Part 4—What we do

• COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT
• OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
• OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
• OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
• OUR ROLE AS AN INDUSTRY OMBUDSMAN
• WORKING WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS

Complaint Management

Complaints to our Office

Public contact

In 2018–19 we received 50,237 contacts³ from the public, compared to 47,557 contacts in 2017–18. This is a 5.6 per cent increase.

Of the total contacts received, 37,388 were complaints within our jurisdiction (compared to 38,026 in 2017–18). Of these complaints, 49.8 per cent fell within our parliamentary complaints jurisdiction (complaints about Commonwealth and ACT Government agencies) and 50.2 per cent related to our industry complaints jurisdiction (such as VET Student Loans, overseas students, and private health insurance matters).

The Office finalised 34,322 in-jurisdiction complaints in 2018–19, a 2.9 per cent decrease compared to 2017–18. 18,748 of these finalised complaints were about government agencies and 15,574 were about industry bodies.

In 2018–19 the Office received 11,673 enquiries, a 37.8 per cent increase compared to 2017–18. Enquiries can include requests for information from our Office (such as a media enquiry, a Freedom of Information application or a request for one of our reports) or can relate to matters not within our jurisdiction (for example, complaints about state or territory government matters, telecommunications companies or financial service providers). In 2018–19, this number includes 3,417 submissions received from the public as part of our own motion investigation into the administration of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme. See page 62 for more information about this investigation.

The Office also received 1,176 public contacts related to the specific programs we deliver. These include reports of abuse in the Australian Defence Force, public interest disclosures, and applications for review of FOI decisions made by ACT Government agencies. More information about each of these programs is provided later in this section. Information about our activities as the ACT Ombudsman is provided in our separate ACT Ombudsman annual report.⁴

Receiving complaints

The Office receives complaints through a variety of methods. Telephone remains the most popular way to make a complaint. In 2018–19, we revamped our website to make it easier for people to find information about our services, including circumstances in which a person might be better placed pursuing their complaint through a different organisation. A priority for 2019–20 is to further improve our website to make it easier to lodge complaints online.

Figure 2—Trend in how contacts and complaints were received over the last five years

Note: For the purposes of comparison on previous years, Figure 2 excludes DFRDB contacts and program specific matters.

Complaints about government agencies

In 2018–19 we received 18,161 complaints about Commonwealth Government agencies, a decrease of five per cent on the 19,121 received in 2017–18. We also received complaints about private sector organisations through our industry ombudsman roles.

Of the complaints about commonwealth entities, 84 per cent were about three agencies: the Department of Human Services, including Centrelink and Child Support programs (11,652), the Department of Home Affairs, including the Australian Border Force (1,824)⁵ and the National Disability Insurance Agency (1,711).

Figure 3—Complaints received by government agency⁶

More information about the issues raised in relation to these agencies is provided later in this section.

Handling complaints

In 2018 the Office restructured its parliamentary complaint-handling operations to deliver a more efficient and effective complaint-handling service. One specific change was a focus on early resolution. Early resolution involves assessing which complaints can be considered quickly and an outcome reached without the need for further in-depth investigation. Common early resolution strategies include transferring a complaint back to the agency to consider or asking simple preliminary inquiries of an agency to determine answers without the need for a full investigation.

There are a number of outcomes that can result from contacting us. When a complaint about a government agency is received, the most common action we take is to advise the complainant to contact the agency that the complaint is about. We do this because in most circumstances, the most efficient way to resolve a complaint is for the agency to consider and resolve it. Other common actions are to provide the complainant with other advice to resolve their matter or to assist vulnerable or at-risk people by directly transferring their complaint to the agency concerned to consider it further.

While many complaints can be effectively assessed, and a way forward determined, without the need to contact the agency concerned, others require more in-depth investigation to determine the appropriate outcome. We may also investigate a matter even where it is not likely to lead to a better result for the individual concerned, to ensure we provide effective oversight of agencies and influence systemic improvement in public administration.

Often we will decide that we need to engage with the agency complained about to determine what happened. There are two ways we do this—by making a simple enquiry with the agency (533 complaints in 2018–19) through to commencing a more detailed investigation (1,116 complaints in 2018–19).

CASE STUDY

A complainant complained to our Office that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had deregistered their company because they had not paid the annual review fees. They told us that even though they had advised ASIC of a change to the address for their company, the annual company review fee invoices were sent to the old address and as a result, they had not paid the annual fee. Once they became aware of the error, they paid the annual review fee. They complained it was not fair to have to pay fees for late payment of the annual review fee.

We conducted preliminary inquiries and asked ASIC for information on how it processed the request to change the company address.  After receiving our preliminary inquiry, ASIC realised it had not properly processed the change of address for the company. It reassessed its handling of the matter and agreed to reinstate the company's registration and waive the fees relating to the late payment of the annual company review fee.

Investigating complaints

Investigating complaints remains a core component of the Office's function of providing oversight and assurance of government administrative action and complaint-handling. As a result of an investigation, we may make comments or suggestions to the agency. Comments or suggestions may include recommendations to change or review decisions, policy or procedural changes encouraging formal apologies to complainants and improving the quality of publicly available information.

In 2018–19 we investigated 1,116 complaints, and provided comments or suggestions to the agency in 84 cases. This does not include those cases where the agency agreed to make changes during the course of our investigation.

Outcomes

Regardless of what action we take, contact with our Office can result in a variety of outcomes including a better explanation of a decision or process, faster resolution of a matter, reconsideration of a decision and sometimes a financial remedy (for example, waiver of a debt or reinstatement of a payment to which the complainant is entitled).

In other cases, our investigation can result in independent assurance that an agency acted appropriately and made the right decision. While this is not always the outcome a person is seeking in coming to our Office, it highlights that our role is to be independent and impartial—we do not advocate for either individuals or agencies.

Figure 4 sets out the different types of outcomes following investigation of cases. Further work is underway this year to enable reporting on the outcomes we achieve without a formal investigation.

Figure 4—Investigation outcomes

Reviewing our decisions

The Office has a formal non-statutory review process for complainants who may be dissatisfied with the decision reached by the Office about a complaint. Generally, the officer who made the decision is expected to contact the complainant to discuss their concerns and if needed, consider new information or explain the decision in more detail. If the complainant is still unhappy after this contact, they can seek an internal review.

A review manager decides whether to grant a review. A review may not be granted if the review manager cannot identify any concerns with the original officer's decision. If a review is granted, the review manager allocates the review to an experienced officer who was not previously involved in the matter.

In 2018–19 we received 146 requests for review (representing 0.8 per cent of complaints finalised), compared to 155 (0.78 per cent of finalised complaints) received in 2017–18.

The review manager accepted 78 requests for further review. Review officers affirmed the original decision in 62 cases and decided to investigate the matter further in 19 cases.

Reviews are an important part of the Office's commitment to best practice complaint-handling. The Office reports internally to the executive on the issues identified in reviews and uses reviews as an opportunity to continually improve our own practices and procedures.

Accessibility of our services

The Office is committed to ensuring that our services are accessible to all people. It is particularly important that our complaint-handling processes are available in a way that all people can readily access them. In 2018–19 we undertook the following to support that commitment.

Multicultural Access and Equity Plan (MAEP)

In early 2019, the Office launched our 2019–20 Multicultural Access and Equity Plan. The plan outlines our commitment to ensuring that our services meet the needs of all Australians, regardless of their cultural and linguistic background. Through this plan, we outline practical commitments to ensure that multicultural access and equity consideration are embedded in our organisational culture.

The commitments in the plan cover Leadership, Engagement, Responsiveness, Performance, Capability and Openness. These commitments are essential to our vision of creating a service that is equitable so that all Australians are safeguarded in their dealings with Australian Government agencies and prescribed private sector organisations.

Disability accessibility

During 2018–19, we continued to implement recommendations arising from our Office's review of its disability accessibility by specialist disability consultants, WestWood Spice and Partners. We launched our new website, featuring improved layouts and content focussed on ease of use for people wanting to contact our Office. We also rolled out Disability confident managing and recruiting training for our staff, which ensures that recruitment and selection teams are disability aware and confident and that managers are better able to supervise staff with disability.

Indigenous accessibility

A review of the Office's accessibility and inclusiveness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities was conducted by the Aboriginal communications company Gilimbaa Pty Ltd in 2017. The review considered all aspects of the Office's operations and made recommendations to improve our approach to engaging with Indigenous complainants and stakeholders. During 2018–19, we implemented recommendations promoting and supporting the importance of effective communication with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander audiences, which involved identifying Indigenous champions in our public contact areas, and working across the Office to ensure that complaint-handling practices are culturally appropriate.

We delivered training to staff in how to use Indigenous Language Interpreters to communicate and engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities. We also refined our intake processes to improve the identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander complainants, enhancing our ability to collect information about the locations, volume and type of complaints from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This information directly improves our services and assists us in identifying current and emerging systemic issues.

Outreach and community and stakeholder engagement

The Office conducts outreach and stakeholder engagement activities to raise awareness of the role of the Ombudsman's Office and to gather information about systemic issues with government service delivery.

Our outreach activities involve holding round table meetings and visiting community organisations to discuss systemic issues with government service delivery. In 2018–19, we conducted outreach in western Sydney, Logan in Brisbane, southern Perth and north-east Alice Springs.

Our stakeholder engagement involves participating in community forums and networks and engaging directly with non-government organisations that represent people accessing government services.

Complaint assurance initiatives

A strong complaint-handling system is an integral part of an agency's performance management and measurement of customer satisfaction. Well-managed complaints can:

• improve trust with people and the perceived integrity of agencies
• lead to better services for people
• identify systemic issues or areas for improvement within agencies.

We often refer the complainant back to the agency about which they are complaining, in order to have their complaints handled by the agency. Starting in 2018–19 and continuing in 2019–20, we have commenced a number of initiatives to assist us to gain assurance that complainants will have their complaints handled appropriately if they are referred back.

We have established an education program, to enable us to share our complaint-handling experience with agency staff. We have trialled a Complaint Assurance Project, to examine complaint-handling policies and practices within agencies to identify best practice and opportunities for improvement. We are rolling out feedback loops for some select complaints we transfer back to agencies, to provide us with assurance that the agency has properly addressed the matter. Finally, in 2019–20 we will be undertaking a satisfaction survey, to critically assess both our own complaint-handling performance and to better understand the experience of those complainants we referred back to the agency.

Amie Meers, Tina Meimaris and Charles Turner visiting the Ampilatwatja Centrelink agent access point, north east of Alice Springs.

Figure 5—Complaint assurance initiatives

Education program

In 2018–19 we initiated an education program targeted at improving complaint-handling by public sector agencies. We developed the program as a way of proactively educating agencies on best practice complaint-handling. Our vision is that with a robust agency-focused education program, we will assist agencies to manage complaints effectively and efficiently while using complaints as a valuable tool to improve their service delivery. This program builds on the Commonwealth Complaint-Handling Forum, which we have successfully held for many years to bring together complaint-handling staff from across Australia.

In May 2019, we introduced a one day interactive complaint-handling workshop based on our Office's Better Practice Guide to Complaint-Handling. The workshop examines the essential elements of an effective complaint-handling system and invites participants to think critically about their agency's complaint-handling processes. The workshop is targeted at frontline complaint-handling staff and their supervisors.

