SA Ombudsman ANNUAL REPORT 2017/2018
Contacting Ombudsman SA
Our business hours are 9.00am - 5.00pm, Monday to Friday
Level 9, East Wing 55 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5000
Telephone 08 8226 8699 Facsimile 08 8226 8602 Toll free (outside metro area) 1800 182 150 Email [email protected] www.ombudsman.sa.go v.au Ombudsman SA
Designed and printed by Openbook Howden Print & Design ANNUAL REPORT 2017/2018 OBH22325 What does What does Ombudsman SA values Ombudsman SA values Ombudsman SA do? Ombudsman SA do? Integrity - Impartiality - Fairness Integrity - Impartiality - Fairness
Ombudsman SA investigates complaints about South Ombudsman SA investigates complaints about South Australian government and local government agencies Australian government and local government agencies under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as well as complaints under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as well as complaints Our Culture Our Culture about breaches of the service standards under the about breaches of the service standards under the Return to Work Act 2014. Ombudsman SA also Return to Work Act 2014. Ombudsman SA also Ethical Ethical conducts Freedom of Information reviews and receives conducts Freedom of Information reviews and receives referrals from the Independent Commissioner Against referrals from the Independent Commissioner Against Professional Professional Corruption to investigate allegations of misconduct Corruption to investigate allegations of misconduct and maladministration. and maladministration. Efficient Efficient The Ombudsman can receive information about state The Ombudsman can receive information about state Learning Learning and local government activities confidentially from and local government activities confidentially from whistleblowers. whistleblowers. Communicating Communicating If you’re not sure whether Ombudsman SA can help If you’re not sure whether Ombudsman SA can help you, we are happy to discuss your matter further. you, we are happy to discuss your matter further. Collaborating Collaborating If it is not under our jurisdiction, we will be happy to If it is not under our jurisdiction, we will be happy to point you to another agency who may be able to assist. point you to another agency who may be able to assist.
Visit our website for further information about our Visit our website for further information about our services or to register a complaint directly online: services or to register a complaint directly online: www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au
Ombudsman SA Ombudsman SA
Level 9, East Wing Level 9, East Wing 55 Currie Street 55 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5000 Adelaide SA 5000 Telephone 08 8226 8699 Telephone 08 8226 8699 Toll free 1800 182 150 (outside metro area) Toll free 1800 182 150 (outside metro area) Email [email protected] Email [email protected] www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au The Honourable President LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Parliament House Adelaide
The Honourable Speaker HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Parliament House Adelaide
It is my duty and privilege to submit the South Australian Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 2017-18 to the Parliament, as required by section 29(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1972.
Wayne Lines
SA OMBUDSMAN
Contents
INTRODUCTION ...... 5
COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS ...... 9
Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction...... 10
Return to Work Act Jurisdiction...... 20
Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction...... 23
Recommendations...... 25
AUDITS ...... 27
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION...... 29
INFORMATION SHARING GUIDELINES ...... 35
OTHER ACTIVITIES ...... 39
ABOUT OMBUDSMAN SA ...... 43
Complaints about Ombudsman SA...... 44
Organisation Chart...... 47
Summary Data...... 48
APPENDICES ...... 73
Appendix A Financial Statement...... 74
Appendix B Description of outcomes - Ombudsman jurisdiction...... 75
Appendix C Description of outcomes - Return to Work jurisdiction...... 77 Appendix D Description of outcomes - Independent Commissioner Against Corruption jurisdiction...... 79
Appendix E Description of outcomes - Freedom of Information jurisdiction...... 80
Appendix F Acronyms...... 81 4 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 INTRODUCTION Introduction
45 years serving South Australians The Office has an enduring and proud tradition of serving the public of South Australia. The expanding scope of the On 14 December 1972, the Ombudsman Act 1972 came Ombudsman’s functions and responsibilities is testimony into operation and the first South Australian Ombudsman, to Parliament’s confidence in the Office as an effective and Mr Gordon Coombe, was appointed. In his first annual report adaptable means of addressing citizen’s grievances and covering the period 14 December 1972 to 30 June 1973, promoting integrity in public administration. My staff and Mr Coombe reported an intake of 308 complaints relating to I do not take that confidence for granted and have worked 21 agencies. Fast forward 45 years to 2017-2018 and the hard to deliver on the expectations that have been placed Office of the South Australian Ombudsman has received on us. 4 4931 complaints relating to over 150 agencies. In this report I outline the work of the Office in discharging In the intervening period the Office has: my legislative functions. I believe that this overview • acquired jurisdiction over Universities and Local demonstrates not only the productivity of the Office Government councils but that the Office’s 45 year tradition of serving South Australians continues as strongly as ever. • become a review authority under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 • been designated an appropriate authority to receive disclosures of public interest information relating to public officers pursuant to the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 • been granted the power to conduct reviews of the administrative practices and procedures of an agency • at Cabinet’s request, accepted responsibility for promoting the Information Sharing Guidelines for Promoting Safety and Wellbeing • become an inquiry agency under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 for the purpose of investigating allegations of misconduct and maladministration in public administration • been vested with the responsibility of investigating complaints against elected members of councils for breaches of the Code of Conduct under the Local Government Act 1999 • acquired jurisdiction to receive complaints about breaches of the service standards under the Return to Work Act 2014 • been given responsibility for reviewing compliance with the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 • been appointed as an oversight body with primary jurisdiction over prescribed child protection complaints under the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016.
1 The total of complaints under the Ombudsman Act and Return to Work Act and referrals from ICAC.
6 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 6.5% 44% Year at a Glance
6.5% 44%
6.5% 44%
COMPLAINTS6.5% 44% RECEIVED UP BY 4196 COMPLAINTS 6.5% RESOLVED 6.5% 44% 6.5% 44%
69 66 FINAL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS REPORTS ISSUED ISSUED
35 160 ICAC REFERRALS FOI EXTERNAL COMPLETED REVIEWS COMPLETED
INTRODUCTION 7 8 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction Return to Work Act Jurisdiction Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction Recommendations Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction
The Ombudsman Act 1972 empowers me to • does the complaint relate to matters of public investigate complaints about state government safety and security, the economic well-being departments and authorities and local government of South Australia, the protection of public councils (agencies). I am also able to undertake well-being, the protection of human rights investigations referred to me by Parliament and or the rights and freedoms of citizens? conduct investigations on my own initiative. • has the complainant suffered significant personal loss or is the complainant in I have comprehensive powers to investigate vulnerable circumstances? administrative acts where I consider an agency’s decision-making process or decision is flawed; • would investigation of the complaint be section 25(1) of the Act empowers me to make likely to lead to meaningful outcomes for findings that an administrative act was unlawful, the complainant and/or to improvement unreasonable or otherwise wrong. of public administration? • has another review body considered the Some of my jurisdictional limits are: my Office matter? is one of last resort, I must not investigate • what is the likelihood of collecting policy, a complainant must be directly affected sufficient evidence to support a finding of by the relevant administrative act, generally the administrative error? complaint must be made within 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the matter, • would investigation of the complaint involve and generally I do not investigate where the effort and resources that are proportionate complainant has an alternative right of review. to the seriousness of the matter. Further, I can decide not to investigate under Where I have formed the view that there has section 17(2) of the Act, a matter where in all been an administrative error, I am able to make the circumstances of the case, an investigation recommendations to the agency involved. is unnecessary or unjustifiable. For example, I may recommend that action In exercising my discretion as to whether to be taken to rectify or mitigate the effects of investigate a matter I consider the public interest the error, that a practice be varied or legislation and the improvement of public administration, amended. and am guided by the following criteria:
• does the alleged administrative error amount to a serious failure to meet expected standards of public administration? • is the complaint about matters of serious concern and benefit to the public rather than simply an individual’s interest? • is there evidence of ongoing systemic failure in public administration? • are the circumstances of the complaint likely to arise again? • is the complaint about an error of process? • is the complaint about failures of ethical and transparent management?
10 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Ombudsman Act Complaints
The number of Ombudsman Act complaints received Early Resolution - Case Studies increased this year by 6.5% to 4270, up from 4010 in the previous year. SA Housing Trust Ombudsman Act complaints received and completed: Unreasonable delay in providing housing transfer 2 017/116 71 Received Completed Complaint Government Departments 2379 2355 The complainant was a young Aboriginal woman who was Local Government 974 939 in an advanced state of pregnancy. She had two small Other Authorities 917 902 children and managed a serious personal health condition. She lived in a two story Housing Trust dwelling and had Total 4270 4196 developed significant mobility problems in the home. In addition, the Office received 191 new matters under the She had applied for a Category 1 priority transfer to more Return to Work Act and 32 referrals from the Independent appropriate housing and had received no response from Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC). the agency.
Of this total, 143 were investigated, resulting in me issuing Assessment and Outcome 69 final reports: 4 of these related to the Return to Work It was disclosed by the agency that the complainant was Act, 33 arose from ICAC referrals and the remainder (32) not initially listed as Category 1 which is for people who were pursuant to the Ombudsman Act. register for public or community housing with both urgent During the year, my Office fielded 7759 approaches housing needs and long-term barriers to accessing or relating to matters outside of my jurisdiction and handled maintaining private housing options. The complainant was 894 general enquiries. These are usually finalised ‘upgraded’ to this priority status during the assessment instantaneously. conducted by my Office.
The great majority of complaints are dealt with at the After conducting an assessment of the current risks for the assessment stage by the Intake and Assessment Team. complainant and her unborn child the agency confirmed On average, an assessment is completed within 14 days. that she had been offered and had accepted an alternative property suitable to her family needs. Just over 10% of complaints are resolved with the co-operation of the agency. These informal, early resolutions help to restore complainants’ trust in government and require less of my Office’s resources. They therefore play a vital role in the complaint handling function of this Office. The following case studies highlight some of the matters resolved in this manner by the Intake and Assessment Team.
OMBUDSMAN ACT - COMPLAINTS 11 Department for Education and Child Office of the Public Advocate Development (DECD) Failure by agency to ensure their client was receiving Unreasonable management of Immunisation Program appropriate care 2017/06192 2017/09781
Complaint Complaint
The complainant’s son sustained injuries as a result of The complainant rang my Office about his male neighbour a fall following immunisation at his school. At the time who was a client of the agency. He reported that he had for following the immunisation he had not been supervised some time been concerned about the welfare of the man by school staff. A complaint was lodged with Health and and had taken it upon himself to care for him. He advised Community Services Complaints Commission (HCSCC) my Office that this man had growths in his throat and who investigated the matter concerning SA Health and needed urgent surgery but when he spoke with the carers gave their recommendations. they were not interested. The complainant also said that his neighbour did not have a working oven, heating and cooling The matter was then referred to my Office to assess the in his home or a mobile phone. involvement of DECD staff. Following a recommendation by HCSCC that the current policy with regard to Assessment and Outcome immunisation would benefit from updating, enquiries were conducted with DECD. When my Office contacted the agency a home visit by the relevant health services was organised to make an Assessment and Outcome immediate assessment of the complainant’s neighbour. Arrangements were made for the man to have his throat My Office negotiated with DECD to amend the current condition assessed and a surgeon was organised. Immunisation Program Protocols to include that nurses Shortly after these actions a case conference was organised providing immunisation should not proceed unless the by the agency. The complainant and his neighbour attended school provided staff to supervise children immediately as well as a new carer and an officer from Disabilities SA. following immunisation. This recommendation required It was established that, due to staff absences and poor changes to the immunisation procedures. communication, critical issues were not being reported to the agency for their assessment by the man’s guardian. Further to the enquiries made by my Office, a draft Memorandum of Understanding was created between Better communication strategies were proposed and the Minister for Health and Ageing and The Minister for medical appointments were organised. Additionally, the man Education titled ‘The Support and Provision of the School was provided with a mobile phone and an emergency safety Immunisation Program’. In addition, DECD gave alert pendant for a trial period. A commitment was made to a commitment to develop an operational document outlining install hot plates in the kitchen and the heating and cooling DECD staff responsibilities in the delivery of the School of the home was to be reviewed as required. The man was Immunisation Program. This tool includes specific reference also going to be taken out for social group activities. to the need for post vaccination management of students by I viewed this to be a satisfactory response to the complaint. DECD staff and will be included in the School Immunisation Program Protocols and updated on a yearly basis.
12 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 SA Housing Trust Assessment and Outcome
Unreasonable delay organising transfer from My Office made contact with FERU which confirmed that substandard home the Disposal Notice dated 8 January 2016 was processed 2018/03120 and that the vehicle transfer had not been effective due to the new owner not completing the transfer documentation. Complaint The complainant provided a statutory declaration indicating The complainant and her daughter and four children that he had suffered a mental breakdown and had been resided in a house which the complainant has described hospitalised which meant that he had been unable to attend as substandard. She stated that the house had mould, the hearing. He requested that the fines be re-issued in the salt damp and termites. She said that the agency had name of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the fines. agreed her family needed to be moved but after 18 FERU agreed to give the matter further consideration months on Category 1 they had not been transferred. on the basis of this information and his mental condition. The complainant said the house was now so bad that they Following further discussion with FERU it was determined were sleeping in two rooms. A contractor described the that they would waive the additional fees of approximately house to the complainant as ‘uninhabitable’. $10,000. Department for Child Protection Assessment and Outcome
When my Office contacted the agency the house was inspected again and it was agreed that an urgent transfer was required. The agency had no housing available in the areas the complainant had selected but did offer them a new house in another suburb which was readily accepted. The agency paid for the removal costs.
Attorney General’s Department (Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit) Unreasonable additional fines incurred 2018/05769
Complaint
The complainant had sold his vehicle to a friend but it remained registered in his name because the friend failed to complete the appropriate paperwork. The complainant lodged a disposal notice with Services SA on 8 January 2016. On 14 February 2016 he received a fine in his name which was served by SA Police. He explained to Police that the disposal notice had been lodged and formed the impression that the fine had been resolved. However, the fine was forwarded to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit (FERU) for collection. The complainant applied for a review which was declined. He was then given a hearing date in July 2016 but unfortunately he missed the hearing due to suffering a mental illness.
