Part 4 - What we do

Social Services agencies and programs

Case study

Ms W complained that Centrelink had raised a debt of over $1000 as a result of events 12 years earlier. The office investigated and established that there were three debts in total, the earliest of which was raised in 1997. The office established that Centrelink was legally entitled to recover the debts as it had taken action to recover them individually within six years of the date that it knew or ought to have known about each of them.

But while the office was satisfied that Ms W's debts were legally recoverable, the investigation discovered that the Department of Human Services's (DHS) internal procedures meant that action to recover one debt from a person had the effect of extending the time limit on all Centrelink debts the person owes.

After the office had discussed this with DHS and the Department of Social Services (DSS), both departments accepted the view that this procedure was unreasonable. Accordingly, they amended the procedure to make clear that action to recover a debt only extends the time limit for that particular debt.

This section of the report focuses on agencies that are responsible for government payments and services (such as DSS and the Department of Employment) and for the delivery of those services—in most cases, DHS.

It also discusses the office's oversight of programs specifically delivered to or for Indigenous people and people with disability, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Department of Human Services

In 2015–16, complaints about DHS represented 49.8 per cent of all Commonwealth Government department related complaints received. Most of these were about DHS's Centrelink program (40.6 per cent). DHS complaints also increased across a number of programs in the previous year, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Complaint trends in DHS programs

DHS program	Number of complaints in 2015–16	Number of complaints in 2014–15
Centrelink	8702 38.6% increase	6280
Child Support	1452 1.1% decrease	1468
Other DHS programs	508 38% increase	368

The office investigated seven per cent of those complaints and referred 52 per cent back to DHS because they had not already been raised with that agency.

In cases where the person is vulnerable or requires help to make a complaint, the office follows a process known as a 'warm transfer'. This means the complaint is passed directly to DHS on the understanding that the complainant may come back to us if the complaint has not been resolved within five working days. In 2015–16 the office referred 1152 cases back to DHS in this way.

DHS—Centrelink

Centrelink operates on a large scale: it provides services, including social security and family assistance payments, to millions of people in Australia and overseas, including to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Efficiency initiatives, such as the diversion of resources to online rather than person-to-person channels and the phasing out of payments by cheque, can save money. But, as complaints to this office show, these benefits need to be carefully balanced against the potential for increased disadvantage to Centrelink's clients, some of whom have no access to the internet or mobile phones.

Significant issues

Service delivery

The office continues to work with DHS, highlighting areas of concern and making recommendations both formally and informally in relation to individual cases and more strategic issues.

This year the office published a follow-up report on recommendations the office had made in 2014 about Centrelink's service delivery. The office found that phone and online services, complaint and review process and records management continue to be key points of frustration.

The report detailed problems with access to phone services and the challenge of contacting Centrelink to have actions explained or decisions reviewed. These have remained recurrent themes in 2015–16. The inability to access Centrelink in order to fix problems with online services or generally to make a complaint resulted in added frustration.

In its response to the updated report, DHS advised that its facility allowing customers to request a call back, 'Place In Queue' (PIQ) would receive additional capacity. However, the office then learned that the PIQ facility was deactivated in July 2015 and that DHS is considering whether it will be reinstated pending the rollout of its managed telecommunications service.

Debts

In 2015–16 the office continued to liaise with and make suggestions to DHS about improving customers' experience of Centrelink debts. Based on complaints the office has found that customers often:

• are unaware of a debt until contacted by a debt recovery agency
• are unable to talk to DHS by phone to find out why they have a debt, to make payment arrangements or to request a review of a debt decision
• face difficulties gathering evidence to verify or challenge decisions when very old debts are raised
• have been pursued for debts despite DHS agreeing there was a factual or system error affecting the debt and/or its calculation.

Encouragingly, in the last of these, DHS has advised that it will change its guidance to staff on their capacity to temporarily write-off debts in those situations.

Customers' experience of debt will continue to be a focus of our engagement with DHS.

DHS—Child Support

DHS's Child Support program has a variety of functions in relation to the transfer of payments between separated parents or other carers of eligible children.

The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate complaints about DHS's administration of child support cases.

The number of complaints received about Child Support has remained fairly stable (see Figure 2). Collection activities remain the main source of complaint.

The Ombudsman made an extensive submission to, and appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' Inquiry into the Child Support Program. The Committee published its report From Conflict to Co-operation in July 2015. One area highlighted in that submission—and also in our Annual Report 2014–15 and in our discussions with DHS, the DSS and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO)—has been the impact of corrected tax assessments on child support liability. Complainants have found that, while the ATO can quickly correct a wrongly inflated assessment of taxable income, DHS cannot. As a result, people have been pursued for child support 'arrears' based on incomes which were incorrectly reported due to errors (sometimes beyond their control) which have since been corrected. This situation can also affect recipients of Child Support: their rates of Family Tax Benefit are affected by Child Support received, or deemed to have been received. It appears that a legislative solution is required to address this anomaly. The office notes that the Standing Committee has recommended changes to the legislation, but that the Government is yet to respond to the Committee's report.

Most child support-related complaints arise from collection activities, with payers who experience financial difficulties complaining that the agency has not or cannot take their changed capacity into account. Payees complain that the agency does not actively collect their ongoing child support payments, cannot tell them what collection action it has taken and cannot give them information about the payer's actual financial circumstances so that they can form a view about what is reasonable.

Department of Employment

During 2015–16 complaints about the Department of Employment increased by 45.1 per cent from 344 complaints in 2014–15 to 499 complaints in 2015–16. This followed a 53.1 per cent increase in 2014–15 from 224 complaints in 2013–14.

Significant issues

Complaints about the department are overwhelmingly about job services providers. Common complaints include the standard of services, complaint-handling outcomes and dissatisfaction with expected job search and training activities.

Jobactive rollout

Since July 2015 job services providers have been able to recommend that DHS reduce an income support payment as a form of penalty where the jobseeker has failed to attend an appointment.

The office received many complaints from people who had their payment suspended for failing to attend an interview, who have been referred to Centrelink or, not knowing the reason for their reduced pay and how to resolve it, have been unable to call Centrelink for an explanation. Coupled with the difficulty of accessing Centrelink phone lines, some have experienced significant delays in having their payments restored.

Referrals under the Jobactive Deed

A long-standing and frequent source of complaint is that employment providers do not send jobseekers to activities or Work for the Dole placements relevant to their previous experience or skills, but focus on low skill positions and entry level activities (for example cleaning jobs and resume-writing courses).

The Jobactive Deed, which sets out the arrangements between the department and the provider, provides no effective way for the department to direct that efforts be more targeted and focused on the participants' prior experience. The Deed simply requires that the provider must use its 'best endeavours' to place a jobseeker in a 'suitable' activity, job or placement. The Jobactive Deed is in place until 2020.

The office continues to see and investigate complaints where it appears that there are manifestly unreasonable referrals, for example where a person with an established physical injury is referred to a labouring position.

Department of Social Services

In March 2016 the Ombudsman published a report on Income Maintenance Periods (IMPs) and Special Benefit. These are administered by DHS according to instructions provided by DSS.

When someone receives an employment termination payment (for example, redundancy pay) he or she may have to serve an IMP during which time he or she cannot receive certain Centrelink payments for the period that the termination payment represents.

In 2014–15, 54 160 IMPs were applied. Complaints showed that it was not unusual for people to become aware of these non-payment periods only after they had spent their termination payment and were in financial difficulty.

DHS has discretion under social security law to reduce the length of IMPs in certain circumstances. It can also pay 'Special Benefit', a payment designed for people who are in financial hardship and who, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves and their dependants.

The office found that DSS's instructions, which detail the rules under which Special Benefit may be paid to people serving an IMP, were too narrow to allow DHS to exercise fully its discretion under the legislation.

DSS's and DHS's responses to the Ombudsman's recommendations were positive and encouraging. DSS agreed to amend its Guide to Social Security Law and DHS its Operational Blueprint, so staff would be aware that they could take the particular circumstances of an individual into account when considering their discretion to shorten the non-payment period and/or to pay Special Benefit. DSS also agreed to continue to review the Guide to Social Security Law to ensure clarity around the IMP rules and how they work. DHS agreed to tell people about Special Benefit and the circumstances in which they might be eligible to receive it.

National Disability Insurance Agency

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) is responsible for administering the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), a government scheme that funds support for people with permanent and significant disability to help them take part in everyday activities.

The NDIS was established in a number of trial sites around Australia from July 2013. From 1 July 2016 the scheme will be fully rolled out in stages over three years. The arrangements for accessing the services of the NDIS vary depending on the state or territory in which participants live.

The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate the administrative actions of the NDIA. During 2015–16 the office received 62 complaints about the agency. While this represents many more than the 25 complaints received during 2014–15, the increase is not unexpected given the increase in the number of people entering the scheme over the past year.

Common issues in complaints included:

• delays in scheduling a planning meeting
• dissatisfaction with an assigned planner
• confusion or unhappiness regarding the planning process
• conflicting or inadequate information about the scheme
• delays in paying for goods and services delivered
• confusion or dissatisfaction with the NDIA's internal review and complaint-handling arrangements.

During 2015–16 the office worked closely with the NDIA to provide feedback on issues arising from complaints, and will continue to do so as the national rollout of the scheme commences from 1 July 2016.

Major activities

Trial site consultations

Over the past year the office visited the Hunter (NSW), Barwon (Vic), South Australian and Tasmanian trial sites to meet with local NDIA staff, peak bodies, advocates and participants. These visits have the dual purpose of deepening our understanding of people's experience of the NDIS, and of building community awareness of our role in handling complaints. The office expects to visit the Perth Hills, Barkly (NT) and North Queensland regions during 2016–17 to conduct similar consultations.

The office has also given presentations at a number of public forums, in conjunction with state and territory disability organisations, about our respective roles in handling complaints about the NDIS.

Submissions

In 2015–16 the office made submissions to:

• the Department of Social Services' review of the National Disability Advocacy Framework (July 2015)
• the Senate Education and Employment Standing Committee's inquiry into 'current levels of access and attainment for students with disability in the school system, and the impact on students and families associated with inadequate levels of support' (August 2015)
• the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee's inquiry into 'violence, abuse and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential settings, including the gender and age related dimensions, and the particular situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability' (September 2015)
• the statutory review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (October 2015)
• the Department of Social Services' review of the National Disability Advocacy Program (June 2016).

These submissions are available online on the respective reviewing bodies' website.

Broader disability oversight

In addition to handling complaints about the NDIA, the Ombudsman also has a role in ensuring that Commonwealth government agencies deliver services, including complaint services, in ways that take account of the different needs of its users.

In 2015–16 the office held discussions with government agencies, oversight bodies and community organisations about providing services for people with disabilities.

Commonwealth Ombudsman's Disability Complaint-Handling Forum

In May 2016 the Ombudsman's office convened its first Disability Complaint-Handling Forum. This brought together representatives of Australian, state and territory government agencies, oversight agencies and peak disability bodies to discuss how best to encourage, receive and handle complaints from people with disability.

In 2016–17, the office will coordinate a number of working groups for government and non-government agencies to foster continued learning and collaboration in this area.

Indigenous

Major Activities

Community Development Program (CDP)

The CDP is an employment program which operates in 60 regions in remote Australia. More than 80 per cent of CDP participants are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Since the CDP commenced in July 2015 our office has observed a significant increase in the number of compliance penalties being applied to Indigenous Australians in remote communities. The office will continue to monitor and investigate the program's administration through complaints and feedback received from our stakeholders and members of the public.

In December 2015 the government introduced the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2015 (the CDP Bill) which included measures for job seekers to receive their payments directly from a CDP provider, rather than through Centrelink. Providers would also have the power to apply financial penalties if job seekers did not comply with their mutual obligations.

Our office made a submission in response to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's consultation paper outlining the proposed changes and the development of the legislative instruments supporting the Bill.

Our submission focused on the lessons learned from our oversight of the CDP and its predecessor programs and our concerns about the proposed compliance framework. The office was concerned about CDP providers being able to apply mandatory penalties based on hourly non-attendance; about providers having the power to determine reasonable excuses and exemptions and to undertake compliance reviews; and the creation of a new internal review framework separate to the DHS internal review framework.

The office suggested a number of measures to ensure that the proposed compliance framework contains adequate safeguards for job seekers.

Administration of Income Management for 'Vulnerable Youth'

In February 2016 the Ombudsman published a report on the Administration of Income Management for 'Vulnerable Youth'. DSS is the agency responsible for the Income Management (IM) legislation and associated policies, and DHS administers it through Centrelink.

IM is designed for people receiving income support payments who are considered to be at a higher risk of social isolation and disengagement, to have poor financial literacy and to be participating in risky behaviour. Under the current vulnerable youth measure, IM is automatically applied to people who live in an IM declared area and are classed as 'vulnerable youth' by virtue of their age and their qualification for a particular Centrelink payment. This can include children aged under 16 years who receive Special Benefit; people aged 16 years and over who have been granted the Unreasonable to Live at Home (UTLAH) payment; and people under the age of 25 who receive a Crisis Payment due to prison release.