Complaint Assurance Project

The Office is piloting has started a Complaint Assurance Project to review participating agencies' complaint management services in line with the requirements of the Office's Better Practice Complaint-Handling Guide.⁷ This involves working collaboratively with participating agencies to engage in a self-assessment and oversight process to:

• promote agency-led quality assurance in complaints management
• establish a model for agencies to self-identify trends, systemic issues and areas for improvement
• assist agencies to identify and improve complaint management
• recognise accomplishments and better practice improvements within agency complaint management
• share areas of potential business process improvements with other agencies.

The project involves the completion of a self-assessment questionnaire by the agency and a review of supporting documentation and complaint sampling by our Office.

At the end of the process, our Office will develop a report that identifies best practice and recommendations for improvement. If the pilot is successful, a rolling program involving other agencies will be developed.

On 14 June 2019, the Office hosted the seventh Commonwealth Complaint-Handling Forum at the National Museum of Australia. This year's theme, 'Complaint-handling in the modern world', led to thought provoking presentations and workshops as we explored the current and emerging challenges in complaint-handling. This year's forum was led by joint keynote presentations by Megan Hunter from the High Conflict Institute and David Locke, CEO and Chief Ombudsman of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

Workshops by the National Office for Child Safety, the Department of Human Services–Child Support, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, along with a panel discussion by industry complaint-handling organisations, rounded out another stimulating forum.

Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with many suggestions to help make the 2020 event another success!

Oversight of government agencies

We work with government agencies to influence enduring systemic improvement in public administration. We do this by monitoring our complaints data, investigating systemic issues and meeting with agencies on a regular basis to explore issues and receive briefings on program or service delivery changes.

For example, in 2018–19 we worked with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) to monitor the administration of penalties applied to remote job seekers in the Community Development Programme (CDP). Our complaint investigations identified issues associated with the flow of information across the program, participant activity plans and barriers experienced by participants in attempting to access employment services assessment processes.

On 21 September 2018 the acting Ombudsman appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018. The bill sought to extend the targeted compliance framework that currently applies to jobseekers to CDP participants, and the Office provided information about issues identified through complaints and from outreach to remote communities.

We also worked with the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business to monitor complaints about the jobactive program, which represents 80 per cent of complaints about the department. Jobactive program participants are encouraged to make a complaint to their provider in the first instance. Where they are not satisfied with the outcome of their complaint, jobactive participants can access the department's National Customer Service Line (NCSL) either by phone or email. The Department also has a complaint form available on its website.

CASE STUDY

A complainant was a participant in the jobactive program and was referred to a position as a labourer by an employment service provider. They found out they were being underpaid, and their provider referred them to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) who advised they had a right to leave the position and assisted them in doing so.

The complainant told their provider they had left, but the provider lodged a non-compliance report to Centrelink, resulting in their Newstart Allowance being suspended. When they complained to the National Customer Service Line (NCSL), they were told to contact the Fair Work Ombudsman.

They then made a complaint to our Office. Our investigation identified errors on the part of the provider and found that on the basis of the information that was provided in the complaint to the NCSL, it would have been appropriate for the NCSL to refer the complaint to the provider for further investigation. The complainant's payment was restored, with back pay, and their record corrected.

Department of Human Services

The Department of Human Services (DHS) is responsible for delivering a range of social welfare, health, child support and other payments and services to millions of people across Australia. This includes Centrelink payments and services for retirees, the unemployed, families, carers and students, as well as aged care payments to services that are funded under the Aged Care Act 1997, and Child Support services.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 11,652 complaints and finalised 11,702. This is a 7.5 per cent decrease in complaints received, compared to 2017–18.

Table 1—DHS complaints

DHS programs	2018–19
Centrelink	10,300
Child Support	1,100
Department of Human Services	252
	11,652

Centrelink program complaints

Complaints about Centrelink continue to make up a substantial proportion of complaints made to the Office, representing 55 per cent of the total number of complaints made about Commonwealth Government agencies. Approximately 31 per cent of issues raised in Centrelink complaints are about Disability Support Pension (DSP) and Newstart Allowance (NSA). Figure 6 shows the main issues raised about Centrelink.

CASE STUDY

In 2013, Centrelink granted a claim for a complainant for the Age Pension. In 2017, the person's financial advisers identified that they were incorrectly receiving a reduced rate of Age Pension because Centrelink believed they were a homeowner.

The complainant sought compensation from Centrelink under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) Scheme on the basis that their claim had been incorrectly assessed and they had been underpaid for four years. Centrelink assessed the CDDA claim and decided that compensation was not payable.

They made a complaint to our Office. Following our investigation, Centrelink offered compensation in the form of an amount in excess of $25,000, equal to the additional Age Pension that they should have been paid over the four year period.

Figure 6—Centrelink complaint issues

Investigations

In April 2019, the Office published a report on the implementation of recommendations arising from our 2017 report into Centrelink's automated debt raising and recovery system. We found that DHS had made significant progress in implementing our recommendations, but thought some further action was required so made four additional recommendations to improve transparency and fairness. We continue to investigate complaints about this issue.

Feedback loop

We have been working with DHS to establish a feedback loop for complaints that we transfer directly to DHS. We do this where a person has not complained to DHS in the first instance and we think the person is particularly vulnerable and/or will need help with their concerns. DHS provides a quarterly report on all complaints we transfer to the department. The report includes information about whether the person received the outcome they were seeking, and the time it took DHS to contact the person and to resolve the complaint. DHS also provides more detailed information on a sample of complaints each quarter, so we can see the steps DHS took to respond to the complaint.

Child Support Program

Our Office has jurisdiction to investigate complaints about DHS' administration of the Child Support program. This includes child support assessments, registering child support agreements, and collecting and disbursing child support between separated parents and the carers of eligible children.

In 2018–19 the number of complaints received about Child Support decreased by 16.3 per cent. The majority of complaints received in 2018–19 were from paying parents. The main complaint themes were regarding the collection and enforcement of child support liabilities, formula assessments, change of assessments and customer service.

In addition to investigating individual complaints, the Office liaised with DHS on a range of Child Support matters, including the Parent Support Team pilot for vulnerable clients, debt recovery processes, and the continued rollout and implementation of a new information technology system.

National Disability Insurance Agency

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) administers the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), a Commonwealth scheme that provides funding to people with disability to assist them to participate in everyday activities. People who enter the NDIS are known as participants.

The NDIS is being introduced across Australia. At 30 June 2019, 298,816 participants had received approved plans (or were in the Early Childhood Early Intervention gateway). Approximately 460,000 participants are projected to be in the scheme by July 2020. How and when people with disability are able to access the NDIS depends on the state or territory in which they live and whether they have accessed disability services before. As at 30 June 2019, people across most of Australia can access the NDIS, with the roll out of the scheme in Western Australia due for completion by June 2020.

The Office handles complaints about the NDIA's administrative actions and decisions. We can also consider complaints about organisations that are contracted to deliver services on behalf of the NDIA, including local area coordinators who conduct information gathering and pre-planning interviews and Early Childhood Early Intervention partners.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 1,711 complaints and finalised 1,764. This is a 12 per cent increase in complaints received compared to 2017–18. During the same period the number of NDIS participants increased by 62 per cent.

Figure 7—NDIA complaints received

Complaints to our Office in 2018–19 covered many aspects of participants' experiences with the NDIS, as well as providers' experiences. The most common complaint issue was the NDIA's handling of reviews of plans and decisions.

Other common complaint issues included:

• Difficulty and delays in navigating the assistive technology process, and having funding for assistive technology included in plans for things like home and vehicle modifications.
• Dissatisfaction with the NDIA's handling of complaints made to its complaints service.
• Delays in deciding requests for access to the NDIS and confusion about timeframes for receiving an NDIS plan after access to the scheme is granted.
• Dissatisfaction with the process and outcome of planning meetings.

A breakdown of complaint issues is provided in Figure 8.

Figure 8—NDIA complaint issues 2018–19

CASE STUDY

A complainant requested a review of the NDIA's decision to decline the request for specialist funding for a wheelchair (in their child's plan). The NDIA undertook the review and confirmed its original decision. Although the NDIA verbally told the complainant the decision, it did not send them or their child a written decision. Without a written decision, they were unable to seek merits review of the NDIA's decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

They complained to our Office. We contacted the NDIA and it sent a decision letter to their child. They were then able to exercise their rights to review the NDIA's decision.

Handling of reviews

In 2018–19, complaints about reviews including delays and decisions continued to feature prominently in complaints to the Office about the NDIA.

We are continuing to follow up the NDIA's implementation of the recommendations made in our public report, Administration of reviews under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. The report made 20 recommendations aimed at improving review processes, communication with participants and review timeframes.

Accessing assistive technology

Complaints about the NDIA's administration of assistive technology increased this year to 12.6 per cent of all NDIA complaints to the Office, compared with five per cent of NDIA complaints last year.

Many of the complaints highlight difficulties experienced by participants in having funding for assistive technology included in their NDIS plan and in obtaining clear and timely responses from the NDIA about what is needed to support the assistive technology request.

In late 2018, the Ombudsman made a submission to and appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS's inquiry into the provision of assistive technology. Our submission highlighted the issues raised in complaints to the Office including:

• delays in making decisions
• an apparent lack of clear guidance about how to make a request and what information or evidence is required
• inconsistencies in advice about who can prepare assistive technology quotes and what they need to include.

CASE STUDY

A person contacted our Office due to delays in receiving assistive technology in their NDIS plan. They told us they were in hospital and were waiting for the NDIA to approve funds so they could obtain customised mobility equipment, and have modifications made to their home. Once the modifications were made they could leave hospital and go home. They told us that they had followed all the steps including providing quotes and assessments, and despite calling the NDIA multiple times had waited five months for a decision before approaching our Office.

We investigated their complaint. We noted that the request had been handled by multiple teams and there had been lengthy delays in both processing the request and responding to the participant's attempts in following up the NDIA's decision.

During the investigation, the NDIA acknowledged the complexity of this participant's circumstances. It took action to provide a support coordinator to assist the participant in engaging with the hospital and in obtaining the mobility equipment and the required modifications, so the participant could leave hospital and return home.

Defence Force Ombudsman

Our role as the Defence Force Ombudsman involves two main functions. We provide an independent complaints mechanism for serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Since 2016, we have received reports of serious abuse from serving and former members of Defence who feel they are unable to access Defence's internal mechanisms.

Complaints function

As the Defence Force Ombudsman, we receive and investigate complaints about administrative action taken by Defence agencies, including the the three services (Navy, Army and Air Force), the Department of Defence (Defence), the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) and Defence Housing Australia.

Defence complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 471 complaints about Defence agencies and finalised 491. This is a 27.9 per cent decrease in comparison to complaints received in 2017–18. Complaints about Defence agencies, raised concerns about issues such as:

• termination, separation and transition
• service delivery
• redress of grievance
• Defence force recruiting.

Investigations

In July 2018, the Ombudsman published a report on our Investigation into the Actions and Decisions of the Department of Veterans' Affairs into the handling of a complex case involving compensation and disability benefits. The report made a number of recommendations to improve DVA's administration of veterans' payments. The department worked collaboratively with the Office and accepted all our recommendations. DVA has advised it is implementing significant systemic changes, as part of its transformation agenda, to improve the way it manages and interacts with veterans and their families. The Office will continue to monitor DVA's ongoing work to implement our recommendations.

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme—own motion investigation

On 5 April 2019, the Ombudsman commenced an own motion investigation into the administration of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) scheme, specifically the issue of commutation.