OMBUDSMAN ACT - COMPLAINTS 13 Ombudsman Act Investigations - Government Departments
Department for Child Protection Following the commencement of the Act, my Office received 118 complaints against the Department for Child Protection. With the Children and Young People (Oversight and Of these, 81 were referred back to the department to be Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016 commencing operation considered by its Complaint Unit in the first instance. As at in December 2017, this Office assumed primary jurisdiction 30 June 2018, I was in the process of formally investigating over prescribed child protection complaints. 7 complaints. The issues under consideration included: failure to respond adequately to child protection notifications, unreasonable placement of child with a foster carer, failure The Act adopts the definition of prescribed to manage children in care appropriately and failure to child protection complaint contained in reasonably manage a complaint. section 28A of the Health and Community As child protection related complaints usually involve Services Complaints Act 2004: confidential information about children and their family arrangements, it is often not possible to publish full details prescribed child protection complaint of my investigations. However, where possible I publish means— redacted reports or summaries on my website. a. a complaint relating to a health or community service— Department for Correctional Services i. that is provided to, or for the benefit Complaints against the Department for Correctional of, a child who may be, or who has Services totalled 744 this year, similar to the previous been, at risk; or year. This number represents approximately 31% of ii. that consists of, or includes, a complaints against government departments. Prisons notification (whether mandatory or provide telephones in the common areas with a pre-set dial otherwise) of a suspicion that a child to my Office and there is a reasonable level of awareness may be at risk; or of my Office amongst prisoners. Unsurprisingly, prisoner complaints are the major source of complaints against iii. that consists of, or includes or arises the department. out of, an investigation of a case where a child may be at risk; or Complaints received from prisoners 2017-2018 iv. that is provided to, or for the benefit of, a child who is under the guardianship, Prison Total or in the custody of, the Minister or another person under the Children Adelaide Pre-Release Centre 7 and Young People (Safety) Act 2016, Adelaide Remand Centre 48 where the provision of the service Adelaide Women’s Prison 67 constitutes an administrative act on the part of an agency to which the Cadell Training Centre 11 Ombudsman Act 1972 applies; or Holden Hill Watchhouse 1
b. any other complaint of a kind declared by Mobilong Prison 24 the regulations to be included in the ambit of this definition, but does not include Mount Gambier Prison 135 a complaint of a kind declared by the Port Augusta Prison 103 regulations not to be included in the ambit Port Lincoln Prison 26 of this definition. Yatala Labour Prison 160
Total 582
14 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Case studies
Wrongful placement and failure to provide It became evident that the department did not have medication to a prisoner a practice of retaining documents provided by SAPOL during the transfer of a prisoner into the department’s 2016/02044 custody and that the department could no longer locate Complaint the complainant’s Prisoner Case File. I formed the view that the department was required to retain such The complainant contacted my Office in a distressed information in accordance with the State Records Act state from Holden Hill Police Cells. The complainant had 1997 and that by failing to do so, the department had been remanded in custody for four days without receiving acted in a manner that was contrary to law within the prescribed antidepressants despite the department and meaning of 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. the South Australian Prison Health Service (SAPHS) having knowledge that the complainant suffers from As part of the admission process, SAPHS must diagnosed depression and has a history of self-harm and contact a prisoner’s external health provider to obtain attempted suicide. The complainant explained that he information about relevant prescribed medication before is an Aboriginal person and referred to Aboriginal deaths that medication may be administered. In relation to the in custody while making threats of suicide. complainant, SAPHS was waiting for an external health provider to respond. The relevant policy provided that Following contact from my Office, the department SAPHS was not required to re-contact the external health immediately attended to the complainant’s wellbeing. provider for seven days if the matter was ‘urgent’ and in all other cases, for two weeks. In my view this timeframe Investigation and outcome did not allow for proper continuity of care. I formed the My investigation found: view that the delay in SAPHS providing the complainant’s medication was in accordance with a policy and practice • during the admission process, the department that was unreasonable for the purposes of 25(1)(c) of the determined that the complainant was ‘high risk’ Ombudsman Act. • by accommodating the complainant in the limited environment of Police Cells, the department failed I recommended that the department: to place sufficient weight on: • amend its policies to provide that high risk prisoners • the complainant’s mental health concerns are only placed in Police Cells in limited circumstances, • the complainant’s needs as an Aboriginal person only when absolutely necessary and following a joint in custody as identified by the Commonwealth discussion with SAPHS, and that a high risk prisoner Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths who is Aboriginal is never placed in police cells in Custody • retain all SAPOL documents, review its records • the importance of providing good detention management processes and undertake training about circumstances to a person deemed to be at risk. retention of documents under the State Records Act.
My final view was that by accommodating the complainant at I also recommended that SAPHS amend its policy so that Holden Hill Police Cells, the department acted in a manner responses are obtained from external health providers that was wrong within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act. immediately in order to ensure continuity of care and medication.
The recommendations are currently being implemented. Both agencies have been proactive in implementing my recommendations and taking further steps to make improvements in these areas.
OMBUDSMAN ACT INVESTIGATIONS - GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 15 Failure to induct complainant Unjust and oppressive separation of a prisoner 2017/06456 2017/01854
Complaint Complaint
It was alleged that the complainant had been in prison for I received a complaint from a prisoner concerning the approximately four weeks before being able to contact his circumstances and duration of his separation from other family. The complainant had self-harmed in prison. prisoners within G Division of Yatala Labour Prison. The prisoner complained that he had been arbitrarily Investigation and outcome transferred from Port Augusta Prison to Yatala Labour Prison and kept in G Division for a period of approximately My investigation found: 66 days. • that ordinarily new prisoners are given one free phone call, and are inducted into the prison within 24 hours Investigation and outcome of their arrival, as well as being inducted into each different unit My final view was that the department’s: • the complainant had never been inducted, despite • failure to document confidential intelligence information being in prison for four weeks and being housed leading to the prisoner’s separation was unreasonable in a number of different units in that time within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act • as the complainant was never inducted, he was unaware of how the telephone system worked • direction that the prisoner be separated from all other prisoners was unjust within the meaning of section • the complainant was already High Risk upon entering 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act the prison and his inability to contact his family had further negative impacts on his mental state • failure to provide a report to the Minister as soon as reasonably practicable after giving the direction was • while the complainant’s wife had attempted to contact contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) him numerous times with information about the of the Ombudsman Act. wellbeing of his children, those messages were not passed on to the complainant. I also considered that the department’s failure to revoke the separation direction for a period of 66 days was My final view was that the department acted in a manner oppressive and was in accordance with a law (namely that was wrong within the meaning of section 25(1)(g) section 36 of the Correctional Services Act) that is of the Ombudsman Act by: oppressive within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the • failing to induct the complainant upon his entry to prison Ombudsman Act. • failing to assist the complainant to make calls I issued a range of recommendations, including that the • failing to pass on messages from the complainant’s wife. department issue an apology and consider the provision I recommended that: of an ex gratia payment to the prisoner. I also recommended that section 36 of the Correctional Services Act be • the department implement a procedure of compliance amended to establish a maximum period that a prisoner checks to ensure that inductions are being completed may ordinarily be kept separated from other prisoners and • the department offer an apology to the complainant to require regular review by the Minister of a prisoner’s for the delay in inducting the complainant prolonged separation under the Act. • the department remind staff of their role in facilitating phone calls in both the Infirmary and the HDU, with While the department considered an ex gratia payment, an emphasis on the importance of family contact for it ultimately decided against it. The Minister has agreed High Risk prisoners to consider an amendment to section 36 as part of a review of the Act. I will continue to liaise with the Minister to ensure • the department conduct a review of how contact from that a satisfactory amendment is made. family members is managed and advise me of the outcome of the review.
The department accepted these recommendations.
16 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Unreasonable/discriminatory failure to amend To remedy this error, I recommended that the department: record of gender 3. issue a formal apology to the complainant 2017/09006 4. amend the policy to require that the department identify transgender prisoners by their preferred name Complaint at all times, unless there is a lawful reason not to do so.
I investigated a complaint by a transgender prisoner that I did not consider that the department had unreasonably the department had failed to amend its records to reflect delayed the complainant’s transfer to AWP. that she identifies as a female, resulting in a delay in her transfer to the Adelaide Women’s Prison (AWP). The department accepted the recommendations as The complainant also raised concerns that the department proposed by me prior to the finalisation of my investigation. had failed to amend the name on her cell door to reflect her chosen name. Shackling of Prisoners
Investigation and outcome Last year I reported my disappointment in the department My investigation found that: not being able to implement my recommendation dating back to 2012 to develop a soft shackling device for • there were no proper grounds for the department’s prisoners that had to be shackled to hospital beds while refusal to amend its records, and identify the receiving medical attention. The department has continued complainant by her chosen name to trial potential solutions. During the reporting year, the • the department had been aware of these issues department has trialled the use of a neoprene type of wrist as early as 2015 yet failed to take steps to address guard designed to prevent injuries to prisoners from the them until after it had been notified of my investigation chafing of shackles. As at time of writing the results of the in September 2017. trial have not been confirmed but I will be following up the department about this. My final view was that the department’s actions in failing to amend its records to reflect that the complainant is female was wrong within the meaning of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act.
I recommended that the department: 1. issue a formal apology to the complainant 2. amend its Transgender and Intersex Offenders and Prisoners Policy to require that the department amend records to reflect prisoners’ identified gender as soon as practicable.
My final view was that the department’s actions in failing to ensure that the complainant’s name on her cell door reflected her chosen name was: • improperly discriminatory for the purposes of section 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act • in breach of its policy, and therefore also wrong for the purposes of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act.
OMBUDSMAN ACT INVESTIGATIONS - GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 17 Ombudsman Act Investigations - Local Government
Nearly 25% of all complaints received relate to local • it was, therefore, not possible to conclude that at the government. Allegations of council members breaching the time the motions were considered and voted on, the Code of Conduct feature prominently in the types of matters council member would stand to gain a benefit or suffer that are investigated by my Office. In particular, breaches a loss depending on whether the motions were passed of the Code in terms of failing to comply with the conflict of or not interest provisions of the Local Government Act come to my • nevertheless, the council member did have an indirect, attention regularly. While I have not uncovered personal interest in the motion. a situation where a council member has voted on a motion the outcome of which would either provide them with My final view was that the council member had an actual a benefit or cause them to suffer loss, several times council and perceived conflict of interest within the meaning of members have been found to have failed to declare their the Local Government Act which they failed to deal with actual or perceived interests in motions considered at in accordance with the requirements of that Act. On that council meetings. Council members need to be more alert basis, the council member breached clause 3.13 of the to this issue. Otherwise, it has the potential to undermine Code of Conduct and therefore acted in a manner that was public confidence in the decision making of councils. contrary to law within the meaning of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act.
Case Study I recommended that the council require the council member to: Kangaroo Island Council • issue a public apology to the council at an ordinary Failure by a council member to declare a conflict meeting of the council for failing to appropriately deal of interest with the conflict of interest at the council meeting; and 2017/02082 • undertake training in relation to conflict of interest.
Complaint
It was alleged that a council member failed to declare a conflict of interest in relation to proposed roadworks on a road where they owned property. The motion in question, was to include in the discussion of the council’s budget, an upgrade to the road as a ‘high priority’.
Investigation and outcome
My investigation found: • although there was no dispute that the councillor owned a property in close proximity to the proposed works and that they did not declare a conflict of interest for the agenda item, it was apparent that if the proposed works did proceed, there would be tangible benefits in regard to the drainage, drivability, and safety of the road in question • the motion, however, whether in the original or amended forms, did not guarantee that the upgrade to the road in question would proceed; what was being considered was whether the upgrade would be given priority in the budget
18 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Ombudsman Act Investigations - Other Authorities
Just over 20% of complaints relate to other authorities such Public Trustee as state government commissions and boards, statutory Unreasonable decisions relating to a client’s finances officers and universities. Several of these complaints were 2017/10389 formally investigated. The majority of allegations were not substantiated, but in three cases I found administrative error. Issues One of those cases involved a finding of wrongdoing against the APY Lands Council General Manager, who has since The Public Trustee was appointed the administrator instigated judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court of a customer’s financial affairs in 2015. to challenge that finding. In October 2017, the customer made a complaint to my Office about the Public Trustee and the Office Case Studies of the Public Advocate (OPA).
Health and Community Services Complaints I did not consider that investigating the issues raised by the customer were necessary or justifiable, however, I did Commissioner consider that the information obtained by my Office during Determination to take no further action initial enquiries in regard to the complaint necessitated 2017/10752 an own initiative investigation in relation to whether the Public Trustee: Complaint • unreasonably failed to cancel the lease on the It was alleged that the Commissioner inappropriately customer’s unit determined to take no further action in respect of a medical • failed to prevent the customer from seeking professional’s complaint concerning a health provider. professional services and accruing significant fees. The medical professional alleged that the health provider had attempted to procure an unlawful abortion for Investigation and outcome a patient and had unlawfully directed or incited the medical I did not consider that the Public Trustee acted in a manner professional to facilitate this procedure. that was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong for the purposes Investigation and outcome of the Ombudsman Act by failing to prevent the customer from seeking professional services and accruing My investigation considered the determination of the significant fees. Commissioner and the status of the law concerning the standard of proof in administrative and disciplinary My final view was, however, that between 1 March 2016 – investigations. 10 October 2017, by failing to cancel a lease on a unit that the OPA had determined the customer was not capable My final view was: of returning to, the Public Trustee acted in a manner that • that the Commissioner’s determination to take no was unreasonable within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) further action in respect of the medical professional’s of the Ombudsman Act. As a result of the Public Trustee’s complaint was based in part on a mistake of law within actions, the customer had been paying for both the lease the meaning of section 25(1)(f) of the Ombudsman Act and nursing home accommodation for a period of almost two years. • that the Commissioner had misdirected himself as to the standard of proof applicable to complaints under I recommended that the Public Trustee reimburse the the HCSC Act. customer for the payments made on the lease between 1 April 2016 and 10 October 2017. I declined to set aside the determination of the Commissioner on the basis that I was not satisfied On 30 April 2018, the Public Trustee reimbursed the that the Commissioner would have reached a different customer a total of $9 601.68. determination had he not misdirected himself.
