CHAPTER 7Looking at the agencies

Defence menu: Department of Defence | Australian Defence Force | Department of Veterans’ Affairs | Defence Housing Australia

Defence-related approaches and complaints fall into two categories: the Defence Force Ombudsman jurisdiction, covering employment-related matters for serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF); and the Commonwealth Ombudsman jurisdiction, covering complaints about administrative actions of the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) and Defence Housing Australia (DHA).

In 2006–07 we received 670 defence-related approaches and complaints, compared to 750 in 2005–06. This represents an 11% decrease in approaches and complaints.

Top

Department of Defence

We received 106 approaches and complaints about the Department of Defence (compared to 138 in 2005–06). The Fairness and Resolution Branch (FRB) within Defence has continued to assist our investigation of complaints by facilitating access to information, files and personnel across the various Defence areas that fall within our jurisdiction.

Westralia investigation

In March 2007 the Minister for Defence wrote to the Ombudsman, requesting that we consider an own motion investigation into matters involving HMAS Westralia. This followed allegations in the press and Parliament that Defence was warned in February 1998 about HMAS Westralia being in grave danger from the faulty fuel lines that caused the fire onboard Westralia on 5 May 1998.

In April 2007 the Acting Ombudsman initiated an own motion investigation into the allegations of Defence’s forewarning about the fire and the appropriateness of the Defence response, with particular reference to the procedural competence and integrity of the Inspector-General of Defence’s area at the time.

We expect to report on the outcome of this investigation in 2007–08.

Top

Australian Defence Force

We received 252 approaches and complaints from serving and former members about the actions and decisions of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) (compared to 303 in 2005–06).

These approaches and complaints were based on employment-related matters resulting from a person serving or having served in the ADF. Complaints can be about access to entitlements associated with conditions of service, promotion, posting, return of service obligation, termination of enlistment or appointment, pay and allowances, medical categorisation, debt management and the internal handling of complaints by Defence.

We have observed greater timeliness in the way Defence handles complaints from serving members, with fewer complaints made to our office about delays. In addition, relatively few complaints to our office became protracted over the last year. As an indicator, we currently have no ADF-related complaints more than eight months old.

We note the positive effect recent quality assurance mechanisms have had on the ADF’s redress of grievance process. A recent initiative includes FRB providing advice to commanding officers and managers on the proposed plan of action for handling each complaint shortly after the complaint has been made. This enables complaints to be investigated and resolved in a timely manner and at the lowest possible level.

Defence has also demonstrated a willingness to involve our office in ADF training courses and seminars where we can share our views about developing good administrative practices and effective decision making with commanders and administrators in the field. Such joint outreach activities allow us to raise awareness among ADF members about their right to complain to our office and how our role relates to internal ADF complaint mechanisms.

Review of reform to the Australian military justice system

Our office appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on a number of occasions in the last year in relation to the committee’s inquiry into the reforms to the Australian military justice system. This inquiry followed an earlier committee inquiry into the effectiveness of the military justice system (the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s Inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system (2005)).

During our appearance before the committee in February 2007, we noted improvements in the way that Defence had interacted with our office during the past year. We also noted:

• closer ties between our office and other oversight bodies such as the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force
• the historical nature of the higher profile cases that had attracted significant media attention during the earlier committee inquiry
• a decreasing trend in the number of complaints we receive about the ADF.

We emphasised to the committee that, based on the perspective that our investigations bring, we were satisfied that the systems in place to support military justice appeared to function in a reasonably effective manner.

‘... we noted improvements in the way that Defence had interacted with our office during the past year.’

We also noted the work undertaken by Defence in implementing the recommendations from the committee’s earlier inquiry and the joint 2004 Redress of Grievance Review conducted by our office and Defence (Review of Australian Defence Force Redress of Grievance System 2004 (Report No 01/2005)). We expressed the view that Defence continues to demonstrate a commitment to implementing the recommendations accepted from both reviews by October 2007.

ADF handling of unacceptable behaviour complaints

In August 2006 we initiated an own motion investigation into the way the ADF deals with complaints about unacceptable behaviour such as bullying and harassment. Our investigation focused on the effectiveness and accessibility of the system in place to manage, investigate and provide awareness training for internal complaints about unacceptable behaviour.

Our investigation took the form of desktop reviews of files at a number of Defence units around Australia. At the same time we also conducted a series of focus group discussions with Defence personnel to gauge the level of understanding and acceptance of the systems in place.

Our investigation revealed that generally there was a clear sense of awareness by Defence personnel of the systems in place to report and manage complaints about unacceptable behaviour. This view was expressed by both commanders and representatives of the general service population. While this was a positive result, our investigation also highlighted areas for improvement including:

• aspects of record keeping
• annual awareness refresher training
• data collection and reporting
• the role of inquiry officers and equity advisers
• quality assurance.

We are pleased to report that Defence has accepted all of the recommendations.

