CHAPTER 8How the Ombudsman helped people

Mr H held a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) when he advised Centrelink that he was travelling overseas for a short period. Centrelink applied the relevant provisions of the social security law to cancel Mr H's card from the date that he left Australia and required him to reclaim the card upon his return a few weeks later. Mr H complained to our office that this seemed to be unnecessary and bureaucratic.

It became clear that holders of the CSHC were disadvantaged when compared with holders of some other concession cards, which are automatically regranted upon the cardholder's return to Australia.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Secretaries of three departments—Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Employment and Workplace Relations; and Education, Science and Training—asking whether the reclaim process for CSHC holders could be simplified. We were advised that representatives from these departments met and are working together to streamline the process for CSHC holders to reclaim the card upon their return.

Our investigation of a complaint about multiple incorrect cancellations of a low-income health care card (LIC) revealed a conflict between the social security law and policy as defined by FaCSIA. Contrary to the legislation, the policy required the assessment of a person's claim for an LIC to include the amount of their partner's social security pension or benefit.

FaCSIA told us that while it had always been the policy intention to include pensions and benefits in the income test for the LIC, an error occurred when the legislation was amended and they were not included. FaCSIA nevertheless advised Centrelink to apply their policy position.

After we brought this matter to the department's attention, FaCSIA reconsidered its approach and advised Centrelink to disregard any pension or benefit received by the partner of an LIC claimant until legislative amendment had brought the law and intended policy into line.

Mrs J lived in a remote location and needed hip surgery. Under s 110 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 eligible veterans are entitled to reimbursement of some of their travelling expenses, including transport, meals and accommodation, when travelling for medical treatment. The regulations prescribe that a veteran attend the 'closest practical provider,' which is determined with reference to the distance from the veteran's home, and whether the appropriate treatment can be provided in a timely manner.

The closest practical provider to Mrs J is usually found in Sydney or Brisbane. Mrs J's daughter lived in another major Australian town, where she was the head of the Physiotherapy Department at the local hospital. Mrs J preferred to have her surgery at that hospital, where her daughter could both accommodate her and manage her therapy.

Neither the legislation nor the regulations give a decision maker discretion to overlook the closest practical provider requirement, even when it made good sense for the veteran to have treatment in a more distant location. We raised this problem with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which agreed to recommend an amendment to the relevant regulations and prepared an Act of Grace submission to the minister on behalf of the client.

Articles published in journals are normally eligible for inclusion in the Department of Education, Science and Training's Higher Education Research Data Collection process, which forms the basis of research funding for higher education providers.

Production delays in 2004 meant the publication of a particular journal was delayed, resulting in a higher education provider not being able to claim research funding for a journal article. This was because the providers were excluded from consideration in the year the journal article was written and also excluded from consideration in the year it was published because it was written in the earlier year.

In response to our initial enquiries, the department noted that the peak body representing providers, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, was unwilling for the scope of the annual collections of publications to be changed.

Following further consultations with the Committee, the department subsequently amended its policy to include an 'expanded year of publication definition' that specifies a different basis for assessing the publication date of publications.