawful for ASICto decline to investigate or take regulatory actioneven in relation to a well-founded complaint.

The statutory duty of confidentiality imposed onASIC in relation to information acquired in thecourse of its functions means that ASIC is oftenprevented from providing full reasons to acomplainant for a decision not to take action in a

particular case. However, we are able to considerconfidential information and, without disclosing itto a complainant, satisfy ourselves that an ASICdecision was reasonably open to it in the light of allthe information in its possession. We are then ableto advise a complainant that, although we cannotdisclose ASIC’s reasons, we have conducted animpartial review of the decision-making process.

One example is where a company in the financialservices market had been the subject of regulatoryaction about the way it presented information in itsproduct disclosure statement (PDS). The companycomplained that it had reported a competitor toASIC for presenting information in a similar way inits PDS. ASIC declined to take regulatory actionagainst the competitor, which the complainantconsidered to be unfair treatment. We sought anexplanation from ASIC for its differing decisions intwo apparently similar sets of circumstances. Wewere unable to advise the complainant of theconfidential explanation provided by ASIC, butcould advise that our independent review of thebasis for ASIC’s decision confirmed that it waswithin the limits of the broad discretion given toASIC by legislation.

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADEThe great majority of complaints we received aboutthe Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)related to the cost, processing and identificationrequirements for passports. The increase incomplaints in 2005–06 appears to be linked to theintroduction of the Australian Passports Act 2005and the Australian Passports (Application Fees) Act2005, which came into effect on 1 July 2005.

Passport complaintsA significant number of complaints were receivedfrom women who had been married for more than12 months and sought to have a passport issued intheir married name. The women had been chargeda fee by DFAT to process their request even wherethey held a valid passport in their maiden name.The Australian Passports Determination 2005provides that a fee can be waived or refunded if anapplication for a new passport is made within oneyear of the person’s marriage.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESO

THER A

GEN

CIES


A common criticism in these cases was that theperson had not been told that a fee would becharged when they applied for a passport in theirmarried name or when they made a preliminaryinquiry with DFAT. Nor were they notified of the feeon the passport application form. In response to ourenquiries, DFAT advised that their staff had beenwell informed about the legislative changes, whichwere also included on the passport website. Thepassport application form in circulation from thatdate made it clear that the applicant needed tocontact DFAT to discuss possible waiver of fees.Because of the complaints about this issue, changeswere made to the application form to provideadditional information to people in this situation.

Other complaints to our office were about a range ofpassport issues, including the non-refundable natureof fees for passport processing in general; theissuing of passports to children and the involvementof estranged parents in this process; problems withmeeting identification requirements; the cost ofreplacing a lost or stolen passport even where theoriginal is subsequently located.

The new passports legislation in 2005 resulted inmore stringent proof of identity requirements forpassport applicants. We received a number ofcomplaints about DFAT’s refusal to accept a person’sbirth certificate as proof of identity where theperson had changed their name since birth. In thesecases the person must register their new name withthe births, deaths and marriages authority in theirstate or territory and provide relevant documentationwith their application form.

Foreign staff entitlementsWe resolved a long-running and complexinvestigation about the entitlements of local staffemployed by DFAT at an Australian embassy. Alocally employed staff member at the AustralianEmbassy in Belgrade complained to the Ombudsmanthat he and other former Belgrade staff werereceiving less retirement income from the Serbianstate social security fund than they should havereceived, because of DFAT contributions to the fund.

DFAT explained that the locally employed staff hadreceived additional assistance in the context of thehyperinflation gripping the former Yugoslavia duringthe Balkan wars of the 1990s; the trade-off was that

DFAT made a reduced level of contributions to theformer Yugoslav state fund. Further, some of theformer staff had signed a ‘no further claims’declaration at the time they left DFAT service.

The investigation was complex, and resulted in arecommendation that DFAT institute a mechanism toassess whether the additional assistance renderedto locally employed staff in the 1990s balanced anylong-term losses in retirement income. Among theissues that arose in the investigation, but which didnot need to be finally resolved, were whether DFATwas required either by Serbian law or by Australianlaw to make a higher level of contribution; andwhether the ‘no further claims’ declaration would beeffective under Australian legislation.

After obtaining legal advice and actuarialassessments, DFAT offered to settle the claim byproviding a supplementary lump sum pensionpayment to affected current and former staff. Thisaffected staff employed by DFAT, DIMA, Austradeand Centrelink. DFAT has set aside funding (around$2 million) to cover accrued liabilities for current andformer staff.

AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICEThe most common cause of complaint about theAustralian Customs Service was passengerprocessing at Australian airports. In particular,Customs searches, questioning of travellers and theseizure of goods were frequent sources ofcomplaints. The imposition of duties or taxes ongoods brought in by arriving passengers alsoaccounted for many complaints.

In November 2005, the Ombudsman commenced anown motion investigation into complaint handling atAustralian airports. Customs participated in aworkshop, facilitated by our office, in February 2006,aimed at sharing information and ideas about howAustralian Government agencies can work togetherto improve complaint handling in Australian airports.Further details are included Chapter 9—Problemareas in government decision making.

‘... the Ombudsman commencedan own motion investigation intocomplaint handling at Australianairports.’

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESO

THER A

GEN

CIES

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGEINGDuring the year, the Ombudsman finalised his viewon a long-running investigation about a New SouthWales aged care provider’s refusal to refund anaccommodation bond to the estate of a deceasedresident of the facility unless probate was obtainedon the will. It is not compulsory to obtain probateon a will in New South Wales and the executors ofthe will chose not to do so. The Aged Care Act1997 (Aged Care Act) did not oblige the provider torequire probate prior to repayment, and theprovider’s refusal to repay the balance within twomonths of the death of the resident may have beenin breach of their responsibilities under the Act atthat time.

The Department of Health and Ageing isresponsible for administering the Aged Care Act.The Ombudsman therefore took the view that thedepartment was obliged to address the impassereached by the parties. Further, a determination hadbeen made by the Commissioner for Complaintsunder the Aged Care Complaints ResolutionScheme that the provider was in breach of theAged Care Act in not repaying the bond.

The department advised that it had been in contactwith the aged care provider, which had proposed ameans of resolving the impasse that had beenrejected by the executor. After considerable furthercorrespondence between the Ombudsman and thedepartment, the department and the provider, andthe complainant and all parties, the provider agreedto repay the bond without probate being obtained.(Although there is continuing discussion about theconditions of repayment between the executor andthe provider.) The Ombudsman formed the view thatDHA’s decision not to impose sanctions created adelay in the resolution of the impasse between thetwo parties.

A recent amendment to the Aged Care Actspecifically allows aged care providers to requirethat probate be obtained before bond monies willbe released. The Secretary of the departmentadvised the Ombudsman that the department wouldremind providers of aged care services that the lawrequires that an accommodation bond agreementmust specify that probate will be required beforerelease if the provider proposes to insist on this

procedure. We have also been advised that thedepartment will normally regard any failure to drawthis provision to the attention of the signatory as abreach of the provider’s responsibility under s 56–1(1) of the Aged Care Act.

The Ombudsman has accepted that these steps willreduce the likelihood of similar situations arising inthe future.

INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICEAUSTRALIAWe received a number of complaints about theadministration of personal insolvency law by theInsolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA).These complaints were generally made by people inbankruptcy who alleged that the actions of ITSAwere unreasonably harsh or that their fees weretoo high. Many of the complaints were resolved byan explanation of the legal framework in whichbankruptcy operates.

One complaint we received was about ITSA’sregulation of the activities of a private trustee inbankruptcy. In that case a trustee did not takeaction to recover funds allegedly transferred by thebankrupt to defeat creditors because there wereinsufficient funds to support legal action. Weexplained that it was reasonable for ITSA to takethe view that the trustee in bankruptcy wasjustified in not taking court action in thesecircumstances.

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITYSERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRSAlthough it is not part of the Ombudsman’s role toinvestigate or take issue with government policy ina broad sense, we can investigate whetherlegislation is being administered correctly or hasunintended or unfair consequences. As a result ofcomplaints by Centrelink customers in 2005–06, wepursued a number of issues of that kind withFaCSIA.

Among the issues were the delayed payment of thefamily tax benefit supplement, unfair outcomesunder the assets test, and assessment of marriage-like relationships.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESO

THER A

GEN

CIES


Delayed payment of family tax benefit supplementWe approached FaCSIA about information in its‘Guide to the Family Assistance Law’ relating to thetiming of payments of the family tax benefitsupplement. We received a complaint from aperson who had separated in the last twelvemonths in circumstances involving domesticviolence. The FaCSIA policy guideline relating topayment of the family tax benefit supplementrequires a customer in these circumstances to waituntil their former partner has lodged their tax returnor until 31 October, whichever is the earlier.

As the complainant’s former partner had not lodgedhis tax return within the lodgement period, the familytax benefit supplement was based on an estimate ofhis income and was paid after 31 October. TheOmbudsman’s investigation established that thecomplainant was legally entitled to have receivedher supplement several months earlier in July, whenshe was trying to find suitable accommodation forherself and the children.

Based on our approach, FaCSIA agreed to properlyalign the guidelines and procedures with theprovisions of the law, which allow for thesupplement to be paid as early as July where theperson meets all qualifying criteria.

‘... FaCSIA agreed to properlyalign the guidelines andprocedures with the provisionsof the law ...’

Towards the end of 2005–06, concerned that nochanges had been made, the Ombudsman urgedFaCSIA to resolve the matter. FaCSIA subsequentlyadvised the Ombudsman that it had arranged toimplement a short-term solution from July toNovember 2006. This solution allows any customerwho separated in the immediate past financial yearto ask Centrelink to conduct an interimreconciliation of their family tax benefit supplemententitlement to avoid having to wait. FaCSIA isworking to arrange a longer-term solution that does

not require customers to self-identify themselves toCentrelink staff. The solution is to be put in placeby July 2007.

Unfair outcomes under the assets test We wrote to FaCSIA about a complaint thatshowed how the social security law can have avariable application depending on the order inwhich an existing home is sold and a replacementhome purchased. In this instance, the complainantpurchased a replacement principal home beforeselling their existing home.

The social security law currently allows a personintending to replace their existing home to sell itand have the proceeds excluded from assetassessment for 12 months. The complainantdelayed the sale of their existing home until afterthey had found a new home and took a mortgageover both properties to secure the purchase. (Thisoften occurs when a person is buying into aretirement village or home.) Both the existing andthe new home were counted as assets using theformula applied under s 1121(4) of the SocialSecurity Act 1991, with the result that thecomplainant did not qualify for a benefit.

FaCSIA advised that this issue would be consideredalong with the overall impact of the assets testchanges announced in the 2006–07 Federal Budget.

Assessment of marriage-likerelationshipsIn June 2005, we commenced an own motioninvestigation into marriage-like relationships. Thereare several complex concepts to be considered indetermining whether or not customers are in a‘marriage-like relationship’ for social securitypurposes. The decision has a direct impact onentitlement to certain payments, rates of payment,and how income and assets tests are applied.

We have completed a draft report. We will seekcomments from FaCSIA and complete the finalreport in 2006–07.

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESO

THER A

GEN

CIES

The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 1982(FOI Act) is to extend, as far as possible, the legalright of individuals to obtain access to documentsheld by Australian Government agencies. The Actalso enables individuals to seek amendment ofrecords that contain inaccurate personal information.

The FOI Act expressly empowers the Ombudsman toinvestigate complaints about the actions ofAustralian Government agencies under the FOI Act (s57). It also requires agencies to inform applicants oftheir right to complain to the Ombudsman about FOImatters (s 26).

The Ombudsman’s role under the FOI Act reflects themore general role of the office in promotingtransparency and accountability in governmentadministration.

SCRUTINISING GOVERNMENTIn March 2006, the Ombudsman released a reporttitled Scrutinising Government: Administration of theFreedom of Information Act 1982 in AustralianGovernment Agencies, which dealt with the wayAustralian Government agencies managed theirresponsibilities under the FOI Act. The reportsurveyed previous Australian studies of freedom ofinformation laws and noted that there had been noresponse by government to many of therecommendations in those earlier studies. Thisincluded an earlier report by the CommonwealthOmbudsman in 1999, Needs to Know (available atwww.ombudsman.gov.au).

The most recent Ombudsman report examined FOIadministration by undertaking a case study analysisof how FOI requests were handled in 22 AustralianGovernment agencies. Some major problem areaswere identified, including excessive delays inprocessing FOI requests, a lack of consistency amongagencies in acknowledging FOI requests in a timelymanner, delay in notifying charges andinconsistencies in their application, and variablequality in the standard of decision letters,particularly regarding the explanation of whydocuments were exempted from access.

The report also acknowledged that there was a clear

commitment to FOI in some agencies, and a highdegree of compliance with the spirit and detailedrequirements of the FOI Act. Drawing from theseexamples of good and bad practice, the report setout guidelines for achieving better FOI practice.These include clear procedures on FOI processing,close monitoring of incoming correspondence,quality control of FOI correspondence, and opencommunication between the agency and FOIapplicants.

‘The Ombudsman’s report dealtwith the way agencies managedtheir responsibilities under theFOI Act.’

Two findings stand out from the recent study: thereis an uneven culture of support for FOI amongAustralian Government agencies; and the vitality andsuccess of the FOI scheme depend heavily on theway the Act is administered within agencies. Thereport recommended that agency heads indicate aclear commitment to sound FOI practice and theobjectives of the FOI Act, having regard to the kindsof good and bad practice identified in theOmbudsman report.

In the course of the report’s preparation, a number ofagencies wrote to express support for the reviewand to indicate systemic changes they had made tobring about better FOI management. Following therelease of the report, the Secretary of theDepartment of Defence wrote commending thereport and indicated his intention to release astatement, jointly with the Chief of the DefenceForce, identifying the consequences of failing tomanage FOI and to seek continuing briefings aboutthe department’s management of FOI requests. Thisis a good example to other agencies. We are awarethat some other agencies are taking similar action,and one sought our advice in drafting a statement tobe issued by the agency head. We will follow up thisissue more generally during 2006–07.

The report also recommended (as had some previousreports from the Australian Law Reform Commission,the Administrative Review Council, and the Senate


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESFREED

OM

OF IN

FORM

ATION


freedom of information


Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee) thecreation of a statutory position of FOI Commissioner.An FOI Commissioner could provide leadership inpromoting the ideals of FOI, monitoring compliancewith the Act, and promoting its effective operation.As well as providing more effective FOI oversight,such an office could also work with AustralianGovernment agencies in addressing areas ofadministrative difficulty that sometimes arise in FOIadministration. At 30 June 2006, there had been noresponse to this recommendation.

COMPLAINTS OVERVIEWIn 2005–06, we finalised 259 complaint issues (289in 2004–05) about the way 44 Australian Governmentagencies handled requests under the FOI Act.

The majority of complaint issues were about threeagencies: Centrelink (25%); the Department ofImmigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) (15%);and the Child Support Agency (11%). The remaining49% were about 41 agencies.

Most complaints related to delays by agencies inprocessing FOI requests (23%) and to the primarydecision reached by agencies (21%). In cases ofdelay, we contacted the relevant agency aboutexpediting a decision.

In a number of cases, the agency told the FOIapplicant that it did not have a specific documentthat the person believed it should have. The FOI Actprovides a right for an agency to refuse a request fora document that does not exist or that cannot befound. These agency decisions are reviewable by theAdministrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Sometimes itis more expedient if we enquire of an agencywhether it has made reasonable attempts to locatethe document—for example, whether the agencyhas checked correspondence logs and asked all stafflikely to have dealt with such a matter if they haveany recollection of the document.

Other cases raised a familiar issue—the extent ofan agency’s obligation under the FOI Act to assistapplicants to make valid requests (s 15(2)). Anassociated question is the scope of an agency’sobligation to give an applicant an opportunity toconsult before refusing a request on the ground ofbreadth or because the request does not adequatelyspecify a document (s 24(6)).

One complaint to the office concerned a decision byan agency to refuse a request at a point where theapplicant considered he was still negotiating itsscope. While the agency did not accept our viewthat it had erred, following our investigation theagency agreed to allow the applicant to pursue therequest. In a similar matter, another agencyappeared to have construed an applicant’ssubmission about the level of fees as a request forinternal review and made a review decision. Thegeneral effect of the agency taking that course isthat the applicant would then be restricted to anappeal to the AAT, because the applicant wouldhave exhausted his internal review rights.

In a case received towards the end of the year, agovernment officer complained about the proposeddisclosure of sensitive personal information abouther to another officer. The agency had provided herwith an opportunity to comment before making theinitial decision to exempt the document fromdisclosure under the Act; no similar opportunity wasgiven when a different decision to disclose thedocument was made on internal review. Theagency’s decision is now being reviewed by the AAT.We are continuing to consider some of theprocessing issues that led to the complaint.

Access to policy-related informationDuring the year, parliamentarians, their staff andjournalists contacted the Ombudsman to discuss FOIissues relating to requests for policy and similarinformation. The Scrutinising Government reportobserved that the FOI Act works well in facilitatingpublic access to personal information, but not sowell in providing access to policy-relatedinformation. There appear to be two majorconcerns—the level of charges assessed and theinvolvement of ministers and their staff in relation torequests made to agencies.

The FOI (Fees and Charges) Regulations set a scaleof charges, which are below the real cost toagencies of handling FOI requests. A decision by anagency to impose a charge can be challenged oninternal review or before the AAT. The FOI Act alsoconfers a discretion on agencies to waive a charge,for reasons such as hardship and the public interest.The policy of successive governments has been thatFOI applicants should contribute to the costs of theirrequests. There is no automatic waiver for

CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESFREED

OM

OF IN

FORM

ATION

parliamentarians or journalists. Complaints to theoffice sometimes focus on that issue, and arguethat an agency should have waived a chargebecause, for example, the document could havebeen obtained by a parliamentary committee, or thedocument relates to a current issue of publiccontroversy on which there is a public interest indisclosure.

It is difficult for the Ombudsman’s office to take adefinitive stance on those issues, when the Actconfers a clear (and reviewable) discretion onagencies to impose or waive a charge. If some ofthese charging decisions were challenged in theAAT, it may result in principles being establishedthat provide better guidance.

Ministers have a proper interest in themanagement of government agencies within theirportfolio and it will often be appropriate for anagency to consult its minister about an FOI request.In the same way, agencies often consult otheragencies about possible disclosure. While aminister’s views are entitled to great weight, theyare not determinative of the public interest unless aconclusive certificate is issued (in relation to alimited class of exemptions). The larger issue forthe Ombudsman’s office is whether a decision wasreasonably available to the decision maker. If so,we will usually suggest that the AAT is a betterforum to decide the merits of the FOI decision.

DELAYS IN PROCESSING FOI REQUESTSBY DIMAIn 2004–05, we reported on significant delays inthe processing of FOI requests by DIMA and therange of strategies DIMA was implementing toaddress the situation.

While the Ombudsman was satisfied that thestrategies DIMA was putting in place wereappropriate to get the processing of FOI requestsunder control in the longer term, the situation hasnot improved to the degree we expected over thepast year. DIMA has experienced some delays inimplementing its strategies, such as recruiting andtraining additional staff. The processing of manyFOI requests far exceeds the statutory timeframe.At 30 June 2006, there were 1,101 FOI requestsoutside the statutory timeframe that requiredprocessing, compared to 907 at 30 June 2005. Thiscontinues to be an unsatisfactory outcome.

We are pursuing a number of specific issues withDIMA about its processing of FOI requests and willask for more frequent reporting on progress indealing with the backlog of cases. In the meantime,we continue to accept complaints about FOI delaysand may investigate individual complaints if weconsider that particular matters should be givenpriority or that the complaint raises a special area ofconcern in relation to DIMA’s handling of requests.


CHA

PTER7

LOO

KING

AT THE A

GEN

CIESFREED

OM

OF IN

FORM

ATION


Outreach activities in 2005–06 focused on increasing awareness of the Ombudsman’srole in communities in rural and regional Australia.

We conducted 104 outreach activities across all states and territories. Places visitedincluded: Albury, Bourke, Brewarrina, Cobar, Dubbo, Lightning Ridge, Nyngan,Wagga Wagga and Walgett (in News South Wales); Bundaberg, Caboolture,Caloundra, Goodna, Gympie, Inala, Ipswich, Maroochydore, Pine Rivers, Redland Bayand Rockhampton (in Queensland); Berri, Mt Gambier and Port Augusta (In SouthAustralia); Ararat, Ballarat, Echuca, Horsham, Kerang, Moe, Sale, Traralgon,Warragul (in Victoria); and Albany, Bunbury, Esperance, and the Kimberley andPilbara regions (in Western Australia).

Community leaders and community assistance groups and parliamentarians werekey targets of the outreach visits.

We commissioned a market research company to conduct a public awarenessbenchmark survey. The survey explored the level of knowledge of the role of theOmbudsman’s office among individuals and community leaders in rural and regionalAustralia.

The survey confirmed that people know they have a right to complain. When askedwhat they could do if they had an unresolved complaint with a government agency,close to 60% of respondents from rural and regional Australia said they couldcomplain to their local member of parliament or the Ombudsman. Nearly three-quarters of respondents recognised the Commonwealth Ombudsman as a complaintresolution agency when prompted (a lower number when unprompted). Communityleaders demonstrated both an awareness and understanding of the role of theCommonwealth Ombudsman.

Ombudsman staff also made presentations at a wide variety of functions. There wasa particular emphasis this year on establishing relationships with multiculturalorganisations, particularly those representing asylum claimants and refugees, in thelight of the Ombudsman’s new role as Immigration Ombudsman.

reaching rural and regional Australia

Feature

Review of administrative decision making by courtsand tribunals focuses on the correctness of adecision—for example, a decision to refuse a visa,to revoke a licence, or to cancel a social supportbenefit. The Ombudsman’s office can examine thecorrectness of decisions, but most investigationsfocus on other problems that people encounter intheir dealings with government agencies. Thischapter illustrates the broader focus of theOmbudsman’s role by looking at some of the variedways in which we help people to relate moresuccessfully to government.