Top

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs provides a wide range of services to nearly half a million Australians. The services DVA administers include service pensions, age pensions, income support supplement and allowances, disability and war widows’ and widowers’ pensions, allowances, special purpose assistance, Defence Service Home Loans Scheme assistance and Repatriation Health Cards.

During 2006–07 we received 256 approaches and complaints (compared to 276 in 2005–06). In last year’s annual report we referred to our concerns about delays in investigating complaints about DVA. We have continued to meet with DVA at a number of different levels, which has helped improve the flow of information between our offices, although timeliness remained an issue in some cases.

In last year’s annual report we reported on complaints to our office about the F-111 aircraft deseal/reseal ex gratia payment scheme. Since August 2005, when the scheme was announced, we have received 82 complaints relating to the four deseal/reseal programs. There are currently six outstanding deseal/reseal cases that demonstrate a degree of complexity not evident in other related complaints. The issue of the complexities experienced in handling these complaints is discussed in Chapter 5—Challenges in complaint handling.

The consultation between our office and DVA about the scheme has generally functioned well. While the administration of the scheme presented certain challenges, the deseal/reseal issue serves as a good example of the effective way our office and DVA have been able to interact to obtain briefings, seek information about a case or have a decision reconsidered.

‘... the deseal/reseal issue serves as a good example of the effective way our office and DVA have been able to interact ...’

One case brought to our attention by DVA highlights the range of evidence considered by DVA as part of their assessment of deseal/reseal ex gratia payment scheme claims.

A retired RAAF maintenance worker applied for recognition under the scheme. Initially DVA did not accept that the claimant could demonstrate that he had participated in one of the four deseal/reseal programs to a degree which would support recognition under the scheme. The claimant sought a reconsideration of this decision and supplied more evidence which saw him granted a lesser degree of recognition. However, the claimant continued to feel that his service in the RAAF entitled him to a higher level of recognition.

He sought a further reconsideration and on this occasion presented a ‘stubbie’ holder which was given to him as a present when he was posted from the deseal/reseal section. DVA recognised that this evidence was genuine as a number of other long term deseal/reseal workers had also been presented with similar mementos at the time. DVA advised that it was therefore reasonable to accept the claimant’s involvement and he was granted the higher level of recognition.

It is encouraging to note DVA’s openness to different kinds of evidence when considering a claimant’s eligibility and the lengths it went to in this case to reconsider the claim further.

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation

In late 2005 DVA briefed our office on proposed changes to the structure of the department, to be introduced on 1 July 2006. These changes were necessitated by the changing demographic of DVA’s client base. The emphasis of DVA’s service delivery had shifted from a more traditional notion of a veteran and the veterans’ community as reflected by Second World War veterans, to a more diverse group that increasingly includes younger servicemen and women, both serving and recently separated from the ADF.

This changing demographic has been reflected in the type of complaints we have received, with an increase in complaints about military rehabilitation and compensation (MRC) claims in 2006–07. A common cause of complaint in MRC matters is delay. In early 2007 we received an approach from a lawyer, representing a number of clients, complaining about delays in the processing of 51 MRC claims. We felt it appropriate to approach DVA to investigate not just these 51 claims, but to also initiate a project looking more broadly at possible systemic issues in the handling of MRC claims by DVA.

DVA was open and cooperative in its response to our enquiries, and we welcomed their willingness to acknowledge the need for improvements in certain areas. DVA advised us of a range of initiatives it has put in place to address a backlog of older cases and to improve processing times into the next financial year.

Some examples of the initiatives underway include simultaneous processing of some claims for initial liability and permanent impairment under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act). We also understand a trial screening team is improving timeliness by ensuring claims are processed under the appropriate Act (SRC Act or the more recent Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004), where it is not immediately clear which Act applies.

We also note DVA’s introduction of a Single Access Mechanism (SAM) to improve the timeliness for access to a former member’s service records with the Department of Defence, when assessing an initial liability claim. The time taken to access relevant records has reduced from several months to an average of 12 days. SAM staff now have access to Defence records held on Defence’s human resource system. This allows DVA to gather basic service details for a claimant within a few working days. Previously this took considerably longer.

DVA also acknowledged there were undue delays in its handling of some of the individual matters we had brought to its attention, and agreed to write to those claimants to apologise. DVA’s response on both these individual cases and the broader issues was sufficient for us to decide not to take the matters further, but we agreed to meet regularly to monitor the progress and achievements made in the MRC processing area.

Defence Housing Australia

Defence Housing Australia (DHA) is contracted by Defence to provide housing and relocation services for members of the ADF. The DHA sources land, undertakes land development and construction of houses, and raises funds in the private capital market through sale and leaseback. It also provides property maintenance and manages leases with property lessors. Defence has also contracted the DHA to calculate and process allowances and entitlements for ADF personnel who are moving to a new posting as part of the relocation process. The housing policies and entitlements are determined by Defence and administered under contract by the DHA.

We received 36 approaches and complaints about the DHA (compared to 29 in 2005–06). The few complaints we received centred on issues of entitlement and relocations. We continue to resolve complaints about the DHA reasonably quickly as a result of effective contact arrangements with the agency.