The investigation is focused on accuracy of information about commutation provided to scheme members by the Department of Defence, ADF and scheme administrators (including the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) and its predecessors).

Given the significant public interest in this matter, we invited public submissions and received 3417 submissions from scheme members. We have also requested and obtained relevant records from Defence and CSC, going back more than 40 years.

We intend to finalise our investigation before the end of 2019. We will publish updates on the progress of the investigation here: ombudsman.gov.au/dfrdb

Abuse reporting function

Since 1 December 2016, the Ombudsman has been able to receive reports of contemporary and historical abuse within Defence. This provides an independent and confidential mechanism to report abuse for those who feel unable to access Defence's internal mechanisms.

Abuse means sexual abuse, serious physical abuse or serious bullying or harassment which occurred between two (or more) people who were employed in Defence at the time.

Our delivery of the abuse reporting program is based around three functions:

• We provide a supportive, trauma-informed liaison role to those who report abuse to the Office.
• We assess all reports of abuse to determine whether they are within our jurisdiction and, if requested by the reportee, whether they meet the government's reparation payment framework.
• We deliver available responses including a recommendation for a reparation payment where available, participation in the Office's Restorative Engagement Program, or a facilitated referral for counselling.

In 2018–19, we received 482 reports of abuse compared to 457 in 2017–18. Of the matters assessed in 2018–19, we accepted 542 reports to be in jurisdiction.

Figure 9—Reports of abuse received

Of the total 542 reports assessed in jurisdiction, the most reported locations were:

Figure 10—Most reported locations

Every person reporting abuse is assigned a dedicated Liaison Officer, who is practiced in communication skills that ensure clear, accurate and empathic messaging and understanding that an experience of trauma can affect a person's ability to engage in processes that may be beneficial. Liaison Officers work closely with reportees to establish rapport and encourage trust.

All reports are thoroughly assessed and the Ombudsman's delegate decides if the report involves serious abuse which is reasonably likely to have occurred in connection with the person's service in Defence. If a report is not accepted, reportees may seek an internal review of our decision.

Most reports of abuse made to our Office relate to conduct and behaviour that occurred many years ago. Of the total 1,101 reports received, only five per cent of reports relate to abuse alleged to have occurred after 30 June 2014.

We receive a range of feedback from current and former Defence members about the processes and outcomes of making a report of abuse to our Office. While many people tell us that it was a positive experience, and in some cases life changing, for some people the process has been challenging and disappointing when the outcome is not what they expected. We value feedback and use it to inform and improve how we manage reports, the information we provide and the assessments we make.

Reparation Payments

On 15 December 2017, the Australian Government determined that for the most serious forms of abuse and/or sexual assault, the Ombudsman may recommend Defence make a reparation payment.

There are two possible payments which we may recommend:

• A payment of up to $45,000 to acknowledge the most serious forms of abuse.
• A payment of up to $20,000 to acknowledge other abuse involving unlawful interference, accompanied by some element of indecency.

If the Office recommends one of these payments, an additional payment of $5,000 may also be recommended where the Ombudsman is satisfied that Defence did not respond appropriately to the report of abuse. As reparation payments are limited, not all reports of abuse will meet the parameters set out in the framework.

Since the announcement of the reparation framework, the Ombudsman's delegate has sent 370 reparation payment recommendations to Defence. As at 30 June 2019, Defence had considered and accepted 327 recommendations.

Restorative Engagement Program

The Restorative Engagement Program is designed to support a reportee to tell their personal story of abuse to a senior representative from Defence in a private, facilitated meeting called a Restorative Engagement Conference. The conference provides the opportunity for Defence to acknowledge and respond to an individual's personal account of abuse.

A secondary objective of the program is to enable a broader level of insight into the impact of abuse and its implications for Defence, which is critical to informing and building cultural change strategies.

Participation in the program is a choice made by the reportees. We explain the objectives of the program to help them make a choice about whether or not to participate.

In 2018–19, a total of 16 Restorative Engagement Conferences were convened with reportees, independent facilitators and Defence representatives. We received feedback via a survey from eight reportees who participated in a conference.

Overall, feedback was positive in terms of the personal benefits such as being able to 'leave bad memories behind' and getting an apology from Defence. Reportees also agreed or strongly agreed they were consulted about the process and had input, felt safe and were supported by the facilitator. Reportees agreed they were able to say what they wanted to say, including about the impacts of the abuse, and they were respected, listened to and believed by the Defence representative.

All reportees who completed the survey agreed or strongly agreed that their relationship, reputation and identity with Defence was repaired or reconciled through the Restorative Engagement Conference.

Defence Health Check

In 2017, the Office established the Defence Health Check as part of our Defence abuse reporting function. The Health Check is a rolling investigation which considers Defence's internal policies and procedures for making and handling complaints about abuse and unacceptable behaviour. In 2018, the Office investigated the adequacy of Defence's written policies for making and responding to reports of abuse. The Ombudsman made six recommendations to Defence to improve consistency and accessibility of the relevant policies.

As part of the Health Check the Office has also completed a review of our Defence abuse reporting function.

We anticipate releasing both reports in the second half of 2019.

The next stage of the Health Check will review the training Defence provides to new recruits in relation to unacceptable behaviour across the three services.

Immigration Ombudsman

The Office investigates complaints about the migration and border protection functions of the Department of Home Affairs and its operational arm, the Australian Border Force (ABF). In addition to dealing with complaints regarding immigration matters, the Office also inspects immigration detention facilities in Australia and elements of offshore processing centres that are within our jurisdiction.

Under the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act), the Office also has a statutory role to provide the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs an assessment of the appropriateness of a person's detention when that person has been in immigration detention for two years and every six months thereafter.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19, we received 1,824 complaints about the department, compared with 1,838 complaints in 2017–18.

Complaints concerning Temporary, Bridging and Protection Visas made up the largest category of complaints, followed by Citizenship and Migration, and Detention, Visa Cancellation, Compliance and Removals.

Figure 11—Complaints overview

CASE STUDY

On 22 January 2018, the Department of Home Affairs introduced a new visitor management policy which changed the conditions of entry and entry application process for personal and professional visitors to immigration detention facilities.

The Office monitored the implementation of the policy through our complaints, our inspections of immigration detention facilities and our engagement with stakeholders. In October 2018 we provided an issues paper to the department, outlining our concerns about the policy and making 13 recommendations.

We recommended that the ABF clarify elements of the policy on its website, the application information sheet and the Visiting Multiple Detainees request form; clarify which visitor application process applies to volunteer and community groups and which applies to individuals; and explain how the policy changes would affect these groups on both its website and the Visiting Multiple Detainees request form. The department accepted ten of our recommendations.

In April 2019, the department advised us that the ABF website has been updated to clarify and differentiate the process applying to volunteer and community groups and the process applying to individual visitors. The Office has not received any further complaints raising issues about the introduction of the policy.

Own motion investigations

In December 2018 the Office released an own motion investigation report, Preventing the immigration detention of Australian citizens—Investigation into the Department of Home Affairs' implementation of the Thom Review.⁸ The investigation looked into the department's implementation of recommendations from the Independent review of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection into the circumstances of the detention of two Australian citizens by Dr Vivienne Thom AM⁹ at a selection of critical points across the immigration detention process. This identified gaps, where the department's implementation activities had not entirely met its intent or the intent of the relevant recommendations.

Our report made 15 recommendations to the department to address these gaps. The department accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations, 14 in full and one in part. The Office is following up on the implementation 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 and later released as not-unlawful because the department identified the person was an Australian citizen or held a valid visa at the time of detention. Our analysis of these reports indicates that defective notifications continue to be the main cause of inappropriate detention of lawful non-citizens, accounting for 31 of the 44 cases in 2018.

CASE STUDY

A complainant approached our Office as they had recently applied to Centrelink for childcare subsidies and was advised that before their application could be approved, they needed the Department of Home Affairs to update their travel record. The complainant had travelled overseas with their parents when they were a child but their return to Australia was not recorded by the department. The complainant contacted the department, provided exit and re-entry dates and requested that their record be updated.

After some time, they raised a formal complaint with the department about the delay in updating their travel record. As the complainant could not access the subsidy from Centrelink, they were in debt with the childcare centre and their child was no longer able to attend. A response was received from the department which advised the record could not be updated because there was no record of their return to Australia.

The complainant contacted our Office. The Office considered that there was more the department could do to assist and transferred the complaint to the department. On the same day it received the transferred complaint, the department located and corrected the travel record and advised both the complainant and Centrelink of the correction.

Statutory Reporting under s 486O of the Migration Act

Section 486N of the Migration Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to provide the Ombudsman a report on the detention circumstances of any person who has been in immigration detention for two years, and every six months thereafter. This report includes details of the person's case progression, detention history, medical treatment, family information and any relevant criminal or security concerns.

Under s 486O the Office makes an assessment of the detention circumstances of each person, and provides this assessment to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The assessment may include recommendations the Ombudsman considers appropriate. The Minister tables a de-identified copy in Parliament, which includes a response to any recommendations.

In 2018–19 we received 1,069 s 486N reports from the department. We sent 722 s 486O assessments to the Minister, including 248 recommendations, which were based on 1,034 reports from the department. The recommendations relate to the following issues that have been evidenced through the detention reports this year:

• There is a cohort of people who are in long term detention, either in the community or a detention facility, for whom there is no apparent resolution to their case. These include people who for various reasons cannot be removed from Australia, but who remain in detention as they have been assessed as not passing the character test imposed by the Migration Act. While we recognise the constraints such circumstances place on the Minister and the department, we continue to make recommendations for an outcome for these individuals.
• There is a small number of Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) who have received an adverse or qualified security assessment (QSA) and continue to be held in immigration detention. Unlike holders of an adverse assessment, detainees with a QSA may be released from an immigration detention facility, either to a community placement or on a bridging visa and we continue to make recommendations for consideration of whether these detainees could be released from an immigration facility either into community detention or on a bridging visa.
• A number of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by sea after 19 July 2013 and transferred to a Regional Processing Country (RPC) have been returned to Australia to receive medical treatment. Under current policy settings these people remain liable to be returned to an RPC when their medical treatment has concluded. We continue to make recommendations that the department explore options to address this cohort's prolonged detention.
• The movement and placement of individuals in the detention network that impacts their access to family and support networks and their ability to attend specialist medical or court appointments.
• Delays in case progression, including processing of requests for revocation of visa cancellation decisions.
• Family members on different immigration pathways.

Detention inspections

The Migration Act enables the detention of unlawful non-citizens, such as those who enter or remain in Australia without a valid visa. Detention has been mandatory for all unauthorised maritime arrivals since 1994¹⁰ and for people whose visas have been cancelled on character grounds since 2014.¹¹

While placement in an immigration detention facility is mandatory for certain cohorts, it is administrative in nature—an individual is detained for the purpose of conducting an administrative function.

Currently the operations of the immigration detention network are not supported by a legislative framework. The reliance on an administrative rather than a legislative framework to underpin the operations of the network remains a concern for our Office.

The Office undertakes oversight of immigration detention facilities. The inspection function has been undertaken under the provisions of the Ombudsman's own motion powers.¹²

During 2018–19 we inspected the immigration detention facilities listed in Table 2.

