Skip to site navigationSkip to chapter navigationSkip to content
 Commonwealth Ombudsman annual report 2003–2004
 Annual report home | Contents | Userguide | Download | Search | Print page
 Transmittal | Contacting | Foreword | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Team features | Financials | Appendix | References

Contentsright arrowChapter 6 | How the Ombudsman helped peopleright arrowHandling complaints from Members of Parliament
  

In this chapter

 Introduction
 Helping to resolve complaints in a systematic fashion
 Handling complaints from members of parliament
 Bridging the information gap
 Providing reasons
 Providing an independent assessment
 Facilitating compensation for financial loss
 Oversighting agency investigations

References

Abbreviations and acronyms
Compliance index
Contacts

CHAPTER 6 | how the Ombudsman helped people

Handling complaints from Members of Parliament

A distinctive role of the Ombudsman is to handle complaints referred from Members of Parliament (MPs). The link between Parliament and the Ombudsman is strong and historically rooted. The first ombudsman in Australia (in Western Australia) was described as the 'Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations'—as, initially, was the Queensland Ombudsman. Some Ombudsmen abroad have the status of a parliamentary officer, with direct responsibility to the Parliament. In some systems, a complainant can only approach the Ombudsman through their local MP.

MPs in Australia, in discharging their constituency role, perform a function similar to the Ombudsman of taking up the grievances of their constituents directly with government agencies. This is a major function of the electorate offices of many MPs. Even so, many MPs find that the Ombudsman's office can be a useful supplement or alternative to their own constituency work. Sometimes we are better placed because of our resources, experience and information-gathering powers to investigate an issue brought initially to an MP's attention, as illustrated in the Clarification case study.

CASE STUDY

clarification

A Member of Parliament complained about the ATO's imposition of general interest charge (GIC) on a constituent who had previously been led to believe by ATO staff that no such charge would apply.

One day after Ombudsman staff inquired about this complaint, the ATO had contacted the constituent, clarified the situation, apologised for any inconvenience, and arranged to have the GIC remitted. The ATO then undertook subsequent follow-up action to confirm that the remitted GIC was properly credited to the constituent's bank account.

Difficulties for MPs can arise where a constituent has no confidence in the investigation carried out by an agency. This may arise because the relationship between the agency and the constituent has reached an impasse, or because the constituent holds the agency responsible for some event, particularly in a significant family trauma (as illustrated in the Verifying events case study). The Ombudsman's office can independently verify whether or not an agency's actions were carried out properly.

CASE STUDY

verifying events

A Member of Parliament (MP) had been approached by a constituent who alleged that an agency had improperly altered its records on two occasions. The MP asked the Ombudsman to investigate the allegations.

The first allegation was that an alteration by an agency to its paper records had resulted in a benefit payment not being deposited to the correct bank account of the constituent's relative (Mr C). It was claimed that this incident had contributed to a significant family trauma involving Mr C.

Our investigation found that Mr C, in applying for the benefit, had supplied the bank name and account number to which the benefit was to be paid, but did not know the code number of the bank branch. The agency officer had obtained the number from the branch and entered it on the form. This explained both why the benefit was not paid to the correct account and why there was different handwriting on the form.

The second allegation was that details of Mr C's emotional state had been deleted from the agency's computer records. We were advised by the agency that this could not be done without an annotation being made to the computer record, which had not occurred.

Ombudsman staff have been working to develop the office's relationship with MPs in various ways:

  • meeting with MPs and their staff to explain the complaint process followed in our office, and the reasons for decisions reached in particular cases
  • regularly distributing information to MPs' parliamentary offices
  • visiting MPs' electorate offices as part of our regional and rural outreach program
  • making submissions to parliamentary committees (the 'Promoting good administration' chapter of this report provides more detail).