ombudsman sa...contacting ombudsman sa our business hours are 9.00am - 5.00pm, monday to friday...

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

Designed and printed by Openbook Howden Print & DesignOBH22325

Om

budsman SA

AN

NU

AL R

EP

OR

T 2

017/2

018

Ombudsman SAANNUAL REPORT 2017/2018

What does Ombudsman SA do?Ombudsman SA investigates complaints about South Australian government and local government agencies under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as well as complaints about breaches of the service standards under the Return to Work Act 2014. Ombudsman SA also conducts Freedom of Information reviews and receives referrals from the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption to investigate allegations of misconduct and maladministration.

The Ombudsman can receive information about state and local government activities confidentially from whistleblowers.

If you’re not sure whether Ombudsman SA can help you, we are happy to discuss your matter further. If it is not under our jurisdiction, we will be happy to point you to another agency who may be able to assist.

Visit our website for further information about our services or to register a complaint directly online: www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au

Ombudsman SA

Level 9, East Wing

55 Currie Street

Adelaide SA 5000


Toll free 1800 182 150 (outside metro area)


www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au

Ombudsman SA valuesIntegrity - Impartiality - Fairness

Our CultureEthical

Professional

Efficient

Learning

Communicating

Collaborating





Ombudsman SA

Level 9, East Wing

55 Currie Street

Adelaide SA 5000






Our CultureEthical

Professional

Efficient

Learning

Communicating

Collaborating

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

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

Contents

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

AUDITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

INFORMATION SHARING GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

OTHER ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

ABOUT OMBUDSMAN SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Return to Work Act Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Complaints about Ombudsman SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Organisation Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Summary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4 OMBUDSMAN SA ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18

I N T RODUCT ION

Introduction

45 years serving South Australians

On 14 December 1972, the Ombudsman Act 1972 came into operation and the first South Australian Ombudsman, Mr Gordon Coombe, was appointed. In his first annual report covering the period 14 December 1972 to 30 June 1973, Mr Coombe reported an intake of 308 complaints relating to 21 agencies. Fast forward 45 years to 2017-2018 and the Office of the South Australian Ombudsman has received 4 4931 complaints relating to over 150 agencies.

In the intervening period the Office has:

• acquired jurisdiction over Universities and Local Government councils

• 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.

The Office has an enduring and proud tradition of serving the public of South Australia. The expanding scope of the Ombudsman’s functions and responsibilities is testimony to Parliament’s confidence in the Office as an effective and adaptable means of addressing citizen’s grievances and promoting integrity in public administration. My staff and I do not take that confidence for granted and have worked hard to deliver on the expectations that have been placed on us.

In this report I outline the work of the Office in discharging my legislative functions. I believe that this overview demonstrates not only the productivity of the Office but that the Office’s 45 year tradition of serving South Australians continues as strongly as ever.


COMPLAINTS RECEIVED UP BY

6.5%

6.5% 44%

6.5% 44%

4196 COMPLAINTS RESOLVED

6.5% 44%

66 RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUED

6.5% 44%

35 ICAC REFERRALS

COMPLETED

69 FINAL INVESTIGATION

REPORTS ISSUED

6.5% 44%

6.5% 44%

160 FOI EXTERNAL

REVIEWS COMPLETED

Year at a Glance

7 INTRODUCTION

COMPL A I N TS A N D I N V EST IGAT IONS

Ombudsman Act JurisdictionReturn to Work Act Jurisdiction

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act JurisdictionRecommendations

Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction

The Ombudsman Act 1972 empowers me to investigate complaints about state government departments and authorities and local government councils (agencies). I am also able to undertake investigations referred to me by Parliament and conduct investigations on my own initiative.

I have comprehensive powers to investigate administrative acts where I consider an agency’s decision-making process or decision is flawed; section 25(1) of the Act empowers me to make findings that an administrative act was unlawful, unreasonable or otherwise wrong.

Some of my jurisdictional limits are: my Office is one of last resort, I must not investigate policy, a complainant must be directly affected by the relevant administrative act, generally the complaint must be made within 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the matter, and generally I do not investigate where the complainant has an alternative right of review. Further, I can decide not to investigate under section 17(2) of the Act, a matter where in all the circumstances of the case, an investigation is unnecessary or unjustifiable.

In exercising my discretion as to whether to investigate a matter I consider the public interest and the improvement of public administration, 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?

• does the complaint relate to matters of public safety and security, the economic well-being of South Australia, the protection of public well-being, the protection of human rights or the rights and freedoms of citizens?

• has the complainant suffered significant personal loss or is the complainant in vulnerable circumstances?

• would investigation of the complaint be likely to lead to meaningful outcomes for the complainant and/or to improvement of public administration?

• has another review body considered the matter?

• what is the likelihood of collecting sufficient evidence to support a finding of administrative error?

• would investigation of the complaint involve effort and resources that are proportionate to the seriousness of the matter.

Where I have formed the view that there has been an administrative error, I am able to make recommendations to the agency involved. For example, I may recommend that action be taken to rectify or mitigate the effects of the error, that a practice be varied or legislation amended.


Ombudsman Act Complaints

The number of Ombudsman Act complaints received increased this year by 6.5% to 4270, up from 4010 in the previous year.

Ombudsman Act complaints received and completed:

Received Completed

Government Departments 2379 2355

Local Government 974 939

Other Authorities 917 902

Total 4270 4196

In addition, the Office received 191 new matters under the Return to Work Act and 32 referrals from the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC).

Of this total, 143 were investigated, resulting in me issuing 69 final reports: 4 of these related to the Return to Work Act, 33 arose from ICAC referrals and the remainder (32) were pursuant to the Ombudsman Act.

During the year, my Office fielded 7759 approaches relating to matters outside of my jurisdiction and handled 894 general enquiries. These are usually finalised instantaneously.

The great majority of complaints are dealt with at the assessment stage by the Intake and Assessment Team. On average, an assessment is completed within 14 days.

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.

Early Resolution - Case Studies

SA Housing TrustUnreasonable delay in providing housing transfer

2017/11671

Complaint

The complainant was a young Aboriginal woman who was in an advanced state of pregnancy. She had two small children and managed a serious personal health condition. She lived in a two story Housing Trust dwelling and had developed significant mobility problems in the home. She had applied for a Category 1 priority transfer to more appropriate housing and had received no response from the agency.

Assessment and Outcome

It was disclosed by the agency that the complainant was not initially listed as Category 1 which is for people who register for public or community housing with both urgent housing needs and long-term barriers to accessing or maintaining private housing options. The complainant was ‘upgraded’ to this priority status during the assessment conducted by my Office.

After conducting an assessment of the current risks for the complainant and her unborn child the agency confirmed that she had been offered and had accepted an alternative property suitable to her family needs.

11 OMBUDSMAN ACT - COMPLAINTS

Department for Education and Child Development (DECD)Unreasonable management of Immunisation Program

2017/06192

Complaint

The complainant’s son sustained injuries as a result of a fall following immunisation at his school. At the time following the immunisation he had not been supervised by school staff. A complaint was lodged with Health and Community Services Complaints Commission (HCSCC) who investigated the matter concerning SA Health and gave their recommendations.

The matter was then referred to my Office to assess the involvement of DECD staff. Following a recommendation by HCSCC that the current policy with regard to immunisation would benefit from updating, enquiries were conducted with DECD.


My Office negotiated with DECD to amend the current Immunisation Program Protocols to include that nurses providing immunisation should not proceed unless the school provided staff to supervise children immediately following immunisation. This recommendation required changes to the immunisation procedures.

Further to the enquiries made by my Office, a draft Memorandum of Understanding was created between the Minister for Health and Ageing and The Minister for Education titled ‘The Support and Provision of the School Immunisation Program’. In addition, DECD gave a commitment to develop an operational document outlining DECD staff responsibilities in the delivery of the School Immunisation Program. This tool includes specific reference to the need for post vaccination management of students by DECD staff and will be included in the School Immunisation Program Protocols and updated on a yearly basis.

Office of the Public AdvocateFailure by agency to ensure their client was receiving appropriate care

2017/09781

Complaint

The complainant rang my Office about his male neighbour who was a client of the agency. He reported that he had for some time been concerned about the welfare of the man and had taken it upon himself to care for him. He advised my Office that this man had growths in his throat and needed urgent surgery but when he spoke with the carers they were not interested. The complainant also said that his neighbour did not have a working oven, heating and cooling in his home or a mobile phone.