In the report, areas of concern included:

• failures of the automated decision-making process
• failures by Authorised Review Officers to consider all the mandatory legislative criteria
• the lack of any process to allow DHS to give effect to the legislative power to revoke a determination and exit a person from IM when that person was otherwise eligible
• decision letters that did not provide adequate reasons for decisions and a failure to inform people of their rights.

The Ombudsman made ten recommendations to DSS and DHS. The departments responded positively to around half of those recommendations and have taken steps towards improving some processes and policies. The office will continue to work closely with them to monitor the implementation of the recommendations.

Engagement

This year, the office continued to engage with community and government stakeholders.

A number of Indigenous roundtable discussions were held in Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth. These offered community stakeholders an opportunity to identify key issues and problems affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

During the year the office also travelled to Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin, Shepparton, Murray Bridge, Tamworth, Armidale and the Sunshine Coast to meet with government and community stakeholders.

In June 2016 the office hosted an Indigenous Interpreter Service Forum, in partnership with the Northern Territory (NT) Ombudsman. This was an opportunity for people to share their views on the accessibility and use of Indigenous language interpreters by Government agencies. These views will inform the own motion investigations being conducted by the NT Ombudsman and this office into the use and accessibility of Indigenous language interpreters.

Improving Indigenous complaint-handling

Creative approaches can be useful in making government complaint systems more accessible and meaningful for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The office wants to resolve individual issues and to ensure that complaints and feedback lead to systemic improvements.

Indigenous complaint-handling forums were conducted in Canberra and Darwin. Indigenous leaders, community organisations, government agencies and oversight bodies discussed accessibility issues. As a result of these forums, the office has started four key projects.

Commonwealth Government Community of Practice — Indigenous complaint-handling

The Community of Practice is a forum for Commonwealth Government agency representatives to share contacts, information, ideas and resources with a view to improving Indigenous complaint-handling within and across government. Eventually, the office hopes to use this forum to develop and implement some agreed best practice Indigenous complaint and feedback principles.

Right to Complain Strategy

The office has established a working group made up of government and non-government stakeholders focused on improving the uptake rate and use of government complaint and feedback mechanisms by Indigenous people and communities.

The group aims to develop a communication strategy promoting people's right to complain and/or raise issues or concerns, targeting Indigenous people and communities and encouraging the view that complaints and feedback are important and can make a difference to the individual and more broadly.

Australian and New Zealand Ombudsman Association (ANZOA) Interest Group

The office is leading an ANZOA interest group made up of participants from Australian and New Zealand government and industry ombudsmen.

Meeting regularly, the group will focus on sharing information, contacts and resources, as well as supporting a more coordinated approach to Indigenous outreach and engagement between member organisations. It aims to establish a coordinated approach to encourage the agencies and organisations the office oversees to make their complaint processes more accessible and effective for Indigenous people.

Information Sharing Portal

The office developed an online platform using Govdex to facilitate the sharing of ideas, contacts, tools, strategies, resources and information to support and improve Indigenous complaint-handling.

The portal is available for use by community groups, government agencies oversight bodies and other interested parties, and will support the work of the various working groups, interest groups and communities of practice focused on improving Indigenous complaint-handling.

POSTAL INDUSTRY OMBUDSMAN

Case Study

Sam has a Post Office (PO) Box at his local post office. After receiving no mail for over a month, he received a few letters and a collection card. When he took the card into the Post Office, he received a bundle of undelivered mail. Post Office staff said that the mail had been bundled as it had not been collected and because the PO Box was too full.

Sam asked Australia Post for an explanation. He was not satisfied with the response, so he complained to the office.

As a result of the office's investigation, Australia Post agreed to consider the actions taken by the Post Office staff and review its procedures for dealing with uncollected mail. Australia Post also provided a written explanation and apology and refunded the service fee as a gesture of goodwill.

Overview

The Ombudsman is also the Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO). The PIO role was established in 2006 to provide an industry Ombudsman service for postal operators and their customers.

Australia Post is a mandatory member of the scheme, while Private Postal Operations (PPOs) can register voluntarily. As at 30 June 2016, there were six PPOs on the register.

The PIO can investigate complaints about postal or similar services provided by Australia Post and PPOs. The Ombudsman can also investigate complaints about administrative actions and decisions taken by Australia Post. Most commonly, people complain to the PIO about lost letters or parcels, delivery issues (including the failure to attempt delivery of parcels and incorrect safe drop procedures), and delay in the arrival of postal items.

Statistics

In 2015–16, the office received 5113 in-jurisdiction complaints, a nine per cent decrease on the previous financial year. In general, the number of complaints has grown steadily since the PIO was established.

Figure 3: All approaches for Australia Post (Commonwealth and Postal Industry Ombudsman)

Most complaints were about Australia Post (5103). Only ten complaints concerned Private Postal Operators.

The office did not investigate all complaints received. The main reasons for declining were that:

• the complaint was outside the office's jurisdiction (for example, it was about employment or not concerning a postal or similar service matter)
• the complainant could not show that he or she had made a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue with Australia Post or the PPO, or
• it was assessed that no better practical outcome was likely.

In 2015–16 the office finalised 168 investigations, 141 of them were under the PIO jurisdiction and 27 under the Commonwealth Ombudsman jurisdiction.

Second-chance transfers—Australia Post

The office has an arrangement with Australia Post where complaints can be referred to them. These are usually uncomplicated matters or those the office thinks Australia Post should be able to offer a satisfactory outcome.

Most transferred complaints were successfully resolved by Australia Post. However, complainants can return to our office if they are dissatisfied with Australia Post's response.

In 2015–16 the office transferred 1221 complaints to Australia Post for reconsideration. Around 12 per cent (152) of these complainants returned to our office. The office investigated a small proportion of these, but were generally satisfied with Australia Post's response and no investigation was warranted.

Fees

The PIO seeks to recover its costs from the industry by charging investigation fees. Fees are calculated and applied after each financial year and returned to Consolidated Revenue. Figures for 2015-16 will be available in next year's annual report.

The fees received for 2014–15 were $551 690 for Australia Post and $2933 for FedEx, totalling $554 623.

The cost recovery arrangements in place for the PIO function do not adequately reflect the true cost to the office of providing the service. The office will work with government and industry stakeholders in 2016–17 to review its cost recovery payment structure.

Significant issues in the reporting period

Complaints about loss, delivery, and delay are the three most common issues concerning Australia Post.

Figure 4: Complaint Issues received by Postal Industry Ombudsman in 2015–16

1. Loss

   The most common complaints received by the PIO relate to lost letters or parcels. In these cases, the dispute typically arises because Australia Post believes it has correctly delivered an article, but the addressee claims it has not been received.

2. Delivery

   Delivery issues are mainly about failure to attempt delivery of parcels, incorrect safe drop procedures and failure to obtain a signature on delivery when required to do so.

3. Delay
   

   Complainants often complain to the PIO about delayed delivery of a letter or a parcel. Post items may be delayed due to routing errors or incorrectly addressed envelopes.

Issues from 2014–15

In our last annual report the office identified some issues relating to newly-introduced services and the Government's reform agenda:

1. Australia Post—MyCustomer

   Australia Post introduced its new enquiries management system, 'MyCustomer', in late 2014. It experienced some early technical problems, which resulted in a backlog of complaints and some delays. This in turn led to a rise in complaints to the PIO. Australia Post resolved the technical issues and the office considered this to be finalised.

2. Australia Post—ShopMate

   In October 2014, Australia Post launched its ShopMate service for customers who want to purchase goods from sellers in the US who do not offer shipping to Australia. PIO received a significant number of complaints relating to the dimensions of articles and whether they exceeded ShopMate's size limits. Other complaints related to a lack of clarity regarding pricing calculations, and delivery problems that occurred before arrival at Australia Post's warehouse.

   In response to PIO recommendations, Australia Post has improved the information available to consumers concerning packaging dimensions, size limits and costings. While the office continues to receive ShopMate complaints, these are mostly about delay, loss or delivery, rather than the more systemic issues of the previous financial year.

   Of the 80 complaints received in 2015–16, around eight per cent required further investigation, with an appropriate remedy provided in each case.

3. Reform of Australia Post

In March 2015, the Federal Government approved Australia Post's request for regulatory reform of its letters service including an increase in the basic postal rate and the introduction of a regular and priority letter delivery service. The introduction of a Regular and Priority letter delivery service for consumers and an increase in the Basic Postage Rate from 70 cents to $1 came into effect on 4 January 2016.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has responsibility under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to oversee the prices of Australia Post's notified letter services. On 9 December 2015, ACCC released its decision to not object to Australia Post's price notification.

The office received a small number of complaints concerning the increase in the cost of the basic postal rate and the introduction of the two-speed mail service. However as the pricing decision had been reviewed by the ACCC and the two-speed mail service was supported by Government, the office did not investigate these complaints.

Major outcomes—remedies

The PIO carries out its functions by investigating individual complaints, identifying and pursuing systemic problems, and acting on emerging issues.

Figure 5: Remedies to complaints received by Postal Industry Ombudsman

As outlined in Figure 5, a number of the office's investigations have resulted in better outcomes for complainants. These include expedited action, comprehensive searches for lost items, apologies, compensation payments, postage refunds, staff being counselled or disciplined, and the provision of better explanations by the PPO or the office.

Additional reporting on the PIO function as required under s 19X of the Ombudsman Act

• Details of the circumstances and number of occasions where the Postal Industry Ombudsman has made a requirement of a person under s 9

The Postal Industry Ombudsman made no requirements under section 9 during 2014–15.

• Details of the circumstances and number of occasions where the holder of the office of the Postal Industry Ombudsman has decided under subsection 19N (3) to deal with, or to continue to deal with, a complaint or part of a complaint in his or her capacity as the holder of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman:

There were no occasions where a complaint —or part of a complaint—was transferred from the Postal Industry Ombudsman to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under subsection 19N (3).

• Details of recommendations made in reports during the year under section 19V; and statistical information about actions taking during that year as a result of such information:

The Postal Industry Ombudsman made no reports during the year under section 19V.

IMMIGRATION OMBUDSMAN

Overview

The Immigration Ombudsman investigates complaints about immigration detention and general immigration matters, including Customs, and also monitors the department's compliance activities. The office's statutory reporting function, for people who have been detained for more than two years, is a major part of this oversight function, as is the office's program of regular inspections of immigration detention facilities.

Complaints

In 2015–16 the office received 2341 complaints about the department, compared with 1913 in 2014–15, an increase of 22 per cent. Of these, the office investigated 496 (21 per cent).

The reasons the office declined to investigate included:

• the matter was out of jurisdiction (for instance it might relate to the actions of a minister)
• the complainant had not approached the agency first (the office gives the agency the opportunity to rectify the matter first)
• matter complained of was more than 12 months old
• there was no prospect of getting a remedy for the complainant.

Common themes for detention complaints are similar to those in previous years: loss or damage to detainees' property, placement within the detention network and medical issues such as access to specialist care, appropriate treatment for injuries and illness, and delays in the processing of claims for asylum.

General immigration complaints showed a large increase regarding delays in granting citizenship. The office sought a briefing on this issue and was advised that the department is taking actions to minimise the delay for people applying for citizenship, taking into account the need to ensure that appropriate attention is given to identity and security matters. The office is maintaining a watching brief on these delays.

Delays in processing visa applications, as well as dissatisfaction with visa decisions, remain a common cause for complaints.

Investigations

In 2015–16 the office finalised an own motion investigation into the operation of the Tourist Refund Scheme (TRS).

The office investigated a number of complaints about the operation of the TRS, in particular the '30 minute rule'. This rule, imposed by the department, requires departing passengers who wish to claim a refund of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on goods purchased before departing Australia, to present themselves at the airport's TRS counter at least 30 minutes prior to their flight's scheduled departure time.

The stated purpose of the rule is to ensure people claiming a refund allow sufficient time to do so, so that flight departures are not delayed.

The department has acknowledged that the 30 minute rule is not supported by legislation and says it is considering how changes to the processes at the TRS facilities can be implemented.

The Ombudsman made two recommendations:

• that, as an interim measure, the department should take all reasonable steps to ensure that travellers who wish to claim a TRS refund are able to do so in a way that is consistent with the law.
• that the department considers the permanent use of the drop box facility at TRS facilities at all international points of departure, and takes all necessary steps to ensure the appropriate regulations are in place to give effect to this arrangement.

The department accepted the recommendations and the office will monitor the implementation of these changes in 2016–17.

Liaison and stakeholder engagement

The office continues to meet regularly with the department to discuss systemic issues and matters of interest to both agencies. The office also received briefings from the department where detailed information was requested on a specific issue.