OMBUDSMAN ACT INVESTIGATIONS - OTHER AUTHORITIES 19 Return to Work Act Jurisdiction
c. With the active assistance and participation of As of 1 July 2015, the Workers Rehabilitation the worker and the employer, consistent with their and Compensation Act 1986 was repealed obligations under this Act, ensure that recovery and return to work processes focus on maintaining the and my jurisdiction under Schedule 5 of the relationship between the worker and the employer; Return to Work Act 2014 (RTW Act) to investigate complaints about breaches d. Ensure that a worker’s employer is made aware of, and fulfils, the employer’s recovery and return to work of the Service Standards commenced. obligations because early and effective workplace- The Service Standards apply to both Return based coordination of a timely and safe return to work to Work SA (RTWSA) and the Crown benefits an injured worker’s recovery; and Private self-insured insurers, including e. Treat a worker and an employer fairly and with providers of services engaged by the integrity, respect and courtesy, and comply with stated self-insured employers. timeframes; Only a worker or an employer may lodge a f. Be clear about how the Corporation an assist a worker complaint with my Office if they believe that and an employer to resolve any issues by providing accurate and complete information that is consistent the Service Standards have been breached. and easy to understand (including options about any Where an investigation by my Office identifies claim, entitlements, obligations and responsibilities); that a breach of the Service Standards has g. Assist a worker in making a claim and, if necessary, occurred, I may require the respondent to provide a worker with information about where the provide a written or oral apology, furnish worker can access advice, advocacy services and a written explanation or other remedies as support; outlined in clause 7 of Schedule 5 of the h. Take all reasonable steps to provide services and RTW Act. The powers of the Ombudsman information in a worker’s or employer’s preferred under the Ombudsman Act 1972 apply to language and format, including through the use of self-insured employers as if they are agencies interpreters if required, and to demonstrate respect and to which the Ombudsman Act applies. sensitivity to a person’s cultural beliefs and values; In addition, under section 180(8) of the i. Respect and maintain confidentiality and privacy in accordance with any legislative requirements; RTW Act, the Ombudsman can receive a request to conduct an external review of j. Provide avenues for feedback or for making the decision by RTWSA or self-insured complaints, and to be clear about what can be expected as a response; employer in relation to a worker’s request to access material relevant to their claim. At the k. Recognise a right of a worker or an employer to be conclusion of the review, the Ombudsman supported by another person and to be represented by a union, advocate or lawyer. may confirm, vary or modify the decision under review. From a complaint management point of view, the Return to Work Act appears to be working well. The number of complaints received by my Office has decreased to 191 Statement of Service Standards this year with 56% of them either being referred back to the relevant compensating authority or resolved with Clause 4 of Schedule 5 of the Return to Work Act sets out the compensating authorities’ co-operation. I formally the service standards that apply to RTWSA, claims agents investigated four complaints and in only two of those and self-insured employers. They are required to: matters found three instances of the service standards a. View a worker’s recovery and return to work as the being breached. primary goal if a worker is injured while at work; b. Ensure that early and timely intervention occurs to improve recovery and return to work outcomes including after retraining (if required);
20 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Case studies
Gallagher Bassett Services ASC Shipbuilding Pty Ltd Failure to recognise the right of an injured worker Failure to assist an injured worker to make a claim to be represented by an advocate for compensation 2016/10210 2017/07347
Complaint Complaint
The complainant acted as advocate for an injured worker. The worker reported his injury to his self-insured employer He lodged a number of complaints with my Office on 22 November 2016. Thereafter he attended the regarding the management of the worker’s claim by the employer’s onsite health clinic and was placed on modified claims agent Gallagher Bassett Services. duties. The worker was reviewed by the onsite doctor and an occupational health nurse on a number of occasions. This particular complaint was that, despite the worker Despite this he was not informed of the worker’s having nominated a number of parties to advocate on his compensation process until 18 January 2017. When the behalf, the agent had determined to only communicate worker made a claim on 1 February 2017, the employer with the worker’s legal representative. The agent referred accepted it. to the worker’s nominated advocates as ‘support persons’, who were unable to play a meaningful role in assisting the Investigation and Outcome worker with his claim for compensation. My investigation revealed that the worker had been provided Investigation and Outcome with a ‘claims pack’ on 25 January 2017, some two months after he had reported his injury. This claims pack included The claims agent informed my Office that it understood the information about the employer’s early intervention program, difference between an advocate and a support person and, which allowed an injured worker to incur up to $500 in this instance, the reference to the worker’s advocates worth of treatment without having to make a claim under as ‘support persons’ reflected nothing more than poor the Return to Work Act 2014. The evidence before me terminology. suggested it was likely that the employer may have initially considered the worker’s injury as insignificant and may On investigation however the evidence supported the therefore have informed the worker that there was no need complainant’s assertion that the claims agent had viewed for him to make a claim for compensation. I also accepted the nominated advocates as support persons, who could that it was likely that, as the worker alleged, he had been not be involved in any decisions about the worker’s claim informed by the employer’s medical staff that he should or assist the worker to make decisions about his claim. seek medical treatment through the early intervention I concluded that the claims agent had breached clause program prior to making a claim. This had led the worker to 4(k) of the Service Standards, which requires claims believe that he was unable to make a claim until being given agents to recognise the right of a worker to be represented permission by the employer to do so. by an advocate. I took the view that the employer had breached clause I recommended that the claims agent issue a written 4(g) of the Service Standards in that it had not assisted apology to the complainant for its failure to recognise the worker to make a claim until two months after he had that the worker had identified a number of persons to reported his work injury. advocate on his behalf. I further recommended that the claims agent develop a service charter or policy expressly Following my investigation the employer took remedial recognising the right enshrined by clause 4(k) of the action to address its breach by notifying all of its onsite Service Standards. The claims agent agreed to implement health staff of the requirement to provide claims packs to my recommendations. all workers who attend the health centre to report injuries.
I recommended that the employer issue a written apology to the worker for its failure to inform him of his right to make a claim for compensation on the day he notified the employer of his injury. The employer promptly implemented my recommendation.
RETURN TO WORK ACT JURISDICTION 21 Return to Work SA (RTWSA) and Employers Mutual Ltd (EML) ‘You have been so kind in what has Management of claims officers who made derogatory been a difficult time for me. Thank you comments about an injured worker for treating me with respect.’ 2018/03067 Feedback from a RTW Act complainant to the investigating officer Complaint
The worker complained that RTWSA and its claims agent EML had failed to appropriately deal with two EML employees who had made derogatory comments about him in an email exchange. The worker was also distressed by surveillance carried out on him and the failure of RTWSA to pixelate the faces of friends and family members appearing in surveillance footage.
Investigation and Outcome
I concluded that the actions of the EML employees had clearly breached the service standard contained in clause 4(e) of the Service Standards , which required EML to treat the worker with integrity, respect and courtesy. My investigation showed that, upon learning of the employees’ comments, EML had immediately suspended their employment and later terminated the same. EML had undertaken to review all claims handled by those employees as well as reviewing other claim records to ensure that inappropriate communications were not a widespread problem. EML had also put in place a number of strategic responses to prevent a recurrence of the behaviour. Given the steps taken by both RTWSA and EML I refrained from making any recommendations for further action.
I also considered whether the level of surveillance conducted by RTWSA constituted a breach of the Service Standards. In my view it did not. The Act allows claims agents to ‘undertake such investigations and inquiries as are necessary in order to achieve an evidence based decision with respect to the determination of a claim’. Given these broad investigative powers afforded by the Act and the information that was available to RTWSA at the time each period of surveillance was commissioned, the surveillance to which the worker had been subject did not amount to a failure to treat him with integrity, respect and courtesy.
22 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction
Case Studies The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (the ICAC) may refer matters that Department for Health & Ageing raise potential issues of ‘misconduct’ and/or Procurement practices and conflicts of interest ‘maladministration’ in public administration 2016/05897 to the Ombudsman for investigation. The Independent Commissioner Against Complaint Corruption Act 2012 defines misconduct and maladministration and sets out what It was alleged that: constitutes ‘public officers’ and ‘public • the department committed maladministration authorities’ for the purposes of the Act. by engaging a company to manage and lead the The matters referred may derive from implementation of a program complaints made to the Office for Public • the department committed maladministration by failing Integrity (OPI) by members of the public to publicly disclose its contracts with the company (‘complaints’) or by reports made to the OPI • the then Chief Executive Officer and or the Chief by public officers (‘reports’). Medical Officer of the department had close personal relationships with the founders of the company that Pursuant to section 14B of the Ombudsman gave rise to a conflict of interest Act, a matter referred to the Ombudsman • the department’s Chief Medical Officer and/or its Chief by the Commissioner is dealt with under Information Officer committed misconduct by publicly the Ombudsman Act as if a complaint had endorsing the company. been made under the Ombudsman Act. My investigation also considered whether administrative Accordingly, the Ombudsman investigates error occurred for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act in such referrals by exercising his powers under relation to the department’s procurement processes and the Ombudsman Act. record keeping.
Investigation and outcome The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) referred 32 complaints and reports of misconduct In relation to the first issue, my investigation found: or maladministration in public administration to my Office • the decision to engage the company by direct pursuant to section 24 of the Independent Commissioner negotiation rather than open tender was not Against Corruption Act 2012*. inconsistent with relevant guidelines • the State Procurement Board extensively scrutinised In this reporting period I issued 33 formal reports arising the department’s procurement processes in relation from ICAC referrals and found 30 allegations of misconduct, to the program and was ultimately satisfied that an maladministration and administrative error substantiated appropriate approach had been taken relating to 12 public officers or public authorities. In 12 matters I deemed it in the public interest to publish either • the department had a genuine rationale for engaging the final report or a summary statement. the company by direct engagement based on a complex series of factors. *The number of referrals is less than the number reported by ICAC in his annual report as on several matters My final view was that the engagement of the company my Office has counted a number of referrals relating did not in itself result in a substantial mismanagement of to the same public officer or public authority as constituting public resources and on that basis the department did not one or more issues on the one complaint. commit maladministration for the purposes of section 5(4) (a)(i) of the ICAC Act.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT JURISDICTION 23 In relation to the second issue, my investigation found: City of Unley • while the company was referred to as a ‘contractor’ Disclosure of confidential information to a journalist in various documents, it actually met the definition 2017/03847 of a consultant rather than a contractor, and on that basis the contracts should have been disclosed as Report required by Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC 027. It was alleged that a council member revealed confidential information to a journalist and thereby breached clause My final view was that while the failure to disclose did not 3.3 of Part 3 of the Code of Conduct for Council Members. amount to maladministration for the purposes of section 5(4)(a)(i) of the ICAC Act, the department acted in a manner Investigation and outcome that was wrong for the purposes of section 25(1)(g) of the My investigation found: Ombudsman Act. • that the council member had attended a briefing In relation to the third issue, my investigation found: by solicitors with all other elected members about • none of the information provided to my investigation potential conflicts of interest in relation to a recent indicated that either the then Chief Executive Officer Development Plan Amendment or the Chief Medical Officer had close personal • that the council member ought to have known that the relationships with the company which gave rise briefing was confidential to a conflict of interest that was required to be • that following the briefing the council member addressed in accordance with the conflict of interest telephoned a journalist and told the journalist what had policy, the Code of Ethics or the SA Health Probity transpired at the briefing and named elected members in Procurement Policy and their conflicts of interest • the Chief Medical Officer did not appear to play any • that the journalist sought to confirm the information role in the various procurement processes involving with council administration the company. • the journalist revealed his source to me as the council My final view was that neither the then Chief Executive nor member the Chief Medical Officer committed misconduct for the • that the council member confirmed that he informed purposes of section 5(3) of the ICAC Act. the journalist • that the journalist would not otherwise have had access In relation to the fourth issue, my investigation found: to that information, including the personal details of • neither the Chief Medical Officer nor the Chief elected members. Information Officer authorised the company to include testimonials on its website. Accordingly, my final view was that the council member breached clause 3.3 of the Code of Conduct for Council My final view was that neither the Chief Medical Officer Members and therefore committed misconduct for the nor the Chief Information Officer committed misconduct purposes of section 5(3)(a) of the ICAC Act. for the purposes of section 5(3) of the ICAC Act. I recommended that the council: I also formed the final view that the department’s failure • require the council member to undertake training to maintain a significant number of invoices was contrary in respect of confidentiality to the State Records Act 1997 and, on that basis, was contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the • require the council member to apologise to the council Ombudsman Act. in person at a council meeting • reprimand the council member by means of public I recommended that the department disclose all contracts statement. to which Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC 027 applies. I also provided a copy of my final report to the Manager of State Records.
24 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Recommendations
In 33 of the 69 investigation reports issued, I formed • that the Department for Correctional Services the view that public officers or agencies had committed implement a policy for the reception, induction and administrative error within the meaning of section management of Non-English speaking prisoners 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act. Altogether I made 621 (2017/04856) recommendations to remedy these errors. As at time of • that the Department for Correctional Services writing 52 or 84% have been implemented. As in previous implement a procedure of compliance checks to years, I expect an implementation rate of 95% or more. ensure that prisoner inductions are being completed (2017/06456) It should be noted that I do not have an express power to issue recommendations upon forming a view about • the Department for Correctional Services issue an misconduct or maladministration under the ICAC Act. amended instruction to include that an Aboriginal However, where the actions under investigation can be person who is assessed as High Risk (of self-harm) construed as administrative acts within the meaning of the should never be placed in Police Cells (2016/02044) Ombudsman Act, I usually express a view in accordance • that the Department for Correctional Services amend with section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act which allows Standard Operating Procedure 100 to include that me to make a recommendation under section 25(2) of that when a period of restriction is to be imposed on visiting Act. Even so, it would be advantageous if I was empowered a prisoner, the evidentiary basis for the restriction must to issue recommendations on findings of misconduct be linked to the statutory authority being relied on and or maladministration per se as is proposed for the ICAC for it to be clearly articulated to the recipient in the in the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption written order (2016/000365). (Investigation Powers) Amendment Bill 2018.
I exercised my discretion under section 26 of the Ombudsman Act to publish 30 of the final reports or a summary statement of them. The website link to the published reports is: www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/ publications/investigation-reports/
Following are some examples of recommendations that addressed systemic type issues: • that the City of Mount Gambier review its practices regarding Certificates of Occupancy, with consideration of using an alert on the Authority system to inform users when a Certificate of Occupancy has not yet been issued (2017/03984) • that the Kangaroo Island Council revise their Code of Conduct Procedure and Whistleblower Protection Policy so as to recognise that: ›› a person entitled to whistleblower status may not always be cognisant of this fact ›› a person making an appropriate disclosure of public interest information need not invoke whistleblower status so as to be afforded the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act ›› each complaint received by the council must be assessed so as to determine any application of the Whistleblowers Protection Act to the information disclosed (2017/06044, 2017/06633)
1 In addition 4 recommendations were issued on RTW Act investigations
RECOMMENDATIONS 25 26 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 AUDITS Audits
Under section 14A of the Ombudsman Act, the Complaint Management Systems Ombudsman may conduct a review of the administrative practices and procedures of an agency to which the Act In June 2018, I completed and tabled an Audit Survey applies where the Ombudsman considers it in the public Report which documents the progress made by 13 interest to do so. During the reporting year, I completed key state government departments in developing their two reviews pursuant to this power. complaint management systems (CMS).
The report identified some improvements as well as Information Sharing Guidelines some deficiencies in the CMS. Three recommendations were made: the renewal of the DPC Circular PC039 – In May 2018, I tabled the Audit Report assessing State Complaint Management in the South Australian Public Government Agencies’ implementation of the Information Sector (including adherence to the Australian Standard Sharing Guidelines for Promoting Safety and Wellbeing on complaint management), improved complaint (ISG). The ISG is endorsed by State Cabinet and defines management and access for disadvantaged and vulnerable a process for agencies to share information where there people and the development of departmental Strategic are current or anticipated threats to safety and wellbeing. Planning goals to deliver service improvements linked The aim is that by agencies sharing information and to complaints. The Senior Management Council of working together at the first sign of risk, harm to children government has been charged with the task of supervising and some of our most vulnerable citizens can be prevented. the implementation of these recommendations. The report represents a year-long investigation into seven state government agencies’ efforts to implement the The full reports of these audits are available at: ISG requirements. www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/publications/audit-reports/
The audit found agencies within the scope of the audit had overall failed to implement the ISG. The report makes a number of recommendations for improvement and sets timeframes for agency Chief Executives to report back to the Ombudsman on progress.
28 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction
The Freedom of Information Act 1991 gives every member of the public a right of access to documents held by state government-related agencies, Ministers, statutory authorities, councils, public hospitals and universities, subject to certain exceptions. Examples of documents that may be exempt include: • documents that would lead to an unreasonable disclosure of another person’s personal affairs • documents that contain trade secrets or information of commercial value • documents affecting law enforcement and public safety • documents of exempt agencies as declared by the Freedom of Information (Exempt Agency) Regulations, 2008.