Table 2—Immigration detention facility inspections

Immigration Detention or Regional Processing Facility	Location	Timing
Adelaide Immigration Transit Accommodation	Adelaide SA	September 2018 April 2019
Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation	Brisbane QLD	September 2018 June 2019
Manus Island	Papua New Guinea	July 2018
Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation	Melbourne VIC	December 2018 March 2019
Nauru Regional Processing Centre	Nauru	December 2018
Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre	Christmas Island Indian Ocean Territories	August 2018
Perth Immigration Detention Centre	Perth WA	October 2018 May 2019
Villawood Immigration Detention Centre	Sydney NSW	October 2018 April 2019
Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre	Northam WA	October 2018 April 2019
Transfer Operations	Sydney-Melbourne-Perth-Christmas Island-Perth-Melbourne Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane-Perth-Melbourne	August 2018 March 2019

During these inspections we examine the administrative and operational practices and procedures of the centres. The Office provides feedback to the facility after each visit, including any observations and suggestions. The Office submits a formal report to the department at the end of each inspection cycle (every six months) to summarise our inspection activities and observations.

The issues that arose over this reporting period include:

• placement of detainees in the detention network
• security risk rating assessment
• use of certain restrictive practices in detention
• use of security-based models within administrative detention
• internal complaint management
• facilities available within the new high security compounds
• introduction of the high security vehicles
• management of non-medical Alternative Places of Detention (APOD)

Assessments of the services provided to asylum seekers undergoing regional processing on Nauru and/or Papua New Guinea is limited to those functions directly contracted by the Australian Government and provided onsite to asylum seekers and refugees. This assessment does not consider the actions or the services provided by the respective host nations.

Placement of detainees in the detention network

The Australian Government, through the Australian Border Force (ABF) and its respective facility Superintendents, has a duty of care to all detainees.¹³ The Office continues to be concerned about the number of detainees who are placed in facilities which are in a different state to their families or support networks.  We acknowledge that operational needs, such as the shortage of beds in a number of east coast centres and security risk ratings, will have an impact on placement decisions. We have noted improvements in placement decisions, with greater weighting being placed on family, medical and legal considerations.

We encourage the ABF to continue to take all relevant information into account when placing detainees in the network, including considering the positive influence on detainees of being placed in locations that maintain strong family engagement, access to legal representatives and support networks.

Security risk assessments

The Office continues to be concerned about the consequences of an inaccurate or a poorly analysed security risk assessment that is applied to a detainee without consideration of individual circumstances. During our inspections we undertook assessments of the security risk assessment processes in each facility and noted ongoing issues with the algorithm that underpins the security risk assessment tool.  The algorithms appear to be rigid in their application and make linkages between behaviours and outcomes that are not supported by the evidence available to the analyst.

The ABF had scheduled a review of its security risk assessment process including the assessment tool for this reporting period, but this did not eventuate.

Restrictive practices in detention

The department and their service providers have a duty of care to both detainees and staff to protect them from violent or aggressive behaviours and damage to people or property. We acknowledge that there are occasions where, for the good order, security and welfare of the facility, a detainee may need to be placed in restraints or moved to a low stimulus environment (High Care Accommodation). However we have noted the following concerns.

Use of restraints

We acknowledge mechanical restraints may be required for detainees who pose an unacceptable flight risk or are of such a violent disposition that there is no other option to address the risk of injury to themselves or others and/or damage to property.  We remain concerned that the use of mechanical restraints is the first rather than last choice to address these risks, especially during:

• long haul air transfers where detainees are mechanically restrained with two escorting officers for the duration of the flight
• attendance at medical or other appointments where we have been advised by detainees that they have declined to attend medical appointments as being handcuffed and walked through a hospital or other public area is demeaning and embarrassing.

Security-based model of administrative detention

We acknowledge that the number of detainees currently in immigration detention with histories of violent or anti-social behaviours requires an increased focus on safety and security.  During 2018–19 we noted the continued use of 'controlled movement models', with the most restrictive of all operational models being the preferred operating model for the majority of the network. This was particularly evident in facilities where high security compounds were newly commissioned and the detainee population had increased with the transfer of detainees from high security facilities to facilities that had once been a low/medium security facility.

In this model, detainees are restricted to specific compounds and are unable to move freely within the centre. We acknowledge there are circumstances where this model is appropriate, such as in facilities where detainees are vulnerable to coercion or intimidation immediately following periods of unrest or where the detainees' ongoing behaviours warrant a high level of protective security. However, this model should not be the first preference for an administrative detention environment.

We remain concerned that security is consistently outweighing welfare considerations in operational decision making. Both welfare and security considerations are of equal importance and neither should be automatically preferred when operational matters are being decided.

Internal complaint management

The management of internal complaints continued to be one of our primary focuses during the 2018–19 period. Record-keeping and investigative practices remain inconsistent throughout the network. While we noted strong record-keeping and investigative practices in some facilities, we noted a significant deterioration in other facilities. We continued to work with stakeholders during this period to address the shortfalls in record-keeping and complaint resolution practices, including the development of effective complaint management process and internal quality assurance processes.

Facilities

During this reporting period the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) closed and the Christmas Island IDC was placed into contingency mode, then reopened again. Redevelopment of the Melbourne and Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation Centres (ITA) and the Yongah Hill IDC were also completed in this period.

The modularised high security compounds at Melbourne ITA and Yongah Hill IDC were commissioned during the latter period of this reporting period. We noted a number of significant shortfalls in the provision of suitable accommodation in these compounds including:

• Mobility access to accommodation units. Most of the new high security compounds do not adequately provide for a mobility impaired detainee and do not appear to meet the required access standards.¹⁴ In one of the facilities we observed that the outside areas of the compounds, including recreation space, pose a significant risk of trips or falls for all detainees due to poor drainage and inadequate preparation of the compound prior to occupancy.
• Privacy considerations in reception, rooms and High Care Accommodation.
• Lack of facilities to appropriately distribute medicines.
• Lack of facilities for programs and activities, for example the programs and activities rooms within the compounds had not been fitted out with appropriate equipment and remained empty, the access to seating in the common rooms was poorly designed and there was limited access to individual entertainment.
• The accommodation rooms do not have any capacity for detainees to secure personal property in their possession.

Transport and Escort

During this inspection cycle we observed the introduction of the Serco high security vehicle. This vehicle is based on a custodial services vehicle used to transport convicted criminals between facilities or courts.

During 2018–19 these vehicles were in use without appropriate guidelines or directions in place as to how this vehicle was to be used, under what circumstances and with whose authority.

We acknowledge that the ABF has directed the vehicles be removed from the authorised fleet. We remain of the view that new equipment including vehicles should not be introduced without detailed policy and procedural guidelines being in place.

Alternative Places of Detention (APOD)

An APOD is any place declared to be a place of detention and may include hospital facilities, mental health facilities, and hotel rooms or serviced apartments. APODs are established where it is not appropriate to house a person in an established detention facility and can exist for periods of a few hours to weeks or months.

During 2018–19 we noted an increase in the use of APODs to house family groups with children and other vulnerable detainees including medical transferees and their support from regional processing countries.

We acknowledge that choice and location of an APOD that is not a medical facility is dictated by availability and appropriate cost considerations. However, we have noted that a number of motels used as APODs have limited onsite access to outdoor recreational space, educational, cultural and religious activities. The lack of outdoor space is of particular concern when children are involved.

Where an APOD is established and is likely to be in operation for more than a few days it is reasonable for the detainees to have access to appropriate welfare and engagement services including programs and activities.  In a number of locations it was apparent these services had not been provided.  In one particular location, service providers were confused as to what level of welfare support should be provided at an APOD, and who should provide it.

Oversight of Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement Ombudsman

Our role as the Law Enforcement Ombudsman involves oversight of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), for which we have three main functions. We assess and investigate complaints about the AFP, receive mandatory notifications from the AFP regarding complaints about serious misconduct involving its members, under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (AFP Act), and conduct statutory reviews of the AFP's administration of Part V of the AFP Act.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 262 complaints and finalised 263 complaints about the AFP.¹⁵ This is a 1.6 per cent decrease from complaints received in 2017–18. The issues raised by the public in AFP complaints to our Office concerned:

• inappropriate action, including the failure to investigate complaints or inadequate investigation of complaints
• customer service experiences when making complaints.

Under the AFP Act, the AFP is required to notify our Office about any complaints it receives about serious misconduct matters. The AFP complied with this obligation during 2018–19.

The Office conducted one review of the AFP's administration of Part V of the AFP Act during the year, with the report to be published in 2019–20. We published the 2017–18 annual report under Part V of the AFP Act in May 2019. As part of this year's review, we engaged with the AFP Professional Standards (PRS) team and Safe Place team¹⁶ to discuss their management of complaints under Part V of the AFP Act.

CASE STUDY

AFP Safe Place was established to provide support to people who have suffered sexual harassment or bullying and to give them the reassurance that their concerns will be treated with respect, sensitivity and confidentiality. Safe Place is available to former and current AFP members, who are encouraged to bring matters to the team, even if they have already reported previously through existing processes. In 2017–18, we met with representatives from Safe Place to discuss their management of complaints under Part V of the AFP Act.

In 2018–19, we made recommendations to the AFP regarding Safe Place and the handling of complaints. These recommendations included:

• The AFP update its policies and procedures to provide both written and verbal information to complainants to ensure they are provided with consistent information and the integrity of the investigation and decision process can be easily established and reviewed.
• The AFP ensure investigators are aware of appropriate notification practices and procedures.

The AFP undertook to implement our recommendations to improve its policies and procedures in relation to Safe Place. The Office will continue to monitor this program through our reviews under Part V of the AFP Act, regular liaison with the AFP and any complaints we may receive.

Our 2017–18 reviews found the AFP's administration of Part V of the Act to be comprehensive and adequate with matters investigated appropriately. However, we identified some deficiencies in how the AFP responds to practices issues and made several suggestions to improve record-keeping processes, and adherence to legislative requirements and standard operating procedures.

Inspections of covert, intrusive or coercive powers

Oversight activities

In 2018–19, the Office performed oversight functions under various pieces of legislation which grant intrusive and covert powers to certain law enforcement agencies, for example under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914.

We are required to inspect the records of enforcement agencies and report to the Minister¹⁷ on agencies' compliance with the above legislation. Reports to the Minister are subsequently tabled in Parliament.

The Office also performed oversight functions in relation to specific coercive information gathering powers¹⁸ used by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) under the Fair Work Act 2009, and the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016. Our role is to review and report quarterly to Parliament on the exercise of these powers by the ABCC and FWO.