‘This chapter illustrates thebroader focus of theOmbudsman’s role ...’

PINPOINTING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTEThere can be multiple elements in a singleadministrative decision. When a person is told byan agency that an adverse decision has been made,it can be important for the person to know if thedecision turned on one particular issue. This willhelp them better understand the decision and queryor challenge it in a constructive manner.

We are often able to help people penetrate thecomplexity of decisions and identify the coreissues. Often an agency gives us a fullerexplanation for its decision than it gave thecomplainant; that enables us to explain thedecision more effectively to the complainant. Thisclarification can assist a person to understand orrevisit a decision, as shown in the Insufficientreasons case study on page 105.

Even when a person can identify the issue thatconcerns them, they are often unaware of the rangeof services offered by an agency that may helpthem resolve that issue. We can help by makingpeople aware of their options and providing advice

about the best course of action, as the Variousoptions case study on page 105 shows.

‘We can help by making peopleaware of their options ...’

DEALING WITH URGENT AND PRESSING ISSUES Although the Ombudsman’s office does not provideemergency assistance to the public as a matter ofcourse, it can sometimes intervene to avertexecutive action that cannot be undone—forexample, it can elicit an undertaking from agovernment agency not to remove someone fromAustralia or to dismiss someone from theAustralian Defence Force (ADF) pending aninvestigation. Decisions that have a significant andirreversible impact on people require flexibility inhow they are implemented.

Members of the ADF can be involuntarilydischarged in certain circumstances. Althoughmembers facing discharge are provided with 28 days notice of their discharge date, often theyapproach our office for assistance only towards theend of that period. In such circumstances, we askthe ADF to suspend discharge action while wereview the records. The ADF’s practice has been toagree to suspend discharge action for two weeks,during which time we review the matter andpresent any concerns to the ADF forreconsideration.

‘Decisions that have a significantand irreversible impact onpeople require flexibility in howthey are implemented.’

In the Delayed removal case study on page 105, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural


CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

how the ombudsman helped people 8


CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

The Trade Recognition Authority (TRA) refused Ms A’s application to have her trade qualificationsrecognised on the basis that she had not provided some relevant employment records. Ms A requested areview and pointed out that she had provided the relevant records. Her review was not successful.Reasons were not given in the review notification letter from the TRA.

The TRA’s response to our enquiries was significantly more detailed than that provided to Ms A. The TRAtold us that Ms A’s employment records did not include the dates on which she commenced and finishedemployment; and the area of work for which she was seeking trade qualification recognition wascategorised differently in Australia than in her country of origin. Had Ms A been given this informationwhen her application was initially refused, she would have been in a position to reapply and supply thatinformation.

The TRA conceded that Ms A may have been disadvantaged in seeking a review because of the lack ofdetail in the original reasons and agreed to reconsider the application and any additional supportingdocuments. The matter was decided in Ms A’s favour and her professional qualifications were recognised.

CASE STUDY insufficient reasons

Ms B complained to our office when she had difficulty meeting her tax debt due to personal and financialcircumstances. We advised Ms B about the range of options available to her, and suggested that sheconsider seeking a review of the debt and suspension of the general interest charge. We also advised Ms B that the Australian Taxation Office sometimes gives full or partial relief from tax debts on thegrounds of serious hardship, and told her where to obtain a debt relief application form. Finally, wesuggested Ms B consider obtaining professional advice on debt and financial management.

CASE STUDY various options

Mr C arrived in Australia with his parents when he was nine years old and assumed he was an Australiancitizen. He was not, and the minister cancelled his visa on character grounds under s 501 of the Migration Actafter he was convicted of criminal offences. On his release from prison, he was detained in immigrationdetention as he was an unlawful non-citizen. He was not removed from Australia at this time as he hadoutstanding litigation.

Mr C was within the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation into the cancellation of visas of long-termAustralian residents, which was published in February 2006. We reviewed his case as part of our statutoryrole of reviewing the cases of people detained for two years or more. His litigation concluded and his removalbecame imminent while we were conducting the review of his case.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Secretary of DIMA, asking him to delay Mr C’s removal until the completion ofthe report on s 501 decisions, as ‘it is possible that we will make recommendations that, if accepted, wouldchange the immigration status of some of those subject to the report ... and if removed, they would lose thebenefit of any changes arising from the report’. Several meetings were held with DIMA officials to explorethe legal options open in this case. In December 2005, DIMA asked the minister to consider using herdetention intervention powers, while Ombudsman staff continued to monitor the situation, remaining incontact with the detainee, as removal remained a possibility.

The report on the Ombudsman’s review of Mr C’s long-term detention was submitted to the minister inNovember 2005. In December 2005, Mr C was granted a Removal Pending Bridging Visa and released fromdetention to live with his family. Mr C is currently included in a review being conducted by DIMA in responseto the Ombudsman’s report on s 501 decisions, and will not be removed until that review is finalised.

CASE STUDY delayed removal

Affairs (DIMA) considered whether a person’s removalfrom Australia should be suspended until a review oftheir case was completed. After much negotiationwith our office and obtaining legal advice, DIMAagreed to suspend removal in this case to ensure thatthe benefit of any changes recommended by thereview of the case would not be negated by the factthat the person was no longer in the country.

The investigation of complaints must also takeaccount of the serious effect that decisions can haveon people. This is illustrated by the following twocase studies, in which the circumstances of thedecisions were closely examined to ensure that they


CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

Mr D complained to our office that the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) declined to give his case apriority hearing, as he had requested. He was living in Australia and was seeking to sponsor his wife,who was pregnant and living in Cambodia. The MRT’s decision not to give his case a priority hearing waslikely to result in his being separated from his wife and child until some time after the birth. Tribunalpolicy provided that agreement to a priority hearing should be given in compelling circumstances,including those where delay might result in the separation of a child from their parent.

We found that the decision to decline priority to Mr D was made by a non-ongoing, junior officer whowas not authorised to decide requests for expedited processing. Further, information concerning Mr D’sprobable separation from his child following the birth had not been taken into account.

The MRT promptly reconsidered the decision and apologised to Mr D. As a result of our intervention, theMRT agreed to consider Mr D’s case at an earlier date.

CASE STUDY priority hearing

Ms E visited family in Australia and overstayed her visitor’s visa. While she was being voluntarilyremoved, she gave birth to her baby prematurely and was taken to hospital.

Ms E was issued with a bridging visa that allowed her to stay until the baby was well enough to travel.After some weeks the baby left hospital, but remained unfit for travel. Ms E was offered another visa, butchose to return home to care for her other children, leaving her baby in the care of her family in Australia.When she wanted to return to Australia to collect her baby, Ms E was denied a visa because she hadoverstayed her previous visa.

After being contacted by Ms E’s brother, we ascertained that the embassy in question had not been madefully aware of Ms E’s unique circumstances. Working closely with DIMA officers, we were able to ensureMs E promptly received a visa to return to Australia to collect her baby.

CASE STUDY family reunion

were properly made. In one case, described inthe Priority hearing case study, our investigationshowed that a decision to decline a priorityhearing for an appellant was made by a personlacking the authority to make such a decisionand without due regard to all the circumstancesof the case. Our intervention resulted in theexpedited consideration of the matter by therelevant tribunal. In the Family reunion casestudy, the decision maker was not aware of allrelevant information. In this case, ourintervention resulted in the reunion of a motherwith her baby.


DETOXIFYING THE RELATIONSHIPMany people have an ongoing, even lifetime,relationship with a particular agency. For example,a person will be a taxpayer throughout their life,may receive a Centrelink benefit for an extendedperiod, or be subject to a Child Support Order formany years. Sometimes a particular incident cantaint a person’s relationship with an agency andcolour their subsequent interaction. A person maythen distrust the agency and assume that standardadministrative requirements are ill-intentioned.

The Ombudsman’s office can sometimes detoxifythe relationship, by isolating the issue that led tothe difficulty and ensuring better understanding andcommunication in the future. This is demonstratedin the Repeated investigations case study, whereinteraction between the person and the agency haddeteriorated to the point that the person was

suspicious of the agency’s unintentionaladministrative error.

In a similar position are cases in which a personhas special needs of which an agency is unawareor for which it has not made special provision. If theagency puts in place particular rules for contactingthe client, it can improve the relationship andreduce the chance of later difficulty, as in theSpecial contact needs case study.

PLACING AN ITEM ON THE LEGISLATIVEOR POLICY AGENDASome complaints are substantially about thewisdom of a legislative or administrative rule thatis being applied by an agency. It is difficult for aperson to argue from their individual case that ageneral reform is required to relieve the harsh or

CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

Centrelink had repeatedly investigated Ms F’s circumstances to determine whether she was a member ofa couple. In her complaint to our office, Ms F alleged that Centrelink officers had deliberately falsified herrecord and threatened and intimidated her. The relationship between Ms F and the agency haddeteriorated to the point where she viewed even the most helpful actions by Centrelink officers, such assuggesting that she claim a more beneficial payment, as ill-intentioned.

We investigated the complaint and explained the policy behind some of Centrelink’s actions. We wereable to ensure that Ms F’s electronic record was corrected and that she received the full payment towhich she was entitled. Centrelink provided several written apologies to Ms F. Other aspects of thecomplaint are still being investigated.

CASE STUDY repeated investigations

Ms G complained to our office about a series of instances where she considered that she had not beenprovided with adequate advice by an agency. During our investigation, we established that Ms Gsuffered from agoraphobia and that she was not comfortable seeking assistance from males.

In response to our enquiries, the agency provided Ms G with the contact details of an officer whounderstood her situation and with whom she would be comfortable. That officer could obtaininformation from other officers on Ms G’s behalf and organise a home interview if required. Thisarrangement appears to have improved Ms G’s confidence in the agency and reduced the likelihood offurther complaints.

CASE STUDY special contact needs

impractical consequence of a law or policy. TheOmbudsman’s office is better placed to take upthose issues. Sometimes we can point to othercomplaints that raise the same problem, orpersuade an agency to see that an individualcomplaint raises a larger or systemic issue thatshould be addressed.

An example, taken up in the Requirement to reclaimcase study, concerned a legislative rule that imposedan onerous burden on a particular group ofconcession cardholders. They had to complete aclaim form to reclaim their concession card aftertravelling overseas, by contrast with the holders ofother types of concession cards, who wereautomatically regranted their cards on return toAustralia. There appeared to be no policy reason forthis difference, and the agency agreed to seeklegislative change to reduce the administrativeburden on both its clients and staff.

Another legislative change, which becomeseffective in September 2006, originated in anOmbudsman investigation of a complaint receivedin 2001 about an anomalous provision that affectedCentrelink customers receiving parenting paymentat the partnered rate. They were unable to apply foran advance of that payment, by contrast with mostother payment recipients, who had limited access toa $500 advance.

Since 2001, we had urged the former Department ofFamily and Community Services to take steps torectify this anomaly because it was discriminatoryand inequitable. A legislative change was made


CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

Mr H held a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) when he advised Centrelink that he was travellingoverseas for a short period. Centrelink applied the relevant provisions of the social security law to cancel Mr H’s card from the date that he left Australia and required him to reclaim the card upon his return a fewweeks later. Mr H complained to our office that this seemed to be unnecessary and bureaucratic.

It became clear that holders of the CSHC were disadvantaged when compared with holders of some otherconcession cards, which are automatically regranted upon the cardholder’s return to Australia.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Secretaries of three departments—Families, Community Services andIndigenous Affairs; Employment and Workplace Relations; and Education, Science and Training—askingwhether the reclaim process for CSHC holders could be simplified. We were advised that representativesfrom these departments met and are working together to streamline the process for CSHC holders toreclaim the card upon their return.

CASE STUDY requirement to reclaim

after the Ombudsman sent a report on the matter to thePrime Minister under s 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1976.The legislation now provides that parenting payment(partnered) recipients will have access to an advancepayment from 20 September 2006. The Department ofEmployment and Workplace Relations is nowresponsible for the parenting payment (partnered).

‘A legislative change was madeafter the Ombudsman sent a report on the matter to the Prime Minister ...’

Another legislative amendment has been foreshadowedas a result of the investigation, described in theUnlawful policy case study on page 109, into theeligibility rules for the low-income health card. Theneed for legislative amendment to provide a practicalsolution to a veteran’s problem has been highlighted bythe investigation described in the Recuperating withfamily case study. The legislation under scrutiny in thatcase was inflexible and did not allow officers from theDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) to take apractical approach to the medical needs of a client.

In some instances a policy, rather than a legislative,amendment can achieve the necessary reform. This isillustrated by the Production delays case study on page109, concerning an anomaly in the criteria for the grantof research funding based on the publication year of anarticle. The department amended the policy criteria onresearch funding to take account of the possibility thatpublication of an article can be unexpectedly delayed.


CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

Our investigation of a complaint about multiple incorrect cancellations of a low-income health care card(LIC) revealed a conflict between the social security law and policy as defined by FaCSIA. Contrary to thelegislation, the policy required the assessment of a person’s claim for an LIC to include the amount oftheir partner’s social security pension or benefit.

FaCSIA told us that while it had always been the policy intention to include pensions and benefits in theincome test for the LIC, an error occurred when the legislation was amended and they were not included.FaCSIA nevertheless advised Centrelink to apply their policy position.

After we brought this matter to the department’s attention, FaCSIA reconsidered its approach andadvised Centrelink to disregard any pension or benefit received by the partner of an LIC claimant untillegislative amendment had brought the law and intended policy into line.

CASE STUDY unlawful policy

Mrs J lived in a remote location and needed hip surgery. Under s 110 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act1986 eligible veterans are entitled to reimbursement of some of their travelling expenses, includingtransport, meals and accommodation, when travelling for medical treatment. The regulations prescribethat a veteran attend the ‘closest practical provider,’ which is determined with reference to the distancefrom the veteran’s home, and whether the appropriate treatment can be provided in a timely manner.

The closest practical provider to Mrs J is usually found in Sydney or Brisbane. Mrs J’s daughter lived inanother major Australian town, where she was the head of the Physiotherapy Department at the localhospital. Mrs J preferred to have her surgery at that hospital, where her daughter could bothaccommodate her and manage her therapy.

Neither the legislation nor the regulations give a decision maker discretion to overlook the closestpractical provider requirement, even when it made good sense for the veteran to have treatment in amore distant location. We raised this problem with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which agreed torecommend an amendment to the relevant regulations and prepared an Act of Grace submission to theminister on behalf of the client.

CASE STUDY recuperating with family

Articles published in journals are normally eligible for inclusion in the Department of Education, Scienceand Training’s Higher Education Research Data Collection process, which forms the basis of researchfunding for higher education providers.

Production delays in 2004 meant the publication of a particular journal was delayed, resulting in a highereducation provider not being able to claim research funding for a journal article. This was because theproviders were excluded from consideration in the year the journal article was written and also excludedfrom consideration in the year it was published because it was written in the earlier year.

In response to our initial enquiries, the department noted that the peak body representing providers, theAustralian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, was unwilling for the scope of the annual collections ofpublications to be changed.

Following further consultations with the Committee, the department subsequently amended its policy toinclude an ‘expanded year of publication definition’ that specifies a different basis for assessing thepublication date of publications.

CASE STUDY production delays

SURMOUNTING BARRIERSOne of the more satisfying experiences inombudsman work is when a person expressesgratitude and says that they could not have dealteffectively with an issue without the office’s help.The causes vary—a person simply did notunderstand the decision or government program,they felt they were not getting through to the agency,or the agency told them that their case had beengiven a lower priority than other pressing issues.

The Systems problems and Short staffing casestudies provide two examples of where theOmbudsman’s office helped complainants to obtainpayment of a financial benefit that had beendelayed, in one case by a systems problem and inthe other by a staffing problem. Other examples ofcomplainants expressing gratitude for ombudsmanassistance are provided in the ‘Looking at theAgencies—Immigration’ section in Chapter 7.


CHA

PTER8

HO

W TH

E OM

BU

DSM

AN

HELPED

PEOPLE

Ms L complained to our office when she was advised that approximately $12,000 in childcare benefitarrears could not be paid to her children’s childcare centre for some time because of the limitations of anagency’s computer systems. After we became involved in the matter, the agency overcame the systemsproblems and paid the arrears. The owner of the childcare centre was paid quickly, rather than having towait until late in 2006 for payment.

CASE STUDY systems problems

Centrelink told Mr M that it could not process his Newstart allowance claim for some time because itwas short-staffed in the lead-up to Christmas. After we started to investigate Mr M’s complaint,Centrelink arranged for staff to work overtime so that the backlog of claims could be processed. Mr Mstated that he did not think that this would have happened without the intervention of our office.

CASE STUDY short staffing


All Australian parliaments have enacted legislation to provide protection forwhistleblowers and internal witnesses to corruption, misconduct andmaladministration. The legislation has different titles—Whistleblowers ProtectionAct (in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria), Protected Disclosures Act (NewSouth Wales), and Public Interest Disclosure Act (Australian Capital Territory,Tasmania and Western Australia). The Commonwealth Public Service Act 1999 (s 16)also contains a provision on ‘protection for whistleblowers’.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office is collaborating in a three-year, nationalresearch project into the management and protection of internal witnesses andwhistleblowers in the Australian public sector. The project—Whistling while theywork: internal witness management in the Australian public sector—is being led byGriffith University and is jointly funded by the Australian Research Council, sixparticipating universities and fourteen industry partners, including theCommonwealth Ombudsman.

The project aims to identify best-practice strategies for preventing, reducing andaddressing reprisals and other whistleblowing-related conflicts in the workplace, bydrawing from the experiences and perceptions of internal witnesses and managers.

Representatives of the Commonwealth Ombudsman are on the project steeringcommittee and research team. In 2005–06, the Ombudsman and the Merit ProtectionCommissioner sent a joint letter to the heads of approximately 140 AustralianGovernment agencies inviting participation in the project’s first survey into agencypractices and procedures. A survey of agency employees was commenced,involving 30 selected government agencies and approximately 6,000 employees. Theproject is expected to generate several major reports and papers, with the first to befinalised in 2007.

For more information visit http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/slrc/whistleblowing.

research project—whistling while they work

FeatureFeature

A feature of the Ombudsman’s previous two annualreports has been a chapter of the same title, lookingat general problem areas that were identified duringthe investigation of individual complaints. This is anexercise, in a sense, in joining the dots. A problemfaced by a person in one area of government can becommon to several agencies.

Some recent projects in the Ombudsman’s officethat are described in other chapters—the adoptionof a new complaints management system and anew work practice manual, and the creation of thePublic Contact Team—were designed to harnessthe ability of the office to identify general problemsand cross-agency issues.

Among the problem areas discussed in previousannual reports were record keeping; the accuracyand quality of agency advice, especially oral advice;the need for ‘hardship’ provisions and ‘safety netdiscretions’ in complex statutory entitlementschemes; oversight of decisions made under non-statutory schemes; unexpected problems that canarise in automated decision-making schemes; andpeople falling through the cracks (or over the edge)of government programs.

This year we look at a different selection of generaladministrative problems. The problems were notnecessarily caused by government agencies, oreven a consequence of sloppy administration.Mostly they stemmed from the sheer complexity oflegislation and administrative schemes, especiallywhen applied to the different circumstances ofthousands of government clients. The changingface of government, as programs and structuresevolve to deal with new social challenges, also give rise to unexpected problems. Sometimesgovernment agencies are slow to adapt tounanticipated issues, do not communicateeffectively with clients, or fail to recognise theadministrative burden that governmentrequirements can impose on people.

‘The problems ... mostlystemmed from the sheercomplexity of legislation andadministrative schemes ...’

The diversity of problems and causes illustrates thechallenge faced by government, and taken up bythe Ombudsman’s office, in identifying the problemsthat people encounter in their dealings withgovernment.

ADMINISTRATIVE IRRITANTSMany of the problems that people experience withgovernment are not major in themselves, but causeirritation as they can add to the stress of daily lifeand often seem avoidable. Examples are delay inbeing served at a government counter or in having atelephone call answered; being sent the wrongform by a government agency; calling an agencyand being told that the contact person has now leftor has changed; or receiving a government letterthat is not easy to understand, has a harsh tone oris outdated because of some other development.Problems of this kind will possibly increase overtime, because of the frequency and variety of waysthat people now interact with government, thegrowth in size of government agencies and thepressures on people’s time.

We do not always investigate these irritations,because they usually pass or can be taken updirectly with an agency. However, complaint lettersand telephone calls to the office are sprinkled withadministrative irritations that arise during people’sinteraction with government. Government agenciesshould always try to reduce or eliminateadministrative burdens when planning anddelivering services. Following are some examplesof where agencies have considered this.

In March 2006, we published a report into theAustralian Taxation Office’s (ATO) administration of


CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING

problem areas in governmentdecision making

9


the Superannuation Co-contribution Scheme. Werecognised and praised the ATO’s attempts toreduce the administrative burden on taxpayers whobenefit from this scheme. The ATO does not requirean application process, and instead automaticallyassesses entitlement to the co-contribution when ataxpayer, who makes a contribution and satisfies allthe eligibility criteria, lodges their tax return.

Although this minimisation of interaction betweenthe ATO and the taxpayer advantages taxpayers, itincreases the burden on the agency to ensure thattaxpayer expectations are adequately managedthrough publicity campaigns. Our report on the co-contribution scheme, based on complaints we hadreceived, suggested that the ATO may need toexplore new ways of encouraging taxpayers toclarify their understanding and seek additionalinformation where necessary.

In an example of a different kind, the ATOcontacted our office before implementing a strategyto contact small business debtors at home in theearly evening, when other attempted contact hadbeen unsuccessful. The ATO recognised that thismethod of contact may increase complaints, andtherefore briefed our office on the reasons behindthe strategy so that we could respond to anycontacts from this group. The planning that wentinto this strategy seems to have been successful inaverting too many complaints.

Centrelink has also recognised the potential toreduce the impact of its administrative processeson customers. Many people transfer from anotherCentrelink payment on their age pensionqualification date (63 years for women and 65 yearsfor men). From April 2006, Centrelink implementednew procedures to streamline the transfer processfor these people.