Parties who are dissatisfied with determinations made by agencies may apply to my Office for an external review of the decision concerning access to documents. I can confirm, vary or reverse the agency’s determination. In some cases, my Office may facilitate a settlement between parties.
The Freedom of Information Act also gives any person a right to have records which concern their personal affairs amended, if those records are incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading. I am also able to review agency decisions in relation to the amendment of records.
Parties to a Freedom of Information matter may have my determination reviewed by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (prior to 8 December 2016 the appeal right lay to the District Court).
External Reviews
My Office completed 160 external reviews for the year. This compares to 186 last year. 87 of the external reviews were finalised by way of a formal determination. I exercised my power under section 39(14) of the FOI Act to publish 22 of the determinations on the Ombudsman SA website. These can be accessed at: www.ombudsman. sa.gov.au/publications/foi-determinations/
I received 127 applications for external review, which is a welcome decrease from the189 received the previous year. I put the reduction down to a tapering off of requests from Members of Parliament in the months preceding and immediately following the March 2018 state election. The slight ‘lull’ in new external review applications allowed my FOI Team to reduce the backlog of external reviews. The average time to complete an external review during the year was 125 days (approximately four months), which is an acceptable time frame, in my view.
Of the 87 applications formally determined, I confirmed the agency decision in only 26 matters, and either reversed or varied 61 decisions. In my view, this suggests that agencies are applying exemptions to documents more often than is justified.
30 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Case Studies
Department of Planning, Transport and Clause 5 of the FOI Act exempts documents containing Infrastructure matter the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to intergovernmental Intergovernmental communications and request relations, or would divulge information from a confidential for access to documents about toll roads and intergovernmental communication. To justify an exemption user charges under clause 5 an agency must also establish that 2016/00625 disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Although Application for access I was satisfied that disclosure of some of the documents in issue could reasonably be expected to cause damage The applicant, then an Opposition Member of Parliament, to intergovernmental relations, I was not satisfied that sought access to documents held by the agency that disclosure of all of those would be contrary to the public included the terms ‘toll road’ or ‘user charge’. During interest. I noted that, while there was a remote possibility my external review the applicant revised the scope of that release of passages from those two documents might his application so as to exclude documents that only negatively impact on the free exchange of ideas during referenced those terms in the context of the proposed intergovernmental discussions, this was outweighed by national heavy network charge and the existing the public interest in openness and accountability of Commonwealth road user charge on diesel purchases. government decisions and the promotion of effective public participation in administrative decision-making. The agency refused access to each of the 57 documents it identified as falling within scope of the application. Determination In doing so, it claimed that the documents were exempt under clause 1 (Cabinet documents), clause 3 (documents I varied the agency’s determination. communicated by another government), clause 5 (documents affecting intergovernmental relations), clause Adelaide Hills Council 9 (internal working documents) and section 20(1)(b) Refusal to deal with an FOI application (otherwise available for inspection in accordance with 2017/09234 a legislative instrument other than the FOI Act). Application for access Review The applicant sought access to the number of property I was not satisfied that a particular document was a Cabinet inspections undertaken and number of notices issued document. It did not contain any information pertaining by the council, broken down by postcode, in relation to fire to a Cabinet deliberation or decision. In addition it was safety from July 2014 to June 2015. difficult to see how disclosure of the document would be contrary to the purposes underpinning the doctrine The agency made a determination refusing to deal with of Cabinet confidentiality, namely the maintenance of the application, relying on section 18(1) of the FOI Act. Cabinet solidarity and the prevention of actions pre- The agency considered that dealing with the application empting government decisions. would substantially and unreasonably divert the agency’s resources from their use by the agency of its functions. Neither was I satisfied that certain documents were exempt under clause 3 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act. For a document Review to be exempt under that clause it must contain information forming an intergovernmental communication to the It was my view that the agency had misinterpreted the Government of South Australia that would be protected from application for access and had considered a large number disclosure under a corresponding law of the Commonwealth of documents to be within the scope of the application or another State. It is also necessary that notice be provided (specifically, documents relating to each property by the relevant government that the information would be so inspection and a copy of each of the notices issued). In protected. In this case the agency did not identify which law, my view, the application sought only the number of these if any, of the Commonwealth or another State would protect documents, not the documents themselves. Further, the documents from disclosure. Nor did it suggest that it had due to section 4 of the FOI Act, the agency was taken received notice of such protection from another jurisdiction. to hold a document about these numbers, even though that information was stored electronically. It was also
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION 31 my view that the agency was prohibited from relying on Department of State Development section 18(1) of the FOI Act, as the agency had not taken Parliamentary privilege reasonable steps to assist the applicant to amend his 2017/05526 application such that dealing with it would not necessitate an unreasonable diversion of the agency’s resources. Application for access
Determination The applicant sought access to documents about a ‘joint venture between Adelaide City Council, the State I reversed the agency’s determination. Government, Australian Trade Alliance and The Social Creative in relation to the Royal Adelaide Club at the City of Adelaide Qingdao International Beer Festival held in Shandong Abuse of the right of access under the FOI Act in 2016’, and a subsequent, related dispute. 2 017/11142 The agency identified one document within the scope Application for access of the application, namely a parliamentary briefing note. The agency claimed that the note was exempt as its The applicant had received a parking fine from the agency, disclosure would infringe the privilege of Parliament which the agency had subsequently referred to the Fines (clause 17(c)). Enforcement and Recovery Officer for enforcement. The applicant applied to the agency for access to Review documents relating to any certificate that contained the According to case law, parliamentary privilege ‘attaches particulars determined by the FERO had been issued by when, but only when, a Member of Parliament does the agency for the purposes of obtaining an enforcement some act with respect to documents for purposes of, determination. or incidental to, the transacting of House business’. Review During the course of my review, the agency submitted that The review concerned the agency’s determination to refuse the then Premier had relied on a subsequent version of the to deal with the application on the basis of its opinion that document when providing information to Parliament. it was part of a pattern of conduct that amounted to an Having regard to the document itself, the subsequent abuse of the right of access conferred by the FOI Act, version of the document, and extracts from Hansard, or had been made for a purpose other than to obtain I was satisfied that the requisite nexus existed between access to information. the document and parliamentary proceedings, and On review I concluded that it was reasonable for the its disclosure would therefore infringe the privilege agency to have formed this view. I noted that the application of Parliament. in issue was the 15th application made by the applicant Determination to the agency in a period of 13 months. Each of the 15 applications were requests for access to documents I confirmed the agency’s determination. relating to the enforcement of the single parking fine issued to the applicant. 10 of the 15 applications were for requests for access to documents relating to the certificate provided by the agency to FERO. In addition the requests appeared to have been intended to assist the applicant to establish that the FERO had been taking enforcement action against fine recipients without complying with the Expiation of Offences Act 1996.
Determination
I confirmed the agency’s determination.
32 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Complaints about FOI matters Training
In addition, to conducting external reviews, my Office My Office continues to provide training to agency FOI receives complaints about the way agencies have officers (approximately four times per year) and contribute managed the FOI application. Most of these complaints to the training material used. The training is provided in are about agencies not being able to locate documents conjunction with State Records. that the applicant believes they hold. As advised in my previous report, a decision of the SACAT handed down in April 20171, to the effect that a claim by an agency that Judicial Review it does not hold a document requested under the FOI Act The APY Lands Board has challenged, by judicial review is not a determination that is reviewable under the FOI Act, in the Supreme Court, my determination that it is an means that such a claim cannot be reviewed by the agency agency for the purpose of the FOI Act. The judicial review concerned on internal review by my Office as external hearing was held on 25 January 2018 and the Court’s review authority, or by SACAT on external review. decision is yet to be handed down. However, I continue to consider grievances arising out of such claims but treat them as complaints under the Access to Information Optimal Features Ombudsman Act, rather than as external reviews under the FOI Act. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and Framework is one of the numerous deficiencies in the Act that I have My Office has been represented on a joint working raised with the Attorney-General for consideration in a group established under the auspices of the Australian review of the Act. New Zealand Association of Information Access During the reporting year, I received 19 FOI Act complaints Commissioners. The working group has been developing and completed 23. On average, complaints were a document that sets out the optimal features of a right finalised within 78 days. Four were resolved with agency to information scheme. The purpose of the document cooperation and the remaining matters did not result in any is to provide a guide to widely accepted underlying findings against agencies. principles of right to information legislation that have the endorsement of Information Commissioners and Ombudsmen from around the country and New Zealand. Table of FOI matters received and closed
Matter Type Received Closed
FOI external reviews 127 160
FOI advices 158 158
FOI complaints 19 23
Summary of FOI complaints Received Closed
FOI Practices & Procedures 2 2
Sufficiency of search 17 21
Total 19 23
1 El Shafei v Central Adelaide Local Health Network [2017] SACAT 5.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION 33 34 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 INFORMATION SHARING GUIDELINES Information Sharing Guidelines for Promoting Safety and Wellbeing (ISG)
Since 2013, the SA Principal Advisor Information Sharing has been employed with my Office to promote the ISG, Advice and Promotion provide advice to agencies and their frontline staff as to the application of the ISG, assist agencies with In addition to completing the Audit, the Principal Advisor developing their ISG procedures (called an appendix) has responded to 43 individual requests for advice, and monitor implementation. provided assistance to 18 agencies and organisations with the development of their ISG appendixes and delivered 17 ISG presentations and workshops including at a meeting Audit of the Australian and New Zealand Child Mortality and Serious Injury Review committees. Feedback following I have already mentioned the Audit report which was advice and delivering presentations absolutely confirms the tabled in May 2018. The report was the culmination of an simplicity and strength of the ISG decision making steps extensive piece of work which commenced in October and practice guide in informing appropriate practice. 2016. One of the recommendations contained in the report is that the agencies report to me by the end of May 2018 their progress with implementation and addressing the ‘Just wanted to say thank you once again for deficiencies identified through the audit process. Each of attending our Workplace Learning session last the agencies has complied with that recommendation and week. The information you shared was really provided me with an update on their progress. In particular, appreciated and helpful for us all to reflect on. it is pleasing to be able to report that the Department for Following your visit one of our team had an excellent Correctional Services, which was strongly criticised by me outcome with one of our key interagency partners. for its lack of progress, has now been able to demonstrate The worker had previously been challenged in significant improvement in its implementation of the ISG. gathering the necessary information; however in line with your suggestions around working I will continue to follow up each of the agencies in their through the framework together … they were able implementation of all the recommendations that relate to successfully gather the information. This then to them. led to us being able to more robustly assess the Recommendation 6 asked the Department for the Premier circumstances for this young person and family.’ and Cabinet to consider developing Regulations to the Feedback on a presentation given by the SA Principal Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016 that apply ISG Advisor Information Sharing principles to data sharing between agencies. However, the department has responded by indicating that while it had considered the recommendation, it did not believe Regulations to that Act were the appropriate way forward. Nevertheless, I maintain my view that for the ISG to be truly effective it needs to have the force of law.
36 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Case Study Transition to Office for Data Analytics
Call for advice from an NGO service provider regarding At the beginning of 2018 discussions were held with the a male client (tenant) who has a long history of mental Chief Data Officer of the Department for the Premier and illness. He is currently under a community treatment order. Cabinet. In view of the fact that the ISG and the Office for He has previously had an allocated social worker during Data Analytics (ODA) have complementary objectives his tenancy with another agency. Staff are concerned that in ensuring that data is used to ensure informed interagency his mental health is declining. They know from previous and multi-disciplinary responses are provided, it was communication with his mental health worker that he decided that the position of SA Principal Advisor Information can become extremely violent and irrational. The client Sharing would be transferred to the ODA as from 1 July gets agitated and will not give consent for the NGO 2018. I also believe that the relocation of the position to staff to talk to his mental health worker or former social the ODA will help to fully embed the ISG in practice and worker. The caller is concerned that the young woman provide additional resources required for promotion of the cleaner the client has recently engaged could be at risk ISG. In the months leading up to 1 July 2018, the Principal of harm. She is also concerned for the client’s wellbeing Advisor has worked with the ODA to enable the transfer and that he could potentially pose a risk of harm to her to take effect. Agencies have been advised of the transfer. staff. The Principal Advisor asked the caller to go to the The Principal Advisor will continue to provide advice and Ombudsman SA website and pull up the ISG decision monitor implementation of the ISG, albeit no longer under making steps and practice guide; the Principal Advisor my delegation and the authority of the Ombudsman Act. took her through process. It was agreed that (ISG step 3) An important priority for the Principal Advisor in the coming there was a legitimate reason to talk to the client’s mental year will be to oversee an update of the ISG to reflect health worker (to protect a person or group of people machinery of government and legislative changes. from potential harm, abuse or neglect; to protect service providers from harm; and to help service providers more effectively address risks to safety and wellbeing; and Acknowledgement alert other service providers to an individual’s need for I wish to acknowledge the unique and unparalleled assistance) and (ISG step 6) after several attempts contribution the Principal Advisor, Ms Donna Mayhew, has it was not possible to obtain his consent. The caller again made to this State in her tireless and passionate advocacy stressed her concerns for the client’s wellbeing and that of the ISG. I wish her every success in the continuation she is hopeful that together with his mental health worker of this important work from the vantage point of the they can stop him from harming himself or someone else – Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the ODA. his current behaviour could also place his tenancy Ms Mayhew has also been a highly valued member of this at risk meaning he could become homeless. It was agreed Office’s staff for the last five years and I thank her for the there was (ISG step 7) a legitimate reason to share without excellent work that she achieved while with us. consent. The Principal Advisor reiterated the importance of making a record. The caller requested some ISG posters to be sent to her office because it was so helpful in determining if information sharing without consent was the right thing to do.