Overview of our oversight activities in 2018–19

Table 3—Law enforcement and integrity agencies subject to inspections and reviews by the Office

Power	Legislation	Agencies subject to inspection
Controlled operations authorities	Crimes Act 1914 – Part IAB	AFP ACLEI ACIC
Delayed notification search warrants	Crimes Act 1914 – Part IAAA	AFP
Control orders	Crimes Act 1914 – Part IAAB	AFP
Industry assistance requests and notices	Telecommunications Act 1997 – Part 15	All State/Territory police forces, plus: AFP ACIC
Telecommunications interceptions	Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 – Chapter 2	AFP ACLEI ACIC
Stored communications	Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 – Chapter 3	All State/Territory police forces, plus: ACIC ACCC ACLEI AFP ASIC Corruption & Crime Commission (WA) Crime & Corruption Commission (QLD) Home Affairs IBAC (Victoria) Law Enforcement Conduct Commission NSW Crime Commission ICAC (NSW) ICAC (SA)
Telecommunications data (metadata)	Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 – Chapter 4
Surveillance device warrants	Surveillance Devices Act 2004	All State/Territory police forces, plus: ACIC ACLEI AFP Corruption & Crime Commission (WA) Crime & Corruption Commission (QLD) Law Enforcement Conduct Commission NSW Crime Commission ICAC (NSW)
Part V	Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979	AFP

Table 4—Non-law enforcement agencies subject to review by the Office

Power	Legislation	Agencies subject to inspection
Exercise of examination powers	Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016	Australian Building and Construction Commission
Exercise of examination powers	Fair Work Act 2009	Fair Work Ombudsman

Table 5—Inspections conducted during 2018–19

Function	Number of inspections
Inspection of telecommunications interception records under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979	6
Inspection of stored communications—preservation and access records under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979	10
Inspection of telecommunications data records under the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979	10
Inspection of the use of surveillance devices under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004	3
Inspection of controlled operations conducted under Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914	3
Total	32

Table 6—Reviews conducted during 2018–19

Function	Number of reviews
Review of Fair Work Ombudsman use of its coercive examination powers under the Fair Work Act 2009.	2
Review of the Australian Building and Construction Commission's use of coercive examination powers under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016	4
Australian Federal Police's administration of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979	1
Total	7

Our approach

Our Office values independence, fairness and transparency. These values inform the way we conduct inspections and reviews and how we engage with the agencies.

We give notice to agencies of our intention to conduct an inspection and provide them with a broad outline of the criteria against which we assess compliance. We encourage agencies to voluntarily disclose any instances of non-compliance to our Office, including any remedial action they have taken.

For each of these inspection and review functions, we have established methodologies we consistently apply across all agencies.  These methodologies comprise of test plans, risk registers and checklists. These methodologies are based on legislative requirements and best practice standards, ensuring the integrity of each inspection and review. It is our practice to regularly review our methodologies to reflect legislative change and ensure their effectiveness.

We focus our inspections and reviews on areas of high risk, taking into consideration the impact of non-compliance, such as unnecessary privacy intrusions. We also help agencies in ensuring compliance, through assessing agencies' policies and procedures, communicating best practices to meet compliance and engaging with agencies outside of the formal inspection or review process.

Reports

Our reports detail the extent of an agency's compliance with the legislative requirements for using certain covert, intrusive and coercive powers. We do this by assessing the extent to which agencies are able to demonstrate they have met the relevant legislative requirements.

In addition to agencies' practical compliance, we also consider their organisational culture regarding compliance. We often find that a good compliance culture results in greater levels of practical compliance.

During 2018–19 we produced 17 public reports.¹⁹

Table 7—Public reports produced during 2018–19

Report	Date finalised
Quarterly report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 July to 30 September 2017	July 2018
A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities in monitoring controlled operations under s 15HO of the Crimes Act 1914—for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017	August 2018
Report to the Minister for Home Affairs on agencies' compliance with the Surveillance Devices Act 2004—for the period 1 January to 30 June 2018	September 2018
A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's monitoring of agency access to stored communications and telecommunications data under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017	November 2018
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009—for the period 15 September to 31 December 2017	December 2018
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009—for the period 1 January to 31 March 2018	December 2018
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009—for the period 1 April to 30 June 2018	December 2018
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009—for the period 1 July to 30 September 2018	December 2018
A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's inspection of the Australian Federal Police under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—compliance with journalist information warrant provisions	January 2019
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 October to 31 December 2017	February 2019
Report to the Minister for Home Affairs on agencies' compliance with the Surveillance Devices Act 2004—for the period 1 July to 31 December 2018	March 2019
A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's monitoring of agency access to stored communications and telecommunications data under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018	March 2019
A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979—for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018	May 2019
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 January to 31 March 2018	June 2019
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 April to 30 June 2018	June 2019
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 July to 30 September 2018	June 2019
Quarterly Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 October to 31 December 2018	June 2019

To ensure procedural fairness, reports that incorporate our inspection or review results are given to each agency for an opportunity to comment on our findings before the results are finalised. Depending on our reporting requirements, the final report is either presented to the relevant Minister²⁰ for inclusion in their annual report or for tabling in Parliament, or forms the basis of our Office's published reports.²¹.

For our published reports we remove reference to any sensitive information that could undermine or compromise law enforcement activities.

Although we produced a number of reports during 2018–19, we were unable to finish one of our annual inspection reports, two quarterly review reports and a report on the activities under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

The following reports will be finalised early in 2019–20:

• A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities in monitoring controlled operations under s 15HO of the Crimes Act 1914—for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018.
• Our quarterly report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—for the period 1 January to 31 March 2019.
• Two quarterly reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under s 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009—for the period 1 October to 31 December 2018 and for the period 1 January to 31 March 2019.

Parliamentary Joint Committee appearances

In 2018–19 we appeared before and made submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security regarding the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018.

We briefed the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) regarding ACLEI's controlled operations. We also briefed the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Law Enforcement regarding controlled operations by the AFP and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC).

Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018

In December 2018 the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 amended, among other things, the Surveillance Devices Act. These amendments established a new intrusive power, through a new type of warrant, called a computer access warrant. It also included a new type of emergency authorisation for access to data held in computers. Amendments were implemented to address industry identified capability gaps and strengthen law enforcement agencies' ability to collect encrypted information. Our Office has oversight of the Surveillance Devices Act, including how law enforcement agencies use these computer access warrant powers.

The Assistance and Access Act also provided certain law enforcement agencies with new powers under Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to request or require assistance from a communications provider in order to enforce the criminal law. Agencies must advise our Office if they issue a request or notice and we may inspect, and/or prepare a report about agencies' use of the industry assistance powers.

As agencies increase their use of these new intrusive powers, our Office's oversight will also increase.

Stakeholder engagement

During 2018–19, we provided advice and training to law enforcement agencies about compliance issues and best practice in compliance and complaint-handling. This included participating in, and presenting at forums and workshops held by the law enforcement community, as well as formal meetings with agencies.

In June 2019 the Office hosted the first of three forums for representatives of the 21 enforcement agencies we oversee. The forum, held in Brisbane, focused on compliance when using covert and intrusive powers. The forum was an opportunity for attendees to discuss best practices, concerns and newly legislated powers, and to obtain information about preparing for 2019–20 compliance inspections. We will hold forums in Canberra and Melbourne in July 2019.

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) is an international treaty designed to strengthen protections for people in situations where they are deprived of their liberty and potentially vulnerable to mistreatment or abuse. OPCAT was ratified by the Australian Government on 21 December 2017.

OPCAT requires signatory countries to establish domestic oversight bodies known as National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), which undertake a regime of preventive inspections into places of detention. Ratification of OPCAT also requires the Australian Government to accept visits from the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), which comprises of international experts on detention and related functions.

At the time of ratification, the Australian Government made a declaration under Article 24 of OPCAT formally delaying the obligation to establish Australia's NPM for an additional three year period. The mandate allowing for in-country visits by the SPT has not been delayed.

As each government is proposed to retain authority for oversight of places of detention in their jurisdiction, Australia's NPM will be a cooperative network (the NPM network) of Commonwealth, state and territory inspectorates (NPM bodies), facilitated and coordinated by an NPM Coordinator.

The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is appointed as the NPM body for places of detention under the control of the Commonwealth and as the NPM Coordinator. Regulations establishing both functions came into effect from 10 April 2019.²²

The NPM body for places of detention under the control of the Commonwealth

As the NPM body for places of detention under the control of the Commonwealth, we will continue to inspect Australian immigration detention facilities. In addition we will undertake inspections of Australian Defence Force detention facilities and Australian Federal Police cells. As the NPM body for places of detention under the control of the Commonwealth we do not have any authority to inspect state and territory places of detention, nor direct the activities of the state and territory bodies who will form the NPM network.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman will commence trial OPCAT inspections of places of detention under the control of the Commonwealth in mid-2019, in anticipation of the full OPCAT compliant inspections commencing for all places of detention under the control of the Commonwealth by January 2021. We trialled some aspects of OPCAT–compliant inspections in our visit to the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation in June 2019. To assist us in this process, two members of the NZ Ombudsman's Office also attended the inspection and provided us with feedback to help develop our OPCAT inspection methodology.

The NPM Coordinator

As the NPM Coordinator, our role is to work with the oversight bodies that will form the NPM network, helping to develop and support processes and best practices to meet the intended outcomes of the NPM network. Places of detention that are the initial focus of OPCAT activity include adult prisons (including corrective centres and work camps), juvenile detention centres, closed psychiatric facilities, closed forensic disability facilities and police cells. In our role as the NPM Coordinator we do not have authority over other inspectorates and will not engage in secondary inspections of these facilities.

Although other NPMs are yet to be nominated, our Office has actively engaged with oversight bodies that may have an interest in OPCAT implementation. In particular, we instigated outreach with bodies and office holders in each jurisdiction that may have a role in the future NPM network. In 2018–19, senior members of the Office met with 62 bodies which have a current inspection or oversight function, or have a wider interest in the progress of OPCAT implementation in Australia. We also continue to work with the Australian Human Rights Commission's civil society consultations and welcome input into the development of the NPM functions.

Report by the NPM Coordinator

As a result of our engagement with current oversight bodies we have prepared a draft report that provides a comprehensive, contemporary overview of Australia's readiness to implement OPCAT. The report contains a baseline assessment of OPCAT readiness and also maps the types of places of detention within Australia.

The draft report will be provided to Attorney-General's for comment. It is planned to be published in 2019–20.

Our role as an Industry Ombudsman

Our role as an Industry Ombudsman includes: Private Health Insurance, Postal Industry, VET Student Loans and the Overseas Students Ombudsman functions.  In these functions we provide independent complaint-handling and resolution services for consumers, build industry capacity in complaint-handling and service delivery and also manage the privatehealth.gov.au consumer website, which is the leading source of independent consumer information about health insurance.

Private Health Insurance Ombudsman

As the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman our role is to protect the interests of consumers in relation to private health insurance. Our Office is an independent body that acts to resolve disputes about private health insurance at all levels within the private health industry. We also report and give advice to industry and government about these issues.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 4,042 complaints, an 11 per cent decrease on the previous year's total of 4,553. The number of private health insurance complaints received had increased significantly over the last decade and peaked in 2016–17, as shown in Figure 12.

The number of consumer information enquiries received relating to private health insurance increased by five per cent in 2018–19. We received 3,064 enquiries, of which 57 per cent were received through the consumer website privatehealth.gov.au.

Figure 12—Total complaints and enquiries by Year

Complaint-handling processes and categories

In 2018–19, 71 per cent of complaints were finalised as 'assisted referrals'. In these cases we refer a complaint directly to a nominated representative of the insurer or service provider, on behalf of the complainant. Our assisted referral process ensures a quicker resolution of the complaint and client satisfaction survey responses show that complainants have a high satisfaction rate with this method of complaint resolution.

Eleven per cent of complaints were finalised through a 'standard referral'—that is, the complainant received advice from our Office and then lodged their complaint directly with the appropriate body themselves.

Approximately six per cent of complaints were classified as 'grievances'. These complaints are finalised by considering the issue and providing more information or a clearer explanation directly to the complainant, without the need to contact or seek additional information from the health insurer or health care provider.

Approximately 13 per cent of complaints were classified as 'disputes' (a slight decrease from 14 per cent in 2017–18). In these cases, we request a detailed report from the health insurer or other subject of the complaint.²³ The report is then reviewed and a decision is made on whether the initial response was satisfactory or if further investigation is warranted.

