Queensland Ombudsman – our role with local government Peter Cantwell, Assistant Ombudsman Office of the Queensland Ombudsman 25 October 2012

What is an Ombudsman? Citizen’s defender Australia has an Ombudsman in each state & territory First Queensland Ombudsman appointed in 1974

Our role Powers: Ombudsman Act 2001 Investigate complaints from the public about government agencies and universities (Section 49) we assess whether government decisions are  unlawful unfair unreasonable otherwise wrong

Maladministration Long delays Incorrect decisions Failure to take any action Failure to follow procedures or the law Failure to provide information Inadequate record-keeping Failure to investigate Failure to reply Misleading or inaccurate statements Broken promises

Our role Independent umpire Audit government agencies’ policies and procedures Deliver training programs to government officers

What we can investigate State government departments Public authorities Local councils Public universities and TAFE

What we can’t investigate Members of Parliament Courts and judges Private businesses Government-owned corporations Commonwealth government departments Telephone companies Power and gas companies Police officers

Other Ombudsmen Commonwealth Ombudsman Financial Ombudsman Service Telecommunications Ombudsman Energy and Water Ombudsman Queensland

Local government complaints Complaints received

What people complained about % Laws and enforcement % Development and building controls % Rates and valuations % Roads % Environmental management % Sewerage and drainage % Water supply <1% Personnel % Land use and planning % Complaint handling % Park and reserves % Other issues % Total2,2872,1112,053

Emerging areas of complaint Complaints about Councillor conduct CEO assessments (s.177 LG Act) About a frivolous matter or was made vexatiously About inappropriate conduct, misconduct, official misconduct or another matter Referral to the Mayor Inappropriate conduct by Councillor (s.177(5)(b)LG Act)

Common trends Acting contrary to law Acting unreasonably Poor communication No reasons for decisions Failure to ascertain facts based on reliable evidence Giving weight to irrelevant considerations Poor record-keeping

Complaint investigation Intake and preliminary assessment Assessment and case planning Information gathering and analysis Resolution and finalisation

Case example one

Case example two

Recommendations to local councils Did councils adequately implement Ombudsman’s recommendations made between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2010? 165 recommendations made during the relevant period arising from 46 separate complaints about 23 councils 92% of the recommendations made to councils were implemented, 7% were partly implemented and only 1% were not implemented Criteria: Quality of customer service, decision-making, transparency and accountability, knowledge and learning within councils, cost of implementation Quality of decision-making − 30% of councils considered that there was a ‘significant increase’ and a further 41% considered that there was a corresponding ‘minor increase’ in the quality of council’s decision-making Knowledge and learning within councils − 31% of councils said that there was a corresponding ‘significant increase’ and a further 46% consider that there was a ‘minor increase’ in knowledge and learning at council

Evaluating policy through audit 1 Contact with agency to outline process 2 Reviewing and evaluating policies and procedures Reviewing information available on website 3 Reviewing and evaluating internal review reports, internal communication and training documents

Resources for councils Local government casebook Case study library Training programs Local Perspective

Ombudsman Training There are five training courses offered: - Complaints Management Frontline - Complaints Management – Internal Review - Administrative Investigations - Good Decisions - Your Ethical Compass You can preview the training book with all of the courses on the training page of our website