INFORMATION SHARING GUIDELINES 37 38 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 OTHER ACTIVITIES Other Activities
Submissions My Office has provided written submissions on the following draft legislation and bills: On 12 February 2018, I provided a written submission to • draft NDIS (Protection and Disclosure of Information – the Honourable John Mansfield AM QC, the Independent Commissioner) Rules 2017 Reviewer of the Return to Work Act 2014. I submitted my • NDIS (Registration and Practice Standards) Rules views and observations on several of the terms of reference. • NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules I observed that the claims agents’ performance in managing • NDIS (Code of Conduct) Rules claims had improved, with better communication between • draft Local Government (General) (Codes of Conduct) claims managers and injured workers and a more Variation Regulations 2017 co-operative approach which has resulted in less frustration and argument from injured workers. • draft Public Sector (Data Sharing) Regulations 2017 • draft Children and Young People (Oversight and I also pointed out some gaps in the service standards set Advocacy Bodies) Regulations 2017 out in Schedule 5 of the Act which are a key component • Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill 2018 of the complaint management framework under the Act: • Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) As already noted above, a complaint about compliance Amendment Bill 2018 with the service standards may only be brought by either a worker or an employer. There does not seem to be any good reason for excluding service providers and ANZOA Executive Committee those directly affected by the actions of compensating In November 2017, I was re-elected to the Executive authorities. Accordingly, I recommend that clause Committee of the Australian New Zealand Ombudsman 5(1) of Schedule 5 of the RTW Act be amended to Association (ANZOA). include anyone directly affected by the Corporation’s compliance with the service standards. Incorporated in 2003, ANZOA is the peak body for ombudsmen in Australia and New Zealand. ANZOA I advise that the service standards do not cover members come from not-for-profit industry-based, incompetence or carelessness in the management parliamentary and other statutory external dispute resolution of a claim. For example, I have investigated complaints offices, which meet high standards of independence, about documents relevant to a claim being misplaced impartiality and effectiveness and observe the Benchmarks or lost and have also found in the course of investigating for Industry-Based Customer Dispute Resolution. a matter that inadequate notes of conversations with a worker have been kept by the claims manager. In both The Executive Committee meets quarterly, usually by instances, it seemed to me that none of the service teleconference, to further ANZOA’s focus on supporting standards were applicable. I believe that the Schedule the ombudsman community and promoting best practice 5, clause 4 service standards should be amended to and the role and value of ombudsmen offices. During the require the Corporation to act with reasonable care and reporting year, I attended four of these meetings. The diligence in the management of a worker’s claim. May 2018 meeting was held in Wellington, New Zealand, immediately prior to the 2018 ANZOA Conference. Unfortunately, the Reviewer did not respond to this submission in his report. Australasian and Pacific Ombudsmen Each year after the publication of my annual report I appear before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee Region Conference established under section 15M of the Parliamentary In November 2017 I attended a three day conference held Committees Act 1991 and charged with the responsibility in Perth for the Australasian and Pacific Ombudsman of examining my annual report and to inquire into the Region, a division of the International Ombudsman Institute performance of my functions and powers. I appeared before of which I am a member. This was an opportunity to meet the Committee for this purpose on 13 November 2017. with many ombudsmen from the region and to reflect on issues important to our work.
40 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Prison visits
During the year I attended Preventing Aboriginal Deaths in Custody forums held at the Cadell Training Centre, Adelaide Women’s Prison and Adelaide Remand Centre. These forums are held annually in each prison and provide an opportunity for Aboriginal prisoners and advocates to raise issues that are relevant to them and for correctional staff and service providers to furnish information about actions that may be taken to address their concerns.
I made a second visit to the Adelaide Women’s Prison to see progress in the refurbishment of a wing of B Block, with much of the work being undertaken by prisoners as part of their TAFE certificate course in construction. The end result is an impressive, high quality facility that accommodates 27 prisoners.
I also attended Yatala Labour Prison on two occasions to observe the process for inducting prisoners. My Office had investigated a couple of complaints which highlighted some deficiencies in the induction of prisoners and I wanted to familiarise myself with the process on site. On the first occasion I observed the induction of four prisoners in the prisoner admissions area where prisoners are received from external sites such as the courts precinct or another prison. On the second occasion, I observed an induction of a prisoner in B Division. This Division based induction takes place on the morning after the prisoner’s arrival.
In May 2018, I visited the Holden Hill Police Cells where 13 female prisoners were being held due to the Adelaide Women’s Prison having reached full capacity. The conditions at the Cells are far from ideal with there being very limited space for exercise and no facility for visits from family or friends. Prisoners were retained at the Cells for between 7 and 14 days. Fortunately, by the end of the reporting year, no prisoners were being held at the Cells.
Correctional Services Training
As in previous years, my Office provided training to new Correctional Services Officers as part of the induction program run by the Department. The Ombudsman SA training details the role of the Office as a component of the prisoner complaint handling framework. This training was provided five times during the reporting year.
OTHER ACTIVITIES 41 42 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 ABOUT OMBUDSMAN SA About Ombudsman SA
What we do Investigations are conducted in private and we can only disclose information or make a statement about an The Ombudsman is empowered to: investigation in accordance with specified provisions of the • investigate the administrative acts of state government Ombudsman Act. agencies, local government councils and statutory At the conclusion of an investigation, the Ombudsman authorities; and also misconduct and maladministration may recommend a remedy to the agency’s principal officer, in public administration on referral from the or recommend that practices and procedures are amended Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and improved to prevent a recurrence of the problem. • conduct audits of the administrative practices and procedures of state government agencies, local The Ombudsman should not in any report, make adverse government councils and statutory authorities comments about any person or agency unless they have • conduct Freedom of Information reviews about release been provided with an opportunity to respond. of information The Ombudsman may make a recommendation to • receive information about state and local government Parliament that certain legislation be reviewed. activities confidentially from whistleblowers • administer and provide advice on the Information We usually publish our reports and determinations on our Sharing Guidelines website at http://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/. • investigate complaints about breaches of service standards under the Return to Work Act 2014. Our jurisdiction
The aim of Ombudsman SA is to contribute to sound public Certain agencies are outside Ombudsman SA’s jurisdiction. administration within state and local government agencies We do not have the power to investigate actions and in South Australia. decisions of: Visit our website for further information about our • the South Australian Police services or to register a complaint directly online: • employers – on matters that affect their employees www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au • private persons, businesses or companies • Commonwealth or interstate government agencies The Investigation Process • government Ministers and Cabinet • courts and judges Any party who is directly affected by an administrative act of a government department, council or statutory authority • legal advisers to the Crown. under our jurisdiction can make a complaint. The Ombudsman can decide whether to commence Investigations may be initiated by Ombudsman SA in or continue an investigation. Some of the factors that response to a complaint received by telephone, in person, may influence this decision include whether the matter in writing or through the website from any person (or an is more than 12 months old; whether the complainant has appropriate person acting on another’s behalf); a complaint a legal remedy or right of review or appeal and whether referred to the Ombudsman by a Member of Parliament it is reasonable to expect the complainant to resort to that or a committee of Parliament; or on the Ombudsman’s remedy; or whether a complaint appears to be frivolous, own initiative. We may also undertake audits of the trivial, vexatious, or not made in good faith. In some cases administrative practices and procedures of an agency. an investigation may not be warranted, such as where an agency is still investigating the complaint or a complaint If the Ombudsman decides to investigate a complaint, has not yet been made to the agency, or where another we advise the agency and the complainant accordingly. complaint-handling body may be more appropriate. As part of this process, we identify the issues raised by the complainant along with any other issues that we consider relevant. The Ombudsman can choose to conduct either an informal or a formal investigation (preliminary or full). If the Ombudsman decides not to investigate, the complainant is advised of this, along with the reasons for the decision.
44 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Referral to other jurisdictions
Ombudsman SA also has an important referral role. Even though we may be unable to be of direct assistance to people who approach the office about matters that are not within our jurisdiction, we are often able to refer them to another appropriate source of assistance.
Service principles
If the complaint is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, we will, in normal circumstances: • provide an accessible and timely service, with equal regard for all people with respect for their background and circumstances • provide impartial and relevant advice and clear information about what we can and cannot do • provide timely, impartial and fair investigation of complaints • ensure confidentiality • keep people informed throughout the investigation of a complaint • provide concise and accurate information about any decisions or recommendations made and provide reasons wherever possible.
Parties who are unhappy with our service can find our complaints policy and procedures at http://www. ombudsman.sa.gov.au/about-us/complaints-about-us/.
ABOUT OMBUDSMAN SA 45 Complaints about Ombudsman SA
In accordance with Premier and Cabinet Circular 013, which was updated as a result of a recommendation made by the former Acting Ombudsman in 2014, I report that my Office responded to 27 complaints made about my Office in the 2017/2018 year and I set out a summary of them below. I note that most complaints reviewed did not result in a different outcome, although there were four complaints relating to the service provided by this Office that were upheld. In all of these cases an apology was offered to the complainant and staff were reminded of OSA service standards.
Matter Number Complaint subject matter Outcome/Actions taken 2017/07071 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed 2017/07225 Complaint about OSA services - refusal to meet with complainant Meeting arranged 2017/07437 Request by agency for internal review of OSA decision on Internal review conducted – factual errors investigation acknowledged but outcome confirmed 2017/08569 Complaint about OSA services - failure to provide interpreter Substantiated – interpreter provided and staff counselled 2017/08593 Complaint about OSA services – failure to take sufficient action Not substantiated 2017/09560 Complaint about OSA services - failure to record complaint Substantiated – staff reminded of record- keeping obligations 2017/10808 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed 2017/10810 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Matter not completed as at 30.6.18 2017/12046 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Further enquiries made but outcome confirmed 2017/12095 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed 2017/13005 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed 2018/00532 Request for internal review of OSA decision on investigation Internal review not warranted 2017/12808 Request for internal review of OSA decision on investigation Internal review not warranted 2 018 / 01111 Complaint about our services - OSA Officer bias Not substantiated 2018/00838 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed – OSA assessed new issues raised by complainant 2018/01296 Request for internal review of investigation – failure to consider Internal Review conducted - Outcome relevant material confirmed 2018/02529 Request for internal review of OSA decision on investigation Matter not completed as at 30.6.18 2018/03034 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Matter not completed as at 30.6.18 2018/03102 Unreasonable decision to close file Complaint withdrawn 2018/03193 Request for internal review of OSA decision on investigation Internal review conducted – no errors in original investigation – however new information required further assessment 2018/03628 Complaint about OSA services - failure to advise complainant of Substantiated – staff counselled and outcome of complaint apology issued 2018/03418 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed 2018/03628 Complaint about OSA Services – failure to advise complainant of Substantiated - staff counselled outcome of complaint 2018/04609 Complaint about OSA services – failure to consider submissions Not substantiated 2018/05305 Unreasonable decision not to investigate Outcome confirmed 2018/05399 Complaint about OSA services – alleged breach of privacy Not substantiated 2018/06859 Complaint about OSA services – failure to provide information Not substantiated
46 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Organisation Chart
Ombudsman
Deputy Ombudsman
Principal Advisor - Senior Legal Officer Senior Legal Officer Manager Intake and Office Manager Information Sharing (Investigations) (FOI) Assessment Education
LE5 LE5 ASO8 ASO4 ASO8
Legal Officer Investigating/ Legal Officer Executive Services Assessment (Investigations) Officer LE3 (0.7 FTE) Officer
LE3 (0.8) FTE Legal Officer ASO5 ASO3
LE3 (0.6 FTE)
Assessment Legal Officer Clerical Legal Officer Officer (Investigations) Officer ASO4 LE2
LE3 (0.5) FTE ASO2
Legal Officer Assessment Officer
LE1 Investigating ASO4 (0.6 FTE) Administrative Officer Officer
Legal Officer ASO6 Assessment ASO2 LE1 (Term) Officer
ASO4 (0.4 FTE) Administration Team Investigating Officer Legal Officer
LE1 (Term) Assessment Officer ASO6
ASO4 Legal Officer
LE1 Legal Officer Assessment Officer FOI Team LE1 (Term) ASO4 (0.4 FTE)
Investigations Team Assessment Officer
ASO4
Assessment Team
ORGANISATION CHART 47 Summary Data
Ombudsman Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Total Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Total Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Total
Open matters 1902 909 699 3510 2247 965 798 4010 2379 974 917 4270
Closed matters 1888 881 700 3469 2252 991 797 4040 2355 939 902 4196
Audit Completed 1 12 13 20 20
FOI Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Minister Total Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Minister Total Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Minister Total
Open External 76 20 22 13 131 109 19 51 10 189 55 28 33 11 127 Reviews
Closed External 77 12 28 9 126 115 22 40 9 186 67 32 48 13 160 Reviews
ICAC Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Total Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Total Government Departments Local Government Other Authorities Total
Matters received under s24 5 35 6 46 7 27 15 49 6 18 8 32 referral
Matters Closed 6 24 3 33 6 35 7 48 7 19 9 35
Return To Work Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Claims Agent Self-Insured Employer Service Provider Total Claims Agent Self-Insured Employer Service Provider Total Claims Agent Self-Insured Employer Service Provider Total
Matters received 253 109 62 424 148 58 19 225 115 53 23 191
Matters Closed 242 109 62 413 151 55 18 224 117 53 21 191
48 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction1 Government departments Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
