|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Administrative Review Council - Admin Review |
In July 2002 the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ron McLeod AM, completed 44 years of service to the Australian community. He retired in February 2003, after five years in the position of Ombudsman. Professor John McMillan was subsequently appointed as the new Commonwealth Ombudsman.
This article, prepared by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office, summarises some of Mr McLeod’s work and achievements during his term as Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Mr McLeod’s work as Ombudsman was marked by a desire to ensure that the services of his office were delivered effectively and efficiently to the entire Australian community. He introduced a range of initiatives to achieve this goal.
One of the first was to strengthen the network of regional offices to cover all states and territories, particularly through the re-establishment of a presence in Tasmania. Most regional offices now carry out investigations in nominated subject areas, to enable local staff to gain expertise and to conduct more complex and formal investigations. Staff mobility and staff exchanges—such as temporary transfers to cover periods of leave by senior staff—were also encouraged.
With the fairly modest resources available, the Ombudsman promoted the widest program of rural and regional outreach in the history of the office. This included visits to and displays in a wide range of country centres in New South Wales (such as Albury, Dubbo, Bega and Goulburn) and Jervis Bay and visits to Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. The office was involved in joint presentations with state ombudsmen in regional areas of South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia and with Commonwealth agencies in many regional centres. It also conducted significant outreach to multicultural communities in the Australian Capital Territory.
The office encouraged community access to the Ombudsman’s services through the use of new technologies and other mechanisms. During Mr McLeod’s term complaints lodged by email and via the internet grew from insignificant numbers to more than 1000 annually. That period also saw the development and rapid expansion of user-friendly websites (Commonwealth and ACT) that provide a large amount of information about complaints and the role of the Ombudsman, as well as straightforward complaint forms that can be submitted electronically.
Annual reports in recent years have chronicled the strong emphasis the Ombudsman has given to helping government agencies develop and deliver effective, accessible internal complaint systems. Emphasis has been placed on agencies dealing effectively with their own clients, and during his term Mr McLeod consistently encouraged the community to raise problems of service delivery and administrative action with the responsible agencies in the first instance. Mr McLeod worked with many larger agencies to refine and evaluate complaint mechanisms, the most intensive work being done with Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and the Australian Taxation Office.
The Ombudsman commissioned a consultant to evaluate outreach to Australians of diverse ethnic backgrounds and implemented recommendations to ensure effective delivery of services to citizens whose first language is not English. Among these initiatives were a modest but intensive media campaign; development of pamphlets, posters and electronic information in 25 languages; and public launches of printed materials at functions for community leaders in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.
Multilingual materials specifically designed to help detainees in immigration detention centres understand and make use of their right to access to services from the Ombudsman were also launched. The greatest impact was achieved by means of a striking poster in 10 languages, which is now displayed at all immigration detention centres in Australia.
Mr McLeod took a keen interest in the development of government ombudsman services throughout the world and attended two international conferences sponsored by the International Ombudsman Institute. In 2000 he accepted appointment to the board of that institute and became regional vice-president for the institute’s Australasian and Pacific region. In this role, he showed great leadership for ombudsman services in the region and developed a range of initiatives and support programs to assist Australia’s developing neighbours.
The Ombudsman’s office secured AusAID funding to develop a training and mentoring role for the National Ombudsman Commission of Indonesia, which is now well into its second year. The Ombudsman also sponsored visits to Australia for senior managers and investigators to attend training and liaison activities and to participate in on-the-job training with IT and investigative teams. The office has recently received additional funding from AusAID to conduct similar programs for Thailand and to extend the Indonesian program. In the last two years, the office sponsored activities for other countries in the region, including high-level visits and study programs for ombudsman managers and staff from East Timor, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
Mr McLeod left a legacy of a vibrant and growing relationship with our ombudsman counterparts in the region, who now look to us as a centre of excellence and a mentor as they continue to develop their structures and services.
During 2000–01 the Ombudsman’s office established a small specialist team in Canberra to provide a high-level focus on systemic problems in social support program areas, especially Centrelink, the Department of Family and Community Services, and the Child Support Agency. The Ombudsman was concerned that these agencies accounted for about 60 per cent of all complaints to the office and wished to devote greater attention to working with those agencies to improve program delivery and redress systemic problems.
In a relatively short time the office’s Social Support Team has been very successful in achieving those aims. One of its reports dealt with the application of social security penalties and is illustrative of Mr McLeod’s constructive, practical approach. The report contained 29 major recommendations for policy and procedural changes by Centrelink and the Department of Family and Community Services. By the time it was released, in October 2002, 19 of those recommendations had already been accepted and implemented and the agencies were committed to serious consideration of the others.
The Social Support Team has also contributed to reports on subjects such as service delivery problems arising from call centres and self-assessment of rights to benefits; it has a variety of complex matters under investigation. Development of the specialist social support function is an initiative the Ombudsman hoped would continue to improve the delivery of government social security programs.