When my Office contacted the agency a home visit by the relevant health services was organised to make an immediate assessment of the complainant’s neighbour. Arrangements were made for the man to have his throat condition assessed and a surgeon was organised. Shortly after these actions a case conference was organised by the agency. The complainant and his neighbour attended as well as a new carer and an officer from Disabilities SA. It was established that, due to staff absences and poor communication, critical issues were not being reported to the agency for their assessment by the man’s guardian.

Better communication strategies were proposed and medical appointments were organised. Additionally, the man was provided with a mobile phone and an emergency safety alert pendant for a trial period. A commitment was made to install hot plates in the kitchen and the heating and cooling of the home was to be reviewed as required. The man was also going to be taken out for social group activities. I viewed this to be a satisfactory response to the complaint.


SA Housing TrustUnreasonable delay organising transfer from substandard home

2018/03120

Complaint

The complainant and her daughter and four children resided in a house which the complainant has described as substandard. She stated that the house had mould, salt damp and termites. She said that the agency had agreed her family needed to be moved but after 18 months on Category 1 they had not been transferred. The complainant said the house was now so bad that they were sleeping in two rooms. A contractor described the house to the complainant as ‘uninhabitable’.


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.


My Office made contact with FERU which confirmed that the Disposal Notice dated 8 January 2016 was processed and that the vehicle transfer had not been effective due to the new owner not completing the transfer documentation. The complainant provided a statutory declaration indicating that he had suffered a mental breakdown and had been hospitalised which meant that he had been unable to attend the hearing. He requested that the fines be re-issued in the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the fines. FERU agreed to give the matter further consideration on the basis of this information and his mental condition.

Following further discussion with FERU it was determined that they would waive the additional fees of approximately $10,000. Department for Child Protection

13 OMBUDSMAN ACT - COMPLAINTS

Ombudsman Act Investigations - Government Departments

Department for Child Protection

With the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016 commencing operation in December 2017, this Office assumed primary jurisdiction over prescribed child protection complaints.

Following the commencement of the Act, my Office received 118 complaints against the Department for Child Protection. Of these, 81 were referred back to the department to be considered by its Complaint Unit in the first instance. As at 30 June 2018, I was in the process of formally investigating 7 complaints. The issues under consideration included: failure to respond adequately to child protection notifications, unreasonable placement of child with a foster carer, failure to manage children in care appropriately and failure to reasonably manage a complaint.

As child protection related complaints usually involve confidential information about children and their family arrangements, it is often not possible to publish full details of my investigations. However, where possible I publish redacted reports or summaries on my website.

Department for Correctional Services

Complaints against the Department for Correctional Services totalled 744 this year, similar to the previous year. This number represents approximately 31% of complaints against government departments. Prisons provide telephones in the common areas with a pre-set dial to my Office and there is a reasonable level of awareness of my Office amongst prisoners. Unsurprisingly, prisoner complaints are the major source of complaints against the department.

Complaints received from prisoners 2017-2018

Prison Total

Adelaide Pre-Release Centre 7

Adelaide Remand Centre 48

Adelaide Women’s Prison 67

Cadell Training Centre 11

Holden Hill Watchhouse 1

Mobilong Prison 24

Mount Gambier Prison 135

Port Augusta Prison 103

Port Lincoln Prison 26

Yatala Labour Prison 160

Total 582

The Act adopts the definition of prescribed child protection complaint contained in section 28A of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004:

prescribed child protection complaint means—

a. a complaint relating to a health or community service—

i. that is provided to, or for the benefit of, a child who may be, or who has been, at risk; or

ii. that consists of, or includes, a notification (whether mandatory or otherwise) of a suspicion that a child may be at risk; or

iii. that consists of, or includes or arises out of, an investigation of a case where a child may be at risk; or

iv. that is provided to, or for the benefit of, a child who is under the guardianship, or in the custody of, the Minister or another person under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2016, where the provision of the service constitutes an administrative act on the part of an agency to which the Ombudsman Act 1972 applies; or

b. any other complaint of a kind declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this definition, but does not include a complaint of a kind declared by the regulations not to be included in the ambit of this definition.


Case studies

Wrongful placement and failure to provide medication to a prisoner2016/02044

Complaint

The complainant contacted my Office in a distressed state from Holden Hill Police Cells. The complainant had been remanded in custody for four days without receiving prescribed antidepressants despite the department and the South Australian Prison Health Service (SAPHS) having knowledge that the complainant suffers from diagnosed depression and has a history of self-harm and attempted suicide. The complainant explained that he is an Aboriginal person and referred to Aboriginal deaths in custody while making threats of suicide.

Following contact from my Office, the department immediately attended to the complainant’s wellbeing.

Investigation and outcome

My investigation found:

• during the admission process, the department determined that the complainant was ‘high risk’

• by accommodating the complainant in the limited environment of Police Cells, the department failed to place sufficient weight on:

• the complainant’s mental health concerns

• the complainant’s needs as an Aboriginal person in custody as identified by the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

• the importance of providing good detention circumstances to a person deemed to be at risk.

My final view was that by accommodating the complainant at Holden Hill Police Cells, the department acted in a manner that was wrong within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act.

It became evident that the department did not have a practice of retaining documents provided by SAPOL during the transfer of a prisoner into the department’s custody and that the department could no longer locate the complainant’s Prisoner Case File. I formed the view that the department was required to retain such information in accordance with the State Records Act 1997 and that by failing to do so, the department had acted in a manner that was contrary to law within the meaning of 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act.

As part of the admission process, SAPHS must contact a prisoner’s external health provider to obtain information about relevant prescribed medication before that medication may be administered. In relation to the complainant, SAPHS was waiting for an external health provider to respond. The relevant policy provided that SAPHS was not required to re-contact the external health provider for seven days if the matter was ‘urgent’ and in all other cases, for two weeks. In my view this timeframe did not allow for proper continuity of care. I formed the view that the delay in SAPHS providing the complainant’s medication was in accordance with a policy and practice that was unreasonable for the purposes of 25(1)(c) of the Ombudsman Act.

I recommended that the department:

• amend its policies to provide that high risk prisoners are only placed in Police Cells in limited circumstances, only when absolutely necessary and following a joint discussion with SAPHS, and that a high risk prisoner who is Aboriginal is never placed in police cells

• retain all SAPOL documents, review its records management processes and undertake training about retention of documents under the State Records Act.

I also recommended that SAPHS amend its policy so that responses are obtained from external health providers 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.

15 OMBUDSMAN ACT INVESTIGATIONS - GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Failure to induct complainant2017/06456

Complaint

It was alleged that the complainant had been in prison for approximately four weeks before being able to contact his family. The complainant had self-harmed in prison.



• that ordinarily new prisoners are given one free phone call, and are inducted into the prison within 24 hours of their arrival, as well as being inducted into each different unit

• the complainant had never been inducted, despite being in prison for four weeks and being housed in a number of different units in that time

• as the complainant was never inducted, he was unaware of how the telephone system worked

• the complainant was already High Risk upon entering the prison and his inability to contact his family had further negative impacts on his mental state

• while the complainant’s wife had attempted to contact him numerous times with information about the wellbeing of his children, those messages were not passed on to the complainant.

My final view was that the department acted in a manner that was wrong within the meaning of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act by:

• failing to induct the complainant upon his entry to prison

• failing to assist the complainant to make calls

• failing to pass on messages from the complainant’s wife.

I recommended that:

• the department implement a procedure of compliance checks to ensure that inductions are being completed

• the department offer an apology to the complainant for the delay in inducting the complainant

• the department remind staff of their role in facilitating phone calls in both the Infirmary and the HDU, with an emphasis on the importance of family contact for High Risk prisoners

• the department conduct a review of how contact from family members is managed and advise me of the outcome of the review.

The department accepted these recommendations.

Unjust and oppressive separation of a prisoner2017/01854

Complaint

I received a complaint from a prisoner concerning the circumstances and duration of his separation from other prisoners within G Division of Yatala Labour Prison. The prisoner complained that he had been arbitrarily transferred from Port Augusta Prison to Yatala Labour Prison and kept in G Division for a period of approximately 66 days.


My final view was that the department’s:

• failure to document confidential intelligence information leading to the prisoner’s separation was unreasonable within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act

• direction that the prisoner be separated from all other prisoners was unjust within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act

• failure to provide a report to the Minister as soon as reasonably practicable after giving the direction was contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act.

I also considered that the department’s failure to revoke the separation direction for a period of 66 days was oppressive and was in accordance with a law (namely section 36 of the Correctional Services Act) that is oppressive within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act.

