CHAPTER
6 | how the Ombudsman helped people
Providing an independent assessment
An essential component of the Ombudsman's commitment to the values
of independence, impartiality and professionalism is that the office
should listen to both sides of a complaint or disagreement. The first
step ordinarily taken after a complaint is received is to elicit an agency's
response to what a complainant has said, and then to give the complainant
a further opportunity to comment. Sometimes the Ombudsman's office is
the only body that has been independent of the dispute and has heard
both sides. The office is not an advocate for either party.
Maintaining independence and objectivity can be important to the professional
resolution of disputes. If complainants can trust that those values have
been respected, they are more likely to accept the Ombudsman's explanation
for an adverse government decision. Conversely, agencies are more likely
to accept our viewpoint on an issue and to acknowledge that a dispute
needs to be seen in a different light. The Adequate action case study
provides an example.
CASE STUDY
|
adequate action
|
Mr A complained that the ATO
had not taken adequate action to recover unpaid superannuation
contributions from his previous employer.
The relevant legislation prevents the ATO from disclosing to
an employee the particulars of any action that the ATO has taken,
although the ATO is authorised to provide information to the
Ombudsman. It is inappropriate for us to pass on information
that is otherwise protected; however, we do seek to satisfy ourselves
that action by the ATO is consistent with its guidelines and
processes.
In this case, we were able to assure Mr P that, although he
had not yet seen any results, we were satisfied that the ATO
was taking appropriate action.
|
Independent assessment of complaints is also the basis of our work
within the police jurisdiction, as the Aware of obligations case study
demonstrates.
CASE STUDY
|
aware of obligations
|
Mr J complained about the conduct
of AFP members during a raid on his client's home under the new
counter-terrorism laws.
The matter was referred to AFP Internal Investigations. The AFP
report concluded that the complaints about the AFP's conduct of
the raid and the search and seizure of documents and property were
unsubstantiated.
Our own review of the report confirmed that the AFP members were
sensitive in their use of the new powers and alert to their obligations.
We provided a detailed explanation to Mr J, who has not raised
any further concerns. |
|