CHAPTER 5 | looking at the agencies

Complaints under the heading of Defence fall into two categories: the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) jurisdiction, covering employment-related matters for serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF); and the Commonwealth Ombudsman jurisdiction, covering complaints about administrative actions of the Department of Defence. The combined DFO and Commonwealth Ombudsman jurisdiction also encompasses complaints about the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA), the Defence Housing Authority, Defence Service Homes and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority.

2004 is a 21-year milestone for the Defence Force Ombudsman. The DFO office was given a statutory basis in 1983 by amendment of the Ombudsman Act 1976. The functions and powers of the DFO were conferred upon the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The DFO investigates employment-related matters for serving and former members of the ADF, including complaints about compensation and veterans' entitlements, which are administered by the DVA.

'2004 is a 21-year milestone for the Defence Force Ombudsman.'

There has been a steady decline in the number of Defence complaints, dropping to 690 in 2003–04 (see Figure 5.6). We are evaluating the causes of this decline, but they can be hard to discern. It could be that there is less cause for complaint, that complaints are being better handled internally, or that there is a loss of faith in the Ombudsman's effectiveness.

Australian Defence Force employment-related complaints

In 2003–04, the most common causes of complaint from Defence personnel were discharge matters, pay and allowances, dissatisfaction with the outcome of a Redress of Grievance (ROG) process, discrimination and harassment, and posting decisions. Complaints about discharge action were evenly spread between medical discharge and discharge on the ground of a person's unsuitability for continued service in the Army, Navy or Air Force.

The DFO will not ordinarily initiate the investigation of a complaint by a serving member of the ADF unless the complainant has sought redress through the ADF's internal ROG process and that process has been completed. This approach, which is required by s 19E of the Ombudsman Act, is designed to ensure that the ADF has the opportunity to resolve a matter before there is a need for the DFO to become involved.

If the ROG process is not finalised in a timely manner, it becomes progressively more difficult for the matter under complaint to be resolved fairly or to be remedied effectively. Delay in finalising a ROG can have an adverse impact on a member, financially and psychologically.

The DFO's concern about delay in finalising ROGs has been brought to the attention of the Department of Defence in previous annual reports. The number of complaints still received about the ROG process, particularly about the time taken to finalise investigations, indicates that the problem of delay is still a concern to members. During the year, in a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Australia's Military Justice System, the Ombudsman took up this ongoing concern about the time taken to finalise ROG investigations.

'Delay in finalising a ROG can have an adverse impact on a member, financially and psychologically.'

Other concerns were also taken up in the submission to the Senate inquiry:

• Investigative practices Complaints to the Ombudsman indicate that in some cases there has been a considerable delay by the ADF in initiating the investigation of serious complaints it received. Deficiencies in the quality of ADF investigations were also identified in some cases.
  
  
• Learning from complaint management There is room for improvement in the extent to which the ADF draws lessons, about complaint management and how to stem the flow of complaints, from investigations undertaken internally or by other agencies such as the Inspector-General of the ADF, the Defence Equity Organisation and the Ombudsman's office.
  
  
• Legalistic approaches to addressing complaint issues A tendency noted increasingly during the past 12 months has been for the Department to respond to Ombudsman investigations with more formal, legally-based responses. It is questionable whether this is necessary in relation to Ombudsman investigations, but also the practice can unnecessarily delay the resolution of complaints.

As these points indicate, the DFO jurisdiction presents a number of challenges. A delay by the ADF in finalising a ROG can adversely impact on the ability of the DFO to finalise complaints and to provide complainants with an efficient service. The Ombudsman's 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey highlighted that complainants in the DFO jurisdiction are generally less satisfied with our service than complainants in other jurisdictions.

Following discussion between the DFO and the Chief of the Defence Force, it has been agreed to conduct a joint review of the ROG system with a view to reporting before the end of 2004. The review will seek strategies to refine the system. We are also reviewing the adequacy of our own resources devoted to the DFO jurisdiction, the timeliness of our processes and how well we are educating complainants to have a realistic appreciation about the outcome they can expect from a complaint investigation.

Department of Veterans' Affairs

Complaints about the actions and decisions of the DVA fell to 172 in 2003–04, a decrease of 14% from 2002–03.

Several well-established avenues of review and appeal are available within the DVA portfolio, and applicants for pensions and allowances also have a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). We encourage complainants to exercise these rights of review and appeal. During 2003–04, approximately one-third of inquiries from DVA complainants resulted in a referral to either the DVA's internal review mechanisms or the AAT.

The Ombudsman received a number of complaints in relation to the Veterans' Home Care (VHC) program (decisions on VHC matters are not reviewable by the AAT). The complaints raised various concerns from veterans and their supporters about the way the DVA had assessed whether a particular veteran was eligible for home care services, the manner in which veterans were advised of reductions in home care services, the impact of reduced services, the lack of notification of review rights and the failure of the DVA to provide a revised service provision plan to a veteran.

'The complaints raised various concerns about the way the DVA had assessed eligibility for home care services.'

The Department provided timely and comprehensive responses to our inquiries, which assisted us to provide a high standard of service to veterans in most instances. For example, in one particular case, an ex-member of the ADF applied for compensation under the Military Compensation Rehabilitation Scheme administered by the DVA for an injury they claim to have suffered during enlistment in the ADF. The ex-member was concerned about the time it was taking for the DVA to make a decision about permanent incapacity and incapacity payments, as well as the lack of progress reports on the matter. In response to our informal inquiries, the DVA acknowledged that there had been a delay in processing the claim. The DVA apologised for the delay and for not responding to inquiries in a timely manner. The Department also confirmed that, following our inquiry, contact had been made with the claimant to finalise the matter.

Department of Defence

Complaints against the Department of Defence fall within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In 2003–04, we received 135 complaints about the Department. Of the 135 complaints, we conducted inquiries or investigated 42 complaints. The majority of complaints not investigated were referred back to the Department for appropriate action or we decided not to investigate, because an investigation was not warranted in all the circumstances.

Issues raised in complaints included concerns about military aircraft noise in residential areas, delays in finalising requests made under FOI legislation, delays in finalising claims against the Australian Government under the Compensation for Detriment Caused by Defective Administration scheme and delays in finalising payment of monies owed. In a significant number of cases involving the payment of accounts, inquiries by the Ombudsman's office resulted in action being taken to finalise the matter.