Complaints: Received
Percentage of Government Department No Total Complaints
Attorney-General’s Department 91 3.8
Department for Child Protection 196 8.2
Department for Communities and Social Inclusion 163 6.9
Department for Correctional Services 747 31.4
Department for Education 22 0.9
Department for Education and Child Development 149 6.3
Department for Environment and Water 1 0.1
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources 18 0.7
Department for Health & Ageing 35 1.5
Department for Health and Wellbeing 7 0.3
Department of Human Services 20 0.8
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 212 8.9
Department of Primary Industries & Regions SA 6 0.3
Department of State Development 4 0.2
Department of the Premier and Cabinet 51 2.1
Department of Treasury and Finance 26 1.1
Environment Protection Authority 17 0.7
SA Housing Trust 551 23.2
SA Police 13 0.5
SA Water Corporation 50 2.1
Total 2379 100%
1 Includes requests for FOI advice.
SUMMARY DATA 49 Complaints: Completed
Percentage of Government Department No Total Complaints
Attorney-General’s Department 86 3.7
Department for Child Protection 178 7.6
Department for Communities and Social Inclusion 166 7.0
Department for Correctional Services 748 31.8
Department for Education 18 0.8
Department for Education and Child Development 155 6.6
Department for Environment and Water 1 0.1
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources 17 0.7
Department for Health & Ageing 34 1.4
Department for Health and Wellbeing 7 0.3
Department of Human Services 17 0.7
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 212 9.0
Department of Primary Industries & Regions SA 6 0.2
Department of State Development 4 0.2
Department of the Premier and Cabinet 49 2.1
Department of Treasury and Finance 28 1.2
Environment Protection Authority 17 0.7
SA Housing Trust 549 23.3
SA Police 13 0.5
SA Water Corporation 50 2.1
Total 2355 100%
50 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Complaints: Outcomes
Outcome Total Percentage
Advice given 75 3.1
Alternate remedy available with another body 226 9.6
Complainant cannot be contacted 20 0.8
Declined/Investigation unnecessary or unjustifiable 407 17.2
Declined/No sufficient personal interest or not directly affected 35 1.5
Declined/Out of time 9 0.4
Declined/Trivial, Frivolous, Vexatious, Not made in good faith 2 0.1
Not substantiated/No s25 finding 5 0.2
Out of Jurisdiction/Employment 14 0.6
Out of Jurisdiction/Minister 1 0.1
Referred back to agency 1170 49.6
Report to OPI 4 0.2
Resolved with agency cooperation 315 13.4
s25 Finding/Finding/Contrary to law 1 0.1
s25 Finding/Finding/Unreasonable 2 0.1
s25 Finding/Finding/Improper purpose or irrelevant grounds or considerations 1 0.1
s25 Finding/Wrong 7 0.3
Withdrawn by complainant 61 2.6
Total 2355 100%
SUMMARY DATA 51 Local Government Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
Complaints: Received
Population Complaints/ Local Council Received Percentage 30 June 2017 10,000 popn
Adelaide, City of 63 6.6 23 916 26.3
Adelaide Hills Council 33 3.4 39 550 8.3
Adelaide Plains Council 8 0.9 8 994 8.8
Alexandrina Council 19 1.9 26 775 7.0
Barossa Council, The 7 0.7 24 544 2.8
Barunga West Council 3 0.3 2 578 11. 6
Berri Barmera Council 5 0.5 10 838 4.6
Burnside, City of 36 3.8 45 690 7.8
Campbelltown City Council 18 1.8 51 322 3.5
Charles Sturt, City of 58 6.0 115 6 8 8 5.0
Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council 9 1.0 9 311 9.6
Cleve, District Council of 4 0.4 1 811 22.0
Coober Pedy, District Council of 17 1.7 1 861 91.3
Coorong, District Council 3 0.3 5 518 5.4
Copper Coast, District Council of the 17 1.7 14 621 11. 6
Elliston, District Council of 3 0.3 1 064 28.1
Flinders Ranges Council, The 2 0.2 1 665 12.0
Franklin Harbour, District Council of 4 0.4 1 322 30.2
Gawler, Town of 13 1.3 23 547 5.5
Goyder, Regional Council of 8 0.9 4 227 18.9
Grant, District Council of 4 0.4 8 442 4.7
Holdfast Bay, City of 13 1.3 36 520 3.5
Kangaroo Island Council 15 1.5 4 890 30.6
Kimba, District Council of 1 0.1 1 068 9.3
Kingston District Council 1 0.1 2 440 4.0
Light Regional Council 5 0.5 15 187 3.2
Lower Eyre Peninsula, District Council of 3 0.3 5 726 5.2
Loxton Waikerie, District Council of 4 0.4 11 76 6 3.3
Marion, City of 26 2.7 91 446 2.8
Mid Murray Council 12 1.2 8 844 13.5
Mitcham, City of 23 2.4 66 693 3.4
Mount Barker, District Council of 21 2.1 34 643 6.0
52 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Population Complaints/ Local Council Received Percentage 30 June 2017 10,000 popn
Mount Gambier, City of 6 0.6 27 012 2.2
Mount Remarkable, District Council of 6 0.6 2 907 20.6
Murray Bridge, Rural City of 11 1.1 21 770 0.4
Naracoorte Lucindale Council 6 0.6 8 628 6.9
Northern Areas Council 4 0.4 4 585 8.7
Norwood, Payneham & St Peters, City of 15 1.5 36 561 4.1
Onkaparinga, City of 87 9.0 170 127 5.1
Peterborough, District Council of 5 0.5 1 703 0.29
Playford, City of 45 4.6 92 191 4.8
Port Adelaide Enfield, City of 50 5.2 124 731 4.0
Port Augusta City Council 10 1.0 14 284 7.0
Port Lincoln, City of 8 0.9 14 650 5.4
Port Pirie Regional Council 6 0.6 17 754 3.3
Prospect, City of 12 1.2 21 126 5.6
Renmark Paringa, District Council of 5 0.5 9 825 5.0
Robe, District Council of 20 2.0 1 414 141.4
Roxby Council 1 0.1 3 979 2.5
Salisbury, City of 34 3.5 142 024 2.3
Southern Mallee District Council 5 0.5 2 063 24.2
Streaky Bay, District Council of 5 0.5 2 195 22.7
Tatiara District Council 3 0.3 6 826 4.3
Tea Tree Gully, City of 50 5.2 99 769 5.0
Tumby Bay, District Council of 8 0.9 2 685 29.7
Unley, City of 10 1.0 39 026 2.5
Victor Harbor City Council 17 1.7 15 180 11.1
Wakefield Regional Council 6 0.6 6 924 8.6
Walkerville, Town of 6 0.6 7 908 7.5
Wattle Range Council 4 0.4 11 9 81 3.3
West Torrens, City of 31 3.2 59 553 5.2
Whyalla, City of 10 1.0 21 997 4.5
Wudinna District Council 3 0.3 1 298 23.1
Yankalilla, District Council of 8 0.9 5 373 14.8
Yorke Peninsula Council 19 1.9 11 28 6 16.8
Total 974 100%
SUMMARY DATA 53 Complaints: Completed
Population Complaints/ Local Council Completed Percentage 30 June 2017 10,000 popn
Adelaide, City of 63 6.7 23 916 26.3
Adelaide Hills Council 32 3.4 39 550 8.0
Adelaide Plains Council 8 0.8 8 994 8.8
Alexandrina Council 19 2.1 26 775 7.0
Barossa Council, The 7 0.7 24 544 2.8
Barunga West Council 3 0.3 2 578 11. 6
Berri Barmera Council 6 0.6 10 838 5.5
Burnside, City of 33 3.5 45 690 0.6
Campbelltown, City of 18 1.9 51 322 3.5
Charles Sturt, City of 59 6.5 115 6 8 8 5.0
Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council 8 0.8 9 311 8.5
Cleve, District Council of 3 0.3 1 811 16.5
Coober Pedy, District Council of 16 1.7 1 861 85.9
Coorong District Council 3 0.3 5 518 5.4
Copper Coast Council 17 1.8 14 621 11. 6
Elliston, District Council of 3 0.3 1 064 28.1
Flinders Ranges Council, The 2 0.2 1 665 12.0
Franklin Harbour, District Council of 4 0.4 1 322 30.2
Gawler, Town of 11 1.3 23 547 4.6
Goyder, Regional Council of 7 0.7 4 227 16.5
Grant, District Council of 4 0.4 8 442 4.7
Holdfast Bay, City of 16 1.7 36 520 4.3
Kangaroo Island Council 14 1.5 4 890 28.6
Kimba, District Council of 1 0.1 1 068 9.3
Kingston District Council 1 0.1 2 440 4.0
Light Regional Council 6 0.6 15 187 3.9
Lower Eyre Peninsula, District Council of 2 0.2 5 726 3.4
Loxton Waikerie, District Council of 4 0.4 11 76 6 3.3
Marion, City of 26 2.9 91 446 2.8
Mid Murray Council 11 1.3 8 844 12.4
Mitcham, City of 23 2.4 66 693 3.4
Mount Barker District Council 22 2.3 34 643 6.3
54 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Population Complaints/ Local Council Completed Percentage 30 June 2017 10,000 popn
Mount Gambier, City of 6 0.6 27 012 2.2
Mount Remarkable, District Council of 5 0.5 2 907 17.1
Murray Bridge, Rural City of 11 1.3 21 770 50.6
Naracoorte Lucindale Council 6 0.6 8 628 6.9
Northern Areas Council 4 0.4 4 585 8.7
Norwood, Payneham & St Peters, City of 15 1.6 36 561 4.1
Onkaparinga, City of 81 8.7 170 127 4.7
Peterborough, District Council of 5 0.5 1 703 29.3
Playford, City of 41 4.5 92 191 4.4
Port Adelaide Enfield, City of 50 5.3 124 731 4.0
Port Augusta City Council 10 1.1 14 284 7.0
Port Lincoln, City of 7 0.7 14 650 4.7
Port Pirie Regional Council 6 0.6 17 754 3.3
Prospect, City of 12 1.3 21 126 5.6
Renmark Paringa, District Council of 2 0.2 9 825 2.0
Robe, District Council of 13 1.4 1 414 91.9
Roxby Council 1 0.1 3 979 2.5
Salisbury, City of 34 3.6 142 024 2.3
Southern Mallee District Council 5 0.5 2 063 24.2
Streaky Bay, District Council of 5 0.5 2 195 22.7
Tatiara District Council 3 0.3 6 826 4.3
Tea Tree Gully, City of 50 5.3 99 769 5.0
Tumby Bay, District Council of 8 0.8 2 685 29.7
Unley, City of 11 1.3 39 026 2.8
Victor Harbor City Council 11 1.3 15 180 7.2
Wakefield Regional Council 6 0.6 6 924 8.6
Walkerville, Town of 6 0.6 7 908 7.5
Wattle Range Council 4 0.4 11 9 81 3.3
West Torrens, City of 32 3.4 59 553 5.3
Whyalla, City of 9 0.9 21 997 4.0
Wudinna District Council 3 0.3 1 298 23.1
Yankalilla, District Council of 7 0.7 5 373 13.0
Yorke Peninsula Council 18 1.9 11 28 6 15.9
Total 939 100%
SUMMARY DATA 55 Outcomes
Outcome Total Percentage
Advice given 29 3.1
Alternate remedy available with another body 82 8.8
Complainant cannot be contacted 4 0.4
Declined/Investigation unnecessary or unjustifiable 209 22.3
Declined/No sufficient personal interest or not directly affected 3 0.3
Declined/Out of time 14 1.5
Not substantiated 16 1.7
Out of jurisdiction/Employment 1 0.1
Out of jurisdiction/Policy 1 0.1
Referred back to agency 501 53.4
Advice to authority 11 1.2
Resolved with agency cooperation 38 4.0
s25 Finding/Contrary to law 7 0.7
s25 Finding/Unreasonable 1 0.1
Withdrawn by complainant 22 2.3
Total 939 100%
56 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Other Authorities Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
Complaints: Received
Authority Received Percentage
Accessible Housing 1 0.1
Adelaide Cemeteries Authority 1 0.1
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board 8 0.9
Anglicare Housing SA Ltd 3 0.3
AnglicareSA 1 0.1
Central Adelaide Local Health Network 110 12.0
Central Irrigation Trust 1 0.1
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs 77 8.4
Commissioner for Equal Opportunity 7 0.8
Commissioner for Victims’ Rights 1 0.1
Community Housing Ltd 7 0.8
Coroner 2 0.2
Country Health SA Local Health Network 42 4.6
Courts Administration Authority 14 1.5
Development Assessment Commission 1 0.1
Dog & Cat Management Board 1 0.1
Domiciliary Care SA 1 0.1
Drug & Alcohol Services SA 1 0.1
Eastern Eyre Health Advisory Council 1 0.1
Education Standards Board 1 0.1
Electoral Commission of South Australia 5 0.5
Essential Services Commission of South Australia 1 0.1
Flinders University 18 2.1
Health & Community Services Complaints Commissioner 40 4.5
HomeStart 8 0.9
Housing Choices SA 5 0.5
Junction Australia Ltd 11 1.2
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 9 1.0
Legal Services Commission 15 1.6
Liquor & Gambling Commissioner 1 0.1
Local Government Association Mutual Liability Scheme 3 0.3
Local Government Association of South Australia 3 0.3
Lotteries Commission 4 0.4
SUMMARY DATA 57 Authority Received Percentage
Motor Accident Commission 6 0.6
National Rail Safety Regulator 2 0.2
Northern Adelaide Local Health Network 23 2.5
Office of the State Coordinator-General 8 0.9
Office of the Technical Regulator 1 0.1
Office of the Training Advocate 1 0.1
Outback Communities Authority 6 0.6
Public Advocate 17 1.9
Public Trustee 144 15.9
RSPCA Inspectorate 12 1.3
SA Ambulance Service 32 3.5
SA Country Fire Service 1 0.1
SA Film Corporation 4 0.4
SACE Board of SA 2 0.2
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 21 2.3
South Australian Dental Service 11 1.2
South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission 1 0.1
South Australian Small Business Commissioner 1 0.1
Southern Adelaide Local Health Network 32 3.5
State Commission Assessment Panel 3 0.3
State Emergency Service 2 0.2
State Procurement Board 1 0.1
Super SA Board 57 6.3
TAFE SA 54 5.9
Teachers Registration Board 4 0.4
Unity Housing Co Ltd 10 1.1
University of Adelaide 11 1.2
University of South Australia 32 3.5
Urban Renewal Authority 5 0.5
Veterinary Surgeons Board of SA 2 0.2
Westside Housing 2 0.2
Women’s and Children’s Health Network 5 0.5
Total 917 100%
58 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Complaints: Completed
Authority Completed Percentage
Accessible Housing 1 0.1
Adelaide Cemeteries Authority 1 0.1
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board 5 0.6
Anglicare Housing 2 0.2
AnglicareSA 1 0.1
Central Adelaide Local Health Network 112 12.5
Central Irrigation Trust 1 0.1
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs 77 8.6
Commissioner for Equal Opportunity 7 0.8
Commissioner for Victims’ Rights 1 0.1
Community Housing Ltd 7 0.8
Coroner 2 0.2
Country Health SA Local Health Network 42 4.6
Courts Administration Authority 14 1.5
Development Assessment Commission 1 0.1
Dog & Cat Management Board 1 0.1
Domiciliary Care SA 1 0.1
Drug & Alcohol Services SA 1 0.1
Eastern Eyre Health Advisory Council 1 0.1
Education Standards Board 1 0.1
Electoral Commission of South Australia 6 0.7
Essential Services Commission of South Australia 1 0.1
Flinders University 17 1.9
Health & Community Services Complaints Commissioner 41 4.5
HomeStart 8 0.9
Housing Choices SA 5 0.6
Junction Australia Ltd 10 1.1
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 8 0.9
Legal Services Commission 16 1.8
Liquor & Gambling Commissioner 1 0.1
Local Government Association Mutual Liability Scheme 3 0.3
Local Government Association of South Australia 2 0.2
Lotteries Commission 4 0.4
SUMMARY DATA 59 Authority Completed Percentage
Motor Accident Commission 5 0.6
National Rail Safety Regulator 2 0.2
Northern Adelaide Local Health Network 22 2.4
Office of the State Coordinator-General 5 0.6
Office of the Technical Regulator 1 0.1
Office of the Training Advocate 1 0.1
Outback Communities Authority 5 0.6
Public Advocate 16 1.8
Public Trustee 144 16.0
RSPCA Inspectorate 11 1.2
SA Ambulance Service 31 3.4
SA Country Fire Service 1 0.1
SA Film Corporation 4 0.4
SACE Board of SA 2 0.2
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 20 2.2
South Australian Dental Service 11 1.2
South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission 1 0.1
South Australian Small Business Commissioner 1 0.1
Southern Adelaide Local Health Network 32 3.5
State Commission Assessment Panel 2 0.2
State Emergency Service 2 0.2
State Procurement Board 1 0.1
Super SA Board 53 6.0
TAFE SA 53 6.0
Teachers Registration Board 4 0.4
Unity Housing Co Ltd 10 1.1
University of Adelaide 15 1.7
University of South Australia 32 3.5
Urban Renewal Authority 5 0.6
Veterinary Surgeons Board of SA 2 0.2
Westside Housing 2 0.2
Women’s and Children’s Health Network 5 0.6
Total 902 100%
60 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Outcomes
Authority Total Percentage
Advice given 69 7.6
Alternate remedy available with another body 220 24.4
Complainant cannot be contacted 9 1.0
Declined/Investigation unnecessary or unjustifiable 142 15.8
Declined/No sufficient personal interest or not directly affected 5 0.5
Declined/Out of time 10 1.1
Not substantiated 8 0.9
Out of jurisdiction/Employment 6 0.7
Out of jurisdiction/Judicial body 6 0.7
Referred back to agency 323 35.8
Advice to authority 2 0.2
Resolved with agency cooperation 55 6.1
s25 Finding/s25(1)(b) finding/Unreasonable 1 0.1
s25 Finding/s25(1)(c) finding/Unreasonable law or practice 1 0.1
s25 Finding/s25(1)(b) finding/Mistake of law or fact 1 0.1
s25 Finding/s25(1)(g) finding/Wrong 2 0.2
Withdrawn by complainant 42 4.7
Total 902 100%
SUMMARY DATA 61 Return To Work Act Jurisdiction Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
Complaints received per respondent per month
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total
ReturntoWork SA 3 2 2 4 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 1 23
Employers Mutual Ltd 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 4 8 3 9 5 55
Gallagher Bassett 6 6 5 4 4 4 6 4 7 3 7 4 60 Services
Crown Self Insured 3 1 4 2 8 2 0 2 4 5 1 3 35
Other Self Insured 4 0 0 2 2 1 0 4 0 3 1 1 18
Total 20 12 16 15 19 14 9 15 21 13 21 13 191
Outcomes
Total Percentage
Advice given 12 6.3
Alternate remedy available with another body 17 8.9
Breach of service standards 3 1.6
Breach of service standards not substantiated 7 3.7
Complainant cannot be contacted 6 3.1
Declined/Investigation unnecessary or unjustifiable 23 12.0
Out of jurisdiction 5 2.6
Referred back to compensating authority 73 38.3
Resolved with compensating authority’s cooperation 35 18.3
s180 review decision confirmed 1 0.5
Withdrawn by complainant 9 4.7
Total 191 100%
62 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Issues
Total Percentage
Access to claims file 3 1.4
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(a) 6 2.8
