In addition to the activities Ombudsman South Australia is obliged to report on, we have also included our operational policies, and selected public presentations and FOI determinations which you may find useful in understanding the scope of the Ombudsman’s work and responsibilities.
You will need to have the Acrobat Reader http://get.adobe.com/reader/ to view the documents.
April 2017: HomeStart – Maladministration in public administration
The Ombudsman received an ICAC referral alleging that HomeStart Finance committed an act of maladministration in public administration through excessive expenditure on alcohol. The Ombudsman found that agency had committed an act of maladministration, and that its practices and policies in relation to expenditure on alcohol have resulted in irregular and unauthorised use of public money, and a substantial mismanagement of public resources within the meaning of section 5(4)(a)(i) of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012. Over a period of approximately two years, the agency purchased $7,826.31 worth of alcohol.
April 2017: TAFE SA
The applicant sought access to minutes and agendas of TAFE SA Board meetings, and access to those documents was refused by the agency in full. The Ombudsman considered whether the following exemption clauses under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (the FOI Act) applied to those documents: Clause 1(1)(e), Clause 2(1)(e), Clause 4(2)(a)(vi), Clause 5(1), Clause 6(1), Clause 6(2), Clause 7(1)(c), Clause 10(1) and Clause 16(1)(iv)-(v). Clause 1(1)(e) was considered in significant detail, and the Ombudsman highlighted that this clause has a specific purpose under the FOI Act, in that it is intended to protect the so called ‘Cabinet oyster’. It is not intended to apply to all documents submitted to Cabinet. The agency’s determination was varied by the Ombudsman, and it was proposed that the documents be released, with the exception of information within certain documents that was considered exempt under Clause 1(1)(e), Clause 6(1) and Clause 10(1).
March 2017: South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Conduct of a bailiff
The complaint related to a failure by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to properly conduct an investigation into a complaint regarding inappropriate behaviour by a bailiff when executing a court order. There was a failure by the SACAT officer to speak to witnesses when conducting an investigation. The Ombudsman found that one of the witnesses in particular, had information that should have been considered as part of the investigation. The Ombudsman made recommendations that SACAT conduct a fresh investigation of the complaint and further that the SACAT complaints policy and Bailiffs’ Manual be amended.
March 2017: Roxby Council – Maladministration in public administration
The Ombudsman received an ICAC referral alleging that maladministration occurred within the council over a period of approximately fifteen years. The allegations included failure to follow proper procurement processes in relation to numerous direct engagements, inappropriate expenditure and lack of transparency and a failure to properly address allegations of bullying and harassment. The Ombudsman found that the council and the former Administrator committed maladministration in that various direct engagements resulted in substantial mismanagement of public resources. The Ombudsman also found that while no formal complaints were received in relation to the alleged bullying and harassment, the council acted in a way that was wrong for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act by not having appropriate procedures in place. The Ombudsman also found that the council acted in a way that was contrary to law by disposing of records other than in accordance with the State Records Act 1997.
February 2017: TAFE SA – Maladministration in public administration by former director
The Ombudsman received an ICAC referral to investigate an unnamed TAFE SA director in relation to a payment of $63,631 to the Berri Barmera Council for a voluntary separation package. The Ombudsman found that the former director made the irregular payment at the conclusion of a Joint Use Library Agreement but that there was no legal obligation to pay any amount to the Council, and that he had sought advice from the Acting Chief Executive as to whether to make the payment but did not wait for a response. The Ombudsman found that by making the payment the former Director committed maladministration in public administration because of the substantial mismanagement of public resources. This was because the payment was irregular, substantial, unnecessary, that he did not wait for advice from the Acting Chief Executive and that he was incorrect in his belief that the payment was saving TAFE SA money. The Ombudsman did not make any recommendations because the former director did not have his contract renewed by TAFE SA.
February 2017: Department for Correctional Services – Unlawful shackling of a mental health patient in hospital
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about the department’s treatment of a mental health patient who was subject to a warrant of remand under section 269X(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The patient was held in shackles in the Flinders Medical Centre for four days in October 2015. It was found the department acted contrary to law and on the basis of mistake of fact by assuming supervision of the patient; that the department had acted in a manner that was wrong because it failed to adhere to departmental policy in the shackling of the patient, and that the department had acted in a manner that was contrary to law because it used excessive force on its restraint of the patient.
February 2017: City of Burnside – Breach of council member code of conduct
The Mayor referred to the Ombudsman for investigation an allegation that comments made by the Councillor to a reporter about a council employee breached clauses 2.2-2.5, 2.7 and 2.11 of the Code of Conduct, The council resolved to accept the recommendations including recommendation 4 which required that the Councillor make a public apology to the council employee at a council meeting by 30 September 2016. As the Councillor did not comply with the recommendation by this date, the Mayor referred this matter to the Ombudsman as complaint under Part 3 of the Code of Conduct. The investigation found that the council did resolve to accept the recommendations in the investigation report however, the Councillor failed to comply with a finding of an investigation under Part 2.22 of the Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman found that, in failing to comply, the Councillor breached the provisions of section 63 of the Local Government Act and clause 3.2 of the Code of Conduct. In doing so, the Councillor acted in a manner that was contrary to law within the meaning of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman recommended that his report be tabled at a public meeting of the council and that the member be reprimanded by the council and be required to make a public apology to the council employee at the this meeting.