In the latter years of his tenure Mr McLeod had a greatly increased focus on government contracting activity and on the contracting-out of government services. The office established a specialist position to investigate complaints about tender and contract assessment and procedures, creating a much higher profile for the office. In keeping with the Ombudsman’s role of improving government administration, tender and contract investigations centred largely on working with agencies to improve their decision-making processes and to develop suitable remedies where administration has been defective.
In administrative review circles there has been continuing debate about the effects of the accelerating trend for the contracting-out of government services, including the degree to which the administrative actions of contractors might be subject to the oversight of the Ombudsman. Mr McLeod reported in detail on this matter in successive annual reports and worked with government to bring about legislative change. The government has stated its intention to introduce legislation to reaffirm the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in this area of government, where private contractors are now taking on roles that were once the preserve of government agencies.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman is also the Taxation Ombudsman. Complaints to the Ombudsman about the Australian Taxation Office averaged just over 2600 a year between 1998 and 2002, accounting for about 15 per cent of all complaints. In two of those years, the Ombudsman received a large number of complaints about the ATO’s treatment of mass-marketed ‘tax-effective schemes’. These resulted in complex investigations and the release of three formal reports containing recommendations for reform of ATO procedures in dealing with the tax implications of such schemes.
In 2000 the new tax system was introduced. The Ombudsman played an important part in building confidence in the new tax arrangements by ensuring that taxpayers’ problems were efficiently and effectively dealt with. In addition, there is an important and continuing role for the Ombudsman as the ATO and taxpayers come to terms with the changed environment of tax administration.
More recently, the Ombudsman and the ATO have developed close working relationships, particularly in relation to complaint-handling procedures. The ATO has revamped its structures and processes for dealing with complaints from the public, with the result that in the majority of cases the Ombudsman’s office is able to advise complainants to seek to resolve their matters directly with the ATO in the first instance. This has allowed the Ombudsman to focus more on dealing with systemic and complex tax complaints. In early 2003, the Ombudsman completed an ‘own motion’ investigation into the effectiveness of the ATO’s complaint-handling mechanisms. A report including recommendations was issued to the ATO, which has agreed to implement most of the changes. A public version of the report is due for release late in June. The investigation of tax complaints revealed the highest level of defective administration in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The ATO has stated that it continues to strive for excellence and that it welcomes initiatives by government to ensure its transparency and accountability. Legislation to establish the Inspector-General of Taxation, to complement the roles of the Ombudsman and the Board of Taxation, was enacted in April 2003. The Ombudsman will continue to be the main external review body for complaints from the public and it is envisaged that demand will remain quite high.
For some time the Ombudsman’s office has monitored limited aspects of government administration. This monitoring work is aimed in particular at government agencies whose responsibilities relate to highly sensitive matters associated with citizens’ rights. The scope of the Ombudsman’s monitoring activity includes telecommunications interception by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission (formerly the National Crime Authority).
During Mr McLeod’s term of office the Ombudsman’s monitoring role was considerably extended. In late 2001, the Parliament gave the Ombudsman the additional responsibility of providing external scrutiny of controlled operations undertaken by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission and of the DNA database administered by CrimTrac. In addition, the Ombudsman was given an increased role in relation to witness protection.
The purpose of monitoring is to provide assurances that the activities concerned are conducted properly and fairly. The Ombudsman’s office is well placed to carry out this task because of the independence, impartiality and objectivity that are inherent in the role of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s office also conducts periodic inspections of immigration detention centres, which are administered by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, and of remand institutions in the Australian Capital Territory.
Mr McLeod’s term also saw a range of important investigations and reports that have contributed substantially to improving government administration:
• The Ombudsman made a major contribution to bringing to a successful conclusion the complex COTS (Casualties of Telstra) cases. Among the Ombudsman’s actions were the release of two comprehensive reports and the unprecedented secondment of a senior manager to chair a Senate working party aimed at conciliating complex and long-running matters. • The Ombudsman also played an important part in refining government policies and procedures relating to compensation for defective administration. This included the release of a report in 1998 and close cooperation with agencies involved in developing and implementing the CDDA (Compensation for Detriment Caused by Defective Administration) scheme. • The Ombudsman investigated and reported on the Australian Taxation Office’s response to tax-effective schemes. This included the Budplan report, which arose from more than 1500 complaints. The Ombudsman sought to take a positive role in moving towards resolution of these very complex matters and assisting the ATO with its administrative practices. • Detailed investigations into a variety of immigration matters were also conducted and reported on. This included comprehensive reviews of the treatment of immigration detainees in state prisons and Commonwealth detention centres. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs accepted the majority of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The Ombudsman also initiated and continued a roster of regular visits by investigative staff to detention centres and a continuing dialogue with the department with a view to improving service delivery and the handling of complaints.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdminRw/2003/8.html