I issued a range of recommendations, including that the department issue an apology and consider the provision of an ex gratia payment to the prisoner. I also recommended that section 36 of the Correctional Services Act be amended to establish a maximum period that a prisoner may ordinarily be kept separated from other prisoners and to require regular review by the Minister of a prisoner’s prolonged separation under the Act.

While the department considered an ex gratia payment, it ultimately decided against it. The Minister has agreed 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 that a satisfactory amendment is made.


To remedy this error, I recommended that the department:

3. issue a formal apology to the complainant

4. amend the policy to require that the department identify transgender prisoners by their preferred name at all times, unless there is a lawful reason not to do so.

I did not consider that the department had unreasonably delayed the complainant’s transfer to AWP.

The department accepted the recommendations as proposed by me prior to the finalisation of my investigation.

Shackling of Prisoners

Last year I reported my disappointment in the department not being able to implement my recommendation dating back to 2012 to develop a soft shackling device for prisoners that had to be shackled to hospital beds while receiving medical attention. The department has continued to trial potential solutions. During the reporting year, the department has trialled the use of a neoprene type of wrist guard designed to prevent injuries to prisoners from the chafing of shackles. As at time of writing the results of the trial have not been confirmed but I will be following up the department about this.

Unreasonable/discriminatory failure to amend record of gender2017/09006

Complaint

I investigated a complaint by a transgender prisoner that the department had failed to amend its records to reflect that she identifies as a female, resulting in a delay in her transfer to the Adelaide Women’s Prison (AWP). The complainant also raised concerns that the department had failed to amend the name on her cell door to reflect her chosen name.


My investigation found that:

• there were no proper grounds for the department’s refusal to amend its records, and identify the complainant by her chosen name

• the department had been aware of these issues as early as 2015 yet failed to take steps to address them until after it had been notified of my investigation in September 2017.

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.

17 OMBUDSMAN ACT INVESTIGATIONS - GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Ombudsman Act Investigations - Local Government

• it was, therefore, not possible to conclude that at the time the motions were considered and voted on, the council member would stand to gain a benefit or suffer a loss depending on whether the motions were passed or not

• nevertheless, the council member did have an indirect, personal interest in the motion.

My final view was that the council member had an actual and perceived conflict of interest within the meaning of the Local Government Act which they failed to deal with in accordance with the requirements of that Act. On that basis, the council member breached clause 3.13 of the Code of Conduct and therefore acted in a manner that was contrary to law within the meaning of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act.

I recommended that the council require the council member to:

• issue a public apology to the council at an ordinary meeting of the council for failing to appropriately deal with the conflict of interest at the council meeting; and

• undertake training in relation to conflict of interest.

Nearly 25% of all complaints received relate to local government. Allegations of council members breaching the Code of Conduct feature prominently in the types of matters that are investigated by my Office. In particular, breaches of the Code in terms of failing to comply with the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act come to my attention regularly. While I have not uncovered a situation where a council member has voted on a motion the outcome of which would either provide them with a benefit or cause them to suffer loss, several times council members have been found to have failed to declare their actual or perceived interests in motions considered at council meetings. Council members need to be more alert to this issue. Otherwise, it has the potential to undermine public confidence in the decision making of councils.

Case Study

Kangaroo Island CouncilFailure by a council member to declare a conflict of interest

2017/02082

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’.



• 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


Ombudsman Act Investigations - Other Authorities

Just over 20% of complaints relate to other authorities such as state government commissions and boards, statutory officers and universities. Several of these complaints were formally investigated. The majority of allegations were not substantiated, but in three cases I found administrative error. One of those cases involved a finding of wrongdoing against the APY Lands Council General Manager, who has since instigated judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court to challenge that finding.

Case Studies

Health and Community Services Complaints CommissionerDetermination to take no further action

2017/10752

Complaint

It was alleged that the Commissioner inappropriately determined to take no further action in respect of a medical professional’s complaint concerning a health provider. The medical professional alleged that the health provider had attempted to procure an unlawful abortion for a patient and had unlawfully directed or incited the medical professional to facilitate this procedure.


My investigation considered the determination of the Commissioner and the status of the law concerning the standard of proof in administrative and disciplinary investigations.

My final view was:

• that the Commissioner’s determination to take no further action in respect of the medical professional’s complaint was based in part on a mistake of law within the meaning of section 25(1)(f) of the Ombudsman Act

• that the Commissioner had misdirected himself as to the standard of proof applicable to complaints under the HCSC Act.

I declined to set aside the determination of the Commissioner on the basis that I was not satisfied that the Commissioner would have reached a different determination had he not misdirected himself.

Public TrusteeUnreasonable decisions relating to a client’s finances

2017/10389

Issues

The Public Trustee was appointed the administrator of a customer’s financial affairs in 2015.

In October 2017, the customer made a complaint to my Office about the Public Trustee and the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA).

I did not consider that investigating the issues raised by the customer were necessary or justifiable, however, I did consider that the information obtained by my Office during initial enquiries in regard to the complaint necessitated an own initiative investigation in relation to whether the Public Trustee:

• unreasonably failed to cancel the lease on the customer’s unit

• failed to prevent the customer from seeking professional services and accruing significant fees.


I did not consider that the Public Trustee acted in a manner that was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act by failing to prevent the customer from seeking professional services and accruing significant fees.

My final view was, however, that between 1 March 2016 – 10 October 2017, by failing to cancel a lease on a unit that the OPA had determined the customer was not capable of returning to, the Public Trustee acted in a manner that was unreasonable within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the Ombudsman Act. As a result of the Public Trustee’s actions, the customer had been paying for both the lease and nursing home accommodation for a period of almost two years.

I recommended that the Public Trustee reimburse the customer for the payments made on the lease between 1 April 2016 and 10 October 2017.

On 30 April 2018, the Public Trustee reimbursed the customer a total of $9 601.68.

19 OMBUDSMAN ACT INVESTIGATIONS - OTHER AUTHORITIES

Return to Work Act Jurisdiction

As of 1 July 2015, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 was repealed and my jurisdiction under Schedule 5 of the Return to Work Act 2014 (RTW Act) to investigate complaints about breaches of the Service Standards commenced. The Service Standards apply to both Return to Work SA (RTWSA) and the Crown and Private self-insured insurers, including providers of services engaged by the self-insured employers.

Only a worker or an employer may lodge a complaint with my Office if they believe that the Service Standards have been breached. Where an investigation by my Office identifies that a breach of the Service Standards has occurred, I may require the respondent to provide a written or oral apology, furnish a written explanation or other remedies as outlined in clause 7 of Schedule 5 of the RTW Act. The powers of the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1972 apply to self-insured employers as if they are agencies to which the Ombudsman Act applies.

In addition, under section 180(8) of the RTW Act, the Ombudsman can receive a request to conduct an external review of the decision by RTWSA or self-insured employer in relation to a worker’s request to access material relevant to their claim. At the conclusion of the review, the Ombudsman may confirm, vary or modify the decision under review.

c. With the active assistance and participation of the worker and the employer, consistent with their obligations under this Act, ensure that recovery and return to work processes focus on maintaining the relationship between the worker and the employer;

d. Ensure that a worker’s employer is made aware of, and fulfils, the employer’s recovery and return to work obligations because early and effective workplace-based coordination of a timely and safe return to work benefits an injured worker’s recovery;

e. Treat a worker and an employer fairly and with integrity, respect and courtesy, and comply with stated timeframes;

f. Be clear about how the Corporation an assist a worker and an employer to resolve any issues by providing accurate and complete information that is consistent and easy to understand (including options about any claim, entitlements, obligations and responsibilities);

g. Assist a worker in making a claim and, if necessary, provide a worker with information about where the worker can access advice, advocacy services and support;

h. Take all reasonable steps to provide services and information in a worker’s or employer’s preferred language and format, including through the use of interpreters if required, and to demonstrate respect and sensitivity to a person’s cultural beliefs and values;

i. Respect and maintain confidentiality and privacy in accordance with any legislative requirements;

j. Provide avenues for feedback or for making complaints, and to be clear about what can be expected as a response;

k. Recognise a right of a worker or an employer to be supported by another person and to be represented by a union, advocate or lawyer.

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 this year with 56% of them either being referred back to the relevant compensating authority or resolved with the compensating authorities’ co-operation. I formally investigated four complaints and in only two of those matters found three instances of the service standards being breached.