Of disputes handled by our Office, 61 per cent were resolved by giving a more detailed explanation to the complainant, 16 per cent were resolved by a payment and 21 per cent by another satisfactory outcome (for example, backdating a change to a policy).

Client satisfaction survey

We carry out a fortnightly postal survey to a sample of complainants who have had their cases recently finalised. In 2018–19 we received 146 survey responses (27 per cent), a reasonable participation rate for a postal survey of this kind.

Overall, 89 per cent of complainants who responded were satisfied or very satisfied with the handling of their complaint, compared to 81 per cent in 2017–18. The results show that 83 per cent of survey respondents were happy with the time it took to resolve their complaints, compared to 78 per cent in the previous year.

Table 8—Complainant survey

	2017–18	2018–19
Overall satisfaction	81%	89%
Agreed that staff listened adequately	88%	93%
Satisfied with staff manner	84%	90%
Resolved complaint or provided adequate explanation	83%	89%
Thought PHIO acted independently	83%	89%
Would recommend PHIO to others	80%	89%
Happy with time taken to resolve complaint	78%	83%

Complaints about private health insurers

The following table shows the number of complaints and disputes received about registered private health insurers, compared to the insurers' market shares. A higher ratio of complaints or disputes compared to market share can indicate an inadequate internal dispute resolution process, especially for complex issues, or underlying systemic or policy problems.

Table 9—2018–19 complaints and disputes about registered private health insurers

	Complaints24	Percentage of complaints	Disputes25	Percentage of disputes	Market share26
ACA Health Benefits	2	0.1%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Australian Unity	170	5.0%	6	1.6%	2.9%
Bupa	820	24.0%	122	33.1%	26.3%
CBHS	59	1.7%	10	2.7%	1.5%
CBHS Corporate	1	0.0%	0	0.0%	<0.1%
CDH – Hunter Health Insurance	1	0.0%	0	0.0%	<0.1%
CUA Health	23	0.7%	5	1.4%	0.6%
Defence Health	37	1.1%	5	1.4%	2.1%
Doctors' Health Fund	11	0.3%	1	0.3%	0.3%
Emergency Services Health	3	0.1%	1	0.3%	<0.1%
GMHBA	127	3.7%	13	3.5%	2.4%
Grand United Corporate Health	35	1.0%	5	1.4%	0.4%
HBF (incl. GMF/Healthguard)	207	6.1%	16	4.3%	7.8%
HCF	525	15.4%	54	14.6%	10.7%
HCI	5	0.1%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Health Partners	16	0.5%	3	0.8%	0.6%
Health.com.au	43	1.3%	12	3.3%	0.6%
HIF	36	1.1%	2	0.5%	0.8%
Latrobe Health	18	0.5%	3	0.8%	0.7%
Medibank Private (incl. AHM)	761	22.3%	61	16.5%	26.9%
Mildura Health Fund	3	0.1%	1	0.3%	0.2%
MO Health	8	0.2%	0	0.0%	0.1%
National Health Benefits (Onemedifund)	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0.1%
Navy Health	12	0.4%	1	0.3%	0.3%
NIB Health	287	8.4%	33	8.9%	8.5%
Nurses and Midwives	2	0.1%	0	0.0%	<0.1%
People Care	19	0.6%	4	1.1%	0.5%
Pheonix Health Fund	14	0.4%	1	0.3%	0.1%
Police Health	1	0.0%	1	0.3%	0.3%
QLD Country Health Fund	5	0.1%	1	0.3%	0.4%
Railway and Transport	21	0.6%	2	0.5%	0.4%
Reserve Bank Health	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	<0.1%
St Lukes Health	11	0.3%	2	0.5%	0.5%
Teachers Health	85	2.5%	1	0.3%	2.4%
Transport Health	10	0.3%	1	0.3%	0.1%
TUH	18	0.5%	2	0.5%	0.6%
Westfund	19	0.6%	0	0.0%	0.7%
Total	3,415		369

Complaints about hospitals, health professionals, brokers and others

Most complaints (86 per cent in 2018–19) were about health insurers. However, complaints can also be about providers, such as hospitals, health insurance brokers, doctors and dentists.

Table 10—Number of complaints about insurers and providers

	2017–18	2018–19
Health Insurers	3,874	3,415
Hospitals	57	45
Overseas Visitors Insurers	441	404
Doctors & Practitioners	25	29
Health Insurance Brokers	83	67
Other27	73	82
Total	4,553	4,042

Complaint issues

The following issues are the four most frequently raised issues in complaints received throughout 2018–19.

Benefit

Complaints: 1,299

The main issue of concern was hospital policies²⁸ 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 also represented a significant proportion of complaints received.

Membership

Complaints: 693

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

Service

Complaints: 533

Service issues are not usually the sole reason for complaints. A combination of unsatisfactory customer service, untimely responses to simple issues, and poor internal escalation processes can cause policy-holders to grow increasingly aggrieved and dissatisfied with their dealings with the insurer, until the service itself becomes a cause of complaint as well as the original issue.

Information

Complaints: 419

Information complaints usually arise because of disputes or misunderstandings about verbal or written information provided by an insurer. Verbal advice is the cause for more complaints than any other information issue. It can be particularly complex if the insurer has not kept a clear record or call recording of interactions with the complainant.

Table 11—Complaint issues

ISSUE Sub-issue	2017–18	2018–19
BENEFIT	1,641	1,299
Accident and emergency	70	63
Accrued benefits	14	6
Ambulance	76	55
Amount	91	59
Delay in payment	136	142
Excess	65	56
Gap - Hospital	69	83
Gap - Medical	138	86
General treatment (extras/ancillary)	282	269
High cost drugs	7	6
Hospital exclusion/restriction	397	242
Insurer rule	120	57
Limit reached	25	14
New baby	17	10
Non-health insurance	9	3
Non-health insurance - overseas benefits	0	0
Non-recognised other practitioner	11	10
Non-recognised podiatry	8	6
Other compensation	18	9
Out of pocket not elsewhere covered	17	29
Out of time	22	19
Preferred provider schemes	37	36
Prostheses	8	34
Workers compensation	4	5
CONTRACT	43	35
Hospitals	22	20
Preferred provider schemes	20	10
Second tier default benefit	1	5
COST	120	72
Dual charging	3	18
Rate increase	117	54
INCENTIVES	241	274
Lifetime Health Cover	206	186
Medicare Levy Surcharge	14	12
PHI Reforms	n/a	61
Rebate	18	12
Rebate tiers and surcharge changes	3	3
INFORMATION	476	419
Brochures and websites	48	26
Lack of notification	50	44
Radio and television	1	0
Standard Information Statement	4	12
Verbal advice	341	298
Written advice	32	39
INFORMED FINANCIAL CONSENT	73	48
Doctors	15	11
Hospitals	54	25
Other	4	12
MEMBERSHIP	867	693
Adult dependents	35	20
Arrears	67	61
Authority over membership	25	32
Cancellation	379	291
Clearance certificates	159	126
Continuity	101	77
Rate and benefit protection	10	12
Suspension	91	74
OTHER	202	323
Access	0	3
Acute care and type C certificates	15	18
Community rating	2	1
Complaint not elsewhere covered	63	41
Confidentiality and privacy	14	18
Demutualisation/sale of health insurers	1	2
Discrimination	2	6
Medibank sale	1	0
Non-English speaking background	0	0
Non-Medicare patient	5	3
Private patient election	5	8
Rule change	94	223
SERVICE	675	533
Customer service advice	113	69
General service issues	219	180
Premium payment problems	271	200
Service delays	72	84
WAITING PERIOD	475	440
Benefit limitation period	1	0
General	49	40
Obstetric	35	33
Other	23	18
Pre-existing conditions	367	349

Case Studies

CASE STUDY

A complainant was told by a medical specialist that their child needed elective surgery. They had purchased hospital cover from a health insurer less than 12 months earlier. They called the insurer to check whether the costs associated with the surgery would be covered. Based on the verbal information from the insurer, they booked the surgery for their child.

The complainant used family's savings to pay for the procedure and made a claim with the insurer for reimbursement. Two weeks later, the insurer told them that the claim could not be paid. They explained that an independent medical advisor had assessed their child's condition to be pre-existing.

The complainant came to our Office for help. We contacted the insurer and asked for copies of all communication with the complainant. We found that the insurer had told them not to worry about the pre-existing conditions (PEC) process because the surgery was a 'standard procedure'. It was only three months before the end of the PEC waiting period when they said this to the complainant.

The PEC process requires an assessment by a medical practitioner appointed by the health insurer. Insurers can impose a 12 month waiting period on benefits for hospital treatment for a PEC. If the insurer had properly explained the PEC process and how pre-existing conditions are defined, the complainant may have delayed the surgery until the waiting period was finished. We asked the insurer to consider this issue and they agreed to pay the hospital costs because they had not given adequate information.

CASE STUDY

A complainant started a health insurance policy in June. A government rebate was automatically applied to their policy, reducing their premium. The insurer asked them to complete a rebate form to confirm the reduced premium. The complainant thought they had returned the form, and did not hear anything more about it.

In late October, the insurer again asked the complainant to complete a rebate form. The complainant thought they returned the form a second time. Ten days later the insurer wrote to the complainant asking for the rebate form or else their premium would increase from their start date. Six days later, the insurer wrote to the complainant, saying that their premium had increased from June because their rebate had been removed. The letter went on to explain that they were now in arrears.

The complainant could not afford to pay the arrears so they cancelled their direct debit payments and started a new policy in late December with a different insurer. The second insurer applied new waiting periods because the complainant's first policy had ended more than two months earlier.

The complainant was not in good health and was receiving medical treatment. They contacted our Office and asked us to help. The first insurer gave us their records of communication with and admitted they should not have allowed five months to pass before following up on the rebate form. The first insurer offered to accept 50 per cent of the arrears and to issue a new end date certificate so the second insurer could remove the waiting periods on the complainant's new policy.

Overseas Visitors Health Cover

Each year we help people 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 about domestic

health insurance policies. In 2018–19 we received 404 overseas health cover complaints.

The most common issues for overseas visitors were complaints about the pre-existing condition waiting period (117 complaints), cancellation (52 complaints) and benefit payment delays (26 complaints).

Table 12—Overseas Visitors Health Cover complaints

Insurer	2017–18	2018–19
Allianz (Lysaght Peoplecare)	101	99
Australian Unity	17	10
BUPA	184	167
CBHS	0	0
GMHBA	4	3
GU Health	0	0
HBF	4	3
HCF	2	20
Health.com.au	-	1
HIF	3	2
Medibank Private (AHM)	72	52
NIB	54	47
Total	441	404

Reports

During the year, the Office publishes quarterly bulletins which report on complaint statistics, issues and trends.²⁹ The bulletins also include information on topics such as the private health insurance reforms and premium increases.

The State of the Health Funds Report, relating to the 2017–18 financial year, was published in March 2019.³⁰ Section 20D(c) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 requires that the Office publishes the report after the end of each financial year, to give comparative information on the performance and service delivery of all health insurers during that financial year. The purpose of this report is to provide consumers information to help them make decisions about private health insurance.