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(b) 9 4.3
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(c) 10 4.7
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(d) 8 3.8
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(e) 92 43.7
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(f) 39 18.5
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(g) 8 3.8
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(h) 1 0.5
Service Standards Sch 5 s4(i) 6 2.8
Other 29 13.7
Total 211 100%
SUMMARY DATA 63 Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction
ICAC Outcomes
Government Local Other Departments Government Authorities Total
Response to proposed referrals
Agree to referral 9 22 3 34
Disagree to referral 1 1
ICAC exercise Ombudsman powers - agree 4 1 5
ICAC exercise Ombudsman powers - disagree 1 1
Partially agree with referral 1 1
Total 14 23 5 42
Findings made on ICAC referrals
Discontinued - no finding 7 5 4 16
Finding of maladministration 1 4 5
Finding of misconduct 2 13 2 17
No finding of misconduct or maladministration 19 23 11 53
Finding contrary to law (s25) 4 1 5
Finding wrong (s25) 1 1 2
Finding improper purpose or irrelevant grounds or considerations (s25) 1 1
Total 29 47 23 99
Note: Explanations of the ICAC outcomes are in Appendix D
64 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Section 25 Reports Issued 2017-18
Ombudsman findings of administrative error under section 25 of the Ombudsman Act 1972
Date of report File number Respondent Agency Nature of Allegation Outcome
Misconduct in public administration - improperly s25(1)(d) Finding - Improper 24 Jul 2017 City of Marion (Matter referred influenced employee re expiation notice - Purpose or Irrelevant Grounds 2016/06290 by ICAC) Mr Adrian Skull or Considerations
9 Aug 2017 Department for Correctional Wrong decision to delete CCTV recording s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2016/10169 Services
18 Aug 2017 Breach of council member code of conduct - s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary City of Tea Tree Gully 2017/00672 Cr Lucas Jones to Law
12 Sept 2017 Failure to take appropriate action on building City of Mount Gambier s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2017/03984 compliance
20 Sept 2017 Department for Correctional Unreasonable decision to keep complainant s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary 2017/01854 Services in G division for over 8 weeks to Law
11 Dec 2017 City of Unley (Matter referred Misconduct in public administration - breach of s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary 2017/03847 by ICAC) confidentiality - Cr Bob Schnell to Law
11 Oct 2017 Breach of council member code of conduct - s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary City of West Torrens 2017/03918 Mayor John Trainer to Law
13 Oct 2017 Department for Education Unreasonable delay in conducting investigation s25(1)(b) Finding - 2016/04144 & Child Development and revoking approval as a foster parent Unreasonable
20 Oct 2017 City of Victor Harbor (Matter Misconduct in public administration - breach of s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary 2017/04344 referred by ICAC) confidentiality by elected member Cr Charles to Law
25 Oct 2017 Alleged disclosure of identity of a whistleblower s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary Kangaroo Island Council 2017/06044 in contravention of Whistleblowers Protection Act to Law
25 Oct 2017 Unreasonable release of information regarding s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary Kangaroo Island Council 2017/06633 Whistleblower to Law
9 Nov 2017 Department for Correctional Failure to provide induction information in s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2017/04856 Services Somalian
Breach of council member code of conduct - 16 Nov 2017 s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary District Council of Coober Pedy conflict of interest concerning council electricity 2017/05467 to Law contract - Cr Paul Reynolds
Misconduct and maladministration in public 20 Nov 2017 City of Whyalla (Matter s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary administration by a public officer - fabrication of 2017/05664 referred by ICAC) to Law meeting minutes to ensure motion passed
21 Nov 2017 Department for Correctional Failure to induct prisoner s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2017/06456 Services
Misconduct in public administration - conflict of 21 Nov 2017 City of Burnside (Matter s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary interest and divulging confidential information - 2017/07226 referred by ICAC) to Law Cr Lance Bagster
21 Dec 2017 Department for Correctional Wrongful prisoner placement at Police Cells and s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2016/02044 Services delay in providing antidepressants
21 Dec 2017 Central Adelaide Local Health Wrongful prisoner placement at Police Cells and s25(1)(c) Finding - 2 018 / 0 3116 Network delay in providing antidepressants Unreasonable Law or Practice
SUMMARY DATA 65 Date of report File number Respondent Agency Nature of Allegation Outcome
11 Jan 2018 Department for Correctional Wrongful failure to exercise discretion in relation s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2017/03589 Services to urinalysis testing
District Council of Renmark Misconduct and maladministration in public 11 Jan 2018 s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary Paringa (Matter referred by administration by a public officer - Improper 2017/07620 to Law ICAC) s51 clearance
Unreasonable determination to take no further 31 Jan 2018 Health & Community Services s25(1)(f) Finding - Mistake of action - complaint against social worker under 2017/10752 Complaints Commissioner Law or Fact HCSCC Act
s25(1)(d) Finding - Improper 19 Feb 2018 Department for Correctional Irrelevant consideration when restricting a visitor Purpose or Irrelevant Grounds 2017/03390 Services or Considerations
5 Mar 2018 Department for Education Unreasonable decision to permanently remove s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2017/10388 & Child Development from register
9 Mar 2018 s25(1)(b) Finding - Kangaroo Island Council Unreasonable handling of complaint 2017/06921 Unreasonable
23 Mar 2018 Department for Child Unreasonable process in dealing with allegations s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2016/04703 Protection
10 Apr 2018 Breach of council member code of conduct - s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary Town of Gawler 2017/03162 Cr Jim Vallelonga to Law
17 Apr 2018 Unreasonable decisions relating to complainant’s s25(1)(b) Finding - Public Trustee 2017/10389 finances Unreasonable
2 May 2018 Breach of council member code of conduct - s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary Kangaroo Island Council 2017/02082 Cr Joy Willson to Law
Department for Health Maladministration and misconduct in public 7 May 2018 & Ageing (Matter referred administration -contract process for EPAS s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2016/05897 by ICAC) system and public endorsements
Allegations that General Manager wrongly Anangu Pitjantjatjara 8 May 2018 refused to allow the complainant to view Yankunytjatjara Executive s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong 2016/07614 board meeting minutes, inaccurately recorded Board proceedings
Misconduct in public administration - Breach of 7 Jun 2018 City of Victor Harbor (Matter s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary the council member code of conduct - Cr Terry 2 017/116 3 9 referred by ICAC) to Law Andrews - disclosure of information
Misconduct in public administration - Breach of 7 Jun 2018 City of Victor Harbor (Matter s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary the council member code of conduct - Cr Peter 2 017/116 3 9 referred by ICAC) to Law Charles - disclosure of information
14 Jun 2018 Department for Correctional Unreasonable/discriminatory failure to amend s25(1)(b) Finding - 2017/09006 Services record of prisoner’s gender Unreasonable
66 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Freedom Of Information Act Jurisdiction
Outcomes of external reviews conducted by Ombudsman 2017-18
Outcome Total Percentage
Application for review withdrawn by applicant 27 16.9
Application settled during review 8 5.0
Determination confirmed 26 16.2
Determination reversed 19 11. 9
Determination revised by agency 11 6.9
Determination varied 42 26.2
Out of Jurisdiction 27 16.9
Total 160 100%
SUMMARY DATA 67 Government Agencies Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
External reviews: Received
Agency No Received
Attorney-General’s Department 5
Department for Communities and Social Inclusion 2
Department for Correctional Services 2
Department for Education 1
Department for Education and Child Development 7
Department for Health & Ageing 7
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 10
Department of the Premier and Cabinet 10
SA Police 11
Total 55
External reviews: Completed
Agency No Completed
Attorney-General’s Department 3
Department for Communities and Social Inclusion 3
Department for Correctional Services 2
Department for Education and Child Development 6
Department for Health & Ageing 11
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 12
Department of State Development 13
Department of the Premier and Cabinet 8
Department of Treasury and Finance 1
SA Police 8
Total 67
68 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Local Government Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
External reviews: Received
Agency No Received
Adelaide Hills Council 2
Alexandrina Council 2
City of Adelaide 1
City of Charles Sturt 2
City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters 1
City of Onkaparinga 5
City of Playford 1
City of Tea Tree Gully 1
Copper Coast Council 2
Corporation of the City of Whyalla 1
District Council of Robe 2
District Council of Tumby Bay 3
Mount Barker District Council 1
Northern Areas Council 2
Rural City of Murray Bridge 1
Town of Gawler 1
Total 28
SUMMARY DATA 69 External reviews: Completed
Agency No Completed
Adelaide Hills Council 3
Alexandrina Council 2
City of Adelaide 2
City of Charles Sturt 2
City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters 1
City of Onkaparinga 4
City of Playford 1
City of Port Adelaide Enfield 1
City of Tea Tree Gully 2
Copper Coast Council 2
Corporation of the City of Whyalla 1
District Council of Grant 1
District Council of Robe 2
District Council of Tumby Bay 2
Mount Barker District Council 1
Northern Areas Council 2
Rural City of Murray Bridge 1
Town of Gawler 1
Yorke Peninsula Council 1
Total 32
70 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Other Authorities Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
External reviews: Received
Agency No Received
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board 1
Central Adelaide Local Health Network 11
Country Health SA Local Health Network 6
Flinders University 1
National Rail Safety Regulator 1
Northern Adelaide Local Health Network 6
Office of the State Coordinator General 1
Public Advocate 1
SA Country Fire Service 1
Southern Adelaide Local Health Network 1
University of Adelaide 2
Women’s and Children’s Health Network 1
Total 33
External reviews: Completed
Agency No Completed
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board 8
Central Adelaide Local Health Network 12
Country Health SA Local Health Network 5
Electoral Commission of South Australia 1
Flinders University 1
Northern Adelaide Local Health Network 9
Office of the State Coordinator-General 1
Public Advocate 1
Southern Adelaide Local Health Network 1
University of Adelaide 6
Urban Renewal Authority 1
Women’s and Children’s Health Network 2
Total 48
SUMMARY DATA 71 Ministers Summary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018
External reviews: Received
Agency No Received
Attorney-General 2
Minister for Education 1
Minister for Education and Child Development 1
Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation 2
Minister for Transport & Infrastructure 1
Premier 1
The Treasurer 3
Total 11
External reviews: Completed
Agency No Completed
Attorney-General 2
Minister for Agriculture, Food & Fisheries 1
Minister for Education 1
Minister for Education and Child Development 1
Minister for Investment and Trade 1
Minister for Recreation and Sport 1
Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation 3
Minister for Transport & Infrastructure 2
Premier 1
Total 13
72 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Financial Statement Appendix B: Description of outcomes - Ombudsman jurisdiction Appendix C: Description of outcomes - Return to Work jurisdiction Appendix D: Description of outcomes - Independent Commissioner Against Corruption jurisdiction Appendix E: Description of outcomes - Freedom of Information jurisdiction Appendix F: Acronyms Appendix A
Financial statement
Expenditure 2016/17 2017/18
Annual Report 3 069 4 905
Computer expenses 56 571 74 742
Contributions to projects 0 6 000
Equipment maintenance 2 884 3 330
Equipment purchases 2 400 11 728
* Fringe Benefits Tax 9 133 11 330
* Motor vehicles 16 073 16 154
Postage 5 347 5 017
Printing and stationery 24 582 10 732
Publications and subscriptions 6 810 5 271
Staff development 20 285 19 090
Sundries 16 184 31 500
Telephone charges 18 005 19 023
Travel/taxi charges 18 376 13 786
Website Development 4 371 4 500
Sub-total 204 090 237 108
* Accommodation and energy 304 877 365 351
Consultant/Contract staff/Prof costs 37 041 47 865
Sub-total 341 918 413 216
* Salaries 2 509 904 2 662 602
Sub-total 2 509 904 2 662 602
** Income (594 620) (533 307)
Sub-total (594 620) (533 307)
* Figures include expenses incurred by the Ombudsman position (funded by Special Acts)
** Includes recovery of expenditure from ReturnToWorkSA
Net expenditure 2 461 292 2 779 619
74 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Appendix B
Description of outcomes: Ombudsman jurisdiction
Outcome Description
This outcome is used when: • giving advice that does not relate to a specific approach or complaint • giving information or advice to the public about Ombudsman SA e.g. address details, a request Advice Given for a copy of an annual report or pamphlets • giving FOI advice. For approaches or complaints, more specific outcomes are used − such as ‘Referred Back to Agency’, ‘Alternate Remedy Available with Another Body’, ‘Out of Jurisdiction’.
This outcome is not available when a matter reaches the stage of a complaint. It is used when: • the complaint body is not an ‘agency’ (section 3) • the act was performed by a Minister of the Crown • the complaint is not about an ‘administrative act’ because it was Out Of Jurisdiction ›› done in the discharge of a judicial authority (section 3) ›› done in the capacity of legal adviser to the Crown (section 3) • the act relates to a police matter (section 5(2)) • the act was strictly a policy decision (City of Salisbury v Biganovsky 54 SASR 117) • the act is a complaint by an employee about their current or past employer (section 17(1))
Complainant Cannot Be This outcome is used after all reasonable attempts have been made to contact the complainant by Contacted telephone, email or letter. It can be used at any stage of an assessment or investigation.
This outcome is used usually during the assessment phase, but may be used in the investigation phase. It is used when: • it is proper for the complainant to complain to the agency, or go back to the agency to seek a review of their complaint (Ombudsman SA policy − the Ombudsman is an ‘office of last resort’), or • the complainant has a right of appeal, reference or review with the agency such as: ›› with a council under section 270 of the Local Government Act Referred Back To Agency ›› review processes for students in universities ›› review processes for prisoners in the Department for Correctional Services ›› review and appeal regarding land tax under the Taxation Administration Act unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is not reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to expect that the complainant should resort or should have resorted to that appeal, reference, review or remedy (section 13(3).
This outcome is only used when the agency being complained about is within jurisdiction. It is used where the complainant has a right of appeal, reference or review with another body such as: • the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner Alternate Remedy Available • the Environment Resources and Development Court With Another Body unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is not reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to expect that the complainant should resort or should have resorted to that appeal, reference, review or remedy (section 13(3)).
