Queensland Ombudsman – our role with local government

Peter Cantwell, Assistant OmbudsmanOffice 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

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

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

Local government complaints

Complaints received

What people complained about

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 %

Laws and enforcement 520 472 467 23%

Development and building controls 358 283 28714%

Rates and valuations 237 279 194 9%

Roads 155 153 149 7%

Environmental management 84 121 143 7%

Sewerage and drainage 143 121 112 5%

Water supply 114 107   <1%

Personnel 99 71 68 3%

Land use and planning 0 70 56 3%

Complaint handling 90 66 57 3%

Park and reserves 61 47 42 2%

Other issues 426 321 478 23%

Total 2,287 2,111 2,053  

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

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

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

www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au