The office continued a program of community roundtable meetings as well as liaison with advocacy groups such as the Refugee Council of Australia.

The office also hosts quarterly meetings with the heads of the Australian Human Rights Commission, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Australian Red Cross and Foundation House.

Compliance monitoring

In 2015–16 the office continued its ongoing own motion investigation into the department's (now the Australian Border Force—ABF) compliance activities involving locating, detaining and removing unlawful non-citizens. The investigation provides the government and the public with assurance that the ABF's processes are lawful and in accordance with good practice.

This is important as a departmental delegate may approve warrants allowing immigration officers to enter and search premises under s 251 of the Migration Act 1958. The office presented sessions to compliance staff on the functions of the Ombudsman's office and observed field compliance operations in the following locations:

• Griffith—August 2015
• Melbourne—November 2015
• Adelaide—June 2015
• Perth—June 2015.

The office observed that the ABF officers in the field act in a professional manner, and the office did not identify any areas of significant or systemic concern. However, some areas for improvement were identified. The office recommended that the ABF:

• ensures that when detaining a person, departmental officers secure and tag the detainee's valuables in bags and provide a receipt to the detainee
• affords detainees a reasonable opportunity to secure and dispose of their assets before their removal, where practical
• examines options to allow the ABF to seize identity documents not belonging to household members
• adopts guidelines for the amount of time a person may be questioned without breaks
• facilitates the claiming of superannuation by persons being removed, by providing the appropriate form as a standard part of the removal process

In December 2015 the department advised that a number of reviews were underway that covered most of these recommendations.

People detained and later released as 'not-unlawful'

The department provides the office with six-monthly reports on people who were detained but later released with the system descriptor 'not-unlawful'. This descriptor is used when a detained person is found to be holding a valid visa, usually because of case law affecting his or her particular circumstance or because of notification issues surrounding visa cancellation decisions.

For the calendar year 2015, the department reported that out of a total of 7563 people detained, 22 (0.29 per cent) were later released as not-unlawful, compared to 29 (0.83 per cent) out of 3486 persons detained during 2014. The office is satisfied that detention in these cases was not the result of systemic issues or maladministration.

However, the average time people have spent in detention prior to errors being identified, and their subsequent release as 'not-unlawful', has increased from an average of five to six days in 2014 to an average of 12 days during the first half of 2015. For the latter half of 2015, this average increased to 65 days. It is understood that this increase is the result of significant delays in identifying lawfulness in five individual cases.

Immigration detention reviews

Statutory reporting (two-year review reports)

When a person has been in immigration detention for two years, and then after every six months, the Secretary of the department must give the Ombudsman a review, under s 486N of the Migration Act 1958, relating to the circumstances of the person's detention.

Section 486O of the Migration Act requires the Ombudsman to give the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection a report on the appropriateness of the arrangements for that person's detention. The Ombudsman also provides a de-identified version of the report to the Minister, which is tabled in the Parliament.

In 2015–16 the number of people subject to reporting under s 486O was at its highest point since the oversight function commenced in 2005. Although there was an increase in the number of people released from detention, the number of cases no longer subject to reporting was matched by new cases, including people detained after their visas had expired or were cancelled due to character concerns. The number of reportable cases therefore remained steady, although it is expected to decline in the next financial year.

The office conducts interviews, primarily by telephone, with people in long-term detention. This highlights individual and emerging systemic issues experienced by people in community detention and in detention facilities.

Figure 6: Number of reports received and tabled by Immigration Ombudsman

In 2015–16 the Ombudsman made a total of 490 recommendations, compared with 172 the previous year. Of these recommendations, 154 remained open at the time of tabling.

Issues raised in the two-year reports include:

• the continued detention (in some cases over six years) of people who have been found to be owed protection, but have received an adverse security assessment
• people who have been found not to be owed protection, but who are unwilling to return to their home country voluntarily and cannot be returned involuntarily
• placement considerations for individuals to be closer to family support
• incomplete or inaccurate health records which may have adversely affected treatment of detainees
• concerns arising from the mix of the detainee population at certain centres
• delay in status resolution for certain groups of transitory persons who were returned to Australia from a regional processing centre
• continued detention of individuals with vulnerabilities and/or significant mental health concerns.

Detention Inspections

The Ombudsman oversights immigration detention and has done so since 2005.

During 2015–16 our detention inspections team visited the immigration detention facilities listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Visits to immigration detention facilities during 2015–16

Immigration Detention Facility	Location	Timing
Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation	Brisbane QLD	Aug–Sep 2015 Feb 2016
Manus Island Regional Processing Centre	Papua New Guinea	Oct 2015 May 2016
Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre	Melbourne VIC	Nov 2015 Jun 2016
Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation	Melbourne VIC	Nov 2015 Jun 2016
Nauru Regional Processing Centre	Nauru	Sep 2015 Feb 2016
North West Point Immigration Detention Centre	Christmas Island WA	Nov 2015 Jan 2016
Perth Immigration Detention Centre	Perth WA	Jan 2016
Perth Immigration Residential Housing	Perth WA	Jan 2016
Sydney Immigration Residential Housing	Sydney NSW	Dec 2015 Jun 2016
Villawood Immigration Detention Centre	Sydney NSW	Dec 2015 Jun 2016
Wickham Point Immigration Detention Facility	Darwin NT	Aug 2015 May 2016
Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre	Northam WA	Aug 2015 Apr 2016

The inspection function is undertaken under the Ombudsman's own motion powers¹, and in accordance with our jurisdiction to consider the actions of agencies and their subcontractors. Each visit generates a report recording the observations made and makes suggestions. As at 30 June 2016 the office submitted 15 reports to the department. The office is awaiting the department's response to eight of them. Despite the delay in responding to the reports, the level of cooperation experienced within the Australian immigration detention facilities is generally high. This is because Detention Service Providers² and on-site departmental officers are aware of the office's role and the legislative framework it works within.

Information sharing

Limitations on information sharing between relevant stakeholders continued to be a substantive issue for the management of the Regional Processing Centres.

The office was advised in November 2015 by senior ABF officers that this had been rectified, but the office's observations and discussions in February 2016 indicated otherwise. The office's subsequent visit to a Regional Processing Centre in May 2016 indicated that steps to address this shortfall had now been implemented, albeit with some residual issues.

Placement of detainees within the network

The Commonwealth, through the ABF and its respective facility Superintendents, is required to exercise a duty of care to all detainees³. This means that decisions regarding detainee placements within the facility and the broader network cannot be made in isolation.

The office acknowledges that the ABF is required to manage the operational and logistical pressures on the network and that this means that some detainees will be placed in more remote and isolated locations such as Christmas Island.

The office is concerned that most operational decisions do not take account of key supporting information from status resolution or service provider staff, and are made based upon generic risk profiling. It appears that when a person is placed in a particular facility, little consideration is given to family connections, legal cases and medical treatment.

During this period, the office has noted an increase in the level of non-compliant behaviour by detainees. This may in part be attributed to the increasing pressure on them because their families are prevented from visiting due to distance or cost.

The office considers that where the department restricts a detainee to a facility or transfers detainees between facilities, this should be done with consideration to individual circumstances and not be based solely on the detainee's ethnicity, criminal history, age or other generic factors. The office notes the introduction of the National Detention Placement Model in the later part of this reporting period and acknowledge that this has the potential to address our key concerns. The office will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this placement model.

Risk assessments and use of mechanical restraints

In May 2015, before the establishment of the ABF, a directive was issued concerning the manner in which detainees are transferred. In summary, this removed individual assessments of risk and substituted a generic risk profile based on cohort and immigration status. Although this directive has been recently rescinded, it is the case that for a significant part of this reporting period, the decision to transport detainees while using mechanical restraints was based solely on generic risk profiling.

Where the department decides to restrain a detainee for transportation or other reasons, this must be exercised with consideration to individual circumstances and not be solely based on the detainee's ethnicity, criminal history, age or other generic influence. Service providers have revised the security risk assessment tool so that in future, decisions to restrain an individual will be based on individual circumstances.

It remains that ABF must ensure that force is not applied in a punitive manner and can be fully supported by the individual's circumstances rather than a generic group profiling.

Continuum of Force

The use of restraints and force when dealing with detainees has increased. Under some circumstances the use of force is both necessary and appropriate to protect the individual or others. However when the office has examined the incident reports involving unplanned use of force, there has been little or no evidence of de-escalation techniques having been applied. The Continuum of Force commences with verbal de-escalation and escalates through a number of phases to the ultimate use of deadly force. It is apparent that service provider staff members, in particular, consider the application of physical force to address non-compliant behaviour as the start-point rather than the mid-point of the continuum.

Internal complaint-handling

One of the primary focuses for this inspection cycle was the management of internal complaints by both the ABF and its service providers. Good complaint management⁴ requires a systemic approach that is timely, appropriate and responsive.

Overall the standard of complaint management was reasonable, although there was considerable variation between the various facilities.

The office is concerned that complaint resolution and recording practices are inconsistently applied by the ABF and their service providers for all complaints that are resolved locally. Furthermore it would appear that there is considerable variation in the management of complaints from individual officers within the various facilities.

While the office understands that there is an overarching complaint policy, it would appear that it is not well understood or applied across the detention network. An alignment of the processes and procedures across the network to reflect good complaint-handling practices and in particular the provision of detailed responses to complaints that address the issues, would lead to consistent and effective administrative practices.

Access to mobile telephones

Since 2010 the office has raised the issue of the inequity within the department's policy relating to the possession of mobile telephones by detainees. Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) are the only detainee category not permitted to have mobile telephones in their possession. While the office has been repeatedly assured that this inequity is being addressed, the office is yet to see any substantive evidence to support this.

Impact of duration of detention/processing on mental health and welfare

Management of the welfare and engagement function has been applied with varying degrees of success across the network and regional processing centres. Welfare and engagement is pivotal to the good order, security and wellbeing of detainees within the network and those held in the Regional Processing Centres. As the office has previously stated, the positive engagement of detainees in an enclosed and restrictive environment is directly related to the management of their ongoing physical and mental health⁵.

It appears from our engagement with the mental health teams, welfare teams and the detainee/asylum seeker/refugee population that the mental health of people who have been detained for extended periods has deteriorated further. This is particularly notable among refugees and asylum seekers and those detainees who have had their visas cancelled on character grounds.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS OMBUDSMAN

The Overseas Students Ombudsman (OSO) investigates complaints and appeals from intending, current and former international students about private colleges, universities and schools.

In 2015–16, the OSO received 874 complaints and appeals, 27 per cent more than in 2014–15 and 69 per cent more than in 2013–14. This represents a correlation between the considerable and sustained growth in the international student sector and the number of complaints received.

Figure 7: Overseas Students Ombudsman complaints received by year

In 2015–16 the office started 315 complaint investigations and completed 291, compared to 238 investigations started and 239 completed last year.

Of the completed investigations, 56.7 per cent were resolved in favour of the provider; and 25.7 per cent in favour of the complaining student. In 17.6 per cent of cases the office's investigation outcome favoured neither party because the case was otherwise finalised. For example, the provider fixed the problem quickly before the office needed to fully investigate or the office decided after starting its investigation that the issue would be better dealt with by another complaint-handling body.

The office finalised 575 complaints without investigating (compared to 441 last year) because the office:

• formed a view on the documents provided by the student
• referred the student back to his or her education provider's internal complaints and appeals process, or
• transferred the complaint to another complaint-handling body as provided by s 19ZK of the Act.

  Figure 8: How complaints were finalised by Overseas Students Ombudsman

  

  Table 4: Complaints transferred to other complaint bodies

  Complaint body	Number of complaints transferred in 2015–16	Number of complaints transferred in 2014–15
  Australian Human Rights Commission	1	0
  Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)	21	19
  Fair Work Ombudsman	1	0
  Office of the Training Advocate, SA	12	10
  Tuition Protection Service (TPS)	55	33
  Total	90	62

Helping students through impartial complaint-handling

Complaint issues

The two main complaint types continued to be provider refunds and fees disputes (325 complaints) and providers' decisions to refuse a student transfer to another provider under Standard 7 of the National Code (174 complaints/external appeals).

Providers' decisions to report students to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for failing to meet attendance requirements under Standard 11 (115 complaints/external appeals) moved from the fourth to the third most common issue.

The fourth main complaint issue was providers' decisions to cancel, suspend or defer a student's enrolment under Standard 13 (104 complaints/external appeals).

Student Feedback

"Hi, Thank you very much for your reply. I am really glad to see that you have taken action against my complain. This would have never happened in my country. I am proud to be living in Australia, where even complaints from foreigners are listen without any discrimination. [My education provider] was not even listening to me before but after lodging this complain and action taken by OSO, he has now been really respectful to me. Once again thank you OSO" (sic)

Reports to the regulators

The OSO has the power under s 35A of the Act to disclose information about providers of concern to the relevant regulator. In 2015–16 the office made six s 35A reports to the Australian Skills Quality Authority, compared to three last year.

