Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an opening statement. Lieutenant Colonel Anderson doesn't propose to speak, so I'll use the time I have
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you today, and hopefully I can assist your deliberations in terms of establishing a veterans ombudsman for Canadian veterans.
I am an officer of the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I'm appearing here today with the consent of my departmental secretary, which in your language is deputy minister.
The information that I am about to provide is general information about how the Australian system works. It is based on publicly available information and on my experience working in four Australian government departments. It is important that you note that I am not a representative of the Australian ombudsman's office; I am currently in Canada on an exchange with the Canadian veterans department for 18 months. As I said, over the next few minutes I will go through my notes on how the Australian system works.
The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was established by the Ombudsman Act 1976, and is administered by the Prime Minister. In 1971 the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee issued a report recommending the establishment of a Commonwealth Ombudsman. The committee proposed a new and distinctive system of administrative law in Australia. It envisaged that the ombudsman would play a part, along with courts and administrative tribunals, in examining government administrative action.
The office commenced operation in 1977. It is 30 years old next year. Since then, there have been seven Commonwealth Ombudsmen. The current Australian ombudsman is Professor John McMillan. Although I talk about him in my paper, the ombudsman previous to Professor McMillan was Ms. Philippa Smith. We have had both genders in the office.
On the role and functions of the office, the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman exists to safeguard the community in its dealings with government agencies and to ensure that administrative action by Australian government agencies is fair and accountable.
The ombudsman has three major statutory roles: complaint investigation, which is investigation and review of the administrative actions of Australian government officials and agencies upon receipt of complaints from members of the public, groups, and organizations; own-motion investigation, on the initiative or “own motion” of the ombudsman, of the administrative actions of Australian government agencies, often arising from insights gained from handling individual complaints; and compliance auditing, which is inspection of the records of agencies such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission to ensure compliance with legislative requirements applying to selected law enforcement and regulatory activities.
The complaint and own-motion investigation roles of the ombudsman are the more traditional ombudsman roles that constitute the bulk of the work of the office. The guiding principle in an ombudsman investigation is whether the administrative action under investigation is unlawful, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, improperly discriminatory, factually deficient, or otherwise wrong. At the conclusion of the investigation the ombudsman can recommend that an agency take corrective action. This occurs either specifically in an individual case, or generally, through a change to relevant legislation or to administrative policies or procedures.
A key objective of the ombudsman is to foster good public administration within Australian government agencies, ensuring that the principles and practices of public administration are responsive to the interests of the public.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman can consider complaints about almost all Australian government departments and agencies and most contractors delivering government services to the community.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman wears the hats of six other ombudsman roles. First, he also acts as Defence Force Ombudsman, handling grievances lodged by serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force. The Defence Force Ombudsman can investigate complaints about administrative actions and Defence Force employment matters. The Defence Force Ombudsman cannot investigate actions connected with disciplinary proceedings or the grant or refusal of an honour or award to an individual. The DFO investigates complaints from serving members only after they have exhausted internal grievance mechanisms, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The DFO also investigates complaints from ex-service personnel or their families.
The ombudsman also wears the hat of the immigration ombudsman and handles complaints about the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, with specific responsibilities in the area of reviewing cases of persons held in immigration detention for more than two years.
He also acts as a postal industry ombudsman, handling complaints about Australia Post and private postal operators.
He also acts as the taxation ombudsman, handling complaints about the Australian Taxation Office.
Under the Complaints Act, he looks at complaints about the Australian Federal Police, and he also acts as the ombudsman for ACT, which is the Australian Capital Territory. The ACT is like a province in Canadian terms, but it's a very small province, so the Commonwealth Ombudsman acts as their ombudsman as well.
On the organization and structure of the office, the national office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is in Canberra, which is our capital, if you weren't aware. He also has offices in each of the provincial state capital cities. The ombudsman and the two deputy ombudsmen are statutory officers appointed under the Ombudsman Act, and the staff are employed under the Public Service Act. The government of the day makes a recommendation to the Governor General to make those statutory appointments, and the staff of the office come under the Public Service Act. Total staffing for the office in 2005-06—our financial year is 1 July to 30 June—was 143 people, and the office had a budget of approximately $18 million. I've attached a copy of the structure to the back of this, which I'll go through at the end.
In terms of investigating complaints, following a complaint from a member of the public or using own-motion powers, the ombudsman may investigate the administrative actions of most Australian government departments and agencies and private contractors delivering government services. The ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of government ministers or politicians, private individuals, state or local governments, most employment-related matters with the exception of those relating to the Defence Force Ombudsman, the actions of some government business enterprises, and decisions of courts and tribunals.
The ombudsman can decide not to investigate complaints that are stale or frivolous, for which the complainant has not first sought redress from the agency, for which some other form of review or appeal is appropriate, or for which he considers investigation would not be warranted in all the circumstances.