To supplement the information in this report, additional information about private health insurance complaint statistics and trends in 2018–19 will be published on the Office's website.³¹

Consumer website

The website privatehealth.gov.au is Australia's leading independent source of consumer information about private health insurance. It is also the only website that allows users to search the features and premium costs of every policy available in Australia.

In 2018–19 we received 1,740 enquiries via the consumer website, which we responded to with written information and advice.

Website usage has continued to grow every year since the website's original launch in 2007, with 1,441,712 visits in 2018–19—an increase of over nine per cent compared to the previous financial year.

On 1 April 2019, the Office launched an updated version of its privatehealth.gov.au website. The website includes the following new features:

• Information about the government's private health insurance reforms, including new product tiers for hospital policies (Gold, Silver, Bronze and Basic).
• An improved search feature for comparing policies that allows users to filter results based on the services they are most interested in, or the premium they are prepared to pay. Search results are displayed in a vertical 'tile' format, allowing users to compare policies side-by-side.
• A simpler Private Health Information Statement (PHIS), which summarises the most important features of the policy. Users can download, print or email copies of the PHIS to consider the information at a time that suits them.
• A new premium estimator so users can decide whether to compare policies according to the base premiums or an estimated premium, which takes into account their rebate and/or Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) loading.
• An updated look and feel, including compatibility with mobile devices.
• Improvements to existing features such as the agreement hospitals finder, which shows what hospitals are covered by each insurer.

During the transition period for the private health insurance reforms from 1 April 2019 to 1 April 2020, health insurers will gradually transfer existing policies across to the new product tiers. The website will continue to include all available policies, as health insurers are required to keep their information on the privatehealth.gov.au up-to-date at all times.

Postal Industry Ombudsman

The Office investigates complaints about postal and similar services provided by Australia Post and Private Postal Operators (PPOs) under the Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO) Scheme.

Australia Post (including StarTrack) is a mandatory member of the PIO Scheme, while other PPOs may choose to voluntarily register. As at 30 June 2019, there were three voluntary members on the Private Postal Operator Register: FedEx Australia, Cheque-Mates and D and D Mailing Services.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 2,503 complaints representing a 30 per cent decrease in comparison to complaints received in 2017–18 (3,553³²).

Table 13—PIO complaints received and finalised in 2018–19

Postal operator	Complaints received	Complaints finalised33
Australia Post and StarTrack	2,488	2,492
Other Postal Operators	15	12
Total	2,503	2,504

In 2018–19 complaints about loss, delivery issues and delay continued to generate the significant majority of complaints to our Office.

Figure 13—PIO complaint issues in 2018–19

Outcomes

Some outcomes achieved from the actions we took in 2018–19 included:

• faster resolution of complaints through the new complaint transfer process
• further explanation by our Office and postal operators
• apologies to individuals from the postal operator
• financial remedies including compensation, refunds, goodwill payments and in-kind services
• feedback to postal operator staff.

During 2018–19 we introduced a new process for transferring complaints to Australia Post when we assessed that Australia Post should be able to resolve the matter quickly with the customer. For these cases, Australia Post assess the complaint and informs us of the outcome. We then consider if further investigation of the complaint is required.

We transferred around 20 per cent of complaints via this process for this year, which has proven an effective way to provide timely resolutions for postal complaints. This process has also reduced the number of detailed investigations required by the Office.

Reports

This year we conducted a review of Australia Post's implementation of recommendations made in the own motion report Review of Australia Post complaints about carding, Safe Drop and compensation. ³⁴ The report made six recommendations to Australia Post highlighting areas where performance could be improved.

Our review concluded that Australia Post has made significant progress in addressing the report recommendations. We also noted the number of actions already underway will take time to implement and we will continue to work with Australia Post as the implementation process continues. Full details are in the report published on 14 June 2019.³⁵

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) of the Ombudsman Act.

The Postal Industry Ombudsman made no reports during the year under s 19V of the Ombudsman Act.

CASE STUDY

A complainant sent a box containing 12 bottles of wine overseas through Australia Post and purchased Extra Cover in case of damage. Some of the bottles were damaged in transit and a damage claim was made. Australia Post rejected the Extra Cover claim on the basis that the article was inadequately packaged and did not have a wine certificate (a requirement when sending more than 2 bottles).

The complainant complained on the basis that the Post Office knew at time of lodgment that the box contained wine and how it was packaged. Australia Post did not mention anything about a wine certificate and sold them Extra Cover. Australia Post did not change its decision so the complainant approached our Office.

We transferred the dispute back to Australia Post to respond to the complainant's concerns. Australia Post acknowledged that it should have identified that the article should not have been accepted for carriage as only two bottles of wine can be posted, additional amounts require a wine certificate and alcohol deliveries were also on the prohibited list for the country the box was addressed to.

Australia Post offered the complainant compensation to cover the damage and postage.

VET Student Loans Ombudsman

Our Office investigates disputes between students and their Vocational Education and Training (VET) loan scheme providers under the VET Student Loans Ombudsman function.

We also deliver best practice complaint-handling advice and training to VET loan scheme providers to help improve their ability to manage complaints, which results in better outcomes for students and providers.

If required, we have powers to compel VET loan scheme providers to attend meetings and we can make recommendations to other Australian Government agencies in relation to systemic issues about provider practices uncovered through our investigations.

New VET FEE-HELP redress measures

From 1 January 2019, we began assessments of VET FEE-HELP debts under the VET FEE-HELP Student Redress Measures. The redress measures, passed in the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Act 2018, provide people who incurred VET FEE-HELP debts inappropriately with an opportunity to have their debts assessed for removal by our Office. People who want to have their debts considered under the redress measures must make a complaint to our Office. We then assess the debt and make a recommendation to the Department of Education and Training (DET) to remove the debt in full or in part. The Secretary of the DET or their delegate then makes a decision after reviewing our recommendation. The Secretary of the department can also act on their own initiative to remove the debts of groups of students who experienced inappropriate conduct in a similar way, even if those students have not lodged a complaint with the Office.

During 2018–19, we worked closely with DET to document and agree processes to support the assessment of complaints and submission of recommendations under the redress measures. During 1 January–30 June 2019 we focussed on the quality of recommendations rather than the volume, to ensure our recommendations were well-targeted and that debt removals were justified. As the bedding down of processes is largely complete we expect the volume of recommendations to increase in 2019–20.

As at 30 June 2019, there were 5,912 open complaints that require assessment under the redress measures by our Office.

As at 30 June 2019, we had made 515 recommendations to the department for the removal of VET FEE-HELP under the redress measures, comprising 3,486 units of study, with a total value of $12.2 million, including $10.2 million in loan debts and $2 million in loan fees. In addition, we finalised 158 complaints following the department's removal of 4,094 student debts under its first Secretary Initiated Action in April 2019.

Following machinery of government changes, we will continue to work closely with the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business on the VET FEE-HELP Redress Measures.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 7,059 complaints from students disputing their debts or other issues with their VET loan scheme provider and finalised 4,632. Unknown debts and enrolments were the most common complaint issues raised, accounting for 19 per cent of complaints received in 2018–19.

In January 2019, we revisited complaints closed during 1 July 2017–31 December 2018 that are now eligible for consideration under the redress measures. We identified 793 complaints to be eligible and subsequently re-opened these complaints for assessment under the redress measures.

Table 14 shows the finalisation reasons for complaint issues. Complaints often include more than one issue, which is why there are more issues (7,871) than finalised complaints (4,632). The main reason for finalising complaints in 2018–19 was due to complainants not going through their providers' internal complaints and grievance policy in the first instance.

Table 14—Issue outcomes for finalised complaints in 2018–19

Finalisation reasons	Total issue number	%
The complainant has not yet followed the provider's complaint-handling or grievance procedures.	4,129	53
Not all circumstances warrant investigation, so no investigation was commenced. This includes when: an action was reasonably open to a provider to take a complainant is referred to a tuition assurance operator to seek redress a provider has agreed to re-credit a complainant's student loan. This also includes when the complainant is not sufficiently connected to the complaint, such as when a person calls on behalf of another person without their knowledge or consent.	2,509	32
After commencing an investigation or further assessment of a complaint, we decided that further investigation or action was not warranted for any reason. This includes when: A provider has provided an appropriate remedy. Further investigation would not lead to a different result. We have made a recommendation for re-credit under the redress measures which has been accepted by the department. We finalise complaints after the department makes a decision on our recommendations. As at 30 June 2019, we had finalised 276 complaints after making a recommendation and 239 complaints where we had made recommendations which remained open pending a decision by the department.	653	8
The complainant cannot be contacted, does not respond to requests for information, or does not wish to pursue their complaint.	418	5
The complaint would be better dealt with through an external avenue such as the department or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), or the complainant was referred to an advice or advocacy body.	162	2

Complaints relating to the VET Student Loans program

During 2018–19, we received 194 complaints relating to the VET Student Loans program, compared to 86 complaints received about the program in 2017–18.

The most common issues raised in complaints about the VET Student Loans program relate to course closures, loan amount disputes and course progression. As at 30 June 2019, 72 complaints about the program remained open and four were being investigated. A significant proportion of complaints about the program (56.8 per cent), were finalised by referral back to the provider for the complainant to go through the provider's internal complaint process.

Quarterly updates

We publish quarterly updates for the VET Student Loans Ombudsman function, which provide detailed data and analysis of complaints and issues handled by our Office. These updates are published on our website: ombudsman.gov.au/publications

Overseas Students Ombudsman

The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigates complaints from prospective, current and former international students about problems with private education providers.

We have three main functions in our Overseas Students Ombudsman role. They are to:

• assess and investigate complaints about actions taken by private registered education providers in connection with student visa holders
• give private registered providers advice and training about best practice complaint-handling for international student complaints
• report on trends and systemic issues arising from our complaint investigations.

Complaints overview

In 2018–19 we received 1,324 complaints and finalised 1,292, this represented a 32.5 per cent increase in complaints received compared to 2017–18. The increase in complaints received by our Office reflects an increase in the outreach activities undertaken by the Office during the year.

Quarterly updates are published for the Overseas Students Ombudsman function which provide detailed data and analysis of complaints and issues handled by our Office. These updates can be found on our website at ombudsman.gov.au/publications

Assisted referrals process

We usually do not investigate a complaint before a student has made a formal internal complaint or appeal to their education provider. This gives the education provider an opportunity to resolve the matter first.

Students who have not yet complained to their provider make up 17 per cent of complaints to our Office. To assist these students to make complaints to the provider in the first instance, and to achieve an early resolution of complaints, we commenced a trial process of assisted referrals of complaints to education providers in January 2019.

This process helps to ensure that the education provider and the student have an opportunity to resolve the issue. If the education provider informs us that the complaint has been resolved, but the student advises that they are not satisfied with the provider's resolution, our Office may start an investigation. If the education provider does not assist the student by initiating the provider's internal complaints and appeals process, our Office may also begin an investigation.

Providers are not obliged to participate in the assisted referral process, but we appreciate the cooperation of education providers who have participated in this new process and worked with students to promptly resolve their complaints.

Investigation outcomes

During 2018–19, we commenced 402 investigations and finalised 366 investigations which included 467 issues.³⁶ Table 15 shows which party our investigation outcome supported for all complaints finalised during the period.

Table 15—Issue outcomes for investigations finalised in 2018–19

Party investigation outcome supported	Total issues	%
Student	161	34
Provider	216	46
Neither	90	19

Table 15 shows that 19 per cent of issue investigation outcomes were found in support of neither the student nor the provider. This can be for the following reasons:

• the issue was not investigated, even though other issues complained about were investigated
• the issue was resolved between the student and provider during the course of the investigation
• the investigation of that issue stopped before a determination could be made, for example, because the complainant withdrew their complaint or the issue was transferred to another complaint-handling body which specialises in handling complaints on those issues.