Reports on trends and systemic issues

Our publications this year were:

• a report on the OSO's first four years of operations, including key outcomes and activities
• a Written Agreement (Fees and Refunds) student fact sheet to help students avoid the problems that commonly lead to complaints
• an updated version of our Written Agreements Issues Paper and Provider Checklist to reflect the December 2015 Education Service for Overseas Students 2000 changes
• Four quarterly statistical reports highlighting key issues, trends and outcomes
• two e-newsletters for private education providers
• an e-newsletter for international students.

The office participated in interagency meetings about the Department of Health's review of the Overseas Student Health Cover Deed of Agreement, providing observations based on issues identified in our complaint investigations. The office also collaborated with the publication Insider Guides that published an online article on the role of the OSO, which was promoted to students through social media.

Stakeholder engagement and promoting best practice complaint-handling

In 2015–16, the Ombudsman met with the embassies of Brazil, China and Indonesia to raise awareness of our role in helping students from these countries with complaints.

The office convened a complaint-handling panel at the Council for International Students Australia (CISA) national conference to highlight to the attendees their right to complain and who to contact for different issues. The office provided training to the new CISA Executive to advise where to direct students experiencing problems. The office also presented at the IDP Education Brisbane International Students Expo and the Australian Federation of International Students/Study Melbourne international student information day.

The office:

• collaborated with English Australia (EA) and the Australian Council of Private Education and Training (ACPET) to deliver three provider training webinars on course progress, attendance and best practice complaint-handling
• provided training through the International Student Advisors Network Australia (ISANA) and participated in an ISANA symposium on international student accommodation issues
• spoke at the EA, ACPET and ISANA national conferences as well as presenting at the Australian International Education Conference (AIEC) for the first time, and
• attended the NSW Ombudsman's University Complaint Handlers forum, which includes two private universities in the OSO's jurisdiction.

The office held regular liaison meetings with regulators, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), to discuss common issues as well as the Tuition Protection Service (TPS), the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) to discuss issues relating to international education and overseas student complaints.

Looking forward

In April 2016, the government released Australia's first National Strategy for International Education 2025 and the AIE2025 Roadmap, which envisages Australia's welcoming 720 000 international students each year by 2025. The strategy notes the OSO's role in supporting this growth by ensuring strong student protections.

As the international education sector continues to grow, the office expects to see a continued increase in complaints. The office wants to find out whether the current complaint arrangements meet students' needs and whether any changes could be made to strengthen or simplify student protections.

The office will have commenced that process before publication of this report by releasing a consultation paper on the external complaints avenues for international students.

Case study

A student complained to the OSO that her private education provider had cancelled her enrolment while she was overseas on holiday during the mid-year break. She was informed at the airport when she attempted to re-enter Australia that her visa had been cancelled. It seemed that her private education provider had informed DIBP that she had not paid her tuition fees and had therefore cancelled her enrolment. The student contended that she had paid her fees and should be allowed to continue studying.

The office found that the student had in fact paid her fees but had not labelled her bank transfer with sufficient identifying details. This meant that the provider was unable to establish that the bank transfer was hers. Some instalments were also paid several weeks late, but the provider had not followed this up with the student.

In addition, the office found that the provider had not notified the student in writing of its intention to cancel her enrolment for non-payment of fees, nor had it offered her an opportunity to lodge an internal appeal against its decision. This is a breach of Standard 13 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007 (the National Code).

The office recommended that the provider update its cancellation policy to ensure that in such cases in future a letter is sent to the student, inviting him or her to appeal. The office also recommended that the provider follow up on all outstanding fees in a timely manner and revise its fee policy to document this process.

Finally, the office recommended that the provider reinstate the student's enrolment while it conducted an internal appeal, and to inform DIBP that the student's enrolment had been cancelled in error.

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN

Readers of previous PHIO annual reports: please refer to www.ombudsman.gov.au/about/private-health-insurance for more detailed complaint statistics on the private health insurance industry. From 2016–17, PHIO will be providing additional quarterly updates of complaint statistics online.

Context

The role of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman (PHIO) is to protect the interests of consumers in relation to private health insurance. The Ombudsman is an independent body that resolves complaints about private health insurance and acts as the umpire in dispute resolution at all levels within the private health industry. The Ombudsman also reports and provides advice to industry and government about these issues. The office has a significant consumer information and advice role including managing the consumer website PrivateHealth.gov.au

Overview of 2015–16

The office of PHIO merged successfully with the Commonwealth Ombudsman on 1 July 2015. It is pleasing that the standard of service provided to complainants was maintained, and in some areas improved, as measured by audit and survey data. The level of overall satisfaction as reported by complainants to PHIO increased from 84 per cent in 2014–15 to 85 per cent in 2015–16.

After several years where PHIO complaint levels remained steady, the past two years have seen an increase. In 2015–16, PHIO received 4416 complaints, compared with 4265, in 2014–15 and 3427 in 2013–14.

In our consumer information and advice role, the office received 3999 consumer information enquiries in 2015–16, of which 59 per cent were received through consumer website PrivateHealth.gov.au

Figure 9: Total complaints by year received by Private Health Insurance Ombudsman

Complaints about Private Health Insurers

Table 5 shows the number of complaints and disputes⁶ received about registered private health insurers, and compares these to their market share. A high ratio of complaints or disputes compared to market share usually indicates either a less-than-adequate internal dispute-resolution process, especially for complex issues, or an underlying systemic or policy issue.

Table 5: Complaints by registered private health insurer, by market share 2015–16

	2015–16
	Complaints	Percentage of Complaints	Disputes	Percentage of Disputes	Market Share
ACA	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Australian Unity	195	5.1%	33	4.8%	3.1%
BUPA	834	21.7%	196	28.6%	26.8%
CBHS	35	0.9%	9	1.3%	1.4%
CDH (Cessnock)	2	0.1%	0	0.0%	<0.1%
CUA	70	1.8%	17	2.5%	0.6%
Defence	26	0.7%	6	0.9%	1.8%
Doctors	11	0.3%	2	0.3%	0.2%
GMHBA	55	1.4%	6	0.9%	2.0%
Grand United Corporate	17	0.4%	5	0.7%	0.4%
HBF	125	3.3%	21	3.1%	7.4%
HCI	1	0.0%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Health.com.au	53	1.4%	13	1.9%	0.6%
Health Insurance Fund of Australia	22	0.6%	3	0.4%	0.9%
HealthGuard (GMF/Central West)	10	0.3%	0	0.0%	0.5%
Health-Partners	13	0.3%	1	0.1%	0.6%
Hospitals Contribution Fund (HCF)	406	10.6%	66	9.6%	10.5%
Latrobe	16	0.4%	1	0.1%	0.7%
Medibank (AHM)	1544	40.2%	252	36.8%	28.6%
Mildura	1	0.0%	1	0.1%	0.2%
National Health Benefits (Onemedifund)	1	0.0%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Navy	2	0.1%	0	0.0%	0.3%
NIB	301	7.8%	42	6.1%	7.9%
Peoplecare	6	0.2%	1	0.1%	0.5%
Phoenix	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Police	1	0.0%	0	0.0%	0.3%
Queensland Country Health	2	0.1%	0	0.0%	0.3%
Railway and Transport	15	0.4%	1	0.1%	0.4%
Reserve	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	<0.1%
St Lukes	4	0.1%	0	0.0%	0.4%
Teachers Health	47	1.2%	6	0.9%	2.1%
Teachers Union	6	0.2%	1	0.1%	0.5%
Transport	8	0.2%	1	0.1%	0.1%
Westfund	10	0.3%	1	0.1%	0.7%
Total	3839		685

Complaint issues

BENEFITS

Complaints: 1359

Key issues:

• Hospital exclusions and restrictions
• General treatment (extras or ancillary benefits)
• Medical gaps

This was the largest area of complaint. The main issues of concern were hospital policies with unexpected exclusions and restrictions. Some basic and budget levels of hospital cover exclude or restrict services that many consumers assume are routine treatments or standard items. Delays in benefit payments and complaints about insurer rules that limited benefits were the other large areas of complaint.

CASE STUDY—Benefit: Hospital exclusion or restriction

Ayesha required surgery to her hand. The surgery was defined in the Medicare Benefits Schedule, under the 'Hand Operations' sub-group, as a 'carpal bone replacement or resection arthroplasty using adjacent tendon or other soft tissue including associated tendon transfer or realignment when performed'.

Initially, her health fund refused to cover the surgery because it considered the surgery to be 'joint replacement' which was an excluded service on her cover. However, this type of surgery does not involve the replacement of bone, but rather the removal of it.

On reviewing the information available to consumers about Ayesha's policy, the office noticed there was little guidance on what the insurer includes in the 'joint replacement' exclusion. However, it is a term used outside of its use by the health insurer; and our view is that the insurer should only use a definition of that term that is commonly understood in the community.

The office concluded that the surgery should be included in Ayesha's policy as it is not a joint replacement under any definition the office could find. After reviewing the case, the health fund agreed that the surgery was not 'joint replacement' and paid an appropriate benefit.

MEMBERSHIP

Complaints: 845

Key Issues:

• Policy/Membership Cancellation
• Clearance certificates
• Continuity of cover

Membership complaints typically involve policy administration issues, such as processing cancellations or payment of premium arrears. Delays in the provision of clearance certificates when transferring between health insurers is also a major cause of complaint.

CASE STUDY—Membership: arrears and cancellation

Kim joined his health fund in 2012 and had paid premiums by direct debit every month afterwards. In 2015 he required a hospital admission, but his booking was refused by the hospital as his membership appeared to have been cancelled.

On contacting the fund, Kim found that due to an administrative error, he had been undercharged for his premiums ever since joining in 2012. The fund had recently discovered this and corrected its records. But this had the effect of putting his policy into arrears and cancelling it.

The office concluded that Kim should not be adversely affected for an error the fund had made. The fund agreed to write off the arrears, bringing Kim's policy back up to date and allowing him to be covered for his hospital admission. However in future, Kim would need to pay the correct higher premium.

INFORMATION

Complaints: 599

Key issues:

• Verbal advice
• Lack of notification

Information complaints usually arise because of disputes or misunderstandings about verbal or written information provided by an insurer. Verbal advice is the cause of more complaints than any other sub-issue, and these can be particularly complex if the insurer has not kept a clear record or call recording of its interaction with the member.

CASE STUDY—Information: verbal advice

Adam realised he needed surgery which was not covered on his basic hospital policy. He called his health insurer to upgrade his policy, explaining he wanted to book a hospital admission within the next few months. The insurer told him that only a two month waiting period would apply, so Adam proceeded with the upgrade and booked a hospital admission in four months' time.

However, Adam was later advised that his treatment was actually subject to a 12 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions. This meant he was not covered for the surgery and he was asked to pay the full cost of the hospitalisation as he was about to be admitted.

On investigation, phone records confirmed that the health insurer had given incorrect advice about waiting periods when Adam upgraded his cover. The insurer had also encouraged Adam to upgrade to a more expensive policy to better cover hospital services.

Although Adam was made aware of the correct waiting periods for his cover before he was admitted, the office asked the insurer to consider a response to his complaint which accounted for the costs and inconvenience he had already incurred. The insurer instead decided to compensate Adam more than this and offered to honour the information it had provided him by paying the full hospital costs.

SERVICE

Complaints: 704

Key issues:

• General service issues
• Premium payment problems

Service issues are usually not the sole reason for complaints. The combination of unsatisfactory customer service, untimely responses to simple issues, and poor internal escalation processes can cause members to become more aggrieved and dissatisfied in their dealings with the insurer, until the service itself becomes a cause of complaint as well as the original issue.

WAITING PERIODS

Complaints: 363

Key Issues:

• Pre-existing condition disputes
• Compliance with PEC Best Practice Guidelines

Health insurers are able to apply a 12 month waiting period to new members if treatment is for a Pre-Existing Condition (PEC). Details about how the PEC waiting period is applied can be obtained by referring to our brochure 'Waiting Periods' and our factsheet on Pre-Existing Conditions, which are available at ombudsman.gov.au. PHIO's role in investigating complaints about the PEC waiting period is to ensure that the insurer has applied the waiting period correctly, and that the insurer and hospital have complied with the PEC Best Practice Guidelines.

RULE CHANGE

Complaints: 147

Key Issues:

• Detrimental changes to policies
• Adequate notice to consumers

Health insurers are permitted to make detrimental changes to their policies provided they give suitable advance warning to the affected members so they can change their cover or make other plans. In our view, a significant detrimental change to a hospital policy includes the exclusion or restriction of a previously included benefit, or the addition or increase of an excess or co-payment. It is important for insurers to communicate detrimental policy changes in clear and unambiguous language, without diluting the message by interspersing unrelated promotional material. Insurers should honour any pre-booked hospital admissions and ensure that benefits for patients currently in a 'course of treatment' continue for up to six months.

