What we do and how we do it

Many strategies for better government

The Ombudsman Act 2009 (the Act) provides that our job is to:

1. give people a timely, effective, efficient, independent, impartial and fair way of investigating, and dealing with complaints about, administrative actions of public authorities and conduct of police officers; and
2. improve the quality of decision-making and administrative practices in public authorities.

To do our job, we adopt a broad range of strategies:

• Complaints and enquiries (Approaches) – The bulk of our effort is spent in dealing with complaints and enquiries to the Office.  In dealing with approaches, we emphasise speedy and informal resolution of issues, with agencies as far as possible taking responsibility for resolution of matters involving them.
• Police conduct complaints – Complaints about police conduct have their own statutory framework set out in the Act.  While the emphasis remains on speedy and informal resolution of matters, more serious matters are subject to comprehensive investigation and reporting.  In these cases, investigations are usually carried out by the NT Police Professional Standards Command under Ombudsman oversight.
• Major investigations – Complex investigations involve major commitment of resources and usually involve systemic issues. These may be initiated by a complaint or on the Ombudsman’s own initiative. The reality is that almost all approaches are finalised without the need for a major investigation or tabled report.
• Law enforcement auditing and investigation – In relation to police use of surveillance devices, telecommunications interception and controlled operations powers of law enforcement agencies, we have ongoing statutory obligations to audit/investigate and report.  In addition, we are required from time to time to conduct a ‘one-off’ legislative reviews.
• Quality improvement – Working with agencies and stakeholders in a co-operative manner outside the formal investigation process and facilitating exchange of information between agencies about initiatives and developments in public administration.  This includes training and presentations to public sector bodies and officers.
• Community and stakeholder engagement – Other issues can be raised, clarified and resolved in the course of, or as a result of, stakeholder meetings, presentations and public discussions or through provision of information and links to information, for example, on this website.

Our commitment

The Ombudsman and staff are committed to the following core values:

• Fairness: We are independent and impartial. We respond to complaints without bias. We give everyone the chance to have their say. We do not take sides.
• Integrity: We take action and make decisions based on our independent assessment of the facts, the law and the public interest.
• Respect: We act with courtesy and respect. We recognise and respect diversity. We seek to make our services accessible and relevant to everyone. We consider the impact of our actions on others.
• Professionalism: We perform our work with a high degree of expertise and diligence.
• Accountability: We are open about how and why we do things. We are responsive and deal with matters in a timely manner. We allocate priorities and undertake our work so that the best use is made of public resources.

How we deal with Complaints

Our focus is on achieving informal and timely resolution of approaches.

We may make preliminary inquiries or require investigations to be undertaken, with a report to our Office.  This, in itself, may take some time and effort and may or may not result in a formal investigation by us.  Agencies are required by the Act to assist us when we are making preliminary inquiries.

If necessary, we have the power to commence a formal investigation into a complaint or to launch an investigation on our own initiative.  We have substantial investigative powers that we can rely on in the course of an investigation.

We keep the complainant updated on progress of our inquiries or investigation.

Referral or decline of approaches

Our Office maintains the view (strongly supported under the Act) that the relevant agency should be given the chance to resolve a complaint in the first instance.  For this reason, unless a case involves an element of urgency or particular sensitivity, enquirers who come to us without first addressing their concerns with the relevant agency will usually be assisted by our staff to make contact with the agency.

If we think an enquirer may need additional assistance, our staff will contact the agency with an outline of the concerns and ask it to respond directly to the enquirer.  We may ask the agency to advise us of the outcome depending on the nature of the matter.  The enquirer is advised that they can contact us again if they are unsatisfied with the agency’s response.

Other reasons why we may not accept or may discontinue an approach include:

• Referral to another independent body.  There are cases where another complaints or review body has sole jurisdiction in relation to the subject of an approach or where we share jurisdiction.  We may refer a complainant or complaint to the other body if we consider it is better placed to deal with the case.
• Outside jurisdiction. In some cases, we don’t have power to investigate a matter, for example, an approach about a decision of a Minister, a private sector service provider or an Australian Government department.  For these, we will try to point the enquirer in the right direction.  Sometimes, we need to make preliminary inquiries in order to establish whether or not we have jurisdiction.
• Unnecessary or unjustified. We may decline to deal with a complaint for a variety of reasons, including that it is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, that the complainant does not have a sufficient interest, that investigation is unnecessary or unjustified, or that the action complained of has been or will be investigated by another complaints body.

Our Approach

Independence

Independence and impartiality are key drivers of the Office.  The Act makes it clear that the Ombudsman is independent of government in relation to complaints and investigations:

12  Independence in relation to complaints and investigations

That independence has been strongly maintained in the four and a half decades since the Office commenced.

The Office is resourced through NT Government budgetary processes but that is also true of judges, the courts and other independent officers such as the Auditor-General.  There are a range of special features that strengthen the independence of the Ombudsman, including:

• appointment as Ombudsman can only be made on recommendation of the Legislative Assembly;
• members of parliament, local councils and political parties, along with people who have a recent political affiliation, are not eligible for appointment;
• appointment is for a fixed five year term (a person may be re-appointed for one further five year term);
• a broad power to report to the Legislative Assembly (through the Chief Minister) on the performance of the Ombudsman’s functions or on a particular case;
• conditions of appointment that cannot be altered to the detriment of the Ombudsman during his or her term;
• termination for misconduct or incapacity can only be affected through a 2/3 vote of the Legislative Assembly; and
• the Ombudsman appears each year before the Budget Estimates Committee of the Legislative Assembly to report directly on appropriations matters.

