Commonwealth Ombudsman annual report 2006-2007
 Annual report home | Contents | Userguide | Download | Contact | Glossary
 Transmittal | Foreword | Ombudsman's review | Organisation | Performance | Management and accountability | Challenges | Promoting good administration | Looking at the agencies | Thirty changes
      Contentsright arrowChapter 1 Ombudsman's reviewright arrowComplaint and inspections workload
Click to print this pageIncrease text sizeDecrease text size
       

In this chapter

 Introduction
 Complaint and inspections workload
 Financial performance
 Public administration
 Developing role of the Ombudsman
 International cooperation
 Key strategic achievements
 Challenges
 The year ahead

References

Features
Appendixes
List of tables
and figures
Glossary
Compliance index
Contacts

CHAPTER 1 Ombudsman's review

Complaint and inspections workload

In 2006–07 we received a total of 33,322 approaches and complaints (28,227 in 2005–06). As in recent years, the majority (74%) of approaches and complaints about agencies within jurisdiction relate to five agencies—Australia Post, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Centrelink, the Child Support Agency (CSA), and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).

The total number of approaches and complaints to the Ombudsman about agencies within jurisdiction has been fairly stable over the past four years. There was an increase of 51% in the number of approaches to the office relating to out-of-jurisdiction matters and requests for information. Overall this number has increased over the last four years.

‘... we received a total of 33,322 approaches and complaints ...’

This year, we investigated 4,251 approaches and complaints (24%) covering 5,040 issues (31% in 2005–06) and identified agency error or deficiency in 4% (1% in 2005–06, under different guidelines and work practices). See Chapter 3—Performance report for further information on administrative deficiency.

The Ombudsman is responsible for monitoring the integrity of the records of telecommunications interceptions, use of surveillance devices and controlled operations conducted by the AFP, the ACC, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, some state law enforcement agencies and other enforcement agencies. We inspected the records of the AFP on nine occasions, of the ACC on six occasions, and the New South Wales Police and South Australia Police on one occasion each, for statutory compliance, adequacy and comprehensiveness.