Figure 10: Complaint issues, previous three years

Table 6: Complaint issues

Issue	Sub-issue	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16
Benefit	Accident and emergency	23	40	49
Benefit	Accrued benefits	4	9	3
Benefit	Ambulance	36	51	66
Benefit	Amount	58	63	67
Benefit	Delay in payment	147	154	142
Benefit	Excess	48	56	56
Benefit	Gap—Hospital	23	50	53
Benefit	Gap—Medical	38	131	151
Benefit	General treatment (extras/ancillary)	78	105	194
Benefit	High cost drugs	11	13	13
Benefit	Hospital exclusion/restriction	242	320	276
Benefit	Insurer rule	152	192	131
Benefit	Limit reached	28	24	14
Benefit	New baby	11	22	6
Benefit	Non-health insurance	19	8	9
Benefit	Non-health insurance - overseas benefits	8	8	3
Benefit	Non-recognised other practitioner	16	29	22
Benefit	Non-recognised podiatry	15	12	15
Benefit	Other compensation	10	16	14
Benefit	Out of pocket not elsewhere covered	12	9	15
Benefit	Out of time	15	19	15
Benefit	Preferred provider schemes	44	50	32
Benefit	Prostheses	10	9	11
Benefit	Workers compensation	1	2	2
Contract	Hospitals	15	10	18
Contract	Preferred provider schemes	9	9	8
Contract	Second tier default benefit	4	3	2
Cost	Dual charging	2	5	2
Cost	Rate increase	78	132	147
Incentives	Lifetime Health Cover	163	156	121
Incentives	Medicare Levy Surcharge	21	12	11
Incentives	Rebate	39	13	9
Incentives	Rebate tiers and surcharge changes	5	1	2
Information	Brochures and websites	65	47	34
Information	Lack of notification	96	91	90
Information	Oral advice	410	522	430
Information	Radio and television	2	4	1
Information	Standard Information Statement	5	8	6
Information	Written advice	66	64	38
Informed Financial Consent	Doctors	25	19	35
Informed Financial Consent	Hospitals	40	50	36
Informed Financial Consent	Other	7	1	13
Membership	Adult dependants	15	25	15
Membership	Arrears	93	144	106
Membership	Authority over membership	16	20	16
Membership	Cancellation	218	299	315
Membership	Clearance certificates	106	108	196
Membership	Continuity	72	100	114
Membership	Rate and benefit protection	5	19	32
Membership	Suspension	41	50	51
Service	Customer service advice	52	82	106
Service	General service issues	207	184	234
Service	Premium payment problems	141	184	211
Service	Service delays	164	155	153
Waiting Period	Benefit limitation period	5	6	1
Waiting Period	General	34	41	29
Waiting Period	Obstetric	47	49	51
Waiting Period	Other	22	19	14
Waiting Period	Pre-existing conditions	229	283	268
Other	Access	0	0	3
Other	Acute care certificates	1	4	2
Other	Community rating	1	0	1
Other	Complaint not elsewhere covered	33	56	54
Other	Confidentiality and privacy	12	12	11
Other	Demutualisation/sale of health insurers	2	1	1
Other	Discrimination	1	3	4
Other	Medibank sale	1	0	1
Other	Non-English speaking background	0	0	0
Other	Non-Medicare patient	3	8	2
Other	Private patient election	10	3	6
Other	Rule change	72	281	147

Complaints about hospitals, doctors, brokers and others

Most complaints (88 per cent in 2015–16) are made about health insurers. However, complaints can also be made about providers including hospitals, doctors, health insurance brokers and other practitioners (such as dentists). There was an increase in complaints about verbal advice and incorrect information provided by health insurance brokers in 2015–16, which accounts for the increase in complaints from 34 to 75 complaints.

Table 7: Complaints about hospitals, doctors, brokers and others

	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16
Hospitals	40	38	47
Health Practitioners	53	29	58
Health Insurance Brokers	42	34	75

Overseas Visitors Health Cover

Each year, the Ombudsman helps consumers with complaints about Overseas Visitors Health Cover (OVHC) and Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC) policies for visitors to Australia. These complaints are counted separately from complaints made against domestic health insurance policies.

Unlike Australians, who have the option of using the public Medicare system at no cost if they are not covered for a hospital treatment under their private health insurance policy, most visitors to Australia have no choice about whether they are treated at private patient rates.

The most common issue for overseas visitors included 74 complaints about policy cancellation and refunds, 40 complaints about the pre-existing condition waiting period and 38 complaints about delays in paying benefit payments.

Table 8: Complaints received from overseas visitors in 2015–16

Insurer	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16
Allianz (Lysaght Peoplecare)	32	63	69
Australian Unity	11	25	12
BUPA	84	160	119
HBF	1	1	1
HCF	1	1	1
HIF	2	7	3
Medibank Private (AHM)	44	62	73
NIB	25	28	43
Total	200	347	321

NOTE: Figures for providers of cover for overseas visitors are not directly comparable, as market share data is not available. These figures show the number of complaints over time and it can be assumed market share numbers are relatively similar to those for domestic providers (see Table 5) and do not greatly change from year to year.

Complaint–handling procedures and categories

PHIO has three levels of complaint:

• Assisted Referrals for moderate complaints
• Grievances for moderate complaints that do not require a report or further investigation, and
• Disputes for high-level complaints where significant intervention is required.

In 2015–16, 75 per cent of complaints were resolved as Assisted Referrals. In these instances, the Dispute Resolution Officer refers a complaint directly to a nominated representative of the insurer or service provider, on behalf of the complainant. This approach ensures a quicker turnaround time and our client satisfaction survey confirms that complainants have a high satisfaction rate with this method of resolution.

Grievances are a moderate level of complaint. They are dealt with by investigating the issues of grievance and providing additional information or a clearer explanation directly to the complainant, without the need for a report from the health insurer or health care provider. Approximately five per cent of complaints were registered as Grievances.

Approximately 20 per cent of complaints were classified as Disputes, slightly higher than last year's 16 per cent (858 complaints compared to 668 complaints). In these cases, a member of the Ombudsman's Dispute Resolution Office requests a detailed report from a health insurer or other object of a complaint. The report is then reviewed and a decision is made as to whether the initial response was satisfactory or whether a further investigation is warranted.

Figure 11: Private health insurance complaints by level

Complaint outcomes

Most cases (72 per cent) were resolved as Assisted Referrals, with complaints referred directly to health insurers with our assistance, on the understanding that the complainant may ask us to review the complaint if he or she remains unsatisfied. A further 16 per cent of cases were resolved by our providing an additional and independent explanation of the issues.

These ratios change for high-level disputes. Most of these cases are resolved with the provision of a further explanation (54 per cent), but 45 per cent received additional payments or some other satisfactory outcome.

Client survey

PHIO regularly carries out a postal survey of randomly selected complainants. Each fortnight, the office sends survey forms to a sample of complainants whose cases have been closed during the previous period. In 2015–16, the office received 128 responses (23 per cent)—a reasonable participation rate for a postal survey of this kind.

Overall, 85 per cent of clients who responded were satisfied or very satisfied with the handling of their complaint, compared to 84 per cent the previous year.

Table 9: Client survey feedback results

	2014–15	2015–16
Overall satisfaction	84%	85%
Agreed that staff listened adequately	88%	93%
Satisfied with staff manner	87%	90%
Resolved complaint or provided adequate explanation	85%	81%
Thought PHIO acted independently	86%	86%
Would recommend PHIO to others	85%	86%
Happy with time taken to resolve complaint	86%	79%

Health policy: Liaison with other bodies

PHIO has a role in assisting with the broader issues associated with health policy. During the year, the office provided information and assistance to various bodies involved in the formulation of health policy and compliance with established rules and laws.

This included:

• Submission to the ACCC's Report to the Senate on Anti-Competitive and Other Practices by Health Funds and Providers in relation to private health insurance.
• Advice to the Private Health Insurance Industry Code Compliance Committee in relation to the voluntary industry code.
• Consultation with state health departments, public hospitals and health insurers in relation to acute care certification processes for long-stay private patients in public hospitals.
• Consultation with the Overseas Students Ombudsman and private health insurers regarding issues relating to private health insurance for overseas students.

Consumer website: PrivateHealth.gov.au

In 2015–16 the office responded to 3999 individual enquiries, providing written consumer information and advice and managing the consumer website PrivateHealth.gov.au. This is Australia's leading source of independent information about health insurance for consumers. Its major features include:

1. Compare Policies: consumers can use the Compare Policies feature to easily compare all health insurance policies provided in Australia.
2. 'Ask a Question' web form and phone number: the office responded to over 2300 people using the website for advice on details of the health insurance system, particularly people seeking help understanding lifetime health cover, health cover for visitors and overseas students in Australia and advice on how to use the website and choose a policy.
3. Health insurers are required to maintain up-to-date Standard Information Statements (SISs) and use the website's industry interface to manage this process.
4. 'Health Insurance Explained': comprehensive and independent information on private health insurance including government surcharges and incentives.
5. Lifetime Health Cover Calculator: consumers can calculate how much Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) loading applies to their hospital policy premiums. If they already have a loading they can calculate whether they qualify to have the loading removed.
6. Agreement Hospitals Locator: check which funds and hospitals have agreements, meaning out-of-pocket expenses for consumers are minimised.
7. Average Dental Charges: the website publishes information on the average cost of the most common dental procedures.

Website usage has continued to grow annually since the website's launch in 2007, with over 1,173,644 visits in 2015–16.

Figure 12: Website visitors per year to PrivateHealth.gov.au

During 2015–16 PHIO has worked with industry representatives on improving the search feature for consumers using the website. One difficulty, which has been reported in consumer surveys, is that too much information and too many results are presented when searching for policies. This is a difficult issue because the website must impartially list all policies available in the marketplace. On the other hand, the office wants to make the search process as simple as possible. The office expects to make changes to the website early in 2016–17.

Inspections of covert, intrusive or coercive powers

Figure 13: The independent oversight process

Our oversight activities

The Ombudsman has oversight responsibilities under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914 and the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012. This legislation grants intrusive (and often covert) powers to certain government agencies. The Ombudsman's role is to provide assurance to the public that these agencies are using their powers as Parliament intended, and if not, hold the agencies to account. Table 10 gives an overview of our oversight activities in 2015–16.

Table 10: Inspection and review activities in 2015–16

Function	Number of inspections or reviews in 2015–16	Number of inspection reports (finalised internal reports to inspected agencies and statutory reports to ministers and the Parliament during 2015–16)
Inspection of telecommunications interception records under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979	6	4
Inspection of stored communications— preservation and access records under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979	17	20
Inspection of the use of surveillance devices under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004	8	11
Inspection of controlled operations conducted under Part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914	5	3
Inspection of metadata records under the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979	20	0
Review of Fair Work Building and Construction's use of its coercive examination powers under the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012	17	1
Total	73	39

Our submissions and briefings

In 2015–16, the office made one committee submission and provided two briefings to Parliamentary Committees.

Our submission to the Select Committee on the Establishment of a National Integrity Commission was informed by our inspection and review findings. All unclassified submissions and published reports are available on our website at ombudsman.gov.au

The office provided a briefing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and another to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.

In addition to our inspection and review activities, in 2015–16, the office also regularly responded to requests from agencies for advice about best practices, and requests from other oversight bodies for advice about developing inspection methodologies.

Our approach

The office values independence, fairness and transparency.

These inform the way the office conducts inspections and reviews and how the office engages with the agencies it oversees.

For each inspection and review function the office performs, it develops a set of methodologies that is applied consistently across all agencies. These methodologies comprise test plans, risk registers, checklists and templates. They are based on legislative requirements and best-practice standards in auditing, and ensure the integrity of each inspection and review.

The office focuses inspections and reviews on areas of high risk and takes into consideration the effect of non-compliance; for example, unnecessary privacy intrusion. It is the office's practice to regularly review its methodologies to ensure their effectiveness.

The office gives notice to agencies of its intention to inspect their records and provides them with a broad outline of its inspection or review criteria.

To ensure procedural fairness, the office provides a draft report on its findings to the agency for comment before it is finalised. Depending on the office's reporting requirements under each function, the final report is either presented to the relevant minister or forms the basis of the office's published reports.

The above values also inform any briefings the office prepares for Parliamentary Committees.

For our published reports, the office removes reference to any sensitive information that could undermine or compromise law enforcement.

New metadata oversight for 2015–16

On 13 October 2015 new laws came into effect under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the TIA Act) requiring telecommunication carriers and service providers to retain certain data (associated with its services, known as 'metadata') for a mandatory two year period.

Following the introduction of these new laws, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is now required to conduct assessment and audit inspections of government agencies accessing metadata and report back to government. Inspections were conducted from October 2015 until May 2016 and analysis of inspection findings continued until 30 June 2016. Internal reports will be provided to agencies, with these reports expected to be finalised in early 2016–17.