This outcome is used usually during the assessment phase of a complaint where Ombudsman SA has made contact with the agency, and the agency has taken action to remedy the complaint to the Resolved With Agency satisfaction of the complainant. Cooperation It is not used if Ombudsman SA has not had contact with the agency. In this case, the outcome ‘Withdrawn by Complainant’ will probably be applicable.
This outcome is used when the complainant expressly wishes to withdraw their complaint, even Withdrawn By Complainant if Ombudsman SA has not contacted the agency. It can be used at any stage of an assessment or investigation.
APPENDICES 75 Outcome Description
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides • not to commence an assessment or investigation or Declined/Trivial, Frivolous, • not to continue with an assessment or investigation Vexatious, Not Made In Good because: Faith (Section 17(2)) • the complaint is trivial (section 17(2)(a)) • the complaint was frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith (section 17(2)(b).
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides: Declined/No Sufficient • not to commence an assessment or investigation or Personal Interest Or Not • not to continue with an assessment or investigation Directly Affected (Section because: 17(2)) the complainant or their representative did not have sufficient personal interest (section 17(2)(c)) the complainant was not directly affected by the administrative act (section 15(3a)).
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides: • not to commence an assessment or investigation or Declined/Out Of Time • not to continue with an assessment or investigation because the complaint was made more than 12 months after the day on which the complainant first had notice of the events alleged in the complaint.
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides • not to commence an assessment or investigation or • not to continue with an assessment or investigation because having regard to the circumstances of the case, such action is unnecessary or unjustifiable (section 17(2)(d)). For example: Declined/Investigation • after assessing or commencing an investigation of the complaint, it appears that there is no Unnecessary Or Unjustifiable evidence of administrative error under section 25(1)(a)-(g) • the complaint is minor • the complainant and/or the agency has taken action to rectify the problem • it would not be in the public interest for the Ombudsman to investigate or continue investigating the complaint.
This outcome is used: Not Substantiated/No Section • after a preliminary (or more rarely a full) investigation and a report has been completed, and 25 Finding • there is no administrative error under section 25(1)(a)-(g).
This outcome is used only after a preliminary investigation. Ombudsman Comment No administrative error has been found under section 25(1)((a)-(g), but an issue worthy of the Warranted Ombudsman’s comment has been identified.
Section 25(1)(a) Finding: Contrary To Law Section 25(1)(b) Finding: Unreasonable Section 25(1)(c) Finding: Unreasonable Law Or Practice Section 25(1)(d) Finding: These outcomes are used only when making a finding of administrative error after a full Improper Purpose Or Irrelevant investigation, and reflect section 25(1)(a)-(g) of the Ombudsman Act. Grounds Or Considerations Section 25(1)(e) Finding: No Reason Given Section 25(1)(f) Finding: Mistake Of Law Or Fact Section 25(1)(g) Finding: Wrong
76 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Appendix C
Description of outcomes: Return to Work jurisdiction
Outcome Description
This outcome must only be used when: • giving advice that does not relate to a specific approach or complaint. Rtw - Advice Given • information has been received and only needs to be noted. *Note - more specific outcomes are preferable. Only use when matter is Cat 1 and no other outcome is suitable.
This outcome is used where the complaint relates to a worker’s compensation matter that relates to: • an agency that is not in jurisdiction; • an interstate jurisdiction; Rtw - Out Of Jurisdiction • where the worker is located in South Australia, however the claim has been made under the Commonwealth worker’s compensation Act i.e. Comcare; or • a judicial body i.e. SAET
This outcome is used after all reasonable attempts have been made to contact the complainant by telephone, email or letter. It can be used at any stage of an assessment or investigation. Where a white telephone contact slip is responded to, this outcome is used when: • if there is no answer, a recorded message has been left stating the officer’s name and that s/he Rtw - Complainant Cannot is from Ombudsman SA. If the complainant does not respond, the file can be closed Be Contacted • if there is no facility for a recorded message to be left, three contact attempts have been made over 2-3 days. If no contact has been made, the file can be closed • where email or postal contact details have been provided, contact is attempted by this means, but no response is received within 7 days. All attempts to contact the complainant must be clearly recorded.
This outcome is used usually during the assessment phase, but may be used in the investigation phase. It is used when it is proper for the complainant to complain to, or seek a review of their complaint from the claims agent/RTW SA/self-insured employer - unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion Rtw - Referred Back To that it is not reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to expect that the complainant should Compensating Authority resort or should have raised the complaint with the Corporation or delegate. See s5(1)(a) of schedule 5, Return to Work Act. Reasons for the outcome must be recorded.
Rtw - Alternate Remedy This outcome is only used where the complainant has right of appeal, reference or review with Available With Another Body another body such as the SAET.
This outcome is used usually during the assessment phase of a complaint where Ombudsman SA Rtw - Resolved With has made contact with the agency, and the agency has taken action to remedy the complaint to the Compensating Authority’s satisfaction of the complainant. Cooperation Reasons for the outcome must be recorded.
This outcome is used when the complainant expressly wishes to withdraw their complaint, even if Ombudsman SA has not contacted the respondent. It can be used at any stage of an assessment or investigation. Rtw - Withdrawn By It must be established and recorded that the complainant wishes to formally withdraw the complaint. Complainant It must not be used when Ombudsman SA cannot contact the complainant. See ‘Cannot Contact Person’ Outcome. Reasons for the outcome must be recorded.
APPENDICES 77 Outcome Description
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides • not to commence an assessment or investigation or RTW - Declined/Trivial, • not to continue with an assessment or investigation Frivolous, Vexatious, Not Made because: In Good Faith • the complaint is trivial (section 17(2)(a) Ombudsman Act) • the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith (section 17(2)(b)) Ombudsman Act)
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides • not to commence an assessment or investigation or RTW - Declined/No Sufficient • not to continue with an assessment or investigation Personal Interest Or Not because: Directly Affected • the complainant or their representative did not have sufficient personal interest • the complainant was not directly affected by the breach of service standards.
This outcome is used for a complaint, where the Ombudsman decides • not to commence an assessment or investigation or • not to continue with an assessment or investigation because, having regard to the circumstances of the case, such action is unnecessary or unjustifiable (section 17(2)(d) Ombudsman Act). For example: RTW - Declined/Investigation • after assessing or commencing an investigation of the complaint, it appears that there is no Unnecessary Or Unjustifiable evidence of a breach of service standards • the complaint is minor • the complainant and/or the agency has taken action to rectify the problem • it would not be in the public interest for the Ombudsman to investigate or continue investigating the complaint.
RTW - Breach Of Service This outcome is only used when making a finding of a breach of the service standards after Standards an investigation.
This outcome is used RTW - Breach Of Service • after a preliminary (or more rarely a full) investigation and a report has been completed; and Standards Not Substantiated • when making a finding there has been no breach of the service standards.
This is to be used only after a preliminary investigation. RTW - Ombudsman Comment No breach of the service standards has been found, but an issue worthy of the Ombudsman’s Warranted comment has been identified.
This outcome means that during or at the conclusion of the external review, the applicant decided to withdraw the application. For example, the applicant may have decided to pursue other avenues of RTW - S180 Review Application redress; or with the passage of time, the applicant no longer wished to pursue document access. Withdrawn By Applicant This outcome does not include instances where the agency has revised its determination to give access to documents.
RTW - S180 Review Decision This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed Confirmed (in whole) with the Corporation’s decision (section 180(10)(b)).
RTW - 180 Review Decision This outcome means that at the end of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed in part and Varied disagreed in part with the Corporation’s decision (section 180(10)(b)).
RTW - S180 Review Decision This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman disagreed Reversed (in whole) with the Corporation’s decision (section 180(10)(b)).
RTW - S180 Review No The outcome is relevant when the applicant seeks the s180 review before they have sought or Jurisdiction finalised internal review processes, and hence the Ombudsman is unable to undertake a review.
RTW - S180 Review Revised This outcome is used when the agency releases the documents after the commencement of the review. During Review
78 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Appendix D
Description of outcomes: Independent Commissioner Against Corruption jurisdiction
Outcome Description
The Commissioner must seek the views of the Ombudsman in relation to a matter raising a potential issue of misconduct or maladministration before deciding to Response to proposed referral exercise the Ombudsman’s powers in respect of the matter or referring the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation (see sections 36A and 37 of the ICAC Act).
This outcome means the Ombudsman agreed with OPI/ICAC that a matter raising Agree to referral a potential issue of misconduct or maladministration in public administration should be referred to this Office.
This outcome means the Ombudsman, in response to a proposal by OPI/ICAC that a matter raising a potential issue of misconduct or maladministration in public Disagree to referral administration should be referred to this Office for investigation, expressed a view that the matter should not be referred to him.
This outcome means the Ombudsman considers that a matter raising ICAC exercise Ombudsman powers a potential issue of misconduct or maladministration in public administration should be investigated by the Commissioner by exercising the powers of the Ombudsman.
This outcome means the Ombudsman, in response to a proposal by OPI/ICAC that matters raising potential issues of misconduct or maladministration in public Partially agree with Referral administration should be referred to this Office for investigation, expressed a view that some but not all of the matters should be referred to this Office.
The Commissioner may refer matters raising potential issues of misconduct or ICAC Investigation maladministration to the Ombudsman for investigation (see section 24(2)(a) of the ICAC Act).
This means that the Ombudsman has determined that an investigation into Discontinued misconduct or maladministration on referral from the Commissioner is unnecessary or unjustifiable (for example, because of a lack of evidence).
This means a matter that has been referred from the Commissioner has resulted Finding of Maladministration in the Ombudsman making a finding of ‘maladministration’ as defined in the ICAC Act.
This means a matter that has been referred from the ICAC has resulted in the Finding of Misconduct Ombudsman making a finding of ‘misconduct’ as defined in the ICAC Act.
This means a matter that has been referred from the ICAC has resulted in the No finding of Misconduct or Maladministration Ombudsman making a finding there has not been ‘misconduct’ or ‘maladministration’ as defined in the ICAC Act.
APPENDICES 79 Appendix E
Description of outcomes: Freedom of Information jurisdiction
Outcome Description
This outcome means that during or at the conclusion of the external review, the applicant decided to withdraw the application. For example, the applicant may have decided to pursue other avenues of redress; or with the passage of time, the applicant no longer wished to FOI Application For Review Withdrawn pursue document access. By Applicant The outcome is relevant when the applicant seeks the external review before they have sought or finalised internal review processes, and hence the Ombudsman is unable to undertake an external review. This outcome does not include instances where the agency has revised its determination to give access to documents.
This outcome means that the Ombudsman exercised settlement powers under section FOI Application Settled During Review 39(5)(c). A ‘Notice of Finalisation’ is sent to parties. There is no formal determination by the (Section 39(5)) Ombudsman under section 39(11).
This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed FOI Determination Confirmed (in whole) with the agency’s determination (section 39(11)). (Section 39(11)) *Note − the Ombudsman’s reasons may differ from the agency (for example, a different exemption clause may apply).
FOI Determination Reversed This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman disagreed (Section 39(11)) (in whole) with the agency’s determination (section 39(11)).
This outcome means that all documents were released by the agency under section 19(2A) after the commencement of the external review. FOI Determination Revised By Agency The outcome may occur, for example, in an external review dealing with an agency’s ‘double (Section 19(2)(A)) deemed refusal’, where the agency has had a chance to consider the documents and decides that the documents should be released.
Foi Determination Varied This outcome means that at the end of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed in part (Section 39(11)) and disagreed in part with the agency’s determination (section 39(11)).
Foi Extension Of Time For Application This outcome means that the Ombudsman did not exercise his discretion to accept an external For Review (Section 39(4)) review application out of time under section 39(4). Discretion Not Varied
80 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 Appendix F
Acronyms
AGD Attorney-General’s Department
ARC Adelaide Remand Centre
CAA Courts Administration Authority
CEO Chief Executive Officer
DCP Department for Child Protection
DCS Department for Correctional Services
DCSI Department for Communities and Social Inclusion
DECD Department for Education and Child Development
DEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
DHA Department for Health and Ageing
DPC Department of the Premier and Cabinet
DPTI Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
DPA Development Plan Amendment
DSD Department of State Development
DTF Department of Treasury and Finance
FERU Fines and Recovery Unit
FOI Freedom of Information
ICAC Independent Commissioner Against Corruption
ICT Information and Communication Technology
LSC Legal Services Commission
ISG Information Sharing Guidelines
OPI Office for Public Integrity
PIRSA Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA
RTWSA Return to Work SA
SACAT South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
SAPOL South Australian Police
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
VOC Victims of Crime
APPENDICES 81 Notes
82 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 APPENDICES 83 Notes
84 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18 What does What does Ombudsman SA values Ombudsman SA values Ombudsman SA do? Ombudsman SA do? Integrity - Impartiality - Fairness Integrity - Impartiality - Fairness
Ombudsman SA investigates complaints about South Ombudsman SA investigates complaints about South Australian government and local government agencies Australian government and local government agencies under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as well as complaints under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as well as complaints Our Culture Our Culture about breaches of the service standards under the about breaches of the service standards under the Return to Work Act 2014. Ombudsman SA also Return to Work Act 2014. Ombudsman SA also Ethical Ethical conducts Freedom of Information reviews and receives conducts Freedom of Information reviews and receives referrals from the Independent Commissioner Against referrals from the Independent Commissioner Against Professional Professional Corruption to investigate allegations of misconduct Corruption to investigate allegations of misconduct and maladministration. and maladministration. Efficient Efficient The Ombudsman can receive information about state The Ombudsman can receive information about state Learning Learning and local government activities confidentially from and local government activities confidentially from whistleblowers. whistleblowers. Communicating Communicating If you’re not sure whether Ombudsman SA can help If you’re not sure whether Ombudsman SA can help you, we are happy to discuss your matter further. you, we are happy to discuss your matter further. Collaborating Collaborating If it is not under our jurisdiction, we will be happy to If it is not under our jurisdiction, we will be happy to point you to another agency who may be able to assist. point you to another agency who may be able to assist.
Visit our website for further information about our Visit our website for further information about our services or to register a complaint directly online: services or to register a complaint directly online: www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au
Ombudsman SA Ombudsman SA
Level 9, East Wing Level 9, East Wing 55 Currie Street 55 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5000 Adelaide SA 5000 Telephone 08 8226 8699 Telephone 08 8226 8699 Toll free 1800 182 150 (outside metro area) Toll free 1800 182 150 (outside metro area) Email [email protected] Email [email protected] www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au SA Ombudsman ANNUAL REPORT 2017/2018
Contacting Ombudsman SA
Our business hours are 9.00am - 5.00pm, Monday to Friday
Level 9, East Wing 55 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5000
Telephone 08 8226 8699 Facsimile 08 8226 8602 Toll free (outside metro area) 1800 182 150 Email [email protected] www.ombudsman.sa.go v.au Ombudsman SA
Designed and printed by Openbook Howden Print & Design ANNUAL REPORT 2017/2018 OBH22325