Statement of Service Standards

Clause 4 of Schedule 5 of the Return to Work Act sets out the service standards that apply to RTWSA, claims agents and self-insured employers. They are required to:

a. View a worker’s recovery and return to work as the 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);


Case studies

Gallagher Bassett ServicesFailure to recognise the right of an injured worker to be represented by an advocate

2016/10210

Complaint

The complainant acted as advocate for an injured worker. He lodged a number of complaints with my Office regarding the management of the worker’s claim by the claims agent Gallagher Bassett Services.

This particular complaint was that, despite the worker having nominated a number of parties to advocate on his behalf, the agent had determined to only communicate with the worker’s legal representative. The agent referred to the worker’s nominated advocates as ‘support persons’, who were unable to play a meaningful role in assisting the worker with his claim for compensation.

Investigation and Outcome

The claims agent informed my Office that it understood the difference between an advocate and a support person and, in this instance, the reference to the worker’s advocates as ‘support persons’ reflected nothing more than poor terminology.

On investigation however the evidence supported the complainant’s assertion that the claims agent had viewed the nominated advocates as support persons, who could not be involved in any decisions about the worker’s claim or assist the worker to make decisions about his claim. I concluded that the claims agent had breached clause 4(k) of the Service Standards, which requires claims agents to recognise the right of a worker to be represented by an advocate.

I recommended that the claims agent issue a written apology to the complainant for its failure to recognise that the worker had identified a number of persons to advocate on his behalf. I further recommended that the claims agent develop a service charter or policy expressly recognising the right enshrined by clause 4(k) of the Service Standards. The claims agent agreed to implement my recommendations.

ASC Shipbuilding Pty LtdFailure to assist an injured worker to make a claim for compensation

2017/07347

Complaint

The worker reported his injury to his self-insured employer on 22 November 2016. Thereafter he attended the employer’s onsite health clinic and was placed on modified duties. The worker was reviewed by the onsite doctor and an occupational health nurse on a number of occasions. Despite this he was not informed of the worker’s compensation process until 18 January 2017. When the worker made a claim on 1 February 2017, the employer accepted it.


My investigation revealed that the worker had been provided with a ‘claims pack’ on 25 January 2017, some two months after he had reported his injury. This claims pack included information about the employer’s early intervention program, which allowed an injured worker to incur up to $500 worth of treatment without having to make a claim under the Return to Work Act 2014. The evidence before me suggested it was likely that the employer may have initially considered the worker’s injury as insignificant and may therefore have informed the worker that there was no need for him to make a claim for compensation. I also accepted that it was likely that, as the worker alleged, he had been informed by the employer’s medical staff that he should seek medical treatment through the early intervention program prior to making a claim. This had led the worker to believe that he was unable to make a claim until being given permission by the employer to do so.

I took the view that the employer had breached clause 4(g) of the Service Standards in that it had not assisted the worker to make a claim until two months after he had reported his work injury.

Following my investigation the employer took remedial action to address its breach by notifying all of its onsite health staff of the requirement to provide claims packs to 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.

21 RETURN TO WORK ACT JURISDICTION

Return to Work SA (RTWSA) and Employers Mutual Ltd (EML)Management of claims officers who made derogatory comments about an injured worker2018/03067

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.


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.

‘You have been so kind in what has been a difficult time for me. Thank you for treating me with respect.’

Feedback from a RTW Act complainant to the investigating officer


Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction

The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) referred 32 complaints and reports of misconduct or maladministration in public administration to my Office pursuant to section 24 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012*.

In this reporting period I issued 33 formal reports arising from ICAC referrals and found 30 allegations of misconduct, maladministration and administrative error substantiated relating to 12 public officers or public authorities. In 12 matters I deemed it in the public interest to publish either the final report or a summary statement.

*The number of referrals is less than the number reported by ICAC in his annual report as on several matters my Office has counted a number of referrals relating to the same public officer or public authority as constituting one or more issues on the one complaint.

Case Studies

Department for Health & AgeingProcurement practices and conflicts of interest

2016/05897

Complaint

It was alleged that:

• the department committed maladministration by engaging a company to manage and lead the implementation of a program

• the department committed maladministration by failing to publicly disclose its contracts with the company

• the then Chief Executive Officer and or the Chief Medical Officer of the department had close personal relationships with the founders of the company that gave rise to a conflict of interest

• the department’s Chief Medical Officer and/or its Chief Information Officer committed misconduct by publicly endorsing the company.

My investigation also considered whether administrative error occurred for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act in relation to the department’s procurement processes and record keeping.


In relation to the first issue, my investigation found:

• the decision to engage the company by direct negotiation rather than open tender was not inconsistent with relevant guidelines

• the State Procurement Board extensively scrutinised the department’s procurement processes in relation to the program and was ultimately satisfied that an appropriate approach had been taken

• the department had a genuine rationale for engaging the company by direct engagement based on a complex series of factors.

My final view was that the engagement of the company did not in itself result in a substantial mismanagement of public resources and on that basis the department did not commit maladministration for the purposes of section 5(4)(a)(i) of the ICAC Act.

The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (the ICAC) may refer matters that raise potential issues of ‘misconduct’ and/or ‘maladministration’ in public administration to the Ombudsman for investigation. The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 defines misconduct and maladministration and sets out what constitutes ‘public officers’ and ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of the Act. The matters referred may derive from complaints made to the Office for Public Integrity (OPI) by members of the public (‘complaints’) or by reports made to the OPI by public officers (‘reports’).

Pursuant to section 14B of the Ombudsman Act, a matter referred to the Ombudsman by the Commissioner is dealt with under the Ombudsman Act as if a complaint had been made under the Ombudsman Act. Accordingly, the Ombudsman investigates such referrals by exercising his powers under the Ombudsman Act.

23 INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT JURISDICTION

In relation to the second issue, my investigation found:

• while the company was referred to as a ‘contractor’ in various documents, it actually met the definition of a consultant rather than a contractor, and on that basis the contracts should have been disclosed as required by Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC 027.

My final view was that while the failure to disclose did not amount to maladministration for the purposes of section 5(4)(a)(i) of the ICAC Act, the department acted in a manner that was wrong for the purposes of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act.

In relation to the third issue, my investigation found:

• none of the information provided to my investigation indicated that either the then Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Medical Officer had close personal relationships with the company which gave rise to a conflict of interest that was required to be addressed in accordance with the conflict of interest policy, the Code of Ethics or the SA Health Probity in Procurement Policy

• the Chief Medical Officer did not appear to play any role in the various procurement processes involving the company.

My final view was that neither the then Chief Executive nor the Chief Medical Officer committed misconduct for the purposes of section 5(3) of the ICAC Act.

In relation to the fourth issue, my investigation found:

• neither the Chief Medical Officer nor the Chief Information Officer authorised the company to include testimonials on its website.

My final view was that neither the Chief Medical Officer nor the Chief Information Officer committed misconduct for the purposes of section 5(3) of the ICAC Act.

I also formed the final view that the department’s failure to maintain a significant number of invoices was contrary to the State Records Act 1997 and, on that basis, was contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act.

I recommended that the department disclose all contracts 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.

City of UnleyDisclosure of confidential information to a journalist

2017/03847

Report

It was alleged that a council member revealed confidential information to a journalist and thereby breached clause 3.3 of Part 3 of the Code of Conduct for Council Members.



• that the council member had attended a briefing by solicitors with all other elected members about potential conflicts of interest in relation to a recent Development Plan Amendment

• that the council member ought to have known that the briefing was confidential

• that following the briefing the council member telephoned a journalist and told the journalist what had transpired at the briefing and named elected members and their conflicts of interest

• that the journalist sought to confirm the information with council administration

• the journalist revealed his source to me as the council member

• that the council member confirmed that he informed the journalist

• that the journalist would not otherwise have had access to that information, including the personal details of elected members.

Accordingly, my final view was that the council member breached clause 3.3 of the Code of Conduct for Council Members and therefore committed misconduct for the purposes of section 5(3)(a) of the ICAC Act.

I recommended that the council:

• require the council member to undertake training in respect of confidentiality

• require the council member to apologise to the council in person at a council meeting

• reprimand the council member by means of public statement.


Recommendations

In 33 of the 69 investigation reports issued, I formed the view that public officers or agencies had committed administrative error within the meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act. Altogether I made 621 recommendations to remedy these errors. As at time of writing 52 or 84% have been implemented. As in previous years, I expect an implementation rate of 95% or more.