The ombudsman may conduct a complaint investigation as he sees fit. The powers of the ombudsman are similar to those of a royal commission and include compelling an agency to produce documents, and examining witnesses under oath. Most investigations are conducted with minimal formality. Ombudsman investigations are private, and details are generally not revealed to people who are not legitimately concerned with the investigation. Following an investigation, the ombudsman is required to consider whether the actions of the department or agency were unreasonable, unlawful, improperly discriminatory, or otherwise wrong.
In terms of recommendations and reporting, when the ombudsman concludes that an agency has erred, he may report that view to the agency and may recommend whatever remedial action is appropriate. The ombudsman has no power to force an agency to do what he recommends. However, the ombudsman can make special reports to the relevant minister, the Prime Minister, and the Parliament, or release a public report. In 2005-06 the ombudsman released public reports on seven own-motions and major investigations. The reports contained 51 individual agency recommendations, and of those 51, agencies accepted 49.
The ombudsman submits an annual report each year to the Prime Minister, which is required to be tabled in each house of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receipt.
Just to give you a feel for the number of complaints handled last year, I can tell you that the ombudsman handled over 17,000 individual complaints and approaches that were within his jurisdiction. Approaches to the office ranged from simple contacts that could be resolved quickly, through to more complex cases that required the formal use of the ombudsman’s statutory powers.
Of the 17,384 complaints received, 35%, or 6,176, required investigation. Of the 6,176 issues investigated, there was agency error identified in 1% of issues, and no error or deficiency in 11%. In the remaining 88% of issues, the complaints were resolved without the need to determine whether there was agency deficiency or error. Eighty percent of all approaches and complaints were finalized within one month, and 93% within three months. Fifty-four percent of the investigated complaints and approaches were finalized within one month, and 81% within three months.
In terms of the causes of complaints, the majority, 58%, of the complaint issues finalized by the ombudsman's office related to correctness or propriety of a decision or action of an agency. The remainder of the finalized complaint issues, 10%, were about procedural matters, such as the accuracy or completeness of advice given by agencies; the timeliness of agency action, 8%; the application of a policy to the complainant's circumstances, 6%; or the conduct of officers in agencies, 5%.
Given that you have a particular interest in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I've included a bit about the complaints in relation to DVA. In 2005-06 the ombudsman received 276 approaches or complaints in relation to the Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. Of these, 253 complaints were within the ombudsman's jurisdiction, which was an increase of 25% on the 2004-05 figure.
The volume of complaints has been around the 200 mark over the last three to four years. The spike last year was due to a particular issue involving the resealing and desealing of F-111 aircraft, which is a particular set of issues to do with the Australian context.
Of the 253 complaints and approaches received, 112 were classed as category one approaches. These categories--category one, two, three, and four--are the categories the ombudsman uses to classify complaints. The 112 were resolved without investigation. Outcomes included decisions not to investigate and referrals to another appropriate agency or authority. There were 42 of the 253 complaints and approaches that were classed as category two, which were approaches that could not be resolved as category one. They require further internal inquiries or research or more information from the complainant. They are resolved without contacting the agency. There were 66 of the 253 complaints and approaches that were classified as category three. DVA was contacted, and an investigation was conducted. There were 46 of the 253 complaints and approaches classed as category four. They required further investigation, as the complaint approach was not able to be resolved within category three.
In Australia we also have a Veterans' Review Board, which is similar to the Canadian Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I've included some information on how the ombudsman interfaces with the Australian Veterans' Review Board. The Veterans' Review Board is a statutory body whose role is to provide independent merit reviews of certain compensation and pension benefits paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The VRB is a specialist tribunal with the power to make new decisions. The ombudsman has no role in the VRB’s adjudicative functions and the conduct of hearings. He will investigate matters relating to the administration of applications for review by the VRB’s staff. In 2005-06 there were no complaints or approaches to the ombudsman, but in 2004-05 there were two complaints.
I've included a schematic about the structure of the ombudsman. I think the point to take from the structure chart is that there is only one ombudsman, notwithstanding that he wears six hats. He's assisted by two deputy ombudsmen. The three of them, as I said earlier, are statutory appointments. They are recommendations by the government of the day to the Governor General to appoint the ombudsman. I think the legislation allows a term of seven years for the Australian ombudsman, and he or she can be reappointed after that term expires.
Sitting under the two deputy ombudsmen are in effect six units that are headed by a senior assistant ombudsman. The senior assistant ombudsman is responsible for a group of portfolios within government. If you look along the chart, the third senior assistant ombudsman from the right has responsibilities for public affairs and international; taxation, which in your terms would be the Canadian Revenue Agency; and defence, which includes the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
If there's a complaint about the Department of Veterans' Affairs and it's reviewed by the ombudsman, it goes through that senior assistant ombudsman's group, and he or she would finalize it. Then it gets signed off by the deputy ombudsman or the ombudsman. In effect it's a sort of secretariat, but a whole-of-government secretariat that looks after all of the Australian government's agencies at the federal level.
I might add that like you, we also have state or provincial ombudsmen, which are created in the same way. They're legislated and report to their parliament.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks. I'll be happy to answer the committee's questions.