A transferee is sent a Transfer to Age PensionReview form, pre-populated with the informationCentrelink held about them before their agepension qualification date. Information is providedthat explains the advantages and disadvantages oftransferring to the age pension and the taxationimplications of the different payment. This reducesthe administrative burden on the claimant, andallows them to make an informed choice abouttransferring or remaining on their previous payment(where possible). It also gives them an opportunity

to check that the information Centrelink holds aboutthem is accurate and to provide any additionalinformation about their circumstances.

COMPLEXITYMany of the complaints we receive stem from the complexity of legislation and governmentprograms. Complexity can adversely affect peoplein different ways:

■ a person might not understand what they haveto do to obtain a government benefit

■ advice given by an agency can bemisunderstood, or not answer a person’s uniqueor specific query

■ a person might structure their affairs on amistaken understanding of how a programapplies to them

■ someone can ‘fall through the cracks’ betweengovernment programs that do not interactseamlessly

■ through confusion and inactivity, someonemight fail to take a necessary action and bepenalised for not doing so.

Many adverse consequences cannot be reversed,either because the damage has already occurred, orthere is no discretion in the law to overturn theresult. Nor does it seem likely that there will be anyreduction in this complexity over time and a returnto an era of fewer and simpler rules.

The Ombudsman’s office carries out its complaintinvestigation role against this backdrop ofcomplexity. The challenge is to develop governmentsystems with an eye to this inevitable complexityand to build in ways of responding to the problemsthat people unexpectedly encounter. We mentioneddifferent ways of doing this in previous annualreports. They include agencies payingadministrative compensation to unwitting victims ofadministrative error; writing safety net discretionsinto statutory schemes to deal with theunanticipated consequences of laws; and providingsimple remedies, such as an apology, when thingsgo wrong.

Another important response is for agencies to haveeffective systems for internal review and complainthandling. On the one hand, this can enable a person

CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING

to seek relief and assistance from an agency at anearly stage and by an informal and flexible process.On the other hand, internal complaint handling canprovide an agency with an early opportunity tolearn of problems that are arising in theadministration of its programs.

These points are illustrated in the followingdiscussion of the important role that complainthandling can play in two areas of growingcomplexity in government—the administration oftaxation laws, and airport management andsecurity vetting.

Administration of the tax legislationIn March 2006, the Ombudsman made a submissionto the Joint Committee of Public Accounts andAudit (JCPAA) regarding the administration of thetax legislation. Since the role of the TaxationOmbudsman was vested in our office in 1995, wehave received approximately 22,000 complaintsabout the ATO. Coupled with our own motioninvestigations, this has given us some insight intothe difficulties that taxpayers experience with theexisting system.

Many of the tax complaints we receive relate to thecomplexity of the legislation. Because moderncommercial activities and financial transactions arecomplex, there has to be some degree ofcomplexity in the tax law. In our submission to theJCPAA we argued that this places an additionalresponsibility on the ATO to ensure that theunderpinning administrative processes are assimple as possible. Further, it is important thateffective review and complaint mechanisms areavailable to aggrieved taxpayers and that the ATOrecognises its responsibility to educate taxpayers tonavigate this complexity.

‘Many of the tax complaints wereceive relate to the complexityof the legislation.’

We found that the ATO offers several reviewoptions that work well for most taxpayers.Similarly, an accessible internal complaints systemcomplements our role and reflects the ATO’scommitment to complaint resolution. The ATO hasalso been proactive in making documents such as

the Compliance Program and tax rulings availableon its internet site to assist in strengtheningunderstanding of the legislation and supportingpolicies. This framework means that sometimes ourrole is to explain the law, rather than activelyinvestigate a complaint.

Complaint management in airportsDuring the year, we noted an increase in complaintsabout aspects of airport administration. Two factorsseem to lie behind this trend. One is the largernumber of organisations, government and non-government, that have a role in providing servicesat airports and managing the flow of passengersand goods. A great range of activities take place atairports, and some government functions areoutsourced to private sector organisations.Theother factor is the heightened security measures atairports that bring passengers into contact withuniformed and non-uniformed public servants andprivate contractors. Security vetting can also be acause of frustration for passengers, particularly ifthey are delayed or miss a flight.

The Ombudsman decided to respond to thisincrease in complaints about airport administrationby conducting an own motion investigation into theaccessibility of complaint channels available topassengers. Among the issues that warrantedinvestigation were whether the complaintmechanisms of individual agencies were adequate,whether those mechanisms were sufficientlyintegrated with each other, and whether there wasa danger that people with genuine problems wouldfall between the boundary lines of differentcomplaint schemes.

Our initial survey of complaints suggested thatpassengers could find it difficult to complain aboutthe conduct of an official at an airport. Somepassengers had difficulty in identifying theorganisation for which an official was working orthe particular official involved. The similarappearance of some uniforms, combined with thestresses experienced by passengers, could lead tomisidentification.

Even if a passenger were able to identify theofficial and their organisation, the appropriatecomplaint channel was not always apparent. Therewas little information posted in airports to make


CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING


passengers aware of their right to complain or themanner in which a complaint should be made.Given these issues, a passenger may not alwayscomplain to the correct authority in the firstinstance.

A further issue of concern was that the governmentagencies involved in airport administration did notappear to work as collaboratively as they might. Forexample, complaints incorrectly received by onedepartment were not necessarily forwarded to thecorrect agency, increasing the risk of complaintsbeing overlooked.

In investigating this issue, we focused on bringingtogether the agencies involved in airportadministration and encouraging them to worktowards a common approach in addressing theproblems faced by dissatisfied customers. Wepromoted the development of a simple, accessiblecomplaint-handling mechanism across all agenciesor, failing that, complementary, seamless processesfor transferring misdirected complaints. The projectalso provides an opportunity to test whether thecomplaint-handling mechanisms used by agenciesmeet a common benchmark, such as the newAustralian Standard on complaint handling (AS ISO10002–2006).

‘... we focused on bringingtogether the agencies involved... and encouraging them towork towards a commonapproach ...’

We invited representatives from the variousagencies involved with airport administration toattend a workshop and discuss an issues paperprepared by our office. From those discussions wedeveloped an interim report that will be sent torelevant agencies for comment early in 2006–07.The report will be published once comments arereceived from the agencies.

ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFTA common cause of complaint to the Ombudsmanacross all areas of jurisdiction is agency delay inmaking a decision or resolving a matter. TheOmbudsman has taken up this issue in reports andsubmissions to parliamentary committees, drawing

attention to the problem of delay in areas such asDefence investigations, FOI processing, immigrationdetention management, and determination ofveterans’ claims. However, the problem of delay ismore widespread, and occurs in most areas ofadministration.

The label ‘administrative drift’ appropriatelydescribes what occurs, because delay often resultsfrom a matter drifting far beyond anyone’sexpectation. Some of the reasons are familiar andpervasive—a file being given a lower priority thanother matters or being put aside in the ‘too hard’basket to be looked at later; responsibility for adecision passing from one officer to another; orone aspect of a case being reconsidered orreferred for advice before a final decision on thewhole case is made.

‘ ... the problem of delay is morewidespread, and occurs inmost areas of administration.’

As those examples show, delay can stem frommany different causes. It sometimes arises from ashort-term resource deficit in an agency, but morecommonly it results from the lack of a bindingprocess or clear strategy within agencies to ensurethat delay does not occur. The strategies that canbe used to prevent delay can be as varied as thecauses themselves. However, the more importantpoint is that each agency should have one or morestrategies to deal with the kinds of delays thatoccur in its administrative processes. In short, thereshould be a clear agency policy on avoidingadministrative drift. The following examples fromrecent experience in the Ombudsman’s officeillustrate a few different strategies that have beensuccessfully used in different areas of government.

One effective means of avoiding delay can be asystem of internal and external complaint handling.Experience suggests that any complaint from amember of the public about delay in their case,made either to the agency itself or to theOmbudsman, usually has some impact in triggeringthe agency to take action to resolve the matter orhurry it along.

Another effective, though indirect, means forcontrolling delay is to hold regular meetings to

CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING

consider all cases that have been unresolved for aprescribed period of time. This can occur withinagencies, but equally can occur between an agencyand an oversight body such as the Ombudsman. Forexample, a series of meetings between theOmbudsman’s office and the Department ofVeterans’ Affairs (DVA) to discuss unresolvedcomplaints to the Ombudsman resulted, over tenmonths, in the number of DVA cases open for morethan six months dropping (despite an increase inDVA complaints over that period).

A different strategy again is to have an earlyassessment procedure for cases that run the risk ofbeing delayed. We were recently informed by theDepartment of Defence of a new procedure it hadadopted to reduce delay in resolving Redress ofGrievance (ROG) cases (which had been targeted ina joint report by the department and the DefenceForce Ombudsman as a major problem). Now, thecommanding officer to whom a ROG is submittedmust, within five days, submit a written plan to thedepartment’s Fairness and Resolution Branch inCanberra, setting out the issues and explaining howthey are to be handled.

We adopted a similar process this year for earlyassessment and case management of complaints,to handle the 30,000 or more approaches andcomplaints that come to the Ombudsman’s officeeach year. Matters reaching the office fall into fivedifferent categories. Staff in the Public ContactTeam handle simpler matters, described ascategory one matters; an investigation officergenerally handles category two matters; and anexecutive level officer, a senior assistantombudsman or a deputy ombudsman supervisesmore complex matters (categories three to five). Aninvestigation plan is prepared for any casedesignated as category three or above. There is atwo-monthly reconsideration of every case openedfor more than six months.

Periodic review of unresolved cases can be broughtabout in other ways too. A new function conferredby statute on the Ombudsman’s office in 2005 is toreview the case of any person who has been inimmigration detention for two years or more(cumulatively), and to do a further review each sixmonths if the person remains in detention. Whenthis function commenced in July 2005, 149 peoplehad been in detention for more than two years,

with the longest period of detention being morethan seven years. At 30 June 2006, 66 people hadbeen in a detention facility for more than two years,while 30 people had been housed in alternativedetention arrangements. Many factors lie behindthat change, but as a generalisation it can be saidthat the mechanism of an automatic two-yearreview has been instrumental in bringing manyunresolved cases of detention to a conclusion. Insome instances a person was granted a visa ofsome kind, while in other instances action wastaken for a person’s removal from Australia.

In discharging this reporting function, theOmbudsman’s office has focused on whether theDepartment of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs (DIMA) is taking effective action to resolve aperson’s detention. The stumbling block can varyfrom case to case—for example, identifying aperson or obtaining travel documents from anothercountry. Unexplained inactivity or ineffective actionby DIMA to resolve a person’s detention has been akey factor taken into account by the Ombudsman indeciding whether to recommend to the ministerthat a person be granted a visa to be released fromdetention or be placed in community-baseddetention.

It should be noted that some statutes seek to pre-empt delay by prescribing a time period for makinga decision. An example is the Freedom ofInformation Act 1982, which provides that an FOIrequest must be decided within 28 days, andinternal review of an FOI denial must be completedwithin 30 days. Failure to comply with either timelimit is deemed a refusal, which can be the subjectof a review application. The FOI time limits havenot been entirely successful in preventing delay, butthey provide a clear statutory benchmark forapplicants, agencies and the Ombudsman.

UNHELPFUL LEGALISMAustralian Government administration is bound by alarge and growing volume of complex legislation.Lawyers and legal considerations will thereforehave a role in resolving many disputed issues.Given that all administrators have a duty to actlawfully, they will often need legal guidance.

On the other hand, there is a growing risk that inthe complex legal environment of government, legal


CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING


approaches will overshadow the important role ofadministrative discretion and judgment in finding apractical resolution to problems. Although lawyerscan make a positive contribution to administrativedecision making, this does not mean that the morelawyers involved, the better the decision-makingprocess.

The Ombudsman’s office has often had cause tocriticise unnecessary or unhelpful legalism byagencies. When agency lawyers become closelyinvolved in deciding how to respond to theOmbudsman’s office, there is a greater chance thatjurisdictional and technical issues will be raised.Such issues include the scope of the Ombudsman’sjurisdiction to investigate, the relevance of thePrivacy Act 1988 to disclosure of information to theOmbudsman’s office, the legal obstacles that wouldconfront the agency in varying the decision aboutwhich a complaint has been made, or the broaderramifications for the agency of varying thatdecision. Those issues all have a role to play, butwhen they become the focus of discussion betweenthe Ombudsman’s office and an agency, more timecan be spent discussing how to address acomplaint than the complaint itself. The attentiongiven to finer points and procedural issues can beat the expense of the whole picture and adiscussion of outcomes and solutions.

‘The Ombudsman’s office hasoften had cause to criticiseunnecessary or unhelpfullegalism by agencies.’

There is a danger of a trend towards unhelpfullegalism. There has been a steady increase in thenumber of lawyers in and outside government; allaspects of government are regulated to a greaterextent by laws of increasing complexity; and legalconsiderations are intertwined with other socialtrends, such as an emphasis on risk managementand human rights protection.

It is not easy to reduce the emphasis that agencies(and society generally) put on legal solutions andapproaches. In a system based on the rule of law,there is no alternative to acknowledging anddealing with relevant legal issues raised incomplaints or by agencies.

Nevertheless, our experience is that there is muchto be gained by a readiness to stand back from anyproblem and to put legal issues to one side whilediscussion proceeds on other aspects of theproblem. Sometimes, for example, a person’scomplaint about the correctness of a decision mightin fact stem from some other dissatisfaction withan agency. Or there may be an acceptable way ofworking around the problem, or finding a remedythat will satisfy the complainant (such as anapology, a conciliation meeting, or payment ofadministrative compensation).

We have also found that some agencies are morelikely than others to emphasise legal issues andlimitations. Conversely, some agencies have beenprepared to change their style of response to theOmbudsman’s office when we have been critical ofa trend towards legalism in the agency. Thisexperience suggests that there is scope foragencies to adjust the emphasis they put on legalconsiderations in deciding how to resolve problemsencountered by members of the public.

Similar concerns have at times been expressed bythe Ombudsman’s office to lawyers who havecomplained, either personally or on behalf of clients.Sometimes we find that lawyers’ advocacy ofcomplaints can be unduly strident or too focused onlegal niceties. This can impede rather than assistthe sensible and effective resolution of a complaint.

OTHER ISSUES

Documentary proof of an issueA person’s entitlement to a benefit or concessionwill often depend on whether they can satisfy anagency that they meet eligibility criteria. To assistapplicants, the agency will sometimes specify whatevidence will satisfy the criteria. While this can beuseful guidance, there is a risk over time thatagency officials will accept proof only in thatmanner, when in fact there is scope for flexibility.

Some complaints we received during the year arosefrom agencies requiring specific documents to belodged in order to prove an issue. In some cases theagency was inflexible and would not acceptalternative documents that proved the issue to anequal standard. In other cases, the agency insistedon a specific document being provided, even though

CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING

it was impossible for the person to provide thedocument and it had not been required on previousoccasions in relation to the same issue. Somepeople caught in this situation have been unable,without the intervention of the Ombudsman’s office,to persuade the agency to accept alternativeevidence.

Thoroughness of internal reviewMost agencies offer a person dissatisfied with adecision of the agency an opportunity to have thedecision reviewed by a more senior officer. It isimportant that the internal review process provide agenuine opportunity to correct any errors in theoriginal decision. Some complaints this yearillustrated that this is not always the case.

In one complaint investigation, we found factualerrors in a decision that had not been picked upduring an internal review process that confirmedthe decision. The errors were apparent on the fileand had not been clarified even though there hadbeen subsequent discussion of the case betweenthe agency and the applicant for review.

In another case, an agency had refused to considerfresh evidence or information during the internalreview process. The justification given by theagency was that it regarded internal reviewprimarily as a means of ensuring quality andconsistency in agency decision making. The agencychanged its approach after we pointed out that thiswas contrary to accepted notions of internal review(as, for example, spelt out in the AdministrativeReview Council publication, Internal Review ofAgency Decision Making, Report No 44, 2000).

Though agencies have considerable latitude indefining the scope and procedure for internal

review, an agency should clearly spell out inadvance any departure from accepted notions. Aperson seeking internal review should do so with aproper understanding of what they can expect.

Intelligibility of lettersThe intelligibility and adequacy of governmentletters is a frequent complaint issue. Some of theproblems we have encountered are described in the‘Looking at the Agencies—Centrelink’ section ofChapter 7, where we report on issues we havetaken up with Centrelink in the context of its LettersImprovement Project. Generally, the problems wenote in government correspondence fall mainly intothree categories.

■ There are deficiencies in the explanationprovided to a person about how a decision wasreached. For example, a letter may notadequately explain the reason for suspending apayment or the information that was includedin an assessment. Unless the person seeksfurther information, they will not be in aposition to evaluate whether the decision wascorrectly based, or an application for reviewshould be made.

■ Information about review rights is notcommunicated consistently in writtencorrespondence. Review rights are given moreprominence in some letters, but in others theinformation is included in the text on the backof a letter and is more easily overlooked.

■ Standard text is sometimes not tailored to thecircumstances of the recipient. Standard textcan be advantageous in maintaining theconsistency and quality of correspondence, butit should not do so at the expense of accuracyand relevance.


CHA

PTER9

PROB

LEM A

REAS IN

GO

VERNM

ENT D

ECISION

MA

KING


appendixes

Appendix 1—Occupational health and safety 120

Appendix 2—Freedom of information statement 121

Appendix 3—Papers and presentations by staff 125

Appendix 4—Statistics 128

Appendix 5—Consultancy services 134

Appendix 6—Financial statements 135

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIESThe Ombudsman’s office updated its occupationalhealth and safety (OH&S) policy and OH&Sguidelines during the year. Other guidelines werealso updated during the year, including those oninjury management (non-compensable andcompensable).

In August 2005, the Ombudsman signed astatement of commitment to actively work towardsachieving the targets set out in the OccupationalHealth and Safety and Rehabilitation PerformanceImprovement Targets for Commonwealth PremiumPaying Employees (2002–2012) strategy.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETYCOMMITTEE AND REPRESENTATIVESAll of the Ombudsman’s offices have a health andsafety representative onsite and deal with OH&Smatters either through the OH&S Committee or,where appropriate, through staff meetings. Healthand safety representative vacancies were filled inaccordance with the office’s OH&S Agreement.

All new employees are made aware of theimportance and responsibilities of both staff andmanagement for health and safety in theworkplace. New employees are encouraged to haveworkplace assessments conducted shortly aftercommencement.

There were no reportable incidents during the year.

HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURESDuring 2005–06, the office:

■ met obligations for Comcare premiums

■ managed compensation cases in accordancewith approved guidelines

■ arranged health assessments, where necessary

■ conducted individual workplace assessments

■ facilitated eye examinations, where necessary

■ made first-aid facilities and supplies available,and provided first-aid training to first-aidofficers (refresher and senior first aid for newofficers)

■ targeted individual health awareness throughhealth management initiatives such asproviding flu shots to employees free of charge,disseminating a quarterly bulletin on specificOH&S issues, and conducting workshops on health and wellbeing and mental health first aid.

To promote a supportive working environment, theoffice provided staff with access to an employeeassistance program, including a confidentialcounselling service to assist with workplaceproblems and the management of any work-relatedor personal stress.


APPEN

DIX 1

OCCU

PATION

AL H

EALTH

AN

D SA

FETY

appendix 1

occupational health and safety


Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982(FOI Act) requires each Australian Governmentagency to publish information about the way it isorganised, its powers, the kinds of decisions itmakes, the documents it holds, the way membersof the public can obtain access to these documentsand any arrangements for public involvement in thework of the agency.

The body of this annual report explains theorganisation and major functions of theCommonwealth Ombudsman. This statementsupplements that general information to meet therequirements of s 8 of the FOI Act. It is correct at 30 June 2006.

FUNCTIONS AND DECISION-MAKINGPOWERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN The Commonwealth Ombudsman was establishedby the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Ombudsman Act). TheAct came into effect on 1 July 1977 and isadministered by the Prime Minister. TheOmbudsman is also the Defence Force Ombudsman(DFO), the Immigration Ombudsman, the PostalIndustry Ombudsman (PIO) and the TaxationOmbudsman.

The national office of the CommonwealthOmbudsman and the office of the Australian CapitalTerritory Ombudsman are co-located in Canberra.Other offices are located in Adelaide, Brisbane,Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

The Ombudsman and two Deputy Ombudsmen arestatutory officers appointed under the OmbudsmanAct. Staff are employed under the Public ServiceAct 1999.

Investigation of administrative actions Following a complaint from a member of the public,or using ‘own motion’ powers under theOmbudsman Act, the Ombudsman may investigatethe administrative actions of most AustralianGovernment departments and agencies and privatecontractors delivering government services.

The Ombudsman cannot investigate:

■ the actions of government ministers or judges

■ most employment-related matters (although theDFO can investigate employment-relatedcomplaints from current or former members ofthe Australian Defence Force)

■ the actions of some government businessenterprises.

The Ombudsman can decide not to investigatecomplaints that are ‘stale’ or frivolous, where thecomplainant has not first sought redress from theagency, where some other form of review or appealis more appropriate, or where he considersinvestigation would not be warranted in all thecircumstances.

The Ombudsman may conduct a complaintinvestigation as he thinks fit. The powers of theOmbudsman are similar to those of a royalcommission, and include compelling an agency toproduce documents and examining witnesses underoath. Most investigations are conducted withminimal formality.

Ombudsman investigations are private and detailsare generally not revealed to people who are notlegitimately concerned with the investigation. TheOmbudsman’s office is subject to the FOI Act andthe Privacy Act 1988.

Following an investigation, the Ombudsman isrequired to consider whether the actions of thedepartment or agency were unreasonable,unlawful, improperly discriminatory or otherwisewrong.

When the Ombudsman concludes that an agencyhas erred, he may report that view to the agencyand may recommend whatever remedial action theOmbudsman thinks is appropriate. If the agencydoes not implement that action, the Ombudsmancan report to the Prime Minister and report to theParliament. The Ombudsman must informcomplainants of the action taken by the office inresponse to their complaints.

