Investigation reports 2011
-
DEEWR: Administration of the National School Chaplaincy Program—06|11 (139.65KB)
A Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report has found the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations needs to improve how it runs the National School Chaplaincy Program.
Releasing the findings of his investigation into the Department’s administration of the Chaplaincy Program, Ombudsman Allan Asher pointed out that although the program may be complex to administer, the Department must improve its management and oversight of the program.
The Department has agreed to advise the Ombudsman’s office of the progress of its implementation of these recommendations within three months. Mr Asher intends to publically report on the Department’s implementation of the recommendations six months after publication of the report.
Mr Asher emphasised that the merits of the program itself is a matter for Government and was not the subject of this investigation
“This report is concerned with such issues as problems with the application process, parental consultation, funding agreements, and complaint handling.”
“Our focus was on ensuring the program makes effective and efficient use of public money,” Mr Asher said.
Mr Asher’s investigation was prompted by a report released by the Northern Territory Ombudsman following her office’s investigation of complaints about the Chaplaincy Program in five Northern Territory schools. The Northern Territory Ombudsman’s report identified issues with the Department’s administration of the Chaplaincy Program which she was unable to investigate due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report issued today made a series of recommendations including that the Department:
- consider giving guidance to schools and education authorities on how best to obtain parental consent for participation in the program
- review the code of conduct to provide clarity on what actions could be considered to be in breach of the requirement that chaplains not proselytise, and to clarify this with the public.
- amend the program guidelines to define the terms ‘chaplain’ and ‘pastoral care’, and mandate a minimum qualification for the position of chaplain
- implement more robust mechanisms to capture and manage complaints
- work towards a review of funding agreements to ensure: consistency; that all key participants are accountable; and that the protection of children and parental rights is central to the administration of the program.
-
In recent years the Australian Government has increased its engagement with Indigenous Australians. This has been most evident in rural and remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (NT), although there has also been increased activity in some regions of Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia.
Effective engagement relies on two way communication and in these communities, often depends on the services of Indigenous language interpreters.
Complaints to the Ombudsman’s office – as well as the observations and experience of this office during outreach visits to remote NT communities – indicate that Indigenous language interpreters are not always used when they should be. They can also be difficult to obtain. As a result the Ombudsman commenced an own motion investigation to examine six agencies’ awareness of the need to make use of Indigenous language interpreters.
We have concluded that agencies and their third party service providers can do more to better use interpreters when they are available.
-
Centrelink: Right to review–having choices, making choices—04|11 (195.46KB)
A Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report has identified ‘systemic weaknesses’ in Centrelink’s review processes, including lack of transparency and insufficient education about available options to customers, often leading to delays and inaction – and that the complexity of Centrelink’s review model contributes to administrative drift and breakdown.
It may surprise many people to learn that they have options when requesting a review of a Centrelink decision, despite some 207,000 requests for review lodged during 2009/10. Almost half of reviewed decisions were changed, often because new information became available – these are just two observations made in a Commonwealth Ombudsman report released today.
“Although some improvements have been made by Centrelink, we identified several deficiencies in administration which delay reviews and in some cases result in a failure to act on a request,” Commonwealth Ombudsman Allan Asher said.
-
DIAC: Proper processing for challenging a tribunal decision—03|2011 (258.57KB)
A refusal to grant a partner visa by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has been overturned following an Ombudsman investigation. The resulting report examines what it calls a ‘flawed decision’ from DIAC to refuse a visa application which contradicted a Migration Review Tribunal ruling stating that relationship requirements had been met. We found that a policy intended to benefit those in long term relationships had been misapplied and there’d been a protracted delay in implementing a Migration Review Tribunal decision.
DIAC had the opportunity to apply for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision but failed to challenge the decision within the legislative timeframes for review. Instead it took the unusual step of writing to the Tribunal asking for it to reconsider the ruling, which was rejected. DIAC’s request to the Tribunal that it reconsider its own decision was contrary to the established system of review and was inappropriate in the circumstances. It would be concerning if DIAC had taken this step to avoid the risk of unsuccessfully challenging the Tribunal’s decision in the courts.
This office recognises the complexities involved in assessing visa applications and the genuine concerns of DIAC Staff about maintaining the integrity of the visa program. However, this case suggests that further action may be needed to ensure that difficult cases like this one are actively managed.
Other recommendations in the report which DIAC agreed to, aim to ensure lessons learnt from this case are acted upon, including that any challenge to tribunal or court decisions occurs through the proper process and in a timely fashion, and that difficult cases are actively managed.
-
Christmas Island immigration detention facilities—02|2011 (248.17KB)
There are too many people being detained at the Christmas Island immigration detention facilities and the current scale of operations on the geographically remote island are not sustainable. This is the underlying message in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report based on observations during two years of periodic inspection visits, examination by this office of the Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) processes and investigation of complaints received from detainees on Christmas Island. When Ombudsman staff first visited the Christmas Island immigration detention facilities in October 2008, 32 people were detained there out of a nominal operational capacity of 744. By the time this report was finalised and eight Ombudsman inspection visits later, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) advised there were some 2757 people awaiting processing of claims, two thousand more than the facilities were designed to accommodate. This is being managed through measures such as the use of marquee dormitories to increase ‘contingency accommodation capacity’ up to 2584 beds.
The increase in numbers has created a difficult and challenging situation, for both DIAC and Serco who manage the detention services operations on DIAC’s behalf at Christmas Island. Concerns remain about timeliness in processing refugee applications, delays in security agency clearances and various health issues—particularly those related to mental health. Other recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report relate to the lack of appropriate accommodation, education and recreation activities, the need more and correct interpreters, and providing community detention on mainland Australia—especially for unaccompanied minors, families with children, and people who have received positive refugee assessments but who are awaiting security clearances.
DIAC welcomed the Ombudsman’s report and its role in providing independent oversight. The Ombudsman acknowledges DIAC’s responsiveness to periodic reports, willingness to accept advice, learn from mistakes and make improvements. In releasing the report, the Commonwealth Ombudsman made the observation that on the whole, DIAC has managed the Christmas Island immigration detention facilities as well or better than can be expected, but the current scale of the operation on Christmas Island is not sustainable.
-
The report examines the activities of the Biosecurity Services Group of DAFF, and in particular, assesses whether investigations have been conducted appropriately in NSW. The catalyst for this report dates back to 2006, when the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport published a report on the administration by DAFF of the 2004 citrus canker outbreak in Queensland. The Senate Committee’s report criticised DAFF’s investigation of the outbreak and recommended that the Commonwealth Ombudsman review investigations conducted by DAFF. In August 2009, the Ombudsman published the first report on the Compliance Branch, Biosecurity Services Group. It provided a basis for future audits of investigations conducted by the Compliance Branch. This report is the second audit and focuses on investigations conducted by the Sydney office of the Compliance Branch during 2009 and 2010. We found that the Sydney office of the Compliance Branch is staffed by a team of investigators who are experienced and well qualified; and also that investigations met legislative requirements and that correct policies and guidelines have been observed. It recommends close attention be paid in using a consistent approach to investigation case management, especially when planning an investigation. The report also draws attention to the need for good record keeping. DAFF has accepted and commenced implementing all seven recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report. The Commonwealth Ombudsman will conduct an audit of each of the five offices of the Compliance Branch during 2010-11. This will provide an assessment of the investigations carried out by the Compliance Branch and will enable the Ombudsman to monitor progress made by DAFF in addressing recommendations.