In our first year of metadata inspections we have engaged with agencies to learn and understand their processes and policies in exercising metadata powers. We want to influence agencies' compliance with the TIA Act and to adopt best practices. Overall, agencies have been responsive to these inspections and cooperative throughout the process.

Following these initial inspections, each agency will be provided with a 'health check' report outlining the strength of its processes and policies. These reports will be consolidated and provided to the Commonwealth Attorney-General for tabling in Parliament.

Our future reports and inspections will use these 'health checks' as a baseline for assessing future compliance.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OMBUDSMAN

The office has a comprehensive role in the oversight of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

When performing functions in relation to the AFP, the Commonwealth Ombudsman may also be called the Law Enforcement Ombudsman.

These functions include:

• investigating complaints about the AFP
• receiving mandatory notifications from the AFP regarding complaints about serious misconduct involving AFP members, under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (AFP Act)
• annual statutory reviews of the AFP's administration of Part V of the AFP Act.

In 2015–16 the office received 286 complaints about the AFP, compared to 288 in 2014–15. Of these, the office investigated 46. The reasons the office declined to investigate 240 included:

• more than half had not complained to the AFP in the first instance
• based on the information available, we assessed that an investigation was not warranted and there was no need to contact the AFP, because the actions and decisions appeared to be reasonable
• the matter had been dealt with by a court or tribunal
• it was more appropriate for another oversight or advice body to consider the matter.

The office conducted one review of the AFP's administration of Part V of the AFP Act and published a report on the results of the two reviews undertaken in the previous review period.

The office engaged with the Professional Standards branch (PRS) of the AFP in relation to complaints, issues arising from the reviews and PRS procedures. The office also participated in the induction program for new PRS investigators.

DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN

The Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) investigates complaints from serving or former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Complaints typically involve ADF employment matters such as pay and conditions, entitlements and benefits, promotions, discharge and delays involving the 'Redress of Grievance' processes or decisions by Defence agencies regarding Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) claims.

Complaints about Defence agencies are also received from members of the public, but these fall under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. They usually involve complaints about behaviour by military personnel, military bases and disruptions to local communities, contracting matters and service delivery issues.

Defence agencies include:

• Department of Defence
• Australian Defence Force
• Department of Veterans' Affairs
• Defence Housing Australia
• Australian Defence Force Cadets (Navy, Army and Airforce)
• Australian War Memorial.

In 2015–16, our office received 491 complaints about Defence agencies, compared to 545 in 2014–15. Of these, about 77 per cent were made under the DFO jurisdiction by current or former serving members of the ADF.

Of these cases, the office finalised 375 complaints without an investigation (compared to 419 last year). The reasons the office declined to investigate included:

• There were existing avenues within the relevant agency to seek a review or have the issue considered in the first instance.
• The office formed a view, on the documents provided by the complainant, that the agency's actions were reasonable, or that there was not enough information provided to support an investigation.
• The office referred the complainant to another complaint-handling body, such as the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force or the Australian Public Service Commission.

Complaint issues

The most common complaint issues in 2015–16 were:

• Redress of Grievance, including delay in finalising, procedural fairness and outcome
• discharge, including mode of discharge and procedural fairness
• allegations of inappropriate conduct or bias by chain of command or other ADF members
• decisions regarding a veteran's entitlements to pensions, benefits, and/or access to health care services.

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE SCHEME

Public Interest Disclosure

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act) provides a mechanism for officials of Australian Government agencies to report suspected wrongdoing, providing protections from reprisal and requiring agencies to respond to those reports with appropriate action.

Having now been in place for two and a half years, the PID Act has achieved a level of maturity. Along with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS), the office has had the opportunity through our oversight and awareness-raising functions to observe the bedding down of the scheme. It has become evident that, as envisaged by the legislation, the scheme is operating far beyond the APS. This breadth of operation has posed some challenges but has also brought benefits to both APS and non-APS agencies.

The two-year anniversary of the PID Act prompted a review of the legislation (in accordance with s 82A). The review took place between 15 January and 15 July 2016 led by the former Commissioner of Law Enforcement Integrity, Mr Philip Moss AM, assisted by a secretariat within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The review has been submitted to government but at the time of writing, the government had not responded. The office and IGIS contributed to the review. Many of the issues identified in our two previous annual reports, and during this reporting period, were dealt with in our submission. The office has not canvassed them further in this report.

Overview of the PID scheme

Figure 14: Overview of the Public Interest Disclosure scheme

The PID landscape

Section 76(1) of the PID Act requires the Ombudsman to prepare a report on the operation of the Act during the financial year. To collect this information, in conjunction with IGIS, the office asked the 175 agencies subject to the Act to complete a survey and workbook for the 2015–16 financial year⁷. Broadly, what the office observed from the information provided by agencies, taken with the number and nature of enquiries and complaints received by the office and IGIS, was agencies' growing confidence applying the Act.

The Act applies to a diverse range of agencies. Sixty per cent of them employ 250 or fewer employees, and 25 per cent employ fewer than 50. In addition, 36 per cent reported that their employees are predominantly employed other than under the Public Service Act 1999 or Parliamentary Service Act 1999. With the diversity of employment arrangements, it is not surprising that agency data shows the PID Act is interacting with a broad range of governing and enabling legislation across the Commonwealth.

In addition, the Act is increasingly being used by contracted service providers. Agencies reported that 19 per cent of disclosures were made by contractors, up from two per cent in the previous year. Despite this trend, only 32 per cent of agencies conducted awareness-raising and/or training for their contractors⁸. Additionally, while the vast majority of agencies reported having PID procedures, only 66 per cent reported that those procedures were publicly available on their website. It is important that agencies promote an accessible PID scheme to the broad range of officials who may wish to report wrongdoing, including contractors and former public officials.

PIDs received

The overall number of internal PIDs remains steady, however the number of agencies receiving PIDs has increased.⁹ A total of 612 PIDs were made during the financial year, with 69 of 175 agencies receiving one or more¹⁰. Most PIDs were made in large agencies¹¹, with only 16 per cent of PIDs made in agencies with fewer than 1000 employees¹². Nevertheless small agencies are receiving PIDs, albeit in smaller numbers. Almost a quarter of agencies which received a PID had fewer than 250 staff. In addition, non-APS agencies are receiving a significant proportion of PIDs. Over 30 per cent of PIDs were made in agencies whose employees are predominantly employed otherwise than under the Public Service Act 1999 or Parliamentary Service Act 1999.

Section 76(2) of the Act requires the Ombudsman to report certain information about each agency. Table 13 sets out the number of PIDs received and the types of disclosable conduct by agency. Table 14 lists the agencies which did not receive any PIDs. The office notes that the number of PIDs reported by agencies at the end of the financial year was greater than the number of notifications of allocation decisions received by the Ombudsman throughout the year, pursuant to s 44 of the Act. A possible reasons for the discrepancy may be agencies' failure to notify the Ombudsman of all PIDs received. The number of PIDs relates to 'untested' information assessed as showing possible 'disclosable conduct', and which is further considered in an investigation phase. It is also noted that a PID may concern more than one type of disclosable conduct.

Of the 612 PIDs reported, agencies identified 707 kinds of disclosable conduct. As shown in Table 11, the largest group (33 per cent) concerned conduct that could amount to a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, state or territory. This is a broad category that can incorporate wrongdoing in other categories, including maladministration or a breach of the APS Code of Conduct or Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. It may include relatively minor conduct, including employment-related grievances, which would not usually be considered criminal behaviour. The other common categories of alleged misconduct were actions which, if proven, could result in disciplinary action (24 per cent) and maladministration (19 per cent).

Table 11: Kinds of disclosable conduct

Kinds of disclosable conduct	Number of instances (%)
Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, state or territory	232 (33%)
Conduct that may result in disciplinary action	170 (24%)
Maladministration	137 (19%)
Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property)	45 (6%)
Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more persons	36 (5%)
Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption	25 (4%)
Abuse of public office	21 (3%)
Perversion of the course of justice	16 (2%)
Abuse of public trust	14 (2%)
Other (conduct in a foreign country that contravenes a law; fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in relation to scientific research; and conduct that endangers, or risks endangering the environment)	11 (2%)
Total	707 (100%)

As shown in Figure 15, the PID Act is being used by a broad range of individuals to report possible wrongdoing across the Commonwealth. Agencies reported that most disclosers were current public officials (59 per cent).

However, 19 per cent of PIDs were made by contracted service providers, a significant increase from the previous financial year¹³. This can be attributed to the increase in PIDs received in Australia Post, where more than 60 percent of PIDs were made by contracted service providers. Thirteen per cent were made by persons who were deemed to be public officials under s 70 of the PID Act. This figure may include anonymous disclosers or individuals who have 'inside information' through their close connection with an agency or public official.

Figure 15: Types of disclosers

The Ombudsman remains concerned that supervisors' obligations to provide information which could be a PID to an authorised officer, are not being met. Agencies reported that only five per cent of disclosures were made to a supervisor, who then passed the information to an authorised officer. The office would expect this figure to be higher and we suspect that supervisors are not sufficiently aware of their obligations under the PID Act. The vast majority of PIDs were received by authorised officers (83 per cent), and a smaller percentage directly to principal officers (11 per cent).

Matters that were not internal PIDs

Twenty-eight of the 175 agencies reported that they had recorded the number of disclosures that were assessed by an authorised officer as not meeting the requirements for a PID. In those agencies, there were 182 matters that were assessed as not being PIDs. Consistent with previous years, the most common reason was that the information did not allege disclosable conduct (59 per cent). A small percentage of agencies (three per cent) reported that they had determined a matter was not a PID for reasons other than the threshold criteria. This means there may still be a number of instances where irrelevant considerations are leading to incorrect decisions regarding the classification of a disclosure as a PID.

PIDs investigated

As noted in last year's report, the PID Act provides an administrative or 'handling' overlay with some specific features designed primarily to protect disclosers. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman recognises that the Act is not intended to displace well-established principles of investigation or procedures established under other laws for investigating specific types of conduct.

Once an internal PID is allocated for investigation, there are four permissible outcomes:

• not investigate (or not investigate further) for one of the reasons in s 48 of the PID Act
• complete an investigation with a s 51 report (with or without findings of disclosable conduct or recommendations)
• complete an investigation with a s 51 report having considered whether a different investigation is more appropriate under s 47(3), and recommending an investigation under another law or procedure of the Commonwealth
• investigate under a separate investigative power (currently the Ombudsman and IGIS only).

Matters not investigated (s 48)

Of the 612 PIDs reported, covering 707 instances of possible disclosable conduct, agencies reported that in 145 instances they decided not to investigate (or not investigate further) based on a reason in s 48 of the PID Act¹⁴. As shown in Table 12, the most commonly used reasons were that the information did not concern serious disclosable conduct (37 per cent); and that the information was the same or substantially the same, as information the disclosure of which, had been, or was being, investigated under another law of the Commonwealth (27 per cent). The main categories included investigation under the Public Service Act 1999 (e.g. code of conduct) (27 per cent), Defence Force legislation or regulations (23 per cent) and investigations by an Australian Police Force (seven per cent)¹⁵.

Table 12: Reasons for s 48 decisions

Reasons for s 48 decisions
The information does not concern serious disclosable conduct	37%
The information concerns disclosable conduct that is the same, or substantially the same, as disclosable conduct that is being investigated, or has been investigated	27%
The discloser does not wish the PID investigation to be pursued and the principal officer is reasonably satisfied that there are no matters concerning the disclosure that warrant investigation	8%
The discloser refuses, fails or is unable to assist the investigation	8%
Because of the age of the information	6%
The information is the same/substantially the same as information which has been or is being investigated as a disclosure investigation	5%
The discloser's name and contact details have not been disclosed	5%
The disclosure is frivolous or vexatious	3%
Discloser is not a public official	1%

Completed Investigations

Findings, recommendations and actions taken

During the reporting period 40 agencies reported that they had completed 391 disclosure investigations. Table 13 summarises the information provided by agencies about the number of disclosure investigations completed in the reporting period, and the actions taken in response to recommendations those disclosure investigations.

Agencies reported that 49 investigations were finalised with at least one finding of disclosable conduct. Figure 16 details the kinds of disclosable conduct found to have been engaged in. In addition, agencies reported a range of actions taken in response to recommendations in disclosure investigations, including disciplinary action, termination of employment, internal reviews, and changes to policies and procedures.

Figure 16: Findings of disclosable conduct

Figure 17: Referrals to other investigative mechanisms

Referrals to other investigative mechanisms

As noted above, an investigation can result in a recommendation that another investigation under a law or procedure of the Commonwealth be conducted. Of the 391 investigations conducted, agencies reported that 97 concluded with this type of recommendation. Agency data confirms the PID Act is regularly used as a 'gateway' for investigating conduct through other established investigative mechanisms.