APPEN

DIX 2

FREEDO

M O

F INFO

RMATIO

N STATEM

ENT

appendix 2

freedom of information statement

Defence Force OmbudsmanSection 19C of the Ombudsman Act provides thatthe Commonwealth Ombudsman shall be theDefence Force Ombudsman. The DFO caninvestigate complaints from current or formermembers of the Australian Defence Force aboutDefence Force employment matters. The DFOcannot investigate most actions connected withdisciplinary proceedings or the grant or refusal ofan honour or award to an individual. The DFOinvestigates complaints from serving members onlyafter they have exhausted internal grievancemechanisms, unless there are exceptionalcircumstances. The DFO also investigatescomplaints from ex-service personnel or theirfamilies.

Taxation OmbudsmanUnder s 4(3) of the Ombudsman Act, theCommonwealth Ombudsman may be designated asthe Taxation Ombudsman when dealing withmatters relating to the Australian Taxation Office(ATO). The Ombudsman has a specialist team,headed by the Special Tax Adviser, to investigatecomplaints about the ATO.

Immigration OmbudsmanUnder s 4(4) of the Ombudsman Act, theCommonwealth Ombudsman may be designated asthe Immigration Ombudsman when dealing withmatters relating to immigration, includingimmigration detention. The Ombudsman has aspecific statutory role under s 486O of theMigration Act 1958 of reporting to the Minister forImmigration and Multicultural Affairs about thecircumstances of any person who has been inimmigration detention for two years or more. At therequest of the government, the Ombudsman hasbeen reviewing a substantial number of caseswhere it appears that a citizen or person lawfullyentitled to be in Australia may have been detainedor removed from Australia.

Postal Industry OmbudsmanSection 19L of the Ombudsman Act provides thatthe Commonwealth Ombudsman shall be the PostalIndustry Ombudsman. The PIO will deal withcomplaints about postal service delivery by

Australia Post and private sector postal operatorsthat elect to be members of the PIO scheme.

Complaints about freedom ofinformation The FOI Act enables the Ombudsman to investigatecomplaints about actions and decisions bydepartments and agencies about requests foraccess to documents under FOI. Details of thesecomplaints are included in the Ombudsman’s annualreports and in any additional reports made toparliament under s 19 of the Ombudsman Act. TheFOI Act s 57(3) provides that an application cannotbe made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal forreview of an FOI decision that is the subject of acomplaint to the Ombudsman until the Ombudsmanhas finalised the investigation.

Investigations of the Australian Federal Police The Ombudsman has specific functions in relationto complaints about the Australian Federal Police(AFP) under the Complaints (Australian FederalPolice) Act 1981 (Complaints Act). Complaints aboutthe AFP usually focus on its practices andprocedures or the conduct of individual AFPmembers. Complaints about its practices andprocedures are dealt with in a similar way tocomplaints made under the Ombudsman Act. TheOmbudsman may conduct an investigation on hisown initiative.

Where the conduct of an AFP appointee is inquestion, the AFP Professional Standards andInternal Investigation division normally undertakesthe initial investigation. Sometimes the internalinvestigation division is not involved; for example,when the complaint is about the actions of amember of the division. The Ombudsman examinesreports of all AFP investigations, whether theoriginating complaint was made to the Ombudsmanor to the AFP, and decides whether further action isnecessary. If action is required, the case may bereferred back to the AFP for further investigation.Alternatively, the Ombudsman can decide toinvestigate the matter independently.

Following an investigation by either theOmbudsman or the AFP, the Ombudsman canrecommend remedial action to the AFP


APPEN

DIX 2

FREEDO

M O

F INFO

RMATIO

N STATEM

ENT


Commissioner. Recommendations may include thata member be charged with a criminal offence or abreach of discipline, or some other course of action.

The Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standardsand Related Measures) Act 2006, which passedthrough Parliament on 23 June 2006, repeals theComplaints Act. When the amending legislationcommences operation, complaints to theOmbudsman about the AFP will be investigatedunder the Ombudsman Act. The legislation willpermit the Ombudsman to be designated as theLaw Enforcement Ombudsman in dealing withmatters relating to the AFP.

The Ombudsman’s interception andsurveillance devices audit Under the Telecommunications (Interception andAccess) Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act2004, the Ombudsman can inspect certain recordsof the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission(ACC) to ascertain whether the agencies havecomplied with specified record-keepingrequirements of the Acts.

Audit of controlled operations In accordance with the Crimes Act 1914, theOmbudsman is required to inspect and report onrecords of controlled operations conducted by theAFP and the ACC.

Audit of compliance powers Until 2006, the Ombudsman had responsibility forauditing the use of compliance powers in theWorkplace Relations Act 1996 by members of theBuilding Industry Taskforce. That framework hasbeen replaced by the Building and ConstructionIndustry Improvement Act 2005.

Australian Capital Territory (ACT)Ombudsman Under the ACT Self-Government (ConsequentialProvisions) Act 1988 (Cth), the CommonwealthOmbudsman discharges the role of ACTOmbudsman. A memorandum of understandingbetween the Commonwealth Ombudsman and theACT Government covers the discharge of this role.The work of the ACT Ombudsman is set out in a

separate annual report made to the ACTGovernment pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1989(ACT).

Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 (ACT),the Ombudsman is a proper authority to receive andinvestigate public interest disclosures in relation tothe actions of ACT Government agencies.

CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS HELD BYTHE OMBUDSMANThe Ombudsman holds information related to:

■ investigations, including complaints,correspondence and consultations withcomplainants, agencies and other informationsources, background material, records ofconversation, analysis and advice, and reports

■ oversight functions

■ the Ombudsman’s role as the chief executive ofan Australian Government agency with aparticular set of responsibilities, in terms of thedevelopment or implementation ofadministrative process, policy or legislation

■ the Ombudsman’s management of the office,including personnel, contracting and financialrecords and information about assetmanagement.

FOI access and contactGeneral enquiries and requests for access todocuments or other matters relating to FOI may bemade in writing, by telephone or in person at anyCommonwealth Ombudsman office. Each office isopen between 9 am and 5 pm on weekdays. For thecost of a local call, people can contact theOmbudsman’s office by calling 1300 362 072. (Seecontacts in the ‘References’ section of this report.)

Pursuant to s 23 of the FOI Act, the Ombudsmanhas authorised the Deputy Ombudsmen, all SeniorAssistant Ombudsmen, and some Executive Levelofficers to grant or refuse requests for access.Under an arrangement made outside the Act, theOmbudsman has agreed to officers at and aboveExecutive Level 1 providing limited complaintinformation if requested by, or on behalf of, acomplainant as detailed below.

APPEN

DIX 2

FREEDO

M O

F INFO

RMATIO

N STATEM

ENT

FOI REQUESTS TO THE OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE The Ombudsman’s office deals with a moderatenumber of requests every year under the FOI Act (24 in 2005–06 and 15 in 2004–05), mostly fordocuments related to investigations. Following aresome observations about how those requests are handled:

■ The office tries to set a good standard ofcompliance. We do not require a complainantto submit an FOI request prior to Ombudsmanstaff providing certain kinds of documents:

– documents previously and lawfully providedby or to the complainant by the Ombudsman’soffice or someone else

– records of telephone conversations involvingthe complainant

– most database entries relating to thecomplainant.

■ In the course of investigation, we may providean agency response to a complainant so that heor she can better understand the agency’sposition. It is likely that an investigation filecould contain information and documentsprovided by other agencies—typically, theagency about which a complaint was made.Wherever possible, the Ombudsman will seekthe other agency’s agreement to transfer to itthose parts of the request that relate to itsfunctions. This is done because the otheragency is usually much better placed to makean informed decision about the documents’

content and context, in the light of theirexperience in dealing with requests for similardocuments.

A further consideration is that if the request isnot transferred, the other agency would have alegitimate interest in making suggestions aboutthe decisions the Ombudsman should make.The Ombudsman would not be bound to acceptthose suggestions, but they would have to begiven considerable weight. From the point ofview of the complainant, if there is asubsequent complaint about an FOI process, itis probably better that the Ombudsman’s officehas been involved as little as possible.

The Ombudsman’s office has raised withgovernment, in the context of a current review ofthe Ombudsman Act, whether the office should besubject to the FOI Act. Some other ombudsmanoffices in Australia are exempt from the FOI Act intheir jurisdiction. The explanation given is that itcan be unsuitable to apply the Act to an office thathas the function of investigating complaints againstother government agencies, including complaintsabout FOI matters. Many of the documents held bythe Ombudsman’s office will have come either fromthe complainant or the agency under investigation,or be internal working documents of theOmbudsman’s office that contain interimexpressions of opinion about other agencies thatshould not be disclosed publicly unless that agencyhas first been given an opportunity to comment onthe opinion, consistent with natural justice and s 8(5) of the Ombudsman Act.


APPEN

DIX 2

FREEDO

M O

F INFO

RMATIO

N STATEM

ENT


Airo-Farulla, G. 2005, ‘Of wheat and cheats: the scope of ADJRA Review’, paper presented to 2005Australian Institute of Administrative Law National Administrative Law Forum, National Convention Centre,Canberra.

—2006, ‘Hypothetically just?’, Panel Member, Ideas Festival, Southbank, Brisbane.

—2006, ‘Reasonableness, rationality, proportionality’, paper presented to Symposium on AustralianAdministrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines, Monash University, Melbourne.

Brent, R. 2006, ‘Observations on and common faults in administration enquiries’, presentations withInspector-General of the Australian Defence Force to Defence personnel, Darwin and Canberra.

—2006, ‘Public Service culture and its impact on government lawyers’, presentation to Australian CorporateLawyers Association Government Lawyers: Your Role in Governance Conference, Canberra.

Brown, V. 2005, ‘The meaning of integrity’, presentation to Australian Federal Police Integrity InvestigationsProgram, Canberra.

—2005, ‘The role of our office and key elements of good complaint handling’, presentation to Insolvencyand Trustee Service Australia, Canberra.

Browne, D. 2005, ‘The Ombudsman and the Public Service’, paper presented to the National OmbudsmanCommission of Indonesia Regional Seminar, Surabaya, Indonesia.

—2005, ‘FOI and the Ombudsman’, paper presented to Australian Taxation Office Freedom of InformationPractitioners Forum, Canberra.

—2006, ‘The Taxation Ombudsman’, presentation to Mornington Accountants Group, Mornington, Victoria.

Cantle, G. 2005, ‘Our role in Australian Federal Police complaints’, presentation to Australian NationalUniversity Criminal Practice Workshop, Canberra.

Colley, M. 2006, ‘The role of the Ombudsman’s office’, presentation to Department of Employment andWorkplace Relations customer service officers, Canberra.

Ducker, L. and Wheeler, L. 2006, ‘The Postal Industry Ombudsman’, presentation to the National BoardMeeting of the Post Office Agents Association Ltd, Melbourne.

Durkin, M. 2006, ‘The role of the Ombudsman’s office’, presentation to information sessions for Departmentof Immigration and Multicultural Affairs staff, Adelaide.

Emmel, K. 2006, ‘The role of the Ombudsman’s office’, presentation to community organisations as part of ajoint Law Week outreach activity with other oversight agencies, Berri.

Fleming, H. 2005, ‘Feedback to Centrelink customer compensation staff on handling of Compensation forDetriment caused by Defective Administration claims’, presentation to Centrelink’s national legal servicesstaff, Canberra.

Joske, C. 2005 and 2006, ‘The role of the Ombudsman in dealing with complaints against the AFP’,presentation to Australian Federal Police Confidant Network Training Course, Canberra.

APPEN

DIX 3

PAPERS A

ND

PRESENTATIO

NS B

Y STAFF

appendix 3

papers and presentations by staff

—2005, ‘The role of the Ombudsman’, paper presented to Integrity Investigations Program, Canberra.

Law Enforcement Team, 2005 and 2006, ‘The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s role in inspecting lawenforcement records’, presentations to several Australian Federal Police seminars .

Masri, G. 2005, ‘Commonwealth Ombudsman—immigration overview’, presentation to Department ofImmigration and Multicultural Affairs staff, Canberra.

McMillan, J. 2005, ‘Commentary on executive power’, roundtable on inherent executive power, MelbourneUniversity.

—2005, ‘Whistleblower protection ten years on: consistencies, inconsistencies and regulatory dilemmas’,presentation to Australian and New Zealand School of Government Whistleblower Symposium,Canberra.

—2005, ‘Recent developments in administrative law’, presentation to AMPLA, Resources and Energy LawAssociation Conference, Sydney.

—2005, ‘Graduation address—dealing with complaints’, Australian National University GraduationCeremony, Canberra.

—2005, ‘Reflections on leadership’, after dinner speech to Australian Federal Police course on leadership,Canberra.

—2005, ‘FOI and privacy through an ombudsman’s lens’, presentation to Freedom of InformationPractitioners Forum, Canberra.

—2005, ‘Using administrative law without going to court’, presentation to ACT Law Society AdministrativeLaw Afternoon, Canberra.

—2005, ‘Public law developments’, presentation to the Forum of Commonwealth Agencies, Sydney.

—2005, ‘Reflections on Rau and Alvarez: lessons for public law’, presentation to Australian Institute ofAdministrative Law Seminar, Adelaide.

—2005, ‘The Ombudsman, immigration and beyond’, paper presented to Institute of Public AdministrationAustralia Seminar, Canberra

—2005, ‘Current Issues and Problems—through the lens of the Defence Force Ombudsman’, presentationto Defence Legal Day, Canberra.

—2005, ‘Breakfast with the watchdog’, presentation to Australian Corporate Lawyers Association,Canberra.

—2005, ‘Chaos or coherence? Strengths, opportunities and challenges for Australia’s integrity system’,presentation to the launch of the National Integrity Systems Assessment report, Sydney.

—2005, ‘Freedom of information and whistleblower legislation—an Australian perspective’, presentationto Asian Ombudsman Association Conference, Hong Kong.

—2006, ‘Connecting government and the public: tension points’, address to the Forum of CommonwealthAgencies Connecting Government Conference, Terrigal.

—2006, ‘Administrative tribunals in Australia—future directions’, presentation to International TribunalsWorkshop, Australian National University, Canberra.

—2006, ‘The Immigration Ombudsman role—lessons for public law’, presentation to Australian Institute ofAdministrative Law seminar, Melbourne.


APPEN

DIX 3

PAPERS A

ND

PRESENTATIO

NS B

Y STAFF


—2006, ‘Administrative law complaint mechanisms and their potential for overuse’, presentation toAustralian Institute of Administrative Law, National Administrative Law Forum, Surfers Paradise.

—2006, ‘Open government—reality or rhetoric?’, presentation to Institute of Public AdministrationAustralia Seminar, Canberra.

—2006, ‘The problems people have with government’, presentation to Australian Government SolicitorAdministrative Law Forum, Canberra.

—2006, ‘Persistent complainants to ombudsman offices’, presentation to conference on Access to Justice,Monash University Prato Campus, Italy.

Mutch, D. 2006, ‘Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman overview’, Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs ACT Regional Office, Canberra.

Robertson, D. 2005 and 2006, ‘The role of the Defence Force Ombudsman’, presentation to graduatingstudents at the Royal Military College Duntroon, Canberra, and to graduating students at the AustralianDefence Force Academy, Canberra.

Senior Executive Team, 2005 and 2006, presentations by various Senior Executive members to theAustralian Public Service Commission Orientation Program for new Public Service Senior Executive Serviceofficers, Canberra.

Thom, V. 2006, presentation to Victorian federal members of parliament on the role of the Ombudsman’soffice, Melbourne.

APPEN

DIX 3

PAPERS A

ND

PRESENTATIO

NS B

Y STAFF

Table A1—Approaches and complaints received andfinalised about Australian Government agencies,2005–06, Ombudsman Act 1976 (including freedomof information).

Table A2—Australian Federal Police complaintissues finalised, 2005–06, Complaints (AustralianFederal Police) Act 1981.

Table A3—Australian Federal Police method ofhandling complaint issues finalised, 2005–06,Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981.

EXPLANATIONS OF TERMS USED INAPPENDIX 4 TABLESAdvised to pursue elsewhere—complainantadvised to pursue complaint directly with agency,court or tribunal, industry or subject specialist,member of parliament or minister

AFP investigation—AFP investigation ofcomplaints against AFP members and review by theOmbudsman

AFP workplace resolution—complaints managedby the AFP in the workplace and reviewed by theOmbudsman

Approach/complaint not pursued—withdrawn bycomplainant, or written complaint requested but notreceived

Approaches/complaints finalised—approaches/complaints finalised in 2005–06, including somecomplaints carried over from previous years

Approaches/complaints received—approaches/complaints received in 2005–06

Category 1 approaches—resolved withoutinvestigation; outcomes include decisions not toinvestigate and referrals to appropriate agency orauthority

Category 2 approaches—approaches that cannotbe resolved at category 1 and require further internalenquiries/research or more information from thecomplainant, resolved without contacting the agency

Category 3 approaches—agency contacted andinvestigation conducted


APPEN

DIX 4

STATISTICS

appendix 4

statistics

Category 4 approaches—further investigationconducted, as the complaint/approach was not able tobe resolved in category 3

Conciliated—complaint conciliated through the AFP’sworkplace-resolution process and reviewed by theOmbudsman

Incapable of determination—sufficient evidence wasnot available to support a clear conclusion

Issues—approaches/complaints can contain a numberof issues, each requiring a separate decision as towhether to investigate; each issue may result in aseparate outcome

Ombudsman decision not to investigate—theOmbudsman may decide not to investigate where aperson has not tried to resolve their problem directlywith the relevant agency or there is a more appropriateavenue of review available

Ombudsman investigation (Table A3)—investigation, following consideration by the AFP, askingmore questions and reviewing the agency’s files, policiesand procedures

Ombudsman investigation not warranted—investigation of the approach/complaint judged to beunnecessary for one of the following reasons: over 12months old, frivolous or not in good faith, insufficientinterest, related to commercial activity, or ‘notwarranted’ having regard to all the circumstances; thisincludes approaches/complaints that were considered bythe AFP and reviewed by the Ombudsman where furtherinvestigation was not warranted

Out of jurisdiction—complaint not within theOmbudsman’s legal powers

Remedies—complaints can contain a number of issues,each requiring separate investigation and possiblyresulting in a number of different remedies

Special investigation—investigations conducted undersection 46 of the Complaints Act may be conducted solelyby the Ombudsman or jointly with the AFP

Substantiated—complaint issue was found to be true

Unsubstantiated—there were no grounds for thecomplaint issue.

Action expedited

Apology

Total

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

Total received

In jurisdiction

Out of jurisdiction

Disciplinary action

Explanation

Financial remedy

Decision changedor reconsidered

Law, policy orpractice changed

Other non-financialremedy

Rem

edie

sFi

nalis

edRe

ceiv

ed

Not

inve

stig

ated

Inve

stig

ated


APPEN

DIX 4

STATISTICS

TABLE A1 APPROACHES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AND FINALISED ABOUT AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTAGENCIES, 2005–06, OMBUDSMAN ACT 1976 (INCLUDING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION)