It should be noted that I do not have an express power to issue recommendations upon forming a view about misconduct or maladministration under the ICAC Act. However, where the actions under investigation can be construed as administrative acts within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act, I usually express a view in accordance with section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act which allows me to make a recommendation under section 25(2) of that Act. Even so, it would be advantageous if I was empowered to issue recommendations on findings of misconduct or maladministration per se as is proposed for the ICAC in the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (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

• that the Department for Correctional Services implement a policy for the reception, induction and management of Non-English speaking prisoners (2017/04856)

• that the Department for Correctional Services implement a procedure of compliance checks to ensure that prisoner inductions are being completed (2017/06456)

• the Department for Correctional Services issue an amended instruction to include that an Aboriginal person who is assessed as High Risk (of self-harm) should never be placed in Police Cells (2016/02044)

• that the Department for Correctional Services amend Standard Operating Procedure 100 to include that when a period of restriction is to be imposed on visiting a prisoner, the evidentiary basis for the restriction must be linked to the statutory authority being relied on and for it to be clearly articulated to the recipient in the written order (2016/000365).

25 RECOMMENDATIONS

AUDI TS

Audits

Under section 14A of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman may conduct a review of the administrative practices and procedures of an agency to which the Act applies where the Ombudsman considers it in the public interest to do so. During the reporting year, I completed two reviews pursuant to this power.

Information Sharing Guidelines

In May 2018, I tabled the Audit Report assessing State Government Agencies’ implementation of the Information Sharing Guidelines for Promoting Safety and Wellbeing (ISG). The ISG is endorsed by State Cabinet and defines a process for agencies to share information where there are current or anticipated threats to safety and wellbeing. The aim is that by agencies sharing information and working together at the first sign of risk, harm to children and some of our most vulnerable citizens can be prevented. The report represents a year-long investigation into seven state government agencies’ efforts to implement the ISG requirements.

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.

Complaint Management Systems

In June 2018, I completed and tabled an Audit Survey Report which documents the progress made by 13 key state government departments in developing their complaint management systems (CMS).

The report identified some improvements as well as some deficiencies in the CMS. Three recommendations were made: the renewal of the DPC Circular PC039 – Complaint Management in the South Australian Public Sector (including adherence to the Australian Standard on complaint management), improved complaint management and access for disadvantaged and vulnerable people and the development of departmental Strategic Planning goals to deliver service improvements linked to complaints. The Senior Management Council of government has been charged with the task of supervising the implementation of these recommendations.

The full reports of these audits are available at: www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/publications/audit-reports/


FR EEDOM OF I N FOR M AT ION ACT JUR ISDICT ION

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.


Clause 5 of the FOI Act exempts documents containing matter the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to intergovernmental relations, or would divulge information from a confidential intergovernmental communication. To justify an exemption under clause 5 an agency must also establish that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Although I was satisfied that disclosure of some of the documents in issue could reasonably be expected to cause damage to intergovernmental relations, I was not satisfied that disclosure of all of those would be contrary to the public interest. I noted that, while there was a remote possibility that release of passages from those two documents might negatively impact on the free exchange of ideas during intergovernmental discussions, this was outweighed by the public interest in openness and accountability of government decisions and the promotion of effective public participation in administrative decision-making.

Determination

I varied the agency’s determination.

Adelaide Hills CouncilRefusal to deal with an FOI application

2017/09234

Application for access

The applicant sought access to the number of property inspections undertaken and number of notices issued by the council, broken down by postcode, in relation to fire safety from July 2014 to June 2015.

The agency made a determination refusing to deal with the application, relying on section 18(1) of the FOI Act. The agency considered that dealing with the application would substantially and unreasonably divert the agency’s resources from their use by the agency of its functions.

Review

It was my view that the agency had misinterpreted the application for access and had considered a large number of documents to be within the scope of the application (specifically, documents relating to each property inspection and a copy of each of the notices issued). In my view, the application sought only the number of these documents, not the documents themselves. Further, due to section 4 of the FOI Act, the agency was taken to hold a document about these numbers, even though that information was stored electronically. It was also

Case Studies

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Intergovernmental communications and request for access to documents about toll roads and user charges

2016/00625


The applicant, then an Opposition Member of Parliament, sought access to documents held by the agency that included the terms ‘toll road’ or ‘user charge’. During my external review the applicant revised the scope of his application so as to exclude documents that only referenced those terms in the context of the proposed national heavy network charge and the existing Commonwealth road user charge on diesel purchases.

The agency refused access to each of the 57 documents it identified as falling within scope of the application. In doing so, it claimed that the documents were exempt under clause 1 (Cabinet documents), clause 3 (documents communicated by another government), clause 5 (documents affecting intergovernmental relations), clause 9 (internal working documents) and section 20(1)(b) (otherwise available for inspection in accordance with a legislative instrument other than the FOI Act).

Review

I was not satisfied that a particular document was a Cabinet document. It did not contain any information pertaining to a Cabinet deliberation or decision. In addition it was difficult to see how disclosure of the document would be contrary to the purposes underpinning the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality, namely the maintenance of Cabinet solidarity and the prevention of actions pre-empting government decisions.

Neither was I satisfied that certain documents were exempt under clause 3 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act. For a document to be exempt under that clause it must contain information forming an intergovernmental communication to the Government of South Australia that would be protected from disclosure under a corresponding law of the Commonwealth or another State. It is also necessary that notice be provided by the relevant government that the information would be so protected. In this case the agency did not identify which law, if any, of the Commonwealth or another State would protect the documents from disclosure. Nor did it suggest that it had received notice of such protection from another jurisdiction.

31 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION

Department of State DevelopmentParliamentary privilege

2017/05526


The applicant sought access to documents about a ‘joint venture between Adelaide City Council, the State Government, Australian Trade Alliance and The Social Creative in relation to the Royal Adelaide Club at the Qingdao International Beer Festival held in Shandong in 2016’, and a subsequent, related dispute.

The agency identified one document within the scope of the application, namely a parliamentary briefing note. The agency claimed that the note was exempt as its disclosure would infringe the privilege of Parliament (clause 17(c)).

Review

According to case law, parliamentary privilege ‘attaches when, but only when, a Member of Parliament does some act with respect to documents for purposes of, or incidental to, the transacting of House business’.

During the course of my review, the agency submitted that the then Premier had relied on a subsequent version of the document when providing information to Parliament.

Having regard to the document itself, the subsequent version of the document, and extracts from Hansard, I was satisfied that the requisite nexus existed between the document and parliamentary proceedings, and its disclosure would therefore infringe the privilege of Parliament.

Determination

I confirmed the agency’s determination.

my view that the agency was prohibited from relying on section 18(1) of the FOI Act, as the agency had not taken reasonable steps to assist the applicant to amend his application such that dealing with it would not necessitate an unreasonable diversion of the agency’s resources.

Determination

I reversed the agency’s determination.

City of AdelaideAbuse of the right of access under the FOI Act

2017/11142


The applicant had received a parking fine from the agency, which the agency had subsequently referred to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Officer for enforcement. The applicant applied to the agency for access to documents relating to any certificate that contained the particulars determined by the FERO had been issued by the agency for the purposes of obtaining an enforcement determination.

Review

The review concerned the agency’s determination to refuse to deal with the application on the basis of its opinion that it was part of a pattern of conduct that amounted to an abuse of the right of access conferred by the FOI Act, or had been made for a purpose other than to obtain access to information.

On review I concluded that it was reasonable for the agency to have formed this view. I noted that the application in issue was the 15th application made by the applicant to the agency in a period of 13 months. Each of the 15 applications were requests for access to documents 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.


Training

My Office continues to provide training to agency FOI officers (approximately four times per year) and contribute to the training material used. The training is provided in conjunction with State Records.

Judicial Review

The APY Lands Board has challenged, by judicial review in the Supreme Court, my determination that it is an agency for the purpose of the FOI Act. The judicial review hearing was held on 25 January 2018 and the Court’s decision is yet to be handed down.

Access to Information Optimal Features Framework

My Office has been represented on a joint working group established under the auspices of the Australian New Zealand Association of Information Access Commissioners. The working group has been developing a document that sets out the optimal features of a right to information scheme. The purpose of the document is to provide a guide to widely accepted underlying principles of right to information legislation that have the endorsement of Information Commissioners and Ombudsmen from around the country and New Zealand.

Complaints about FOI matters

In addition, to conducting external reviews, my Office receives complaints about the way agencies have managed the FOI application. Most of these complaints are about agencies not being able to locate documents 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 it does not hold a document requested under the FOI Act is not a determination that is reviewable under the FOI Act, means that such a claim cannot be reviewed by the agency concerned on internal review by my Office as external review authority, or by SACAT on external review.