Impartiality

It is important to stress that independence from government does not mean that the Ombudsman represents or takes the side of complainants and enquirers.  Nor does it mean that the Ombudsman must be immediately critical of all or any particular position taken by the government of the day.

Our Office makes every effort to ensure that complainants get a fair go in their dealings with government.  However, we do not represent complainants or provide legal advice to them.

The Office assesses and investigates complaints impartially.  In doing so, we attempt to resolve individual complaints and identify broader problem areas, particularly systemic issues, and push for improvements in those areas.

Investigations in private – reporting on outcomes

The Ombudsman is required by the Act to conduct investigations in private. There are confidentiality provisions that make the inappropriate disclosure of information relating to inquiries and investigations an offence.

In each case, we make every effort to ensure that the enquirer or complainant and the agency concerned are kept up to date with the progress of the matter and informed about the final outcome.

The Ombudsman can publish conclusions and recommendations at the end of an investigation (by way of reports to Ministers and through them to Parliament).  The Ombudsman can also include information about investigations in the Annual Report. However, the clear statutory scheme is for investigations to be conducted in private.

Even a major investigation may or may not result in findings that require publication.  It may find that unpublished damaging allegations are baseless.  It may deal with highly sensitive personal matters. Or a narrowly confined issue may be best addressed by simply raising it with the relevant agency.

The decision is ultimately for the Ombudsman as to whether the public interest is best served by creating a report for tabling.

Scope of powers

Of course, while independent, the Ombudsman is bound to comply with the law and act within the boundaries set by the Act.  The powers of the Ombudsman relate to the administrative actions of public authorities and police conduct.

Within those boundaries, members of the public can rest assured that the Office of the Ombudsman will consider and, where appropriate, independently investigate complaints and allegations relating to administrative actions and improper conduct of public sector officers with fairness and integrity.

Identifying and prioritising issues

We identify issues or potential issues of concern by a range of methods including analysis of complaints received, monitoring parliamentary debates, media reports, developments in other jurisdictions, and community and stakeholder engagement.

The Office must act within the resources available to it and accordingly must make decisions on the priority given and resources allocated to its various statutory functions, including investigation of particular complaints. The overall guide to allocation of resources and priority within the Office is what best serves the public interest, bearing in mind the objects and provisions of the Act and other relevant legislation.

The Office has in place a Strategic Priorities document as a guide for our actions this can be found on our policies page.

Other individual factors used to assess the significance of issues and the priority they should be afforded, include:

Potential harm involved

• Death of a person
• Physical harm to a person
• Loss of liberty
• Loss, dislocation or disruption of residence
• Financial or asset damage or loss
• Loss of a benefit or financial hardship
• Mental stress or harm
• Harm to animals or the environment
• Denial of human or statutory rights, unfair treatment
• Damage to reputation
• Annoyance, inconvenience, disruption
• Harm to the public generally or a community or community group

Other factors

• Extent of potential harm – how much harm
• Number of people impacted or likely to be impacted
• Potential for ongoing future impact – is this a one off issue or will it continue in the future
• Number of similar complaints
• Unreasonable delay or disruption
• Potential corruption / criminal conduct
• Urgency, for example:
  • Statutory time limit for action
  • Potential for harm is imminent
• Serious / systemic issues
• Existence of prior investigations on similar issues – has the issue already been dealt with
• The extent of prior interaction by the complainant with agency – has the agency had a reasonable opportunity to deal with the issue
• Steps already taken by the agency to address the issue
• Availability of other suitable avenues for review, investigations / actions already in progress.

Alternative avenues

This final factor can be a particularly important consideration. There a variety of different entities in the NT that can investigate matters of concern or provide a forum for resolution of a dispute.

There are a number of other statutory complaints entities such as the Anti-Discrimination Commission, the Children’s Commissioner and the Health & Community Services Complaints Commission. Further, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption investigates improper conduct and the NT Police investigate criminal conduct.  Many disputes can be dealt with by a court or tribunal and the Coroner investigates events relating to the death of a person.

Taking the Coroner as an example, if the circumstances surrounding the death of person relate in some way to NT Police or Corrections officers, my Office may well seek a briefing to gain an understanding of what was involved, whether there were any aspects of the matter with respect to which we should take action, and to assure ourselves that appropriate investigative steps are being undertaken.  We might also liaise with a relevant agency in relation to any general points or immediate actions that the circumstances present to us.  However, following such preliminary investigations, it is likely we would refrain from any substantive investigative action while the coronial process takes its course, rather than unnecessarily duplicating or complicating investigative efforts.

Likewise, if investigation or resolution of a complaint appears to better fit with the powers and interests of another complaints entity, we will engage with them to establish who is best placed to deal with the matter and proceed from there.

Or, if achievement of the aims of a complainant is better suited by another forum, we may advise them of their options and decline to pursue an investigation further. For example, bearing in mind our powers are recommendatory only, a person seeking a large monetary sum in compensation from a government agency will usually be better placed to pursue it through a court or tribunal that has powers to compel payment.

Ultimately, any decision on resource allocation and priority is one for the Ombudsman acting on the information provided by complainants and agencies and the advice of Ombudsman staff.