Total remedies

Age

ncy

Agr

icul

ture

, Fis

heri

es a

nd F

ores

try

Depa

rtmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re, F

ishe

ries

and

Fore

stry

2 17

19

10

5

2 1

18

2 2

Aust

ralia

n Fi

sher

ies

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

6 6

1 2

1 4

1 1

Aust

ralia

n Qu

aran

tine

and

Insp

ectio

n Se

rvic

e1

30

31

11

8 5

6 30

2

6 1

1 1

11

Aust

ralia

n W

ine

and

Bran

dy C

orpo

ratio

n1

1 A

ttorn

ey-G

ener

al’s

Atto

rney

-Gen

eral

’s De

partm

ent

3 30

33

10

9

4 8

31

1 2

2 1

6 Ad

min

istra

tive

Appe

als

Trib

unal

32

32

21

7 1

2 31

1

1 3

5 Au

stra

lian

Crim

e Co

mm

issi

on1

8 9

2 4

3 1

10

Aust

ralia

n Tr

ansa

ctio

n Re

ports

and

An

alys

is C

entre

(AUS

TRAC

)1

2 3

2 1

3

Crim

Trac

1 1

1 1

Aust

ralia

n Cu

stom

s Se

rvic

e6

115

121

66

28

12

10

116

2 3

8 1

2 16

Di

rect

or o

f Pub

lic P

rose

cutio

ns1

10

11

5 2

1 1

9 1

1 Fa

mily

Cou

rt of

Aus

tralia

10

88

98

63

22

9 1

95

1 6

1 8

Fede

ral C

ourt

of A

ustra

lia17

17

7

4 5

1 17

6

1 7

Fede

ral M

agis

trate

s Co

urt

1 7

8 2

3 1

2 8

1 1

High

Cou

rt of

Aus

tralia

2 11

13

6

5 11

In

solv

ency

and

Tru

stee

Ser

vice

Aus

tralia

5 71

76

33

14

12

18

77

5

3 3

10

2 2

25

Nat

iona

l Nat

ive

Title

Trib

unal

4 4

2 1

3 Of

fice

of F

ilm a

nd L

itera

ture

Cla

ssifi

catio

n3

3 2

1 3

1 1

Offic

e of

the

Priv

acy

Com

mis

sion

er2

44

46

14

18

8 5

45

1 4

1 6

Com

mon

wea

lth P

arlia

men

tDe

partm

ent o

f Par

liam

enta

ry S

ervi

ces

1 1

Depa

rtmen

t of t

he S

enat

e1

1 1

1 Co

mm

unic

atio

ns, I

nfor

mat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy a

nd th

e A

rts

Depa

rtmen

t of C

omm

unic

atio

ns, I

nfor

mat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy a

nd th

e Ar

ts1

13

14

5 2

3 1

11

1 2

1 4

Aust

ralia

n Br

oadc

astin

g Co

rpor

atio

n2

14

16

13

2 15

Au

stra

lian

Com

mun

icat

ions

and

Med

ia A

utho

rity

3 30

33

15

5

4 10

34

1

1 7

1 2

12

Aust

ralia

n Fi

lm C

omm

issi

on2

2 2

2 1

1 Au

stra

lian

Film

, Tel

evis

ion

and

Radi

o Sc

hool

1 1

1 1


APPEN

DIX 4

STATISTICS


Action expedited

Apology

Total

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

Total received

In jurisdiction

Out of jurisdiction

Total remedies

Disciplinary action

Explanation

Financial remedy




Rem

edie

sFi

nalis

edA

genc

yRe

ceiv

ed

Not

inve

stig

ated

Inve

stig

ated

Nat

iona

l Arc

hive

s of

Aus

tralia

3 3

6 3

2 1

6 1

1 1

3 Au

stra

lian

Spor

ts C

omm

issi

on1

1 1

1 1

3 Au

stra

lia C

ounc

il fo

r the

Arts

1 1

1 1

Aust

ralia

n Po

stal

Cor

pora

tion

24

1,30

3 1,

327

517

162

389

212

1,28

0 92

11

2 40

24

25

4 12

6 15

98

76

1 N

atio

nal G

alle

ry o

f Aus

tralia

1 1

1 1

Spec

ial B

road

cast

ing

Serv

ice

Corp

orat

ion

1 1

1 1

Tels

tra C

orpo

ratio

n21

21

0 23

1 16

1 54

11

6

232

3 1

7 1

12

Def

ence

Depa

rtmen

t of D

efen

ce17

12

1 13

8 53

39

26

20

13

8 7

5 4

18

1 35

Au

stra

lian

Defe

nce

Forc

e Ac

adem

y1

2 3

2 1

3 Ro

yal A

ustra

lian

Air F

orce

3 77

80

28

19

16

16

79

4

2 2

3 3

1 1

16

Aust

ralia

n Ar

my

10

159

169

65

35

40

24

164

11

2 3

19

1 2

1 39

De

fenc

e Fo

rce

Retir

emen

t and

Dea

th B

enef

its A

utho

rity

1 1

1 1

Defe

nce

Hous

ing

Auth

ority

2 27

29

15

5

6 6

32

2 1

3 1

1 3

11

Defe

nce

Serv

ice

Hom

es2

2 1

1 De

partm

ent o

f Vet

eran

s’ A

ffairs

23

253

276

112

42

66

46

266

8 4

3 32

4

3 12

66

Ro

yal A

ustra

lian

Nav

y4

50

54

17

12

17

11

57

5 1

3 5

1 15

Ed

ucat

ion,

Sci

ence

and

Tra

inin

gDe

partm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n, S

cien

ce a

nd T

rain

ing

32

32

15

11

5 2

33

1 2

2 1

2 1

9 Au

stra

lian

Nuc

lear

Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Orga

nisa

tion

1 1

2 2

2 Au

stra

lian

Nat

iona

l Tra

inin

g Au

thor

ity1

1 1

1 Au

stra

lian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity9

9 4

1 1

2 8

1 1

Com

mon

wea

lth S

cien

tific

and

Indu

stria

l Re

sear

ch O

rgan

isat

ion

2 2

1 1

2

Empl

oym

ent a

nd W

orkp

lace

Rel

atio

nsDe

partm

ent o

f Em

ploy

men

t and

Wor

kpla

ce R

elat

ions

24

394

418

226

70

56

59

411

10

5 10

48

10

3

14

100

Aust

ralia

n In

dust

rial R

egis

try5

5 2

1 2

5 1

1 Co

mca

re4

85

89

39

22

10

19

90

5 7

12

5 3

2 34

Of

fice

of th

e Em

ploy

men

t Adv

ocat

e10

10

2

4 3

2 11

2

1 3

Envi

ronm

ent a

nd H

erita

geDe

partm

ent o

f the

Env

ironm

ent a

nd H

erita

ge1

10

11

6 1

1 2

10

1 1

2 Au

stra

lian

Herit

age

Coun

cil

2 2

2 2

Grea

t Bar

rier R

eef M

arin

e Pa

rk A

utho

rity

3 3

1 1

2 Bu

reau

of M

eteo

rolo

gy2

2 1

1


APPEN

DIX 4

STATISTICS


Action expedited

Apology

Total

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

Total received

In jurisdiction

Out of jurisdiction

Total remedies

Disciplinary action

Explanation

Financial remedy




Rem

edie

sFi

nalis

edA

genc

yRe

ceiv

ed

Not

inve

stig

ated

Inve

stig

ated

Fam

ilies

, Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces

and

Indi

geno

us A

ffair

sDe

partm

ent o

f Fam

ilies

, Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces

and

Indi

geno

us A

ffairs

2 30

32

17

7

4 6

34

1 3

1 5

Abor

igin

al H

oste

ls L

imite

d1

1 1

1 In

dige

nous

Lan

d Co

rpor

atio

n2

2 1

1 2

Offic

e of

Indi

geno

us P

olic

y Co

ordi

natio

n1

13

14

5 1

10

1 17

1

1 2

Offic

e of

the

Regi

stra

r of A

borig

inal

Cor

pora

tions

2 6

8 6

2 8

Soci

al S

ecur

ity A

ppea

ls T

ribun

al2

21

23

13

7 2

22

Tiw

i Lan

d Co

unci

l1

1 1

1 1

1 To

rres

Stra

it Re

gion

al A

utho

rity

1 1

1 1

Fina

nce

and

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Depa

rtmen

t of F

inan

ce a

nd A

dmin

istra

tion

1 10

11

3

5 1

1 10

Au

stra

lian

Elec

tora

l Com

mis

sion

2 20

22

9

6 2

3 20

1

1 Co

mm

issi

oner

for S

uper

annu

atio

n (C

omSu

per)

7 34

41

17

11

6

7 41

3

1 2

6 De

partm

ent o

f Hum

an S

ervi

ces

1 1

1 1

– Ce

ntre

link

238

7,09

5 7,

333

4,70

7 63

5 1,

143

853

7,33

8 38

4 15

5 14

1 11

83

1 22

0 38

25

4 2,

034

– Co

mm

onw

ealth

Reh

abili

tatio

n Se

rvic

e1

16

17

8 8

1 2

19

1 1

– Ch

ild S

uppo

rt Ag

ency

36

1,89

1 1,

927

898

270

403

363

1,93

4 10

1 70

44

5

470

54

38

86

868

– He

alth

Ser

vice

s Au

stra

lia6

6 3

2 1

6 2

2 –

Med

icar

e Au

stra

lia7

149

156

80

23

25

27

155

6 5

3 2

20

5 2

9 52

Fo

reig

n A

ffair

s an

d Tr

ade

Depa

rtmen

t of F

orei

gn A

ffairs

and

Tra

de4

136

140

67

19

29

24

139

4 3

6 24

2

1 4

44

Aust

ralia

n Ag

ency

for I

nter

natio

nal

Deve

lopm

ent (

AusA

ID)

5 5

2 3

1 6

Aust

ralia

n Tr

ade

Com

mis

sion

(Aus

trade

)9

9 8

1 9

Hea

lth a

nd A

gein

gDe

partm

ent o

f Hea

lth a

nd A

gein

g6

132

138

60

36

21

13

130

5 1

1 7

1 1

2 18

Of

fice

of H

earin

g Se

rvic

es1

1 1

1 2

Food

Sta

ndar

ds A

ustra

lia a

nd N

ew Z

eala

nd3

3 1

2 3

Nat

iona

l Hea

lth a

nd M

edic

al R

esea

rch

Coun

cil

1 1

1 1


APPEN

DIX 4

STATISTICS


Action expedited

Apology

Total

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

Total received

In jurisdiction

Out of jurisdiction

Total remedies

Disciplinary action

Explanation

Financial remedy




Rem

edie

sFi

nalis

edA

genc

yRe

ceiv

ed

Not

inve

stig

ated

Inve

stig

ated

Not

e: Ta

ble

A1 in

clud

es to

tal n

umbe

r of a

ppro

ache

s an

d co

mpl

aint

s re

ceiv

ed a

nd fi

nalis

ed a

bout

ACT

Gov

ernm

ent a

genc

ies

and

AFP

ACT

Polic

ing.

Det

aile

d in

form

atio

n is

in th

e AC

T Om

buds

man

Ann

ual R

epor

t 200

5–20

06

(see

ww

w.o

mbu

dsm

an.a

ct.g

ov.a

u).

Imm

igra

tion

and

Mul

ticul

tura

l Affa

irs

Depa

rtmen

t of I

mm

igra

tion

and

Mul

ticul

tura

l Affa

irs50

1,

250

1,30

0 40

3 29

0 24

8 23

6 1,

177

67

38

27

175

17

28

50

402

Mig

ratio

n Ag

ents

Reg

istra

tion

Auth

ority

13

13

6 2

1 6

15

1 1

1 1

2 6

Mig

ratio

n Re

view

Trib

unal

26

26

9 8

6 4

27

4 1

1 1

4 11

Re

fuge

e Re

view

Trib

unal

1 3

4 1

2 1

1 5

1 1

Indu

stry

, Tou

rism

and

Res

ourc

esDe

partm

ent o

f Ind

ustry

, Tou

rism

and

Res

ourc

es5

5 1

2 1

4 IP

Aus

tralia

11

11

3 2

3 2

10

1 1

3 1

1 7

Indu

stry

Res

earc

h an

d De

velo

pmen

t Boa

rd1

1 1

1 Pr

ime

Min

iste

r and

Cab

inet

Depa

rtmen

t of t

he P

rime

Min

iste

r and

Cab

inet

2 8

10

7 1

2 10

1

1 2

Aust

ralia

n Pu

blic

Ser

vice

Com

mis

sion

2 8

10

7 2

1 10

Go

vern

or-G

ener

al a

nd C

omm

ande

r-in

-Chi

ef3

3 1

1 1

3 Tr

ansp

ort a

nd R

egio

nal S

ervi

ces

Depa

rtmen

t of T

rans

port

and

Regi

onal

Ser

vice

s2

51

53

17

12

9 10

48

5

6 11

Ai

rser

vice

s Au

stra

lia1

6 7

5 2

7 Ci

vil A

viat

ion

Safe

ty A

utho

rity

5 45

50

23

12

12

4

51

2 3

2 10

1

18

Nat

iona

l Cap

ital A

utho

rity

2 2

1 1

2 4

1 1

Trea

sury

The

Trea

sury

1 7

8 5

3 8

Aust

ralia

n Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics

60

60

43

7 7

3 60

2

1 7

2 2

14

Aust

ralia

n Co

mpe

titio

n an

d Co

nsum

er C

omm

issi

on3

31

34

15

10

1 8

34

1 1

Aust

ralia

n Pr

uden

tial R

egul

atio

n Au

thor

ity2

44

46

25

9 5

6 45

2

5 1

8 Au

stra

lian

Secu

ritie

s an

d In

vest

men

ts C

omm

issi

on5

183

188

63

58

33

42

196

5 3

6 19

9

2 10

54

Au

stra

lian

Taxa

tion

Offic

e72

1,

451

1,52

3 82

3 45

4 15

5 20

4 1,

636

49

36

15

131

38

10

35

314

Roya

l Aus

tralia

n M

int

1 1

1 1

Nat

iona

l Com

petit

ion

Coun

cil

1 1

Rese

rve

Bank

of A

ustra

lia2

2 1

1 2

Supe

rann

uatio

n Co

mpl

aint

s Tr

ibun

al11

11

3

4 1

2 10

2

1 1

4

ACT

Gov

ernm

ent A

genc

ies

28

484

512

248

114

99

61

522

6 6

4 1

10

8 1

4 40

A

ustr

alia

n Fe

dera

l Pol

ice

32

769

801

723

App

roac

hes

abou

t out

-of-

juri

sdic

tion

agen

cies

/req

uest

sfo

r inf

orm

atio

n10

,147

10

,147

10

,129

TOTA

L

10,8

43

17,3

84

28,2

27

9,18

1 2,

668

2,96

1 2,

396

28,0

58

808

479

324

44 2

,202

51

3 16

3 61

0 5,

143


APPEN

DIX 4

STATISTICS

TABLE A2 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMPLAINT ISSUES FINALISED, 2005–06, COMPLAINTS(AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE) ACT 1981

ComplaintsReceived 801

Finalised 723

Conciliated 319

Incapable of determination 13

Substantiated 9

Unsubstantiated 52

Ombudsman investigation not warranted 295

Advised to pursue elsewhere 31

Approach not pursued 60

Out of jurisdiction 61

Total issues finalised 840

Outcome of issues finalised

TABLE A3 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE METHOD OF HANDLING COMPLAINT ISSUES FINALISED, 2005–06,COMPLAINTS (AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE) ACT 1981

Out of jurisdiction 55

Ombudsman decision not to investigate 143

Ombudsman investigation 152

AFP workplace resolution 402

AFP investigation 87

Special investigation 1

Total issues finalised 840

Note: The office reviews and audits its statistical data. Minor adjustments to statistics used in this report may occur as a result of such reviews.

Method of handlingcomplaint issues finalised

The Ombudsman’s office engages consultants whenthe expertise required is not available within theorganisation or when the specialist skills required arenot available without diverting resources from otherhigher priority tasks. In accordance with procurementguidelines, consultants are selected by advertisement,panel arrangements or selective tendering.

Table A4 provides details of consultancy services letby the office during 2005–06 with a contract value(GST inclusive) of $10,000 or more. (1) Explanation of selection process drawn from the Commonwealth

Procurement Guidelines (January 2005):

Open tender—procurement procedure in which a request for tender ispublished inviting all businesses that satisfy the conditions forparticipation to submit tenders. Public tenders are sought from themarketplace using national and major metropolitan newspaperadvertising and the Australian Government AusTender internet site.

Select tender—procurement procedure in which the procuring agencyselects which potential suppliers are invited to submit tenders.Tenders are invited from a short list of competent suppliers.

Direct sourcing—form of restricted tendering, available only undercertain defined circumstances, with a single potential supplier orsuppliers being invited to bid because of their unique expertise and/ortheir special ability to supply the goods and/or services sought.

Panel—arrangement under which a number of suppliers, usuallyselected through a single procurement process, may each supplyproperty or services to an agency as specified in the panelarrangements. Tenders are sought from suppliers that have


APPEN

DIX 5

CON

SULTA

NCY SERVICES

appendix 5

consultancy services

Consultant name Description Contract price Selection process (1) Justification (2)

Mr Murray Neil Comrie1 Conduct of an inquiry to investigate, $268,556 Direct sourcing Bexamine and report on matters relating to the immigration detention or removal of persons who may have been entitled to be in Australia.

Crystal Approach Pty Ltd IT service improvement review $14,080 Direct sourcing C

Information Management Scoping study of current records and $23,782 Select tender BSystems2 information management practices

McPherson Consulting Services in relation to an own motion $27,500 Direct sourcing BPty Ltd investigation into the complaint-handling

process of the Migration Agents Registration Authority

ACNielsen (Holdings) Market research services $64,350 Select tender CPty Ltd

Mr William Severino Provision of investigation services $18,000 Direct sourcing B

Total $416,268

TABLE A4 CONSULTANCY SERVICES, 2005–06

prequalified on the agency panels to supply to the government. Thiscategory includes standing offers and supplier panels where theconsultant offers to supply goods and services for a predeterminedlength of time, usually at a prearranged price.

(2) Justification for decision to use consultancy

A—skills currently unavailable within agency

B—need for specialised or professional skills

C—need for independent research or assessment

ADVERTISING AND MARKET RESEARCHAdvertising is used to publicise the office’s services.No advertising contracts were let in 2005–06. Theoffice’s advertising strategies were designed andconceived in-house. Recruitment and tender noticeswere placed in newspapers at a cost of $36,098; andadvertisements to publicise the office’s services wereplaced in newspapers and journals at a cost of$3,215. All notices and advertisements were placedthrough hma Blaze.

Market research was conducted by ACNielsen tomeasure the level of community awareness andknowledge of the Ombudsman’s roles and function inregional and rural Australia. This contract is reportedin Table A4—Consultancy services, 2005–06.

1 Mr Comrie’s contract was transferred from Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 20 July 2005. Costs reported are only those that were incurred bythe Commonwealth Ombudsman from the date of transfer.

2 Contract price exceeded by $2,437 due to additional travel and request for additional documentation.

financial statements


APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TSappendix 6



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE INCOME STATEMENT for the year ended 30 June 2006

Notes2006

$2005

$

INCOME Revenue Revenues from government 4A 17,035,000 11,463,000 Goods and services 4B 1,349,356 1,277,959 Total Revenue 18,384,356 12,740,959 Gains Net gains from disposal of assets 4C (64,685 ) (231 ) Other gains 4D 19,000 16,675 Total gains (45,685 ) 16,444 TOTAL INCOME 18,338,671 12,757,403 EXPENSES Employees 5A 11,587,946 8,076,134 Suppliers 5B 5,107,194 3,840,371 Depreciation and amortisation 5C 622,857 328,715 Write-down and impairment of assets 5D – 120,430 TOTAL EXPENSES 17,317,997 12,365,650 OPERATING RESULT 1,020,674 391,753 The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE

BALANCE SHEETas at 30 June 2006

Notes2006

$2005

$ASSETSFinancial assetsCash 6A 332,850 2,157,387Receivables 6B 4,313,090 139,487Total financial assets 4,645,940 2,296,874

Non-financial assetsInfrastructure, plant and equipment 7A 1,680,580 1,364,450Intangibles 7C 425,597 388,232Other non-financial assets 7D 168,267 31,064

Total non-financial assets 2,274,444 1,783,746

TOTAL ASSETS 6,920,384 4,080,620

LIABILITIESPayablesSuppliers 8A 656,091 542,316Other payables 8B 433,447 515,985

Total payables 1,089,538 1,058,301

ProvisionsEmployees 9A 2,715,948 2,134,228Other 9B 306,049 188,916

Total provisions 3,021,997 2,323,144

Total liabilities 4,111,535 3,381,445

NET ASSETS 2,808,849 699,175

EQUITYContributed equity 1,937,000 848,000Reserves 215,252 215,252Accumulated profit/(deficit) 656,597 (364,077 )

TOTAL EQUITY 2,808,849 699,175

Current liabilities 3,418,658 2,918,779Non-current liabilities 692,877 462,666Current assets 4,814,207 2,327,938Non-current assets 2,106,177 1,752,682

The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS for the year ended 30 June 2006

Notes2006

$2005

$

OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash received Appropriations 14,035,000 11,837,000 Goods and services 1,527,688 1,297,254 GST received from ATO 333,221 358,748 Total cash received 15,895,909 13,493,002 Cash used Employees (11,006,226 ) (8,271,837 ) Suppliers (5,673,183 ) (4,415,271 ) Total cash used (16,679,409 ) (12,687,108 ) Net cash from/(used by) operating activities 10 (783,500 ) 805,894 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Cash received Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment 5 4,090 Total cash received 5 4,090 Cash used Purchase of property, plant and equipment (823,849 ) (828,447 ) Purchase of intangibles (217,193 ) (301,389 ) Total cash used (1,041,042 ) (1,129,836 ) Net cash from/(used by) investing activities (1,041,037 ) (1,125,746 ) Net increase in cash held (1,824,537 ) (319,852 ) Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 2,157,387 2,477,239 Cash at the end of the reporting period 6A 332,850 2,157,387 The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY for the year ended 30 June 2006

Accumulated

Results Asset Revaluation

Reserve Contributed

Equity/Capital Total Equity

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Opening Balance (364,077) (755,830) 215,252 116,930 848,000 848,000 699,175 209,100 Adjustment for errors – – – – – – Adjustment for changes in Accounting policies – – – – – – Adjusted Opening Balance (364,077) (755,830) 215,252 116,930 848,000 848,000 699,175 209,100 Income and Expense Revaluation adjustment – – – 98,322 – – – 98,322 Subtotal income and expenses recognised directly in equity – – – 98,322 – – – 98,322

Net Operating Result 1,020,674 391,753 – – – – 1,020,674 391,753 Total income and expenses 1,020,674 391,753 – 98,322 – – 1,020,674 490,075 – Transactions with Owners Contributions by Owners Appropriation (equity injection) – – – – 1,089,000 – 1,089,000 – Sub–total Transactions with Owners – – – – 1,089,000 – 1,089,000 – Transfers between equity components – – – – – – – – Closing balance at 30 June 656,597 (364,077) 215,252 215,252 1,937,000 848,000 2,808,849 699,175

The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE SCHEDULE OF COMMITMENTS as at 30 June 2006

2006$

2005$

BY TYPE CAPITAL COMMITMENTS – – Total capital commitments – – OTHER COMMITMENTS

Operating leases 5,538,491 3,784,492

Total other commitments 5,538,491 3,784,492 COMMITMENTS RECEIVABLE (102,000 ) (161,342 )

Net commitments by type 5,436,491 3,623,150 BY MATURITY All net commitments

One year or less 1,152,267 703,281 From one to five years 3,972,844 2,248,408 Over five years 311,380 671,461

Net commitments 5,436,491 3,623,150 Operating lease commitments

One year or less 1,254,267 864,623 From one year to five years 3,972,844 2,248,408 Over five years 311,380 671,461

Total operating lease commitments 5,538,491 3,784,492 NB: Commitments are GST inclusive where relevant.

Operating leases included are effectively non–cancellable and comprise: • leases for office accommodation; • agreements for the provision of motor vehicles to senior executive officers; and • leases for computer equipment.

The operating leases are adjusted periodically by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The commitments above do not include an estimate of the future impact of CPI adjustments due to the impracticality of reliably estimating the impact and the immateriality of the likely impact.

Similarly, the annual lease expense has not been ‘straight-lined’ due to the impracticality of projecting CPI adjustments, and because of the immateriality of the likely impact. The above schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE SCHEDULE OF CONTINGENCIES as at 30 June 2006

2006$

2005$

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES – – CONTINGENT ASSETS – –

Net contingent liabilities – – The Ombudsman has no contingent liabilities. The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office has identified in its contracts and leases a number of indemnity provisions. None of these are quantifiable, and all are considered remote. There are no existing or likely claims of which the Ombudsman is aware.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS


NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED

30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 1.1 Ombudsman Objectives

The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office is an Australian Public Service Organisation. The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office seeks to provide a cost-effective form of independent administrative review, which is timely, informal and involves no direct cost to individuals. Coverage is comprehensive, embracing almost all of the administrative activity of Commonwealth departments and agencies.