However, I continue to consider grievances arising out of such claims but treat them as complaints under the Ombudsman Act, rather than as external reviews under the FOI Act. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and is one of the numerous deficiencies in the Act that I have raised with the Attorney-General for consideration in a review of the Act.

During the reporting year, I received 19 FOI Act complaints and completed 23. On average, complaints were finalised within 78 days. Four were resolved with agency cooperation and the remaining matters did not result in any findings against agencies.

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.

33 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION

I N FOR M AT ION SH A R I NG GUI DELI N ES

Since 2013, the SA Principal Advisor Information Sharing has been employed with my Office to promote the ISG, provide advice to agencies and their frontline staff as to the application of the ISG, assist agencies with developing their ISG procedures (called an appendix) and monitor implementation.

Audit

I have already mentioned the Audit report which was tabled in May 2018. The report was the culmination of an extensive piece of work which commenced in October 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 deficiencies identified through the audit process. Each of the agencies has complied with that recommendation and provided me with an update on their progress. In particular, it is pleasing to be able to report that the Department for Correctional Services, which was strongly criticised by me for its lack of progress, has now been able to demonstrate significant improvement in its implementation of the ISG.

I will continue to follow up each of the agencies in their implementation of all the recommendations that relate to them.

Recommendation 6 asked the Department for the Premier and Cabinet to consider developing Regulations to the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016 that apply ISG 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.

Advice and Promotion

In addition to completing the Audit, the Principal Advisor has responded to 43 individual requests for advice, 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 of the Australian and New Zealand Child Mortality and Serious Injury Review committees. Feedback following advice and delivering presentations absolutely confirms the simplicity and strength of the ISG decision making steps and practice guide in informing appropriate practice.

‘Just wanted to say thank you once again for attending our Workplace Learning session last week. The information you shared was really appreciated and helpful for us all to reflect on.

Following your visit one of our team had an excellent outcome with one of our key interagency partners. The worker had previously been challenged in gathering the necessary information; however in line with your suggestions around working through the framework together … they were able to successfully gather the information. This then led to us being able to more robustly assess the circumstances for this young person and family.’

Feedback on a presentation given by the SA Principal Advisor Information Sharing

Information Sharing Guidelines for Promoting Safety and Wellbeing (ISG)


Case Study

Call for advice from an NGO service provider regarding a male client (tenant) who has a long history of mental illness. He is currently under a community treatment order. He has previously had an allocated social worker during his tenancy with another agency. Staff are concerned that his mental health is declining. They know from previous communication with his mental health worker that he can become extremely violent and irrational. The client gets agitated and will not give consent for the NGO staff to talk to his mental health worker or former social worker. The caller is concerned that the young woman cleaner the client has recently engaged could be at risk of harm. She is also concerned for the client’s wellbeing and that he could potentially pose a risk of harm to her staff. The Principal Advisor asked the caller to go to the Ombudsman SA website and pull up the ISG decision making steps and practice guide; the Principal Advisor took her through process. It was agreed that (ISG step 3) there was a legitimate reason to talk to the client’s mental health worker (to protect a person or group of people 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 alert other service providers to an individual’s need for assistance) and (ISG step 6) after several attempts it was not possible to obtain his consent. The caller again stressed her concerns for the client’s wellbeing and that she is hopeful that together with his mental health worker they can stop him from harming himself or someone else – his current behaviour could also place his tenancy at risk meaning he could become homeless. It was agreed there was (ISG step 7) a legitimate reason to share without 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.

Transition to Office for Data Analytics

At the beginning of 2018 discussions were held with the Chief Data Officer of the Department for the Premier and Cabinet. In view of the fact that the ISG and the Office for Data Analytics (ODA) have complementary objectives in ensuring that data is used to ensure informed interagency and multi-disciplinary responses are provided, it was decided that the position of SA Principal Advisor Information Sharing would be transferred to the ODA as from 1 July 2018. I also believe that the relocation of the position to the ODA will help to fully embed the ISG in practice and provide additional resources required for promotion of the ISG. In the months leading up to 1 July 2018, the Principal Advisor has worked with the ODA to enable the transfer to take effect. Agencies have been advised of the transfer. The Principal Advisor will continue to provide advice and monitor implementation of the ISG, albeit no longer under my delegation and the authority of the Ombudsman Act. An important priority for the Principal Advisor in the coming year will be to oversee an update of the ISG to reflect machinery of government and legislative changes.

Acknowledgement

I wish to acknowledge the unique and unparalleled contribution the Principal Advisor, Ms Donna Mayhew, has made to this State in her tireless and passionate advocacy of the ISG. I wish her every success in the continuation of this important work from the vantage point of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the ODA. Ms Mayhew has also been a highly valued member of this Office’s staff for the last five years and I thank her for the excellent work that she achieved while with us.

37 INFORMATION SHARING GUIDELINES

OT H ER ACT I V I T I ES

Other Activities

Submissions

On 12 February 2018, I provided a written submission to the Honourable John Mansfield AM QC, the Independent Reviewer of the Return to Work Act 2014. I submitted my views and observations on several of the terms of reference.

I observed that the claims agents’ performance in managing claims had improved, with better communication between claims managers and injured workers and a more co-operative approach which has resulted in less frustration and argument from injured workers.

I also pointed out some gaps in the service standards set out in Schedule 5 of the Act which are a key component of the complaint management framework under the Act:

As already noted above, a complaint about compliance 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 those directly affected by the actions of compensating authorities. Accordingly, I recommend that clause 5(1) of Schedule 5 of the RTW Act be amended to include anyone directly affected by the Corporation’s compliance with the service standards.

I advise that the service standards do not cover incompetence or carelessness in the management of a claim. For example, I have investigated complaints about documents relevant to a claim being misplaced or lost and have also found in the course of investigating a matter that inadequate notes of conversations with a worker have been kept by the claims manager. In both instances, it seemed to me that none of the service standards were applicable. I believe that the Schedule 5, clause 4 service standards should be amended to require the Corporation to act with reasonable care and diligence in the management of a worker’s claim.

Unfortunately, the Reviewer did not respond to this submission in his report.

Each year after the publication of my annual report I appear before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee established under section 15M of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 and charged with the responsibility of examining my annual report and to inquire into the performance of my functions and powers. I appeared before the Committee for this purpose on 13 November 2017.

My Office has provided written submissions on the following draft legislation and bills:

• draft NDIS (Protection and Disclosure of Information – Commissioner) Rules 2017

• NDIS (Registration and Practice Standards) Rules

• NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules

• NDIS (Code of Conduct) Rules

• draft Local Government (General) (Codes of Conduct) Variation Regulations 2017

• draft Public Sector (Data Sharing) Regulations 2017

• draft Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Regulations 2017

• Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill 2018

• Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill 2018

ANZOA Executive Committee

In November 2017, I was re-elected to the Executive Committee of the Australian New Zealand Ombudsman Association (ANZOA).

Incorporated in 2003, ANZOA is the peak body for ombudsmen in Australia and New Zealand. ANZOA members come from not-for-profit industry-based, parliamentary and other statutory external dispute resolution offices, which meet high standards of independence, impartiality and effectiveness and observe the Benchmarks for Industry-Based Customer Dispute Resolution.

The Executive Committee meets quarterly, usually by teleconference, to further ANZOA’s focus on supporting the ombudsman community and promoting best practice and the role and value of ombudsmen offices. During the reporting year, I attended four of these meetings. The May 2018 meeting was held in Wellington, New Zealand, immediately prior to the 2018 ANZOA Conference.

Australasian and Pacific Ombudsmen Region Conference

In November 2017 I attended a three day conference held in Perth for the Australasian and Pacific Ombudsman Region, a division of the International Ombudsman Institute of which I am a member. This was an opportunity to meet with many ombudsmen from the region and to reflect on issues important to our work.


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.

41 OTHER ACTIVITIES

A BOUT OMBUDSM A N SA

About Ombudsman SA

Investigations are conducted in private and we can only disclose information or make a statement about an investigation in accordance with specified provisions of the Ombudsman Act.

At the conclusion of an investigation, the Ombudsman may recommend a remedy to the agency’s principal officer, or recommend that practices and procedures are amended and improved to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

The Ombudsman should not in any report, make adverse comments about any person or agency unless they have been provided with an opportunity to respond.

The Ombudsman may make a recommendation to Parliament that certain legislation be reviewed.

We usually publish our reports and determinations on our website at http://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/.

Our jurisdiction

Certain agencies are outside Ombudsman SA’s jurisdiction. We do not have the power to investigate actions and decisions of:

• the South Australian Police

• employers – on matters that affect their employees

• private persons, businesses or companies

• Commonwealth or interstate government agencies

• government Ministers and Cabinet

• courts and judges

• legal advisers to the Crown.

