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).
|