Through the handling of complaints and the conduct of own motion investigations, the Ombudsman contributes to continuous improvement in the performance of agencies and their accountability to Government, the Parliament and the community. The Ombudsman is structured to meet one outcome: Outcome 1: Administrative action by Australian government agencies is fair and accountable. The Ombudsman activities contributing towards these outcomes are classified as departmental. Departmental activities involve the use of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses controlled or incurred by the Ombudsman in its own right. The Ombudsman has no administered activities.

Departmental activities are identified under two headings for Outcome 1: Output 1 is Review of administrative action and Output 2 is Review of statutory compliance in specified areas.

The continued existence of the Ombudsman in its present form, and with its present programs, is dependent on Government policy and legislation and on continuing appropriations by Parliament for the Ombudsman’s administration and programs.

1.2 Basis of Preparation of the Financial Statements

The financial statements are required by section 49 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and are a general-purpose financial report.

The statements have been prepared in accordance with:

• Finance Minister’s Orders (or FMO’s, being the Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Financial Statements for reporting periods ending on or after 1 July 2005));

• Australian Accounting Standards and Accounting Interpretations issued by Australian Accounting Standards Board; and

• Interpretations issued by the AASB and UIG that apply for the reporting period. This is the first financial report to be prepared under Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AEIFRS). The impacts of adopting AEIFRS are disclosed in Note 2.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.2 Basis of Preparation of the Financial Statements (Cont’d)

The Income Statement and Balance Sheet have been prepared on an accrual basis and are in accordance with the historical cost convention, except for certain assets which, as noted, are at fair value or amortised cost. Except where stated, no allowance is made for the effect of changing prices on the results or the financial position.

Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard, assets and liabilities are recognised in the Balance Sheet when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow and the amounts of the assets or liabilities can be reliably measured. However, assets and liabilities arising under agreements equally proportionately unperformed are not recognised unless required by an Accounting Standard. Liabilities and assets that are unrecognised are reported in the Schedule of Commitments and the Schedule of Contingencies.

Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard, revenues and expenses are recognised in the Income Statement when and only when the flow or consumption or loss of economic benefits has occurred and can be reliably measured.

The Ombudsman has had no administered revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities or cash flows in the year ended 30 June 2006 or in the comparative financial year.

1.3 Significant Accounting Judgements and Estimates

No accounting assumptions or estimates or other judgements have been identified that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next accounting period.

1.4 Statement of Compliance The financial report complies with Australian Accounting Standards, which include Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AEIFRS). Australian Accounting Standards require the Ombudsman to disclose Australian Accounting Standards that have not been applied, or standards that have been issued but are not yet effective. The AASB has issued amendments to existing standards. These amendments are denoted by year and then number, for example 2005–1 indicates amendment 1 issued in 2005. The following table illustrates standards and amendments that will become effective for the Ombudsman in the future. The nature of the impending change within the table, has been out of necessity abbreviated and users should consult the full version available on the AASB’s website to identify the full impact of the change. The expected impact on the financial report of adoption of these standards is based on the Ombudsman’s initial assessment at this date, but may change. The Ombudsman intends to adopt all of the standards upon their application date.



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d)

1.4 Statement of Compliance (cont’d)

Standard affected Application date*

Nature of impending change Impact expected on financial report

AASB 139 1 Jan 2006 Amends hedging requirements for foreign currency risk of a highly probable intra-group transaction.

No expected impact.

AASB 139, AASB 132, AASB 1, AASB 1023 and AASB 1038

1 Jan 2006 Amends AASB 139, AASB 1023 and AASB 1038 to restrict the option to fair value through profit or loss and makes consequential amendments to AASB 1 and AASB 132.

No expected impact.

AASB 1 and AASB 139 1 Jan 2006 Amends AASB 1 to allow an entity to determine whether an arrangement is, or contains, a lease. Amends AASB 139 to scope out a contractual right to receive reimbursement (in accordance with AASB 137) in the form of cash.

No expected impact.

AASB 3 1 Jan 2006 Amends the scope to exclude business combinations involving entities or businesses under common control.

No expected impact.

AASB 4, AASB 1023, AASB 139 and AASB 132

1 Jan 2006 Amended standards in regards to financial guarantee contracts.

No expected impact.

AASB 132, AASB 101, AASB 114, AASB 117, AASB 133, AASB 139, AASB 1, AASB 4, AASB 1023 and AASB 1038

1 Jan 2007 Amended requirements subsequent to the issuing of AASB 7.

No expected impact.

AASB 121 31 Dec 2006 Changes in requirements for net investments in foreign subsidiaries depending on denominated currency.

No expected impact.

AASB7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures

1 Jan 2007 Revise the disclosure requirements for financial instruments from AASB132 requirements.

No expected impact.

* Application date is for annual reporting periods beginning on or after the date shown.

1.5 Revenue

Revenues from Government Amounts appropriated for departmental outputs for the year (less any savings offered up in Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements) are recognised as revenue, except for certain amounts which relate to activities that are reciprocal in nature, in which case revenue is recognised only when it has been earned.

Appropriations received are recognised at their nominal amounts.

Other Revenue Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised when: • The risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer; • The seller retains no managerial involvement nor effective control over the goods; • The revenue and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and • It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the entity.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.5 Revenue (Cont’d)

Revenue from rendering of services is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date. The revenue is recognised when: • The amount of revenue, stage of completion and transaction costs incurred can be reliably

measured; and • The probable economic benefits with the transaction will flow to the entity.

The stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date is determined by reference to the proportion that costs incurred to date bear to the estimated total costs of the transaction.

Receivables for goods and services, which have 30 day terms, are recognised at the nominal amounts due less any provision for bad and doubtful debts. Collectability of debts is reviewed at balance date. Provisions are made when collectability of the debt is no longer probable.

1.6 Gains

Resources Received Free of Charge

Services received free of charge are recognised as gains when and only when a fair value can be reliably determined and the services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use of those resources is recognised as an expense.

Other Gains Gains from disposal of non-current assets is recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer.

1.7 Transactions with the Government as Owner Equity injections Amounts appropriated which are designated as ‘equity injections’ for a year (less any formal reductions) are recognised directly in Contributed Equity in that year. Restructuring of Administered Arrangements Net assets received from or relinquished to another Commonwealth agency or authority under a restructuring of administrative arrangements are adjusted at their book value directly against contributed equity. Other distributions to owners The FMOs require that distributions to owners be debited to contributed equity unless in the nature of a dividend. In 2005–2006, no amounts were returned to the Official Public Account.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d)

1.8 Employee Benefits

As required by the Finance Minister’s Orders, the Ombudsman has early adopted AASB 119 Employee Benefits as issued in December 2004.

Liabilities for services rendered by employees are recognised at the reporting date to the extent that they have not been settled.

Liabilities for ‘short-term employee benefits’ (as defined in AASB 119) and termination benefits due within twelve months of balance date are measured at their nominal amounts.

The nominal amount is calculated with regard to the rates expected to be paid on settlement of the liability.

All other employee benefit liabilities are measured as the present value of the estimated future cash outflows to be made in respect of services provided by employees up to the reporting date.

Leave

The liability for employee benefits includes provision for annual leave and long service leave. No provision has been made for sick leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employees of the Ombudsman is estimated to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave.

The leave liabilities are calculated on the basis of employees’ remuneration, including the Ombudsman’s employer superannuation contribution rates to the extent that the leave is likely to be taken during service rather than paid out on termination.

The liability for long service leave has been determined by reference to the estimated future cash flows to be made in respect of all employees at 30 June 2006. The estimate of the present value of the liability takes into account attrition rates and pay increases through promotion and inflation. Separation and redundancy

Provision is also made for separation and redundancy payments in circumstances where the Ombudsman has formally identified positions as excess to requirements and a reliable estimate of the amount of the payments can be determined. Superannuation

Staff of the Ombudsman are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS), the PSS accumulation plan (PSSap) or the Australian Government Employee Superannuation Trust (AGEST). The liability for their superannuation benefits is recognised in the financial statements of the Australian Government and is settled by the Australian Government in due course. The CSS and PSS are defined benefit schemes for the Commonwealth. The PSSap and AGEST are defined contribution schemes.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.8 Employee Benefits (Cont’d)

The liability for defined benefits is recognised in the financial statements of the Australian Government and is settled by the Australian Government in due course. The Ombudsman makes employer contributions to the Australian Government at rates determined by an actuary to be sufficient to meet the cost to the Government of the superannuation entitlements of the Ombudsman’s employees.

From 1 July 2005, new employees are eligible to join the PSSap scheme.

The liability for superannuation recognised at 30 June represents outstanding contributions for the final fortnight of the year.

1.9 Leases

A distinction is made between finance leases and operating leases. Finance leases effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of leased non-current assets. In operating leases, the lessor effectively retains substantially all such risks and benefits.

Where a non-current asset is acquired by means of a finance lease, the asset is capitalised at either the fair value of the lease property or, if lower, the present value of minimum lease payments at the inception of the contract and a liability recognised at the same time and for the same amount.

The discount rate used is the interest rate implicit in the lease. Leased assets are amortised over the period of the lease. Lease payments are allocated between the principal component and the interest expense.

Operating lease payments are expensed on a straight line basis which is representative of the pattern of benefits derived from the leased assets.

Lease incentives taking the form of ‘free’ leasehold improvements and rent-free holidays are recognised as liabilities. These liabilities are reduced by allocating lease payments between rental expense and reduction of the liability.

1.10 Borrowing Costs

All borrowing costs are expensed as incurred.

1.11 Cash

Cash means notes and coins held and any deposits held at call with a bank or financial institution. Cash is recognised at its nominal amount.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.12 Financial Risk Management

The Ombudsman’s activities expose it to normal commercial financial risk. As a result of the nature of the Ombudsman’s business and internal and Australian Government policies, dealing with the management of financial risk, the Ombudsman’s exposure to market, credit, liquidity and cash flow and fair value interest rate risk is considered to be low.

1.13 Derecognition of Financial Assets and Liabilities

As prescribed in the Finance Minister’s Orders, the Ombudsman has applied the option available under AASB 1 of adopting AASB 132 and 139 from 1 July 2005 rather than 1 July 2004. Financial assets are derecognised when the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial assets expire or the asset is transferred to another entity. In the case of a transfer to another entity, it is necessary that the risks and rewards of ownership are also transferred. Financial liabilities are derecognised when the obligation under the contract is discharged or cancelled or expires. For the comparative year, financial assets were derecognised when the contractual right to receive cash no longer existed. Financial liabilities were derecognised when the contractual obligation to pay cash no longer existed.

1.14 Impairment of Financial Assets

As prescribed in the Finance Minister’s Orders, the Ombudsman has applied the option available under AASB 1 of adopting AASB 132 and 139 from 1 July 2005 rather than 1 July 2004.

Financial assets are assessed for impairment at each balance date.

Financial Assets held at Amortised Cost

If there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurred for loans and receivables or held to maturity investments held at amortised cost, the amount of the loss is measured as the difference between the asset’s carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows discounted at the asset’s original effective interest rate. The carrying amount is reduced by way of an allowance account. The loss is recognised in profit and loss.

Financial Assets held at Cost

If there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurred on an unquoted equity instrument that is not carried at fair value because it cannot be reliably measured, or a derivative asset that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument, the amount of the impairment loss is the difference between the carrying amount of the asset and the present value of the estimated future cash flows discounted at the current market rate for similar assets.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.14 Impairment of Financial Assets (Cont’d)

Available for Sale Financial Assets

If there is objective evidence that an impairment loss on an available for sale financial asset has been incurred, the amount of the difference between its cost, less principal repayments and amortisation, and its current fair value, less any impairment loss previously recognised in profit and loss, is transferred from equity to the profit and loss

Comparative Year

The above policies were not applied for the comparative year. For receivables, amounts were recognised and carried at original invoice amount less a provision for doubtful debts based on an estimate made when collection of the full amount was no longer probable. Bad debts were written off as incurred.

Other financial assets carried at cost which were not held to generate net cash inflows, were assessed for indicators of impairment. Where such indicators were found to exist, the recoverable amount of the assets was estimated and compared to the assets carrying amount and, if less, reduced to the carrying amount. The reduction was shown as an impairment loss.

1.15 Trade Creditors

Trade creditors and accruals are recognised at their nominal amounts, being the amounts at which the liabilities will be settled. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goods or services have been received (and irrespective of having been invoiced).

1.16 Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets

Contingent Liabilities and Assets are not recognised in the Balance Sheet but are discussed in the relevant schedules and notes. They may arise from uncertainty as to the existence of a liability or asset, or represent an existing liability or asset in respect of which settlement is not probable or the amount cannot be reliably measured. Remote contingencies are part of this disclosure. Where settlement becomes probable, a liability or asset is recognised. A liability or asset is recognised when its existence is confirmed by a future event, settlement becomes probable (virtually certain for assets) or reliable measurement becomes possible.

1.17 Acquisition of Assets

Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated below. The cost of acquisition includes the fair value of assets transferred in exchange and liabilities undertaken. Financial assets are initially measured at their fair value plus transaction costs where appropriate.

Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised as assets and revenues at their fair value at the date of acquisition, unless acquired as a consequence of restructuring of administrative arrangements. In the latter case, assets are initially recognised as contributions by owners at the amounts at which they were recognised in the transferor agency’s accounts immediately prior to the restructuring.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.18 Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E)

Asset Recognition Threshold Purchases of property, plant and equipment are recognised initially at cost in the Balance Sheet, except for purchases costing less than $2,000, which are expensed in the year of acquisition (other than where they form part of a group of similar items which are significant in total).

The initial cost of an asset includes an estimate of the cost of dismantling and removing the item and restoring the site on which it is located. This is particularly relevant to ‘makegood’ provisions in property leases taken up by the Ombudsman where there exists an obligation to restore the property to its original condition. These costs are included in the value of the Ombudsman’s leasehold improvements with a corresponding provision for the ‘makegood’ taken up.

Revaluations

Basis

Land, buildings, plant and equipment are carried at fair value, being revalued with sufficient frequency such that the carrying amount of each asset is not materially different, at reporting date, from its fair value. Valuations undertaken in each year are as at 30 June.

Fair values for each class of asset are determined as shown below:

Asset Class Fair Value measured at: Leasehold improvements Depreciated replacement cost Plant and equipment Market Selling Price

Following initial recognition at cost, valuations are conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure that the carrying amounts of assets do not materially with the assets’ fair values as at the reporting date. The regularity of independent valuations depends upon the volatility of movements in market values for the relevant assets. Revaluation adjustments are made on a class basis. Any revaluation increment is credited to equity under the heading of asset revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reverses a previous revaluation decrement of the same asset class that was previously recognised through profit and loss. Revaluation decrements for a class of assets are recognised directly through profit and loss except to the extent that they reverse a previous revaluation increment for that class. Any accumulated depreciation as at the revaluation date is eliminated against the gross carrying amount of the asset and the asset restated to the revalued amount.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.18 Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) (Cont’d)

Depreciation

Depreciable property, plant and equipment assets are written-off to their estimated residual values over their estimated useful lives to the Ombudsman using, in most cases, the straight line method of depreciation. Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the lesser of the estimated useful life of the improvements or the unexpired period of the lease taking into consideration options available at the end of lease. Depreciation rates (useful lives) and methods are reviewed at each reporting date and necessary adjustments are recognised in the current, or current and future reporting periods, as appropriate. Depreciation rates applying to each class of depreciable asset are based on the following useful lives: 2006 2005 Leasehold improvements Lease term Lease term Plant and equipment 3 to 9 years 3 to 8 years All assets were assessed for impairment at 30 June 2006. Where indications of impairment exist, the asset’s recoverable amount is estimated and an impairment adjustment made if the asset’s recoverable amount is less than its carrying amount. The recoverable amount of an asset is the higher of its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. Value in use is the present value of the future cash flows expected to be derived from the asset. Where the future economic benefit of an asset is not primarily dependent on the asset’s ability to generate future cash flows, and the asset would be replaced if the Ombudsman were deprived of the asset, its value in use is taken to be its depreciated replacement cost. No indicators of impairment were found for assets at fair value.

1.19 Intangibles

The Ombudsman’s intangibles comprise purchased software. These assets are carried at cost. Software is amortised on a straight-line basis over its anticipated useful life. The useful life of the software is 1 to 8 years (2004–05: 5 to 8 years). All software assets were assessed for indications of impairment as at 30 June 2006.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Cont’d) 1.20 Taxation

The Ombudsman is exempt from all forms of taxation except fringe benefits tax and the goods and services tax (GST). Revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net of GST:

• except where the amount of GST incurred is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office; and

• except for receivables and payables. 1.21 Reporting of Administered Activities The Ombudsman has had no administered revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities or cash flows in the

year ended 30 June 2006 or in the comparative financial year.



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 2 – The Impact of the Transition to AEIFRS from Previous AGAAP Reconciliation of total equity as presented under previous AGAAP to that under AEIFRS

Total equity under previous AGAAP 772,204 253,775 Adjustments to retained earnings: ‘Makegood assets’ 115,887 144,241 Provision for ’Makegood’ (188,916) (188,916) Total equity translated to AEIFRS 669,175 209,100 Reconciliation of surplus as presented under previous AGAAP to AEIFRS

Prior year surplus as previously reported 420,107 Adjustments: Depreciation (28,354) Prior year surplus translated to AEIFRS 391,753 The cash flow statement presented under previous AGAAP is equivalent to that prepared under AEIFRS. AEIFRS requires the recording of assets reflecting future estimation restoration costs. Amounts for ‘makegood’ provisions in existing accommodation leases (operating), and the related assets, have been taken up accordingly. The operating result has been adjusted due to the additional depreciation that arises on the recognition of additional ‘makegood’ assets. Note 3 – Events Occurring after the Balance Sheet Date

No significant events occurred after balance date.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 4 – Income Revenues Note 4A – Revenues from Government Appropriations for outputs 17,035,000 11,463,000 Total revenues from government 17,035,000 11,463,000 Note 4B – Goods and Services Goods – – Services 1,349,356 1,277,959 Total sales of goods and services 1,349,356 1,277,959 Provision of goods to: Related entities – – External entities – – Total sales of goods – – Rendering of services to: Related entities 471,564 455,197 External entities 877,792 822,762 Total rendering of services 1,349,356 1,277,959 Gains Note 4C – Net Gain/(Loss) From Sales of Assets Infrastructure, plant and equipment Proceeds from disposal 5 4,090 Net book value of assets disposed (64,690) (4,321) Net gain/(loss) from disposal of infrastructure, plant and equipment (64,685)

(231)



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 4 – Income (Cont’d) Note 4D – Other Gains Resources received free of charge 19,000 16,675 Total other gains 19,000 16,675 Note 5 – Operating Expenses Note 5A – Employee Expenses Wages and salary 9,466,015 6,767,922 Superannuation 1,702,145 1,159,027 Leave and other entitlements 158,892 (19,172) Other employee expenses 260,894 168,357 Total employee expenses 11,587,946 8,076,134 Note 5B – Suppliers Provision of goods from related entities – – Provision of goods from external entities 489,521 363,407 Provision of services from related entities 883,697 502,243 Provision of services from external entities 2,575,246 2,173,351 Operating lease rentals1 1,091,514 765,998 Workers’ compensation premiums 67,216 35,372 Total supplier expenses 5,107,194 3,840,371

1 These comprise minimum lease payments only.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 5 – Operating Expenses (Cont’d) Note 5C – Depreciation and Amortisation Depreciation Other infrastructure, plant and equipment 444,090 226,624 Total depreciation 444,090 226,624 Amortisation Intangibles – Computer Software 178,767 102,091 Total depreciation and amortisation 622,857 328,715 The aggregate amounts of depreciation or amortisation expensed during the reporting period for each class of depreciable assets are as follows:

Leasehold improvements 219,062 134,662 Plant and equipment 225,028 91,962 Computer software 178,767 102,091 Total depreciation and amortisation 622,857 328,715 No depreciation or amortisation was allocated to the carrying amounts of other assets.

Note 5D – Write down and impairment of assets Bad and doubtful debts expense – – Plant and equipment – 120,430 Total write-down of assets – 120,430



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 6 – Financial Assets Note 6A – Cash Cash at bank and on hand 332,850 2,157,387 Total cash 332,850 2,157,387 Note 6B – Receivables Goods and services 98,653 97,888 Net GST receivable from the Australian Taxation Office 125,437 41,599 Appropriation receivable – undrawn 4,089,000 – Total receivables 4,313,090 139,487 All receivables are current assets. There is no requirement for an allowance for doubtful debts.

All receivables are with entities external to the Commonwealth. Credit terms are net 30 days (2005: 30 days)

Appropriations receivable undrawn are appropriations controlled by the Agency but held in the Official Public Account under the Government’s just-in-time drawdown arrangements. Receivables (gross) are aged as follows: Not Overdue 4,312,517 136,826 Overdue by: less than 30 days – – 30 to 60 days – – 61 to 90 days – – more than 90 days 573 2,661 Total receivables (gross) 4,313,090 139,487 2006 2005 $ $ Note 7 – Non-Financial Assets Note 7A – Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment Leasehold improvements At fair value 1,109,640 812,438 Accumulated depreciation (298,354) (188,724) Total leasehold improvements 811,286 623,714



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $

Note 7 – Non-Financial Assets (Cont’d) Note 7A – Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment (Cont’d) Plant and equipment

At fair value 1,213,829 866,280 Accumulated depreciation (344,535) (125,544) Total plant and equipment 869,294 740,736 Total Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment 1,680,580 1,364,450 During the year ended 30 June 2005, all material tangible assets were valued by an independent valuer, Hyman Valuations Pty Limited. Other tangible non-financial assets were valued by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman assessed the fair value of such assets by reference to the written down value of the assets and the current replacement cost. Formal valuations are generally undertaken every three years. In between formal revaluations the Ombudsman monitors the assets ensuring the fair value of the assets is materially correct. This is conducted annually and assessed as per above.