The Ombudsman can decide whether to commence or continue an investigation. Some of the factors that may influence this decision include whether the matter is more than 12 months old; whether the complainant has a legal remedy or right of review or appeal and whether it is reasonable to expect the complainant to resort to that remedy; or whether a complaint appears to be frivolous, trivial, vexatious, or not made in good faith. In some cases an investigation may not be warranted, such as where an agency is still investigating the complaint or a complaint has not yet been made to the agency, or where another complaint-handling body may be more appropriate.

What we do

The Ombudsman is empowered to:

• investigate the administrative acts of state government agencies, local government councils and statutory authorities; and also misconduct and maladministration in public administration on referral from the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption

• conduct audits of the administrative practices and procedures of state government agencies, local government councils and statutory authorities

• conduct Freedom of Information reviews about release of information

• receive information about state and local government activities confidentially from whistleblowers

• administer and provide advice on the Information Sharing Guidelines

• investigate complaints about breaches of service standards under the Return to Work Act 2014.

The aim of Ombudsman SA is to contribute to sound public administration within state and local government agencies in South Australia.


The Investigation Process

Any party who is directly affected by an administrative act of a government department, council or statutory authority under our jurisdiction can make a complaint.

Investigations may be initiated by Ombudsman SA in response to a complaint received by telephone, in person, in writing or through the website from any person (or an appropriate person acting on another’s behalf); a complaint referred to the Ombudsman by a Member of Parliament or a committee of Parliament; or on the Ombudsman’s own initiative. We may also undertake audits of the administrative practices and procedures of an agency.

If the Ombudsman decides to investigate a complaint, we advise the agency and the complainant accordingly. 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.


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/.

45 ABOUT OMBUDSMAN SA

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 investigation

Internal review conducted – factual errors 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


2017/10810 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



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

2018/01111 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 relevant material

Internal Review conducted - Outcome 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 outcome of complaint

Substantiated – staff counselled and apology issued


2018/03628 Complaint about OSA Services – failure to advise complainant of outcome of complaint

Substantiated - staff counselled

2018/04609 Complaint about OSA services – failure to consider submissions Not substantiated


2018/05399 Complaint about OSA services – alleged breach of privacy Not substantiated

2018/06859 Complaint about OSA services – failure to provide information Not substantiated


Organisation Chart

Deputy Ombudsman

Manager Intake and Assessment

ASO8

Senior Legal Officer (FOI)

LE5

Office Manager

ASO4

Legal Officer

LE3 (0.7 FTE)

Ombudsman

Principal Advisor - Information Sharing

Education

ASO8

Senior Legal Officer (Investigations)

LE5

Legal Officer (Investigations)

LE3 (0.8) FTE

Legal Officer (Investigations)

LE3 (0.5) FTE

Investigating Officer

ASO6

Investigating Officer

ASO6

Legal Officer

LE3 (0.6 FTE)

Legal Officer

LE2

Legal Officer

LE1

Investigating/Assessment

Officer

ASO5

Assessment Officer

ASO4

Assessment Officer

ASO4 (0.6 FTE)

Executive Services Officer

ASO3

Clerical Officer

ASO2

Administrative Officer

ASO2

Investigations Team

FOI Team

Assessment Team

Administration Team

Legal Officer

LE1 (Term)

Legal Officer

LE1 (Term)

Legal Officer

LE1 (Term)

Legal Officer

LE1

Assessment Officer

ASO4 (0.4 FTE)

Assessment Officer

ASO4

Assessment Officer

ASO4

Assessment Officer

ASO4 (0.4 FTE)

47 ORGANISATION CHART

Ombudsman Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Tota

l

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Tota

l

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Tota

l

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

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Min

iste

r

Tota

l

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Min

iste

r

Tota

l

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Min

iste

r

Tota

l

Open External Reviews

76 20 22 13 131 109 19 51 10 189 55 28 33 11 127

Closed External Reviews

77 12 28 9 126 115 22 40 9 186 67 32 48 13 160

ICAC Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Tota

l

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Tota

l

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ents

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Oth

er

Aut

horit

ies

Tota

l

Matters received under s24 referral

5 35 6 46 7 27 15 49 6 18 8 32

Matters Closed 6 24 3 33 6 35 7 48 7 19 9 35

Return To Work Jurisdiction 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Cla

ims

Age

nt

Sel

f-In

sure

d E

mpl

oyer

Ser

vice

P

rovi

der

Tota

l

Cla

ims

Age

nt

Sel

f-In

sure

d E

mpl

oyer

Ser

vice

P

rovi

der

Tota

l

Cla

ims

Age

nt

Sel

f-In

sure

d E

mpl

oyer

Ser

vice

P

rovi

der

Tota

l

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

Summary Data


Ombudsman Act Jurisdiction1

Government departmentsSummary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018

Complaints: Received

Government Department NoPercentage of

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.

49 SUMMARY DATA

Complaints: Completed

Government Department NoPercentage of

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%


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%

51 SUMMARY DATA


Local Council Received PercentagePopulation

30 June 2017Complaints/ 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 6.0 115 688 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 11 766 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

Local GovernmentSummary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018


Local Council Received PercentagePopulation


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 11 981 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 11 286 16.8

Total 974 100%

53 SUMMARY DATA


Local Council Completed PercentagePopulation


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 6.5 115 688 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 11 766 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


Local Council Completed PercentagePopulation


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 11 981 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 11 286 15.9

Total 939 100%

55 SUMMARY DATA

Outcomes


Advice given 29 3.1






Not substantiated 16 1.7

Out of jurisdiction/Employment 1 0.1

Out of jurisdiction/Policy 1 0.1


Advice to authority 11 1.2


s25 Finding/Contrary to law 7 0.7

s25 Finding/Unreasonable 1 0.1


Total 939 100%


Other AuthoritiesSummary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018


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

57 SUMMARY DATA

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%



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

59 SUMMARY DATA

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%


Outcomes

Authority Total Percentage

Advice given 69 7.6






Not substantiated 8 0.9

Out of jurisdiction/Employment 6 0.7

Out of jurisdiction/Judicial body 6 0.7


Advice to authority 2 0.2


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


Total 902 100%

61 SUMMARY DATA

Return To Work Act JurisdictionSummary 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 Services

6 6 5 4 4 4 6 4 7 3 7 4 60

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


Breach of service standards 3 1.6

Breach of service standards not substantiated 7 3.7



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


Total 191 100%


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%

63 SUMMARY DATA

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act Jurisdiction

ICAC Outcomes

Government Departments

Local Government

Other 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


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

24 Jul 2017 2016/06290

City of Marion (Matter referred by ICAC)

Misconduct in public administration - improperly influenced employee re expiation notice - Mr Adrian Skull

s25(1)(d) Finding - Improper Purpose or Irrelevant Grounds or Considerations

9 Aug 2017 2016/10169


Wrong decision to delete CCTV recording s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong

18 Aug 2017 2017/00672

City of Tea Tree GullyBreach of council member code of conduct - Cr Lucas Jones

s25(1)(a) Finding - Contrary to Law

12 Sept 2017 2017/03984

City of Mount GambierFailure to take appropriate action on building compliance

s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong

20 Sept 2017 2017/01854


Unreasonable decision to keep complainant in G division for over 8 weeks


11 Dec 2017 2017/03847

City of Unley (Matter referred by ICAC)

Misconduct in public administration - breach of confidentiality - Cr Bob Schnell


11 Oct 2017 2017/03918

City of West TorrensBreach of council member code of conduct - Mayor John Trainer


13 Oct 2017 2016/04144

Department for Education & Child Development

Unreasonable delay in conducting investigation and revoking approval as a foster parent

s25(1)(b) Finding - Unreasonable

20 Oct 2017 2017/04344

City of Victor Harbor (Matter referred by ICAC)

Misconduct in public administration - breach of confidentiality by elected member Cr Charles


25 Oct 2017 2017/06044

Kangaroo Island CouncilAlleged disclosure of identity of a whistleblower in contravention of Whistleblowers Protection Act


25 Oct 2017 2017/06633

Kangaroo Island CouncilUnreasonable release of information regarding Whistleblower


9 Nov 2017 2017/04856


Failure to provide induction information in Somalian


16 Nov 2017 2017/05467

District Council of Coober PedyBreach of council member code of conduct - conflict of interest concerning council electricity contract - Cr Paul Reynolds


20 Nov 2017 2017/05664

City of Whyalla (Matter referred by ICAC)