The most obvious and frequently-cited example is an investigation under the APS Code of Conduct procedures, established under s 15(3) of the Public Service Act 1999. However, agencies are reporting referrals in significant numbers under other legislation. As shown in Figure 17, the top three categories were ADF legislation or regulations (42 per cent), the Public Service Act 1999 (33 per cent) and a category described as 'workplace law, Enterprise Agreement or organisational code of conduct' (13 per cent).

Ombudsman and IGIS investigations

The Ombudsman received 65 approaches from people wishing to make a PID about another Commonwealth agency. We determined that 36 of those approaches were not PIDs¹⁶for the reasons set out below:

• in 58 per cent of matters the Ombudsman was not an authorised internal recipient because there were no reasonable grounds for the discloser to believe that the matter should be investigated by the office
• in 36 per cent of matters the information disclosed did not amount to disclosable conduct
• in six per cent of matters the discloser was not a public official.

Of the 29 PIDs which we accepted, 15 were allocated to the agency concerned. The remaining 14 were allocated to the Ombudsman for investigation under his separate investigative power under the Ombudsman Act. Two of the 14 PIDs allocated to the Ombudsman were received from other agencies.

During the reporting period, 14 investigations were finalised, nine with a referral to either the Australian Public Service Commission or the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, as the relevant integrity bodies with jurisdiction to investigate in those particular cases. As required by the Ombudsman Act, the office complied with a requirement to transfer cases of corruption or allegations of breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. A number of those cases concerned allegations about agency heads breaching the Code of Conduct.

In addition, one investigation was finalised by the Ombudsman and four were ceased under s 48 of the Act. Two of those four investigations ceased due to our decision to commence an own motion investigation into the issues raised. This own motion investigation will be finalised next financial year.

IGIS received four PIDs and allocated all to itself for investigation. During the year, three investigations were completed under the IGIS's separate investigative powers under Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (IGIS Act).

Managing reprisal risk and incidents of reprisal

The PID Act requires agencies to have in place procedures for assessing risks of reprisal to those who make disclosures. The PID Act also obliges principal officers to take reasonable steps to protect public officials from detriment, or threats of detriment, relating to PIDs by those public officials¹⁷.

Eighty-six percent of agencies reported they had procedures for assessing reprisal risk. During the year, 12 agencies reported having taken action in relation to 15 instances of potential or actual reprisal relating to a PID. As noted below, the office has received a number of complaints from disclosers relating to allegations of reprisal action. The office is not aware of any actions taken in the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court in relation to alleged reprisal or in pursuit of immunity from liability in relation to a PID.

The Ombudsman and IGIS functions

Complaints

During the reporting period, the office received 56 complaints about agencies' conduct in relation to PIDs and finalised 55¹⁸ complaint investigations. IGIS did not receive any complaints about the handling of PIDs this financial year. The majority of complaints the office received were made by disclosers about the process and outcome of PIDs. A number of complaints were received from potential disclosers about their attempts to make PIDs.

Consistent with previous years, timeliness, transparency and communication with disclosers, remain the most common areas of complaint. Disclosers continue to raise concerns about agencies' failure to keep them informed and comply with notification requirements. Additionally, disclosers complained about delays in the investigation and issuing the investigation report under s 51 of the PID Act, as well as the extent to which those reports were redacted.

Unsurprisingly, another common area of complaint related to the way in which PID investigations were conducted and the outcome of those investigations. Consistent with previous years, the key issues identified in complaints were:

• the investigation process was flawed because of a conflict of interest or bias
• insufficient enquiries were made, including failure to interview the discloser or key witnesses
• the investigator reached the wrong conclusion based on evidence.

Last financial year the office noted an increase in complaints alleging reprisal action. This trend continues, with disclosers concerned about reprisals against them and a lack of support, risk assessment and action in relation to reprisals and reprisal risk. Reprisal issues were often accompanied by concerns about breaches of secrecy and confidentiality in the PID process and fears that a discloser's identity had been compromised.

There has also been an increase in complaints alleging agencies' failure to identify the full range of possible disclosable conduct in a PID. Some of these complaints focus on the conduct of individuals, rather than broader procedural or systemic problems. The office also received a number of complaints about agencies' failure to treat particular matters as a potential PID, and either not dealing with them or dealing with them outside of the PID Act.

In the course of our complaint investigations, the office identified some shortcomings in agencies' PID handling and recommended remedial action and improvements. In most of those cases the office asked agencies to provide greater transparency for disclosers and to comply with timeframes, notifications and reporting requirements in the Act. In some matters the office identified a need for improvements in the handling of PID information and recommended further developing processes for confidentiality in PID investigations.

Assistance, education and awareness

Inquiries about the PID Act

The office received 304 enquiries in relation to the PID Act through dedicated telephone line and email contact points, over and above complaints, disclosures and agency notifications. Sixty-six percent of these were from agency representatives, 33 per cent from public officials and one per cent from either non-government organisations or members of the public. Throughout the year the IGIS also provided assistance and advice to officials within the intelligence agencies.

Information gathered from these inquiries provides an important insight into the day-to-day operational issues faced by agencies and officials. The office notes a growing understanding of the Act by both agencies and disclosers. Additionally, the office notes varying levels of support available to disclosers and officials with respect to PIDs within agencies.

Information and guidance materials

During the year the office published four new guidance materials:

• an updated Agency Guide to the PID Act. This comprises a substantial revision of our overall guidance incorporating learnings from over two years of the scheme's operation, and addresses key areas of agency inquiries
• Public Interest Disclosure scheme Reference Guide
• a guide for supervisors on their obligations under the Act
• a guide for managing the risk of reprisal.

Our website continues to be a key resource for agencies looking for information about the PID scheme. During the year there were 17 762 visits to the PID website¹⁹. Additionally, the office published two editions of PID e-News—in October 2015 and April 2016—providing useful articles for PID practitioners, information about relevant events and issues, and links to new guidance products and forms.

Stakeholder engagement

The PID practitioner community continues to contribute positively to the operation of the PID scheme. The office hosted 11 Community of Practice forums during the year, talking directly with PID practitioners about best practice and challenging areas of the PID Act. The Community of Practice forums proved to be an invaluable source of information in relation to the independent review of the PID Act. Forums were held in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, bringing together 125 PID practitioners to discuss their experience with the PID Act's operation directly with the Ombudsman's office and the review team.

The office also delivered 26 presentations on the PID Act to agencies. Feedback from these sessions and our Community of Practice forums indicate a high level of satisfaction. This year, the office also met directly with 12 agencies, and in a number of cases helped to review their procedures and information for staff and contractors.

IGIS coordinates meetings involving all Australian intelligence community agencies on PID matters, as the need arises.

The broader PID oversight community

Amongst the broader PID oversight community, the office continues to play an active role in supporting greater sharing of information and cooperative projects between jurisdictions. In April 2016, the office hosted the third oversight forum in Canberra, attended by representatives from oversight bodies in other PID jurisdictions around Australia.

The office also grew the Commonwealth PID agency membership to an online PID community (PID Wiki), which the office jointly administers with the NSW and Qld Ombudsman offices. Through the PID Wiki, practitioners have access to a wealth of information about PID events, materials, case studies, news and blogs on relevant issues across various jurisdictions.

In addition, the office is a research partner for the Whistling While They Work 2 Project led by Griffith University. The project is looking at improving managerial responses to whistleblowing in the public and private sector. During the year, the office has been actively involved in the research design and promoting the first round of data collection with Commonwealth PID agencies.

Notifications and extensions of time

During the year the office received 121 requests for extensions of time within agencies, over double the requests received last financial year. The vast majority of these requests were approved in full or in part, with only five denied and four withdrawn before a decision was made. The office also received 147 notifications of decisions not to investigate and 539 notifications of allocation of PIDs. IGIS received four notification of allocations, no notifications of s 48 decisions, and no requests for extensions of time.

PID review

A key focus for the year was the independent review of the PID Act led by Philip Moss, assisted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Moss was appointed on 15 January 2016, two years after the commencement of the Act. Both IGIS and the Ombudsman's office provided submissions to the review.

The Ombudsman's submission identified key operational issues with the Act and recommended 24 changes to it. These concerned:

• strengthening the transparency and accessibility of the Act
• clarifying the obligations of supervisor in relation to when he or she should refer a matter to an authorised officer for assessment
• reviewing the secrecy provisions to provide clarity and allow for the disclosure of information in certain cases
• clarifying particular terms in the Act, including:
  • disciplinary action
  • when an external disclosure of information can be made, and
  • a Commonwealth contract not including grant funding
• clarifying that PIDs and PID investigations are not automatically exempt from the operation of the FOI Act
• broadening the circumstances in which discretion can be exercised to cease investigating a PID
• adjusting the PID threshold so that personal grievances are excluded from the PID Act
• extending the disclosure protections to public officials who were the original source of the information
• allowing disclosure of information to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, rather than the AFP, in certain circumstances
• clarifying aspects of the deeming provision
• strengthening the notification requirements to the Ombudsman and IGIS.

The full submission from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is available on the website at pid.ombudsman.gov.au

Table 13: Number of disclosures received and kinds of disclosable conduct

Agency	Number of PIDs received by authorised officers (s 76(2)(a)(i) PID Act)20	Kinds of disclosable conduct to which the disclosures relate (s 76(2)(a)(ii) PID Act)21
Department of Defence	194	Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (36%) Maladministration (29%) Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (12%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (9%) Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more persons (7%) Abuse of public office (4%) Conduct in a foreign country that contravenes a law (1%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (1%) Abuse of public trust (1%)
Australian Postal Corporation	146	Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (55%) Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (25%) Perversion of the course of justice (7%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (7%) Abuse of public trust (2%) Maladministration (1%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (1%) Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more persons (1%) Abuse of public office (1%)
Commonwealth Ombudsman	2922	Maladministration (38%) Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (31%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (17%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (7%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (3.5%) Conduct that endangers, or risks endangering the environment (3.5%)
Department of Human Services	27	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (41%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (24%) Maladministration (24%) Abuse of public office (12%)
Australian Taxation Office	24	Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory  (77%) Abuse of public trust (14%) Maladministration (9%)
Department of Immigration and Border Protection	21	Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (38%) Maladministration (31%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (19%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (6%) Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (6%)
Airservices Australia	17	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (47%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (17%) Maladministration (13%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (10%) Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more perswons (7%) Perversion of the course of justice (3%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (3%)
Australian Federal Police	10	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (28%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (19%) Maladministration (14%) Conduct in a foreign country that contravenes a law (14%) Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more persons (10%) Perversion of the course of justice (5%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (5%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (5%t)
Attorney-General's Department	8	Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (37.5%) Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (37.5%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (12.5%) Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more persons (12.5%)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation	7	Maladministration (87.5%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (12.5%)
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources	7	Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (14%) Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (86%)
Australian Sports Commission	6	Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (67%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (33%)
Australian Crime Commission	5	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (80%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (20%)
Department of Health	5	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (60%) Maladministration (20%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (20%)
Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate	5	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (83%) Contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (17%)
Aboriginal Hostels Limited ASC Pty Ltd Australian Accounting Standards Board Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Australian Electoral Commission Australian Film Television and Radio School Australian Financial Security Authority Australian Human Rights Commission Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian National Maritime Museum Australian National University Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Australian Rail Track Corporation Australian Securities and Investments Commission Australian Skills Quality Authority Australian Trade Commission ("Austrade") Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Australian Transport Safety Bureau Australian War Memorial Bureau of Meteorology Civil Aviation Safety Authority Comcare Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Defence Housing Australia	101 (aggregated total of all PIDs received by these agencies) This section aggregates data for agencies reporting four or fewer PIDs received during the reporting period.	Conduct that may result in disciplinary action (30%) Maladministration (25%) Commonwealth, State or Territory (11%) Conduct that results in, or that increases, the risk of danger to the health or safety of one or more persons (9%) Abuse of public office (6%) Conduct engaged in for the purpose of corruption (5%) Wastage of Commonwealth resources (including money and property) (5%) Abuse of public trust (4%) Contravention of a law of the Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in relation to scientific research (2%) Perversion of the course of justice (2%) Conduct that endangers, or risks endangering the environment (1%)
Department Foreign Affairs and Trade Department of Education and Training Department of Employment Department of Finance Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Department of Parliamentary Services Department of Social Services Department of the Environment Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department of Treasury Department of Veterans' Affairs Fair Work Ombudsman Family Court and Federal Circuit Court Murray-Darling Basin Authority Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House National Disability Insurance Agency National Film and Sound Archive National Health and Medical Research Council National Library of Australia National Museum of Australia National Offshore Safety and Environmental Management Authority NBN Co Limited Reserve Bank of Australia Special Broadcasting Service Corporation Torres Strait Regional Authority Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Intelligence agencies