Complaint issues

Written agreements (fees and refunds) continue to be the most common complaint issue we receive from overseas students. These complaints are usually about students seeking a refund of pre-paid tuition fees when they have ended their study before finishing their course. Students' ability to seek this refund should be stated in their written agreement with the provider. Student attendance and course progress monitoring, and transfers between registered providers were the next most common issues raised in complaints to our Office.

Figure 14—Issues raised in finalised investigations

Complaints by education sector

The Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector continues to be the most commonly complained about sector. However, it also has the highest number of registered private providers.

Figure 15—Complaints by education sector in finalised investigated complaints

Stakeholder Engagement

Over 70 per cent of international students use the services of an education agent when seeking to study in Australia.³⁷ As a result, education agents play an important role in informing students about their rights and helping students to make a complaint if they have a dispute with their provider. Education agents can even lodge a complaint with us on behalf of a student they are assisting.

In 2018–19 we commenced a strategy to engage with education agents to increase awareness of the Office and to improve our outreach to international students studying in Australia. The aim of the strategy is to educate agents about the Overseas Students Ombudsman, including how to refer students to our Office to make a complaint and the resources we have available for agents and students.

As part of the strategy we implemented a newsletter, which is sent to nearly 5,000 qualified education agent counsellors, providing updates about the Office and useful information for agents about the complaint-handling process. We also attended the ICEF Australia New Zealand Agent Workshop 2019 in Darwin. At this workshop we presented a seminar on our role and participated in a series of one-on-one meetings with agents.

Conferences and forums

During 2018–19, representatives from the Office presented at or participated in the following events:

• Victorian International Student conference
• Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) annual conference
• Education Consultants Association of Australia, ESOS and National Code seminar
• SYMPLED – Symposium on Leading Education recruitment
• Chairs of Academic Boards Forum (for non-university higher education providers)
• Migration Institute of Australia, Professional Development session
• Australian Education Consultants' Alliance national conference
• Study Canberra, International Student Ambassador training
• Council of International Students Australia (CISA) grievance officer training
• Best Practice Complaint-Handling session, Victorian VET provider
• Australian Federation of International Students (AFIS) welcome day
• ICEF Australia New Zealand Agent Event

Liaison activities

The Office has held regular meetings with the national education and training regulators, the Australian Skills Quality Authority and the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency, as well as the Tuition Protection Service, Department of Education and Training and the Department of Home Affairs to discuss issues relating to international education and overseas student complaints.

Representatives from our Office organised and chaired regular meetings with a network of ombudsmen and similar overseas student complaint-handling bodies with the intention of producing a national international student complaints data summary in 2019–20.

Reports to the regulators

The Office may, under s 35A of the Ombudsman Act 1976, disclose information of concern about a provider's actions to the relevant government regulator if in the public interest. In 2018–19 the Office made disclosures in relation to nine providers.

Eight disclosures were made to the Australia Skills Quality Authority. The disclosures concerned, serious and/or repeated breaches of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) legislative framework.

Five disclosures were made to the Tuition Protection Service, the NSW Board of Education, and the Department of Education. The disclosures concerned, providers not issuing refunds to students who had their visa refused, within the 28 day period mandated by the ESOS Act.

Section 9 powers

We did not use our s 9 powers under the Act to obtain information or documents in 2018–19.

Working with international partners

In 2018–19, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) continued to fund the Office's delivery of international programs in the Indo-Pacific region. The programs support regional ombudsman and allied integrity bodies through the provision of training, technical assistance and senior leadership engagement to build capacity and promote best practice complaint-handling and investigations.

Indonesia

The Office continued its engagement with the Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) during 2018–19. We delivered six activities, with the program focused on supporting the Ombudsman Republik Indonesia's complaint-handling capabilities, leadership capability, strategic focus and development of a whole-of-government best practice model to enhance the internal complaint-handling systems of Indonesian public sector bodies. This included conducting a pilot regional training activity for local Indonesian government agencies, where our staff delivered an interactive presentation on good complaint-handling.

SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT, INDONESIA

In early 2019, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman attended two high-level capacity-building events in Indonesia, hosted by the Ombudsman Republik Indonesia. In February 2019, the Commonwealth Ombudsman presented at the Ombudsman Republik Indonesia's leadership and capacity building training in Bogor. The training helped senior staff in developing their capability as new and emerging leaders within ORI and promoted international best practice.

In March 2019, the Ombudsman Republik Indonesia hosted its 19th anniversary gala event and an international seminar in Palembang with the theme: 'A better public service delivery in the era of disruption.' This event was attended by 300 senior officials from the Indonesian Government, public service and international integrity agencies. The Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman participated in a panel discussion relating to the theme of the seminar.

These events contributed to the broader partnership outcomes of strengthening leadership capacity and strategic focus through collaboration and peer-to-peer support. The events allowed senior leaders in both agencies to share their knowledge and experience at multiple levels and gain cross-cultural understanding, while enhancing their understanding of international best practice.

Papua New Guinea

Building on past successes, the twinning program with the Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea (OCPNG) delivered 11 activities in 2018–19. These included:

• hosting a professional development placement (internship) program
• delivering intake and assessment training
• co-facilitating a complaint handling workshop for provincial administrators and government bodies
• providing support for human resources software training
• co-facilitating an annual report writing workshop
• supporting the OCPNG to develop standard operating procedures for processing the annual financial statements of leaders.

These activities worked towards building stronger institutional systems and capacity for the OCPNG. Specifically, they aimed to improve internal standard operating procedures and practices, develop tailored leadership code investigations and refine processes and policies to manage high-volume and difficult caseloads with limited resources.

Samoa

In 2018–19, the Office entered into a bilateral partnership agreement with DFAT to work with the Office of the Ombudsman of Samoa and the Samoa Audit Office. The program aims to deliver low cost, high impact projects that:

• strengthen partnerships
• share best practice
• enhance technical competence
• develop leadership in organisational reform and staff development
• improve corporate capabilities in strategic planning, communications and project management.

These aims were achieved by supporting staff from our partner agencies to:

• attend a Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) strategy planning, measuring and reporting workshop in the Cook Islands
• attend the Australasia and Pacific Ombudsman Region conference in New Zealand
• participate in our Office's Commonwealth Complaint-Handling Forum
• complete a Certificate IV in Government Investigations
• participate in professional development placements and attend advanced investigations training.

Solomon Islands

In 2018–19, the Office entered into a bilateral agreement with DFAT to work with the Office of the Ombudsman Solomon Islands and the Solomon Islands Leadership Code Commission. The Office worked with both organisations to:

• undertake training and capability development in strategic planning and organisational reform
• strengthen linkages with similar organisations in the Pacific
• share lessons and methods to overcome identified challenges.

Program activities included:

• providing in-country technical assistance to finalise the four year Corporate Strategic Plan for the Ombudsman's Office
• conducting senior leadership engagement
• supporting both organisations to attend the Australasia and Pacific Ombudsman Region conference in New Zealand
• professional development placements
• government investigations and conflict of interest training.

CORPORATE PlANNING WORKSHOP – SOLOMON ISLANDS

Staff representatives, Bianca Martin and Andrew Pearce with Solomon Islands Ombudsman Mr Fred Fakarii and team.

In July 2018, the program supported a corporate planning workshop with the Office of the Ombudsman of the Solomon Islands in Honiara.

We gave technical assistance about how to build a corporate plan for an Ombudsman's office and we supported the Ombudsman of the Solomon Islands to develop and finalise its 2018–2022 Corporate Strategic Plan, which forms the basis of its funding proposal to the Solomon Islands Government.

Staff participated in interactive group activities and edited the plan in real time.

The plan was finalised in August 2018 and 120 copies were professionally printed.

The project helped to strengthen the Office of the Ombudsman of the Solomon Islands' corporate governance framework by assisting the organisation to:

• set long term goals for its ombudsman functions
• develop a mission statement for the organisation and each divisional unit
• establish key performance indicators, targets and measures for the various functions covered by the ombudsman's office.

Footnotes

3 Contacts was called approaches in previous annual reports. See glossary for the full definition

4 http://www.ombudsman.act.gov.au/publications-and-media/reports/annual-reports

5 This is the Department of Home Affairs agency, not portfolio.

6 Only includes agencies with at least 200 complaints.

7 Commonwealth Ombudsman 'Better Practice Guide to Complaint-handling', 2009.

8 http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/92915/December-2018-Preventing-the-immigration-detention-of-Australian-citizens-Investigation-into-the-Department-of-Home-Affairs-implementation-of-the-recommendations-of-the-Thom-Review.pdf

9 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2017/fa171000267-document-released.pdf

10 Migration Amendment Act 1992

11 Direction No. 65 Migration Act 1958 Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA dated 22 December 2014

12 Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth)s 5(1)(b)

13 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].

14 Disability (Access to Premises —Buildings) Standards 2010

15 This includes 61 complaints received about ACT Policing. ACT Policing complaints are also reported in the ACT Ombudsman Annual Report 2018–19.

16 The AFP's Safe Place team was established to provide support to complainants and to investigate sexual harassment and abuse, following an independent review of the organisation by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.

17 Currently the Minister for Home Affairs is responsible for administering the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914.

18 Examination notices requiring a person to give information, produce documents or attend before the relevant agency to answer questions relevant to the investigation.

19 Available on our website at:http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/publications/reports/inspection.

20 Under the Commonwealth of Australia, Administrative Arrangements Order, the Minister who responsible for the administration of the relevant legislation we oversee is the Minister for Home Affairs.

21 All of our reports once tabled in Parliament are made publically available on our website.

22 https:/www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00591

23 Hospital, medical or other practitioner or health insurance broker.

24 Total number of complaints (Assisted Referrals, Standard Referrals, Grievances & Disputes) regarding Australian registered health insurers. This table excludes complaints regarding OVHC and OSHC insurers, and other bodies.

25 Disputes required the intervention of the Ombudsman and the health insurer.

26 Source: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Market Share, All Policies, 30 June 2018.

27 Other includes complaints about legislation, ambulance services, industry peak bodies, and general complaints about private health insurance.

28 Hospital policy is private health insurance that covers costs incurred by a private patient in hospital.

29 http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/publications/industry/private-health-insurance

30 http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/publications/reports/state-of-the-health-funds

31 http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/publications/reports/annual

32 The 2017–18 Annual Report at page 77, quoted 3,790 PIO complaints which included 237 complaints about administrative actions and decisions taken by Australia Post, which were considered under the Commonwealth Ombudsman jurisdiction.

33 Not all complaints are finalised in the same year they are received.

34 Review of Australia Post complaints about carding, Safe Drop  and compensation—Published 3 April 2018
http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/82618/review-of-australia-post-complaints.pdf

35 Follow-up report on Australia Post's response to the Ombudsman's recommendations
http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/100840/A-report-on-Australia-Posts-implementation-of-the-Ombudsmans-recommendations_combined-A1779044.pdf

36 A single complaint can have more than one issue, which is why there are more issues than investigations.

37 Department of Education and Training, submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's Inquiry into the efficacy of current regulation of Australian migration agents, Table 1. Accessed 22 May 2019 from the website of Australian Parliament House.