Note 7B – Analysis of Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment TABLE A – Reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of property, plant and equipment

Item Leasehold

Improvements $

Plant and Equipment

$

Total

$ As at 1 July 2005 Gross book value 812,438 866,280 1,678,718 Accumulated depreciation (188,724) (125,544) (314,268) Opening Net Book Value 623,714 740,736 1,364,450 Additions: by purchase 464,102 359,747 823,849 Net revaluation increment/(decrement) – – – Depreciation expense (219,062) (225,028) (444,090) Disposals Other disposals (57,468) (6,161) (63,629) As at 30 June 2006 Gross book value 1,109,640 1,213,829 2,323,469 Accumulated depreciation (298,354) (344,535) (642,889) Closing Net Book Value 811,286 869,294 1,680,580



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $

Note 7 – Non-Financial Assets (Cont’d) Note 7C – Intangibles Computer software: Purchased – at cost 946,593 734,635 Accumulated amortisation (520,996) (346,403) Total Intangibles 425,597 388,232 TABLE B – Reconciliation of opening and closing balances of intangibles

Item Computer software

purchased $ As at 1 July 2005 Gross book value 734,635 Accumulated amortisation (346,403) Opening Net book value 388,232

Additions:

Purchase/Internally developed 217,193 from acquisitions of entities or operations (including restructuring)

–

Movements:

Reclassifications – Amortisation (178,767) Impairments recognised in the operating result – Other movements –

Disposals:

from disposal of entities or operations (including restructuring) – other disposals (1,061)

As at 30 June 2006 Gross book value 946,593 Accumulated amortisation (520,996) Closing Net Book Value 425,597



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 7 – Non-Financial Assets (Cont’d) Note 7D – Other Non-Financial Assets Prepayments 168,267 31,064 All other non-financial assets are current assets. Note 8 – Payables Note 8A – Supplier Payables Trade creditors and accruals 656,091 542,316 All supplier payables are current liabilities. Settlement is usually made net 30 days. Note 8B – Other Payables Prepaid income 319,967 375,172 Lease incentives 113,480 140,813 Total other payables 433,447 515,985 Other payables are represented by: Current 345,300 402,505 Non Current 88,147 113,480 Total other payables 433,447 515,985 Note 9 – Provisions Note 9A – Employee Provisions Salaries and wages 92,842 33,158 Leave 2,500,427 1,998,340 Superannuation 122,679 102,730 Total employee provisions 2,715,948 2,134,228 Current 2,417,267 1,973,958 Non-current 298,681 160,270 Total employee provisions 2,715,948 2,134,228



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 $ $ Note 9 – Provisions (Cont’d) Note 9B – Other Provisions Provision for ‘makegood’ 306,049 188,916 Carrying amount at the beginning of the year 188,916 188,916 Additional provisions made 117,133 – Carrying amount at the end of the year 306,049 188,916 The Ombudsman currently has eight agreements for the leasing of premises which have provisions requiring the Ombudsman to restore the premises to their original condition at the conclusion of the lease. The Ombudsman has made a provision to reflect the present value of this obligation. 2006 2005 $ $ Note 10 – Cash Flow Reconciliation Reconciliation of cash per Balance Sheet to Statement of Cash Flows

Cash at year end per Statement of Cash Flows 332,850 2,157,387 Cash at year end per Balance Sheet 332,850 2,157,387 Reconciliation of operating result to net cash from operating activities:

Operating result 1,020,674 391,753 Depreciation/amortisation 622,857 328,715 Net loss/(gain) on disposal of assets 64,685 231 Net write down of assets – 120,430 (Increase)/Decrease in receivables (3,084,603) 244,654 (Increase)/Decrease in prepayments (137,203) 5,057 Increase/(Decrease) in employee provisions 581,720 (160,331) Increase/(Decrease) in supplier payables 113,775 (161,116) Increase/(Decrease) in other payables (82,538) 36,501 Increase/(Decrease) in other provisions 117,133 – Net cash from/(used by) operating activities (783,500) 805,894



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

2006 2005 Note 11 – Executive Remuneration The number of executives who received or were due to receive total remuneration of $130,000 or more:

Number Number $130,000 to $144,999 2 2 $145,000 to $159,999 1 – $160,000 to $174,999 1 1 $175,000 to $189,999 – 1 $220,000 to $234,999 – 1 $250,000 to $264,999 1 – $265,000 to $279,999 1 – $310,000 to $324,999 1 1

Total 7 6 The aggregate amount of total remuneration of executives show above $ 1,446,102

$ 1,185,012

The aggregate amount of separation and redundancy/termination benefit payments during the year to executives shown above

$ –

$ –

Note 12 – Remuneration of Auditors Financial statement audit services are provided free of charge to the Ombudsman.

The fair value of the services provided was 17,000 16,675 AEIFRS opening balance sheet 2,000 – Total 19,000 16,675 No other services were provided by the Auditor-General. Note 13 – Average Staffing Levels Number Number The average staffing levels for the Ombudsman during the year were: 153

102



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

CO

MM

ON

WEA

LTH

OM

BU

DSM

AN

OFF

ICE

NO

TES

TO A

ND

FO

RM

ING

PA

RT

OF

THE

FIN

AN

CIA

L ST

ATE

MEN

TS F

OR

TH

E YE

AR

EN

DED

30

JU

NE

2006

_____________________________________________________________

N

ote

14 –

Fin

anci

al In

stru

men

ts

Not

e 14

A –

Term

s, C

ondi

tions

and

Acc

ount

ing

Polic

ies

Fina

ncia

l Ins

trum

ent

Not

es

Acc

ount

ing

Polic

ies

and

Met

hods

(inc

ludi

ng re

cogn

ition

cr

iteria

and

mea

sure

men

t bas

is)

Nat

ure

of U

nder

lyin

g In

stru

men

t (in

clud

ing

sign

ifica

nt te

rms

& c

ondi

tions

affe

ctin

g th

e am

ount

, tim

ing

and

cert

aint

y of

cas

h flo

ws)

Fi

nanc

ial A

sset

s

Fina

ncia

l ass

ets

are

reco

gnis

ed w

hen

cont

rol o

ver f

utur

e ec

onom

ic b

enef

its is

est

ablis

hed

and

the

amou

nt o

f the

be

nefit

can

be

relia

bly

mea

sure

d.

Cas

h

6A

Cas

h is

reco

gnis

ed a

t the

ir no

min

al a

mou

nts.

Inte

rest

is

cred

ited

to re

venu

e as

it a

ccru

es.

The

Om

buds

man

hol

ds b

ank

acco

unts

with

a c

omm

erci

al

bank

. Mon

ies

in th

e O

mbu

dsm

an’s

ban

k ac

coun

ts a

re

swep

t int

o th

e O

ffici

al P

ublic

Acc

ount

nig

htly

and

inte

rest

is

earn

ed o

n th

e da

ily b

alan

ce a

t rat

es b

ased

on

mon

ey

mar

ket c

all r

ates

. Int

eres

t is

paid

at m

onth

end

.

Rec

eiva

bles

for g

oods

an

d se

rvic

es

6B

Thes

e re

ceiv

able

s ar

e re

cogn

ised

at t

he n

omin

al a

mou

nts

due

less

any

pro

visi

on fo

r bad

and

dou

btfu

l deb

ts.

Col

lect

abilit

y of

deb

ts is

revi

ewed

at b

alan

ce d

ate.

Pro

visi

ons

are

mad

e w

hen

colle

ctio

n of

the

debt

is ju

dged

to b

e le

ss

rath

er th

an m

ore

likel

y.

All r

ecei

vabl

es a

re w

ith e

ntiti

es e

xter

nal t

o th

e C

omm

onw

ealth

. Cre

dit t

erm

s ar

e ne

t 30

days

(200

5: 3

0 da

ys).



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

CO

MM

ON

WEA

LTH

OM

BU

DSM

AN

OFF

ICE

NO

TES

TO A

ND

FO

RM

ING

PA

RT

OF

THE

FIN

AN

CIA

L ST

ATE

MEN

TS F

OR

TH

E YE

AR

EN

DED

30

JU

NE

2006

_____________________________________________________________

N

ote

14 –

Fin

anci

al In

stru

men

ts (C

ont’d

) N

ote

14A

– Te

rms,

Con

ditio

ns a

nd A

ccou

ntin

g Po

licie

s (c

ont'd

) Fi

nanc

ial I

nstr

umen

t N

otes

A

ccou

ntin

g Po

licie

s an

d M

etho

ds (i

nclu

ding

reco

gniti

on

crite

ria a

nd m

easu

rem

ent b

asis

)

Nat

ure

of u

nder

lyin

g in

stru

men

t (in

clud

ing

sign

ifica

nt te

rms

& c

ondi

tions

affe

ctin

g th

e am

ount

, tim

ing

and

cert

aint

y of

cas

h flo

ws)

Fi

nanc

ial L

iabi

litie

s

Fina

ncia

l lia

bilit

ies

are

reco

gnis

ed w

hen

a pr

esen

t obl

igat

ion

to a

noth

er p

arty

is e

nter

ed in

to a

nd th

e am

ount

of t

he li

abilit

y ca

n be

relia

bly

mea

sure

d.

Trad

e cr

edito

rs a

nd

accr

uals

8A

C

redi

tors

and

acc

rual

s ar

e re

cogn

ised

at t

heir

nom

inal

am

ount

s, b

eing

the

amou

nts

at w

hich

the

liabi

litie

s w

ill be

se

ttled

. Lia

bilit

ies

are

reco

gnis

ed to

the

exte

nt th

at th

e go

ods

or s

ervi

ces

have

bee

n re

ceiv

ed (a

nd ir

resp

ectiv

e of

hav

ing

been

invo

iced

).

All c

redi

tors

are

ent

ities

that

are

not

par

t of t

he

Com

mon

wea

lth le

gal e

ntity

. Set

tlem

ent i

s us

ually

mad

e ne

t 30

day

s.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

CO

MM

ON

WEA

LTH

OM

BU

DSM

AN

OFF

ICE

NO

TES

TO A

ND

FO

RM

ING

PA

RT

OF

THE

FIN

AN

CIA

L ST

ATE

MEN

TS F

OR

TH

E YE

AR

EN

DED

30

JU

NE

2006

_____________________________________________________________

Not

e 14

– F

inan

cial

Inst

rum

ents

(Con

t’d)

Not

e 14

B –

Inte

rest

Rat

e R

isk

Fixe

d In

tere

st R

ate

Fl

oatin

g In

tere

st R

ate

1 ye

ar o

r les

s 1

to 5

yea

rs

> 5

year

s

Non

- Int

eres

t B

earin

g To

tal

Wei

ghte

d A

vera

ge

Effe

ctiv

e In

tere

st

Rat

e Fi

nanc

ial

Inst

rum

ent

Not

es

2006

$ 20

05 $

2006

$ 20

05 $

2006

$ 20

05 $

2006

$ 20

05 $

2006

$ 20

05 $

2006

$ 20

05 $

2006

%

20

05

%

Fina

ncia

l Ass

ets

Cas

h at

Ban

k 6A

33

0,14

9

2,15

4,68

6–

– –

– –

– 2,

701

2,70

133

2,85

02,

157,

387

0.0

0.0

Rec

eiva

bles

for g

oods

and

se

rvic

es

6B

– –

– –

– –

– –

98,6

53

97,8

8898

,653

97,8

88n/

an/

a

Appr

opria

tion

Rec

eiva

ble

6B

– –

– –

– –

– –

4,08

9,00

0

– 4,

089,

000

–n/

an/

a To

tal

33

0,14

9

2,15

4,68

6–

– –

– –

– 4,

190,

354

100,

589

4,52

0,50

32,

255,

275

Tota

l Ass

ets

6,

920,

384

4,08

0,62

0

Fina

ncia

l Lia

bilit

ies

Trad

e cr

edito

rs

8A

– –

– –

– –

– –

656,

091

542,

316

656,

091

542,

316

n/a

n/a

Tota

l

– –

– –

– –

– –

656,

091

542,

316

656,

091

542,

316

Tota

l lia

bilit

ies

4,

111,

535

3,38

1,44

5



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

Note 14 – Financial Instruments (Cont'd)

Note 14C – Net Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

2006 2005

Note

Totalcarryingamount

$

Aggregatenet fairvalue

$

Totalcarryingamount

$

Aggregatenet fairvalue

$

Financial Assets

Cash at Bank 6A 332,850 332,850 2,157,387 2,157,387Receivables for Goods andServices 6B 98,653 98,653 97,888 97,888Appropriation Receivable 6B 4,089,000 4,089,000Total Financial Assets 4,520,503 4,520,503 2,255,275 2,255,275

Financial Liabilities

Trade creditors 8A 656,091 656,091 542,316 542,316Total Financial Liabilities 656,091 656,091 542,316 542,316

The net fair values of cash and non-interest-bearing monetary financial assets approximatetheir carrying amounts.

The net fair values for trade creditors are approximated by their carrying amounts.

Note 14D – Credit Risk Exposures

The Ombudsmanês maximum exposures to credit risk at reporting date in relation to eachclass of recognised financial assets is the carrying amount of those assets as indicated in theBalance Sheet.

The Ombudsman has no significant exposures to or concentrations of credit risk.

All figures for credit risk do not take into account the value of any collateral or other security.

––



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 15 – Appropriations Note 15A – Acquittal of Authority to Draw cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations Particulars Departmental Outputs 2006 2005 $ $ Balance carried from previous year 2,147,613 2,807,840 Appropriation for reporting period (Act 1) 2005–2006 11,443,000 11,340,000 Appropriation for reporting period (Act 3) 2005–2006 5,592,000 123,000 Adjustments by the Finance Minister – – Comcover receipts – 2,316 Advance to the Finance Minister – – Adjustment of appropriation on change of entity function (FMAA s32)

– –

Refunds credited (FMAA s30) – – Sub-total Annual Appropriation 19,182,613 14,273,156 Appropriations to take account of recoverable GST (FMA s30A) 580,308 508,667 Annotations to ‘net appropriations’ (FMA s31) 1,357,559 1,179,845 Total appropriation available for payments 21,120,480 15,961,668 Cash payments made during the year (GST inclusive) 17,720,446 13,814,055 Balance of Authority to Draw Cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations 3,400,034 2,147,613 Represented by: Cash at bank and on hand 332,850 2,157,387 Departmental appropriations receivable 3,000,000 – GST Receivable from the ATO 125,437 41,599 GST payable from Supplies (67,221) (51,373) GST receivable from Customers 8,968 – Total 3,400,034 2,147,613

There were no savings offered up during the year and there have been no savings offered up in previous years that are still ongoing.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 15 – Appropriations (Cont’d) Note 15B – Acquittal of Authority to Draw Cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for other than Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations Particulars Operating 2006 2005 $ $ Balance carried from previous year – – Appropriation Act (No.2) 40,000 – Appropriation Act (No.4) 1,049,000 – Total appropriation available for payments 1,089,000 – Cash payments made during the year (GST inclusive) – – Balance of Authority to Draw Cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations 1,089,000 – Represented by: Appropriation receivable 1,089,000 – Total 1,089,000 –



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 16 – Reporting of Outcomes Note 16A – Net Cost of Outcome Delivery Outcome 1

2006 $

2005 $

Administered – – Departmental 17,317,997 12,365,650 Total expenses 17,317,997 12,365,650 Costs recovered from provision of goods and services to the non-government sector

Administered – – Departmental 877,792 822,762 Total costs recovered 877,792 822,762 Other external revenues Administered – – Total Administered – – Departmental Gains from disposal of assets (64,685) (231) Reversals previous asset write–downs – – Other – – Goods and Services Revenue from Related Entities 471,564 455,197 Total Departmental 406,879 454,966 Total other external revenues 406,879 454,966 Net cost/(contribution) of outcome 16,033,326 11,087,922



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS

Not

e 16

– R

epor

ting

of O

utco

mes

(Con

têd)

Not

e 16

B –

Maj

or C

lass

es o

f Dep

artm

enta

l Rev

enue

s an

d Ex

pens

es b

y O

utpu

t

Out

com

e 1

Out

put G

roup

1O

utpu

t Gro

up 2

Out

com

e 1

Tot

al20

0620

0520

0620

0520

0620

05$

$$

$$

$D

epar

tmen

tal e

xpen

ses

Em

ploy

ees

9,27

0,35

76,

460,

907

2,31

7,58

91,

615,

227

11,5

87,9

468,

076,

134

Sup

plie

rs4,

085,

755

3,07

2,29

71,

021,

439

768,

074

5,10

7,19

43,

840,

371

Dep

reci

atio

n an

d am

ortis

atio

n49

8,28

626

2,97

212

4,57

165

,743

622,

857

328,

715

Oth

er96

,344

24,0

8612

0,43

0To

tal d

epar

tmen

tal e

xpen

ses

13,8

54,3

989,

892,

520

3,46

3,59

92,

473,

130

17,3

17,9

9712

,365

,650

Fund

ed b

y:R

even

ues

from

gov

ernm

ent

13,6

28,0

009,

170,

400

3,40

7,00

02,

292,

600

17,0

35,0

0011

,463

,000

Sal

es o

f goo

ds a

nd s

ervi

ces

1,07

9,48

51,

022,

367

269,

871

255,

592

1,34

9,35

61,

277,

959

Oth

er n

on-t

axat

ion

reve

nues

Tota

l dep

artm

enta

l rev

enue

s14

,707

,485

10,1

92,7

673,

676,

871

2,54

8,19

218

,384

,356

12,7

40,9

59

Dire

ct c

osts

for

Out

puts

1 a

nd 2

are

allo

cate

d pr

imar

ily o

n st

aff n

umbe

rs.

Indi

rect

cos

ts, s

uch

as c

orpo

rate

sup

port

exp

ense

s, a

re a

lloca

ted

on s

taff

num

bers

and

squ

are

met

res

occu

pied

. The

pro

visi

on o

f ser

vice

s by

corp

orat

e su

ppor

t are

as is

pre

dom

inan

tly d

riven

by

staf

f dem

ands

. Som

e ex

cept

ions

exi

st, b

ut te

stin

g ha

s sh

own

that

oth

er, m

ore

com

plex

allo

catio

n m

etho

ds d

o no

t pro

duce

a m

ater

ially

diff

eren

t res

ult f

rom

that

pro

duce

d by

this

sim

ple

allo

catio

n m

etho

d.

––

–––

–––

–



30 JUNE 2006 _____________________________________________________________

Note 17 – Act of Grace Payments, Waivers and Defective Administration Scheme

No Act of Grace payments were made during the reporting period (2005: nil).

No waivers of amounts owing to the Commonwealth were made pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.



APPEN

DIX 6

FINA

NCIA

L STATEMEN

TS


references

List of tables and figures 176

Glossary 177

Compliance index 179

Alphabetical index 181

Contacts 188

TABLESTable 3.1 Summary of outcome and

outputs price 17

Table 3.2 Summary of outcome and outputs performance 17

Table 3.3 Internal review of Ombudsman action,requests and decisions, 2005–06 21

Table 3.4 Approaches and complaints, by method received, 2003–04 to 2005–06 23

Table 4.1 Staffing profile, by level and gender, at 30 June 2006 34

Table 4.2 Staffing profile, by locationand gender, at 30 June 2006 35

Table 4.3 Expenditure on consultancy contracts, 2003–04 to 2005–06 37

Table 7.1 Defence-related approaches and complaints, 2003–04 to 2005–06 74

Table 7.2 Legislative basis for Commonwealth Ombudsman oversight of law enforcement activities 87

Table 7.3 Approaches and complaints received within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction about top ten other agencies, 2003–04 to 2005–06 94

APPENDIXESTable A1 Approaches and complaints received

and finalised about Australian Government agencies, 2005–06, Ombudsman Act 1976 (includingfreedom of information) 129

Table A2 AFP complaint issues finalised, 2005–06, Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 133

Table A3 AFP method of handling complaint issues finalised, 2005–06, Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 133

Table A4 Consultancy services, 2005–06 134

FIGURESFigure 2.1 Commonwealth Ombudsman

organisational structure at 30 June 2006 13

Figure 3.1 Time taken to finalise all approaches and complaints 2003–04 to 2005–06 19

Figure 4.1 Office assets by categoryat 30 June 2006 36

Figure 7.1 Approaches and complaints received within jurisdiction, by agency, 2005–06 57

Figure 7.2 Australia Post complaint trends, 2001–02 to 2005–06 58

Figure 7.3 Australian Taxation Office complaint trends, 2001–02 to 2005–06 61

Figure 7.4 Centrelink complaint trends, 2001–02 to 2005–06 66

Figure 7.5 Child Support Agency complaint trends, 2001–02 to 2005–06 71

Figure 7.6 Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs complaint trends, 2001–02 to 2005–06 78

Figure 7.7 Australian Federal Police complaint trends, 2001–02 to 2005–06 88


REFERENCES

LIST OF TA

BLES A

ND

FIGU

RES

references

list of tables and figures


AAADM Automated Assistance inAdministrative Decision Making

AAT Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ACC Australian Crime Commission

ACT Australian Capital Territory

ADF Australian Defence Force

ADR alternative dispute resolution

AFC Air Force Cross

AFP Australian Federal Police

AFPPS Australian Federal PoliceProtective Service

ANAO Australian National Audit Office

ANU Australian National University

ANZOA Australian and New ZealandOmbudsman Association

AO Officer of the Order of Australia

APOR Australasia and PacificOmbudsman Region

APS Australian Public Service

ARC Administrative Review Council

ASIC Australian Securities andInvestments Commission

ASIO Australian Security IntelligenceOrganisation

ASIO Act Australian Security IntelligenceOrganisation Act 1979 (Cth)

ATO Australian Taxation Office

AusAID Australian Agency forInternational Development

AWA Australian WorkplaceAgreement

CCC Customer Contact Centres

CDDA Compensation for Detrimentcaused by DefectiveAdministration

CDF Chief of the Defence Force

CLERP Corporations LegislationEconomic Reform Program

Complaints Act Complaints (Australian FederalPolice) Act 1981 (Cth)

Crimes Act Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

CSA Child Support Agency

CSHC Commonwealth Seniors HealthCard

Cth Commonwealth

DEWR Department of Employment andWorkplace Relations

DFAT Department of Foreign Affairsand Trade

DFO Defence Force Ombudsman

DHA Defence Housing Authority

DHS Department of Human Services

DIMA Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs

DVA Department of Veterans’ Affairs

EL Executive Level

FaCSIA Department of Families,Community Services andIndigenous Affairs

FBT family tax benefit

FCA Federal Court of Australia

FIS Financial Information Service

FOI freedom of information

FOI Act Freedom of Information Act1982 (Cth)

REFERENCES

GLO

SSARY

references

glossary

GEERS General Employee Entitlementsand Redundancy Scheme

GSL GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd

GST goods and services tax

Hon. Honourable

IDF Immigration Detention Facility

IGADF Inspector-General of theAustralian Defence Force

IGIS Inspector-General ofIntelligence and Security

IOI International OmbudsmanInstitute

IPP Information Privacy Principle

IT information technology

ITSA Insolvency and Trustee ServiceAustralia

JCPAA Joint Committee of PublicAccounts and Audit

LEIC Law Enforcement IntegrityCommissioner

LIC low-income card

MARA Migration Agents RegistrationAuthority

Migration Act Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

MP Member of Parliament

MRCS Military Rehabilitation andCompensation Scheme

MRT Migration Review Tribunal

MTCN money transfer control number

NOC National OmbudsmanCommission of Indonesia

NSW New South Wales

NT Northern Territory

OH&S occupational health and safety

Ombudsman Act Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth)

PCO Public Contact Officer

PCT Public Contact Team

PDS product disclosure statement

PIO Postal Industry Ombudsman

PM&C Department of Prime Ministerand Cabinet

PNG Papua New Guinea

Postal Act Australian Postal CorporationAct 1989 (Cth)

Prof. Professor

Qld Queensland

RAAF Royal Australian Air Force

ROG Redress of Grievance

s section

SA South Australia

SES Senior Executive Service

Surveillance Act Surveillance Devices Act 2004(Cth)

TAS Tasmania

TI Telecommunicationsinterception

TI Act Telecommunications(Interception and Access) Act1979 (Cth)

TIO Telecommunications IndustryOmbudsman

TRA Trades Recognition Australia

VIC Victoria

WA Western Australia


REFERENCES

GLO

SSARY


This is a guide to the report’s compliance with theRequirements for Annual Reports as provided bythe Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Auditunder subsections 63(2) and 70(2) of the PublicService Act 1999.