Table 14: Agencies that have reported not receiving PIDs

AAF Company Administrative Appeals Tribunal Anindilyakwa Land Council Army and Air Force Canteen Service Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Australia Council for the Arts Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Australian Communications and Media Authority Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Australian Fisheries Management Authority Australian Grape and Wine Authority Australian Hearing Services Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Institute of Family Studies Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Australian Law Reform Commission Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund Australian National Audit Office Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Australian Public Service Commission Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation Australian Renewable Energy Agency Australian Research Council Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Australian Sports Foundation Limited Australian Strategic Policy Institute Bundanon Trust Cancer Australia Central Land Council Clean Energy Finance Corporation Clean Energy Regulator Climate Change Authority Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee Cotton Research & Development Corporation Creative Partnerships Australia CrimTrac Department of Communications and the Arts Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Department of the House of Representatives Department of the Senate Digital Transformation Office Director of National Parks

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Fair Work Commission Federal Court of Australia Fisheries Research & Development Corporation Food Standards Australia New Zealand Future Fund Management Agency Grains Research and Development Corporation Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority High Court of Australia Independent Hospital Pricing Authority Indigenous Business Australia Indigenous Land Corporation Infrastructure Australia Inspector-General of Taxation Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited National Archives of Australia National Australia Day Council National Blood Authority National Capital Authority National Competition Council National Gallery of Australia National Health Funding Body National Health Performance Authority National Mental Health Commission National Portrait Gallery of Australia National Transport Commission Northern Land Council Office of Parliamentary Counsel Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General Organ and Tissue Authority Outback Stores Pty Ltd Parliamentary Budget Office Productivity Commission Professional Services Review RAAF Veterans' Residences Trust RAAF Welfare Recreational Company RAAF Welfare Trust Fund Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Board Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Safe Work Australia Screen Australia Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited Australian Maritime Safety Authority Tiwi Land Council Tourism Australia Workplace Gender Equality Agency Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council

Table 15: PID investigations completed and actions taken in response to recommendations

Agency	Number of disclosure investigations conducted during the financial year (s 76(2)(a)(iii) PID Act)23	Actions taken during the financial year in response to recommendations relating to those disclosure investigations (s 76(2)(a)(iv) PID Act)24
Department of Defence	149	Administrative action Further investigation under the Defence Force Disciplinary Act 1982 Further investigation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 Further investigation under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Further investigation under the Defence Act 1903 Further investigation under the Public Service Act 1999 Further investigation under the Public Governance, Performance Accountability Act 2013
Australian Postal Corporation	127	Referral for investigation pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 (e.g. Enterprise Agreements) Change to control environment Clarification and strengthening of tendering processes and controls in relation to conditions of engagement of contractors and ongoing monitoring of contractor compliance Disciplinary action Management action (change of policy procedures)
Australian Taxation Office	15	Matter referred for investigation under the Public Service Act 1999 (Code of Conduct investigation) Suspension of employment
Department of Immigration and Border Protection	11	Management Action (including staff training, establishment of complaints process and Standard Operating Procedures) Management review (including assessment of supervision, performance management and quality assurance) Disciplinary action Audit of Information Systems Management Action (review of procedures and practices) Medical Assessment
Airservices Australia	11	Internal reviews per Airservices Code of Conduct Investigation or Security and Resilience Investigation procedures conducted Staff leave application requested, supplied and approved Rostering manual updated to address inconsistency with the current workplace agreement Referral to police Incident/emergency support procedures updated to clarify employee requirements Termination of employment Sanctions applied in relation to substantiated allegations
Australian Broadcasting Corporation	8	Management action (change of policy procedures)
Department of Human Services	8	Recommendations made to pursue other HR processes in line with departmental policies, procedures and guidelines Recommended action to refer a matter to the Privacy Branch for investigation Recommended action to refer a matter to Internal Fraud for investigation
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources	5	Management action (change of policy procedures) Matter referred for investigation under the Public Service Act 1999 (Code of Conduct investigation)
Attorney-General's Department Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Crime Commission Australian Federal Police Australian Film Television and Radio School Australian Rail Track Corporation Australian Securities and Investments Commission Australian Sports Commission Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Bureau of Meteorology Comcare Department of Treasury Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Department Foreign Affairs and Trade Department of Education and Training Department of Finance Department of Health Department of Parliamentary Services Department of Social Services Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department of Veterans' Affairs Family Court & Federal Circuit Court Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House National Disability Insurance Agency National Health and Medical Research Council National Offshore Safety and Environmental Management Authority NBN Co Limited Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate Reserve Bank of Australia Torres Strait Regional Authority Intelligence agencies	57 investigations were completed by the agencies in this section This section aggregates data for agencies reporting four or fewer investigations being conducted during the period.	Adjustment to recruitment processes CEO considering further investigation under the Public Service Act 1999 (Code of Conduct investigation) Clarification of policy/procedures Consideration for review of internal procedures Disciplinary action Email circulated to staff regarding best practice procurement Management action (change of policy/procedures) Management action (update of policy/procedures) Matter referred for investigation under the Public Service Act 1999 (Code of Conduct investigation) Matters investigated with no findings of disclosable conduct Misconduct proceedings commenced No findings of disclosable conduct and no action recommended No action yet taken in relation to report recommendations Procurement review/audit undertaken Referral to the Australian Federal Police Review of internal controls Review of procedures Referral to delegate for consideration under misconduct procedures Response to be provided to discloser Support for discloser Staff educated on managerial practices relating to assessment of staff performance Suspension of employee Seven agencies reported completing investigations which did not result in recommendations being made for further action to be taken

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM

In 2015–16 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade funded the office's delivery of an International Program to improve the governance and accountability of integrity agencies in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Under the program the office worked with international ombudsmen, auditors-general, attorneys-general and law enforcement agencies to develop and share best practice complaint-handling and integrity oversight.

In 2015–16, the office delivered two programs in the Pacific region: the Pacific Ombudsman Alliance and the Pacific Governance and Anti-Corruption Program. The office also delivered three country specific programs in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.

The Pacific Ombudsman Alliance

Since 2008 the office has provided the secretariat for the Pacific Ombudsman Alliance. This is a service delivery and support organisation for ombudsmen and allied institutions in countries that are members of the Pacific Islands Forum.

Figure 18: 2015–16 Commonwealth Ombudsman's Asia-Pacific regional engagement

The Members and Secretariat of the Pacific Ombudsman Alliance, Melbourne, May 2016.

The Alliance now has 19 members and is governed by a seven member Board. In 2015–16 the Chairperson of the Board was the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Colin Neave AM.

Activities carried out by the Alliance in 2015–16 included:

The Pacific Governance and Anti-Corruption program

As part of a larger program of work within the United Nations Pacific Regional Anti-Corruption Project, the office worked with partners and stakeholders of the program (including the United Nations Development Program, the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime and the Pacific Island Centre for Public Administration) to:

• deliver regional anti-corruption training and to improve the capacity of ombudsmen, Leadership Code Commissions²⁵ and auditors-general to investigate and report on potential corruption
• help members' integrity agencies to assess the administrative and criminal investigations conducted by others.

Seven countries participated in the program: the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Samoa, Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Papua New Guinea. Key outcomes in 2015–16 included:

• a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with PICPA to express the partnership between the Commonwealth Ombudsman and PICPA
• supporting and strengthening members' integrity agencies in the creation of 'Integrity Hubs' which bring together anti-corruption mechanisms and practices at a regional level
• an anti-corruption workshop in Nadi, Fiji to identify common regional challenges in implementing anti-corruption processes across the Pacific.

The office also developed a mechanism for referring matters between integrity anti-corruption agencies in the Solomon Islands, and facilitated training of integrity agency officers in Vanuatu.

Table 16: Country-specific engagement case studies in 2015–16

	Indonesia	Papua New Guinea	Solomon Islands
Program Objectives	Assist the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia to develop and promote effective complaint-handling.	To build capacity by providing technical advisors, develop tailored training programs, and provide mentored placements for integrity agencies to the Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea (OCPNG).	Strengthen both information and computer technology and case management practices at the Office of the Ombudsman of the Solomon Islands.
Key Outcomes	Senior Indonesian Ombudsmen visited Australia in May 2016. A program of workshops, training and professional mentoring has been developed.	Review of the OCPNG's Enabling Legislation including public consultation and a joint submission to the PNG Parliamentary inquiry. Training in Security and Risk Management (and drafting of procedural policies) as well as cyber-security training for OCPNG staff. Participation in the PNG Information Studies Workshop.	As a result of this program there was a streamlining of administrative processes and strengthening of corporate services between the Ombudsman and the Leadership Code Commission.

CASE STUDY—Commonwealth Ombudsman Trans Pacific support to Tonga

The office continued its international engagement with 19 countries across the Pacific and Asia, to develop and share best practice in complaint-handling and to strengthen integrity functions.

In May, the office hosted conferences for the Pacific Ombudsman Alliance (POA) and the Australasia and Pacific Ombudsman Region. The office has robust partnerships with our counterparts in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, and program planning on a number of joint activities is underway. Our work with the Pacific Governance and Anti-corruption Program continues to grow, delivering regional anti-corruption training and helping agencies to assess investigations conducted by others.

In late 2015, our office (acting as the POA Secretariat) delivered training for the Commissioner for Public Relations (Ombudsman) (CPR) in Tonga. This sought to improve the capacity of the CPR to manage its complaints processes and to improve engagement with government agencies and the community.

This four week program took place in Tonga and included experts from the Commonwealth, New Zealand and Samoan Ombudsman offices who also collaborated to design and deliver a training course on administrative investigations.

Trainers and participants agreed that drawing experts from different jurisdictions exposed them to different challenges and opportunities to resolve issues. The activity enhanced the network of integrity agencies in the region and emphasised the important contribution of the office.

Footnotes

1 Ombudsman Act 1976 section 5(1)(b)

2 'Detention Service Providers' are defined by contract as providing services to the onshore immigration detention network currently Serco-Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, while 'service provider' is aligned to offshore or regional processing, currently Broadspectrum. International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) provides medical services across the entire network.

3 Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 36; 219 CLR 486; 208 ALR 271; 78 ALJR 1056 (6 August 2004) Gleeson CJ at para [21].

4 http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/docs/better-practice-guides/onlineBetterPracticeGuide.pdf

5 Commonwealth Ombudsman report No: 02/2013, Suicide and Self-harm in the Immigration Detention Network, May 2013, pp.51 - 52

6 A Dispute is a high level complaint where significant intervention is required.

7 Information was obtained from the survey/workbook responses of 170 agencies, including a consolidated response from the six intelligence agencies.

8 In contrast, 86 per cent of agencies conducted awareness raising/training for agency staff.

9 An internal PID is made when a public official discloses to an authorised internal recipient information which tends to show, or which the discloser believes on reasonable grounds tends to show, disclosable conduct (s 26).

10 This figure includes the Ombudsman, IGIS and a consolidated response from the six intelligence agencies. By comparison, 639 PIDs were reported in FY 2014–15, with 58 of 185 agencies receiving one or more PIDs.

11 84 per cent of PIDs were made within 31 agencies with 1000 or more employees.

12 16 per cent of PIDs were made within 38 agencies with less than 1000 employees.

13 In 2014–15, two per cent of disclosers were identified by agencies as contracted service providers.

14 Noting that there may be more than one reason for not investigating a PID, or an instance of disclosable conduct contained in a PID.

15 This should be differentiated from an investigation under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (five per cent).

16 The threshold for an internal PID is in s 26 of the PID Act.

17 See section 59 (1) and (3).

18 43 of those investigations related to complaints from this financial year; and 12 were from the previous financial year.

19 We counted the number of unique page views to seven of our main pages on the PID website, that is, the number of visits during which the specific page was viewed at least once. Where a person views the same webpage from the same computer more than once, this will only be counted as one unique page view.

20 A PID is information that has been assessed as meeting all the requirements under s 26(1) of the PID Act. These statements do not include reference to disclosures that were received under the PID Act but not assessed as meeting the s 26 requirements.

21 This column details the percentage of each kind of disclosable conduct within the PIDs referred to in Column 1, as reported by agencies, noting that an individual PID may contain allegations of instances of more than one kind of disclosable conduct. It should be noted that this table lists the disclosable conduct alleged by the discloser, but does not represent the findings made at the conclusion of any investigation of the PID.

22 The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 29 PIDs relating to other agencies.

23 This column details the number of disclosure investigations that agencies completed during 2015-16. It includes investigations that commenced during the previous financial year but were not completed. It does not include investigations by the Ombudsman and IGIS under their separate investigative powers.

24 Noting that a disclosure investigation may or may not result in a recommendation being made, and the actions taken may or may not occur in the same financial year that the disclosure investigation was completed.

25 Leadership Code Commissions have been established in some Pacific nations to enforce the Leadership Code and so improve accountability within the government and public service. They also establish criteria for defining, promoting and managing integrity, disclosure, government contracts, conflicts of interest and the application of public funds and benefits.