February 2017: City of Onkaparinga – Reimbursement of golf club membership
The Ombudsman received an ICAC referral to investigate a number of issues including whether the council committed maladministration by approving reimbursement of the Chief Executive Officer’s golf club membership, whether the membership should have been included on the Register of remuneration, salaries and benefits and whether confidentiality orders should have been made in relation to the reimbursement of golf club membership. The Ombudsman found that by approving the reimbursement of the golf club membership the council did not commit an act of maladministration within the meaning of section 5(4) of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 but acted in a manner that was wrong for the purposes of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act 1972. The Ombudsman found that by failing to include golf club membership on the Register, the Chief Executive Officer did not commit maladministration. The Ombudsman also found that by making the confidentiality orders, the council did not commit maladministration but acted in a manner that was wrong for the purposes of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the council lift the confidentiality orders within three months of the date of his final report.
January 2017: Attorney-General’s Department and Department of the Premier and Cabinet
The agencies refused access to documents in relation to a review by the Internal Consultancy Services Group of the General Code of Practice and the Late Night Trading Code of Practice established under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, handed down on 30 April 2015. The agencies and interested parties claimed that the documents were exempt under clauses 1(1)(e), 4(3), 6(1), 7(1)(c), 8(1), 9(1), 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act. The Ombudsman determined that some documents and parts of documents were exempt under clauses 1(1)(e), 7(1)(c), 9(1) and 13(1)(b), but that the considerable additional documents and parts of documents could be released in accordance with section 20(4) of the FOI Act. He varied the agencies’ determinations accordingly. The Ombudsman also considered the sufficiency of searches for documents.
January 2017: Environment Protection Authority
The agency refused access to correspondence between the agency and various other parties, including the City of Onkaparinga, concerning the Sellicks Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. At external review, the agency ultimately revised its position such that it no longer opposed the release of many of the documents to the applicant. However, the agency maintained that information within certain documents was exempt pursuant to exemption clauses 6(1) and 12(1). The City of Onkaparinga, an interested party, also objected to the release of any documents to the applicant on the basis that they were variously exempt under exemption clauses 4(2), 5(1), 6(1), 7(1)(c), 9(1), 13(1), 15 and 16(1). A separate interested party also submitted that certain documents were exempt under exemption clause 8(1). The Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination. The Ombudsman found that while some documents were exempt under clauses 6(1), 12(1) and 16(1)(iv), the majority could be released to the applicant in full.
December 2016: Department for Health and Ageing
The agency refused access to correspondence between the agency and various other parties, including the City of Onkaparinga, concerning the Sellicks Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. At external review, the agency ultimately revised its position such that it no longer opposed the release of any documents to the applicant. However, the City of Onkaparinga and another party maintained objections to the release of various documents. The Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination. The Ombudsman found that the documents at issue were not exempt pursuant to exemption clauses 5(1), 7(1) or 9(1).
November 2016: Employers Mutual Limited – Breach of service standards
The worker complained that the agent breach a number of service standards by failing to ensure that the recovery and return to work processes focused on maintaining the relationship between the worker and the pre-injury employer, failing to ensure that the pre-injury employer understood their recovery and return to work obligations and failing to provide a copy of a medical report to the worker within the statutory timeframe. The Ombudsman found that the agent had breached the service standards by failing to establish a timely manner where the obligations existed for the pre-injury employer in relation to the provision of suitable duties for the worker and did not provide the work with a copy of a medical report within the required timeframe.
November 2016: 2015-2016 Annual Report
November 2016: An audit of the Department for Education and Child Development’s education related complaint handling practices
The audit found that the complaint handling procedures at the second (central) level was competent and efficient having regard to the increasing volume of complaints received and resolved. On the other hand, complaint handling at the first (school or education) site level was deficient in both practice and application and required improvement. Those improvements can be made by implementing training of senior staff and developing local practices and reporting, so as to alleviate the demand and pressure experienced by the second level of complaint handling by the Education Complaints Unit (ECU).
I made five recommendations for improvement, commensurate to my findings.
November 2016: Right of Review – An audit of Local Government Internal Review of Council Decisions Procedures
This audit report documents my findings and recommendations relevant to the operation of the internal review of decisions provisions in the Local Government Act 1999.
The section 270 internal review of decision process is an important mechanism for the resolution of disputes and complaints about decisions made by councils. As such, the review process is an essential complaint handling tool for local government and for the management of complaints made to my Office.
The audit examines some of the key issues for councils in delivering a fair internal review of decision process. It also explores how councils can use internal reviews to drive administrative improvement and service excellence.
The final report makes seven recommendations to all 68 councils in South Australia. I have asked them for a response to these recommendations by 31 March 2017.