Letter of transmittal iii

Aids to accessTable of contents v–vi

Compliance index 179–180

Alphabetical index 180–187

Tables and figures index 176

Glossary 177—178

Contact officer iv

Internet home page address iv

Internet address for reports iv

Ombudsman’s reviewSummary of significant issues and developments 4–9

Overview of performance and financial results 4–8

Outlook for 2006–07 9

Organisational overviewRole and functions 11–12, 121–123

Organisational structure 12–13

Outcome and output structure 13

Report on performanceReview of performance 17–26

Discussion and analysis of performance 19–26, 47–53

Factors, events or trends influencing organisational performance 8, 19–26, 40–45

Performance against service charter 19, 32

Social justice and equity 24–25, 40–45

Financial performanceFinancial statements 135–173

Discussion and analysis of the organisation’s financial performance 5, 35–37

Resources for outcome and outputs 17, 171–172

Consultancy services and contracts 36–37, 134

Competitive tendering and contracting 37

Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles 36

Contracts exempt from AusTender 37

Contractual provisions allowing access by Auditor-General 37

Corporate governanceCorporate governance practices 30–31

Senior executive and their responsibilities 28–29

Senior management committees and their roles 29–30

Risk management 30

Fraud control 31

Asset management 36

Advertising and market research 134

External scrutinySignificant developments in external scrutiny 32–33

Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals 33

Human resource managementEffectiveness in managing and developing human resources 33–35

Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention 34

Training and development 35

Statistics on staffing 34–35

Certified Agreement and AWAs 34

REFERENCES

COM

PLIAN

CE IND

EX

references

compliance index

Performance pay 34

Performance in implementing the Commonwealth Disability Strategy 31–32

OtherOccupational health and safety 30, 120

Freedom of information statement 121–123

Discretionary grants N/A

Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 32

Correction of material errors in previousannual reportNo material errors have been identified in theCommonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2004–05.


REFERENCES

COM

PLIAN

CE IND

EX


AAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 25, 43access to stored communications, 91–92accountability of the organisation, 28–38achievements of the organisation, 7–8ACT Ombudsman, 12, 19, 123administrative action, review of (Output 1)

agency satisfaction with services, 21–22complaint handling, 19feedback from public, 20–21number of complaints and approaches

received, 22–24outreach activities, 24–25response to advice, 21–22submissions to government, 25

administrative actions of agenciesautomated assistance in decision making, 48deficiencies, 42inquiries into, 47–49investigations of, 121

Administrative Review Council (ARC), member of, 50advice

provided by agenciesaccuracy of, 59, 72

provided by the organisationresponse by agencies, 21–22

age pensionbonus scheme, 67–68transferring to, 113

aged care accommodation bond, 98agencies

advice provided by, 59, 72complaints about, 23, 57contact with, case study, 107referrals to, 42–43, 62–63satisfaction with services provided by the

organisation, 21–22Agha, Mrs, 85agreements, child support, 71aircraft deseal/reseal programs, 76–77airport administration, 97, 114–115Alvarez, Vivian, 84Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005, 47, 91assets of the organisation

financial and non-financial, 36assets test, social security, 99

audit, internal, 30Australia Post

complaint handling, 59–60incorrect advice given by, 59mail services, 58–59number of approaches and complaints, 58Postal Industry Ombudsman, 60

Australian and New Zealand OmbudsmanAssociation (ANZOA), 53

feature article, 14Australian Capital Territory Ombudsman, 123Australian Crime Commission, 91

compliance with legislation, 91–93Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, 87

review of, 47Australian Customs Service, 97Australian Defence Force (ADF)

military justice system, 75number of complaints received, 74redress of grievance system, 75young people in the military, 21, 75–76

Australian Federal Policecombating terrorism, 90–91complaint-handling system, 90complaints received about, 87–88compliance with legislation, 91–93critical incidents, 89managing property and exhibits, 89practice and procedures, 89security vetting methods, 88special investigations of, 89

Australian Federal Police Protective Services(AFPPS), 90

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), liaisonwith, 50

Australian Securities and Investments Commission(ASIC), complaints about, 95–96

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act1979, 87 (table), 90–91

Australian Taxation Office (ATO)case management, 65complaints overview, 61–62debt collection, 64–65, 113

case study, 105internal and external tax projects, 63–64, 65referral survey project, 62–63superannuation co-contribution, 21, 64

REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX

references

alphabetical index

tax environment, 62Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), 33–34Automated assistance in administrative decision

making, 48awareness survey, 24–25, 43

Bbankruptcies, 98banning customers, 45, 69behaviour of complainants, 45, 69benefits, social security

documentary proof of entitlement, 117–118eligibility for, case study, 107processing of, case study, 110

breach of privacy, 33Building Industry Taskforce

cessation of, 92inspection of records, 26, 123replaced by, 92

business plans, 29, 30–31

Ccancellation of visas, 79–80case management approach to complaints, 65, 116case studies, helping people

health card issues, 108, 109immigration priority hearing, 106processing benefits, 110research funding for higher education

providers, 109social security eligibility, 107special contact needs, 107taxation debt, 105trade qualifications, 105veterans’ medical care remote from home, 109visa issues, 105, 106

causes of complaints, 24Centrelink

correspondence with customers, 66–67information stored on customer files, 67number of approaches and complaints, 66ongoing issues

banning customers, 69internal review process, 68–69nominees, 69

pension bonus scheme, 67–68Welfare to Work initiatives, 69–70

certified agreement, 33–34challenges facing the organisation, 8

Child Support Agency (CSA)accuracy of advice, 72court orders and agreements, 71–72emerging issues, 73future directions, 73number of approaches and complaints, 71withholding and disbursement of child support

funds, 72–73children

in detention, 83their interests in child support, 73

citizenship processes, 79client satisfaction survey, 42–43Client Service Charter, 20code of conduct, DIMA investigations staff, 81committees, parliamentary, appearances before, 47Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 31Commonwealth service providers, 70Community Reference Group, Centrelink, 69–70compensation scheme, military, 77competitive tendering and contracting, 37complainants, banning of, 45, 69complaints, challenges in the handling of

complainants’ conduct, 45data management, 42public contact, 40–41referrals to agencies, 42–43

pilot survey project, 62–63in regional areas, 43, 44service to Indigenous Australians, 43work practice changes, 41–42

Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, 19,87 (table), 122

complaints management system, 19, 37–38, 42complaints received

about agencies, 23figure showing agencies involved, 57overview of taxation complaints, 61–62

administrative drift, 115–116assessment of feedback from public, 20Australian Taxation Office, overview, 61–62carried forward, 24case management approach, 65, 116causes of, 24finalised and investigated, 23–24management of data, 42not investigated, 24, 42number and complexity of, 22–23remedies provided, 20, 42timeliness in response, 19


REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX


consultancy services, 36–37, 134contact with agencies, case study, 107contracts

access to contractor’s premises, 37competitive tendering and contracting, 37

controlled operations, 26, 92cooperation

among Australian ombudsmen, 53with other oversight agencies, 49–50regional and international, 14, 27, 39, 51–53

core activity of the organisation, 4corporate governance see governancecorporate watchdog complaints, ASIC, 96correspondence, government

with customers, 66–67intelligibility, 118

court orders and agreements, child support, 71–72covert operations see controlled operationsCrimes Act 1914, 26critical incidents, law enforcement, 89customer behaviour, 45, 69customer information stored by Centrelink, 67customers, banning of, 45, 69

Ddata management of complaint handling, 42debt collection, taxation

case study, 105garnishee action, 65release from debt, 64small business debtors, 113

decision making by government, automatedassistance in, 48

decision making by government, problem areasadministrative drift, 115–116administrative irritants, 112–113complexity of legislation and programs,

113–115other issues, 117–118unhelpful legalism, 116–117

defence see Australian Defence Force; DefenceHousing Authority; Department ofDefence; Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO), 74, 122Defence Housing Authority (DHA), 77Department of Defence, 74Department of Employment and Workplace

Relations (DEWR), 94–95Department of Families, Community Services and

Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA), 98–99

social security benefits, case studies, 107, 110Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)

foreign staff entitlements, 97passport complaints, 96–97

Department of Health and Ageing, 98health card issues, case studies, 108, 109

Department of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs (DIMA), 78–86

Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA)aircraft deseal/reseal programs, 76–77rehabilitation and compensation scheme, 77

deseal/reseal programs, aircraft, 76–77detention

children in, 83–84mental health of detainees, 80–81, 83referred matters, 83–85reporting on people held for more than two

years, 82–83restrictive detention, 81

disability action plan, 31disability strategy, 31disbursement of child support funds, 72–73documents held by the organisation, 123

Eecologically sustainable development, 32education, research funding for higher education

providers, case study, 109employment

conditions, 34programs, 94

energy conservation by the organisation, 32environmental performance of the organisation, 32establishment of the organisation, 11ethics of the organisation, 31exempt contracts, 37external scrutiny

litigation, 33privacy legislation, 32–33

extradition, review of legislation and processes, 48

FF-111 deseal/reseal programs, 76–77family tax benefit, 99feature articles

international cooperation, 14, 27, 39outreach activities, 103public contact, 10security legislation, 46

REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX

whistleblowers, 111feedback received from the public, 20, 110female staff, 34–35financial case managers, Welfare to Work

initiatives, 70financial management

assets, 36competitive tendering and contracting, 37consulting services, 36–37contractual provisions, 37exempt contracts, 37liabilities, 36non-financial assets, 36performance, 35position, 35–36purchasing, 36

financial statements, 135–173findings provided by the organisation, 21–22Fisher reforms, law enforcement, 90fraud control, 31freedom of information

applications, immigration, 79complaints overview, 101–102delay in processing, 102scrutinising government, 100statement, 121–124

Freedom of Information Act 1982, 100functions of the organisation, 11–13future directions

child support, 73for the organisation, 9taxation projects, 65

Ggarnishee action, taxation liability, 65General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy

Scheme (GEERS), 94–95governance

corporate planning and review, 29disability strategy, 31–32environmental matters, 32management committees, 29–30practices, 30–31senior executive, 28–29service charter, 32

Hharassment policy, 31health and safety, 30, 120

health cards, case studies, 108, 109helping people

case studies, 105–110dealing with urgent and pressing issues, 104, 106detoxifying the relationship, 107enabling legislative or policy change, 107–108pinpointing the issue in dispute, 104surmounting barriers, 110

history of the organisation, 11human rights, infringement of, 46

Iimmigration

case study, 106code of conduct for investigations staff, 81complaints overview, 78–80detention

mental health, 80–81Palmer report, 78people held in detention for two years ormore, 82–83referred immigration detention matters,83–85restrictive detention, 81

feedback from complainants, 86freedom of information requests, 101policy and procedural changes, 85–86strengthening relationships, 85use of compliance powers, 81–82

Immigration Ombudsman, 78Indigenous Australians, outreach activities, 25, 43Indigenous Working Group, 43Indonesia, international cooperation with, 52

feature article, 27information

access to under FOI Act, 100–102on customer files, 67privacy, 32, 50

information technology, 37–38Information Technology Steering Committee, 30inquiries

into circumstances of the Vivian Alvarez matter, 84

into the detention of Cornelia Rau, 78into military justice system, 75submissions made to, 47–48

insolvencies, 98Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA), 98Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS),

cooperation with, 49


REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX


Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force(IGADF), cooperation with, 49

Internal Audit Committee, 30internal reviews, 20–21, 118

Centrelink, 68–69international cooperation

feature articles, 14, 27, 39Indonesia, 52other activities, 53Pacific Islands, 51–52Papua New Guinea, 52Thailand, 51

International Ombudsman Institute (IOI), 53investigation of complaints, 23–24

ongoing, 51own motion, 50–51

investigation officers, 41

JJack Richardson Prize in Administrative Law, 6job capacity assessors, Welfare to Work initiatives, 70Job Network, 94job network providers, Welfare to Work initiatives, 70justice, military, 75

Llaw enforcement see Australian Crime Commission;

Australian Federal PoliceLaw Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and

Related Measures) Act 2006, 90Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner, 91, 92law enforcement legislation, 87 (table)Law Enforcement Ombudsman, 7, 90, 122legal issues

concerning referred immigration detentionmatters, 84

responded to by the organisation, 33legalism, unhelpful in resolution of problems,

116–117legislation

complexity of, 113–115inquiries into, 47investigations made under

ACT Ombudsman Act, 121Building and Construction Industry

Improvement Act, 123Crimes Act, 123FOI Act, 122law enforcement legislation, 87 (table)

Migration Act, 22, 33, 122Ombudsman Act, 11, 12, 121telecommunications and surveillance

legislation, 123performs under, 12review of, 6, 46, 47, 48

liabilities, financial, of the organisation, 36litigation responded to by the organisation, 33

Mmail services, 58–59male staff, 34–35management of the organisation, 28–38marriage-like relationships, 99medical care for veterans, case study, 109mental health

of detainees, 80–81, 83Senate Select Committee on immigration

issues, 47Migration Act 1958, 6

amended 2005, 22inquiry into, 47

Migration and Ombudsman Legislation AmendmentAct 2005, 33

migration legislation, 6, 22, 47military justice system, inquiry into, 75military personnel under age of 18, 75–76Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, 77multicultural organisations, outreach, 25

NNational Fraud Investigations Guidelines, DIMA, 81nominees, Centrelink, 69

Ooccupational health and safety, 30, 120Occupational Health and Safety Committee, 30Ombudsman Act 1976, 11, 12

review of, 6Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT), 12ombudsmen

Australian, cooperation among, 53private sector, 53public sector, 53

ongoing investigations, 51organisational structure, 13, 28–29outcome

fair and accountable administrative action, 17outputs

REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX

review of administrative action, 17–25review of statutory compliance, 26

outreach activities, 24–25, 43–44feature article, 103map of areas visited in 2005–06, 44

outsourcing, 36–37own motion investigations, 21–22, 50–51

PPacific islands

international cooperation, 51–52regional strengthening (feature article), 39

Palmer report, immigration, 78papers prepared by staff, 125–127Papua New Guinea, international cooperation with, 52parliamentary committees, appearances before,

47–48passenger processing at Australian airports, 97,

114–115passport complaints, 96–97Pension Bonus Scheme, 67–68people management see staff, management ofpeople with disabilities, 31performance pay, 34permanent residents, long-term, visa cancellations,

79–80permanent staff, 34plans

business, 29, 30disability, 31strategic, 29workplace diversity, 31

Postal Industry Ombudsman, 60, 122postal services, 58–59presentations given by staff, 125–127privacy

breach of, 33of information, 32, 50

Privacy Commissioner, 49problem areas see decision making in government,

problem areasProfessional Standards Team, 42projects

research, 48, 111taxation, 62–64, 65

promoting good administrationcooperation

among Australian ombudsmen, 53international and regional, 51–53with other oversight agencies, 49–50

own motion and major investigations, 50–51submissions, reviews and research, 47–49

property, loss of during law enforcement, 89protective services, 90public awareness of the Ombudsman’s role, 24–25,

43, 103public contact officers, 41Public Contact Team, 40–41

feature article, 10public reports, 21–22public sector ombudsman offices, 53purchasing, 36

RRau, Cornelia, 78recommendations provided by the Ombudsman,

21–22recovery of taxation debt, 64–65Red One Compound (immigration), 81redress of grievance (ROG) process, ADF, 74–75referral of complaints to agencies, 42–43

pilot survey project, 62–63referred immigration detention matters, 83–85regional cooperation see international cooperationregistry function complaints, ASIC, 95–96rehabilitation scheme, military, 77release from taxation debt, 64remedies for complaints, 20remuneration, staff, 28, 34reporting on people held in detention for two years

or more, 82–83reports, public, 21–22research projects, 48, 111Resolve see complaints management systemrestrictive detention, 81reviews

internal, 20–21, 68–69, 118submissions made to, 47–48

risk management, 30, 31role of the organisation, 11–12

changes to, 6–7public awareness of, 24–25in the region, 25

Ssafety, 30, 120security

at Australian airports, 114–115Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, 49


REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX


review of legislation (feature article), 46vetting, 88

service charter, 32service providers to the Commonwealth, 70services provided by the organisation

agency satisfaction with, 21–22service standards, 19–20

skills assessment, 95social justice, 31South-East Asia, international program

involvement, 51Srey case, referred immigration detention matters, 83staff

management of, 33–35papers and presentations by, 125–127remuneration, 28, 34senior executive, 28–29study assistance for, 35training, 35

staff resourcesby level and gender, 34by location and gender, 35

stakeholders in rural and regional Australia, 43statistics, 128–133

explanation of terms used in tables, 128statutory compliance, review of (Output 2)

acceptance of findings and recommendations, 26completion of inspection and reporting

schedule, 26number of inspections completed, 26

strategic plan, 29study assistance for staff, 35submissions

to inquiries, 47–48to government, 25provided by the organisation, 21–22

Superannuation Co-contribution Scheme, 64, 113surveillance devices, 26, 92Surveillance Devices Act 2004, 26, 92, 123surveillance legislation, 123surveys, 42–43, 61–62

Ttables (appendix), 128–133taxation

agents, 64complaints, 61–62debt, 64–65, 113

case study, 105environment

complexity of tax law and tax system, 62legislation, 114projects, 62–64, 65

Taxation Ombudsman, 61, 62Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), 95Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act

1979, 26, 91, 123telecommunications interceptions, 26, 91–92Telstra Corporation, 95tendering and contracting, 37terrorism, 90–91

review of legislation, 46, 47Thailand, international cooperation with, 51

feature article, 27timeliness in response to complaints, 19trade qualifications, case study, 105Trades Recognition Australia (TRA), 95training, staff, 35

Vvalues of the organisation, 31veterans’ affairs, 76–77visa issues

cancellations, 79–80case studies, 105, 106

visitor to Australia, frail aged, 85visits to detention centres, 80

Wwebsite, 37Welfare to Work initiatives, 69–70whistleblowers research project, 48

feature article, 111withholding of child support funds, 72–73witness management, 48, 111witnesses, internal, 48, 111Work Practice Steering Committee, 30, 42work practices, 30

changes, 20, 41–42workplace

conditions, 30health and safety, 30relations, 33–34

Workplace Diversity Plan, 31Workplace Harassment Policy, 31Workplace Relations Committee, 30

Yyoung people in the military, 21, 75–76

REFERENCES

ALPH

AB

ETICAL IN

DEX

Enquiries 9 am–5 pm Monday to Friday

Phone 1300 362 072 (local call charge)

Post box GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601

Facsimile 02 6249 7829

Email [email protected]

Online complaint form www.ombudsman.gov.au


REFERENCES

CON

TACTS

references

contacts

Commonwealth Ombudsman offices

Adelaide HobartLevel 5, 50 Grenfell Street Ground Floor, 99 Bathurst Street

Adelaide SA 5000 Hobart TAS 7000

Brisbane MelbourneLevel 25, 288 Edward Street Level 10, Casselden Place

Brisbane QLD 4000 2 Lonsdale Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

Canberra and National Office PerthGround Floor, 1 Farrell Place Level 12, St Martin’s Tower

Canberra City ACT 2600 44 St Georges Terrace

Perth WA 6000

Darwin SydneyLevel 12, NT House Level 7, North Wing

Cnr Bennett & Mitchell Streets Sydney Central, 477 Pitt Street

Darwin NT 0801 Sydney NSW 2000

Images on pages 1, 12, 20, 24, 28 and 40 by seventyeight.com.au

Comm

onwealth O

mbudsm

an Annual Report

2005–2006


annual report 2005–2006 - Ombudsman · 2016-02-18 · being ‘trampled underfoot by...

Documents

Transcript of annual report 2005–2006 - Ombudsman · 2016-02-18 · being ‘trampled underfoot by...