Misconduct and maladministration in public administration by a public officer - fabrication of meeting minutes to ensure motion passed


21 Nov 2017 2017/06456


Failure to induct prisoner s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong

21 Nov 2017 2017/07226

City of Burnside (Matter referred by ICAC)

Misconduct in public administration - conflict of interest and divulging confidential information - Cr Lance Bagster


21 Dec 2017 2016/02044


Wrongful prisoner placement at Police Cells and delay in providing antidepressants


21 Dec 2017 2018/03116

Central Adelaide Local Health Network

Wrongful prisoner placement at Police Cells and delay in providing antidepressants

s25(1)(c) Finding - Unreasonable Law or Practice

65 SUMMARY DATA

Date of report File number Respondent Agency Nature of Allegation Outcome

11 Jan 2018 2017/03589


Wrongful failure to exercise discretion in relation to urinalysis testing


11 Jan 2018 2017/07620

District Council of Renmark Paringa (Matter referred by ICAC)

Misconduct and maladministration in public administration by a public officer - Improper s51 clearance


31 Jan 2018 2017/10752

Health & Community Services Complaints Commissioner

Unreasonable determination to take no further action - complaint against social worker under HCSCC Act

s25(1)(f) Finding - Mistake of Law or Fact

19 Feb 2018 2017/03390


Irrelevant consideration when restricting a visitors25(1)(d) Finding - Improper Purpose or Irrelevant Grounds or Considerations

5 Mar 2018 2017/10388

Department for Education & Child Development

Unreasonable decision to permanently remove from register


9 Mar 2018 2017/06921

Kangaroo Island Council Unreasonable handling of complaints25(1)(b) Finding - Unreasonable

23 Mar 2018 2016/04703

Department for Child Protection

Unreasonable process in dealing with allegations s25(1)(g) Finding - Wrong

10 Apr 2018 2017/03162

Town of GawlerBreach of council member code of conduct - Cr Jim Vallelonga


17 Apr 2018 2017/10389

Public TrusteeUnreasonable decisions relating to complainant’s finances


2 May 2018 2017/02082

Kangaroo Island CouncilBreach of council member code of conduct - Cr Joy Willson


7 May 2018 2016/05897

Department for Health & Ageing (Matter referred by ICAC)

Maladministration and misconduct in public administration -contract process for EPAS system and public endorsements


8 May 2018 2016/07614

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board

Allegations that General Manager wrongly refused to allow the complainant to view board meeting minutes, inaccurately recorded proceedings


7 Jun 2018 2017/11639


Misconduct in public administration - Breach of the council member code of conduct - Cr Terry Andrews - disclosure of information


7 Jun 2018 2017/11639


Misconduct in public administration - Breach of the council member code of conduct - Cr Peter Charles - disclosure of information


14 Jun 2018 2017/09006


Unreasonable/discriminatory failure to amend record of prisoner’s gender



Freedom Of Information Act Jurisdiction

Outcomes of external reviews conducted by Ombudsman 2017-18


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%

67 SUMMARY DATA

Government AgenciesSummary 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


Local GovernmentSummary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018


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

69 SUMMARY DATA


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


Other AuthoritiesSummary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018


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


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

71 SUMMARY DATA

MinistersSummary tables 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018


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


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


A PPEN DICES

Appendix A: Financial StatementAppendix B: Description of outcomes - Ombudsman jurisdiction

Appendix C: Description of outcomes - Return to Work jurisdictionAppendix D: Description of outcomes - Independent Commissioner Against Corruption jurisdiction

Appendix E: Description of outcomes - Freedom of Information jurisdictionAppendix F: Acronyms

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

Appendix A


Appendix B

Description of outcomes: Ombudsman jurisdiction

Outcome Description

Advice Given

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

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’.

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

› 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 Contacted

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.

Referred Back To Agency

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 › 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).

Alternate Remedy Available With Another Body

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• the Environment Resources and Development Courtunless 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)).

Resolved With Agency Cooperation

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 satisfaction of the complainant. 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.

Withdrawn By ComplainantThis outcome is used when the complainant expressly wishes to withdraw their complaint, even if Ombudsman SA has not contacted the agency. It can be used at any stage of an assessment or investigation.

75 APPENDICES

Outcome Description

Declined/Trivial, Frivolous, Vexatious, Not Made In Good Faith (Section 17(2))

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 investigationbecause:• the complaint is trivial (section 17(2)(a))• the complaint was frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith (section 17(2)(b).

Declined/No Sufficient Personal Interest Or Not Directly Affected (Section 17(2))

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 investigationbecause: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)).

Declined/Out Of Time

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 investigationbecause 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.

Declined/Investigation Unnecessary Or Unjustifiable

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 investigationbecause having regard to the circumstances of the case, such action is unnecessary or unjustifiable (section 17(2)(d)). For example:• after assessing or commencing an investigation of the complaint, it appears that there is no

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.

Not Substantiated/No Section 25 Finding

This outcome is used:• after a preliminary (or more rarely a full) investigation and a report has been completed, and• there is no administrative error under section 25(1)(a)-(g).

Ombudsman Comment Warranted

This outcome is used only after a preliminary investigation.No administrative error has been found under section 25(1)((a)-(g), but an issue worthy of the 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: Improper Purpose Or Irrelevant 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

These outcomes are used only when making a finding of administrative error after a full investigation, and reflect section 25(1)(a)-(g) of the Ombudsman Act.


Appendix C

Description of outcomes: Return to Work jurisdiction

Outcome Description

Rtw - Advice Given

This outcome must only be used when:• giving advice that does not relate to a specific approach or complaint.• 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.

Rtw - Out Of Jurisdiction

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;• 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

Rtw - Complainant Cannot Be Contacted

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

is from Ombudsman SA. If the complainant does not respond, the file can be closed• 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.

Rtw - Referred Back To Compensating Authority

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 that it is not reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to expect that the complainant should 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 Available With Another Body

This outcome is only used where the complainant has right of appeal, reference or review with another body such as the SAET.

Rtw - Resolved With Compensating Authority’s Cooperation

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 satisfaction of the complainant.Reasons for the outcome must be recorded.

Rtw - Withdrawn By Complainant

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.It must be established and recorded that the complainant wishes to formally withdraw the complaint.It must not be used when Ombudsman SA cannot contact the complainant. See ‘Cannot Contact Person’ Outcome.Reasons for the outcome must be recorded.

77 APPENDICES

Outcome Description

RTW - Declined/Trivial, Frivolous, Vexatious, Not Made In Good Faith

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 investigationbecause:• 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)

RTW - Declined/No Sufficient Personal Interest Or Not Directly Affected

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 investigationbecause:• the complainant or their representative did not have sufficient personal interest• the complainant was not directly affected by the breach of service standards.

RTW - Declined/Investigation Unnecessary Or Unjustifiable

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 investigationbecause, having regard to the circumstances of the case, such action is unnecessary or unjustifiable (section 17(2)(d) Ombudsman Act). For example:• after assessing or commencing an investigation of the complaint, it appears that there is no

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 Standards

This outcome is only used when making a finding of a breach of the service standards after an investigation.

RTW - Breach Of Service Standards Not Substantiated

This outcome is used• after a preliminary (or more rarely a full) investigation and a report has been completed; and• when making a finding there has been no breach of the service standards.

RTW - Ombudsman Comment Warranted

This is to be used only after a preliminary investigation. No breach of the service standards has been found, but an issue worthy of the Ombudsman’s comment has been identified.

RTW - S180 Review Application Withdrawn By Applicant

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 pursue document access.This outcome does not include instances where the agency has revised its determination to give access to documents.

RTW - S180 Review Decision Confirmed

This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed (in whole) with the Corporation’s decision (section 180(10)(b)).

RTW - 180 Review Decision Varied

This outcome means that at the end of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed in part and disagreed in part with the Corporation’s decision (section 180(10)(b)).

RTW - S180 Review Decision Reversed

This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman disagreed (in whole) with the Corporation’s decision (section 180(10)(b)).

RTW - S180 Review No Jurisdiction

The outcome is relevant when the applicant seeks the s180 review before they have sought or finalised internal review processes, and hence the Ombudsman is unable to undertake a review.

RTW - S180 Review Revised During Review

This outcome is used when the agency releases the documents after the commencement of the review.


Appendix D

Description of outcomes: Independent Commissioner Against Corruption jurisdiction

Outcome Description

Response to proposed referral

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 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).

Agree to referralThis outcome means the Ombudsman agreed with OPI/ICAC that a matter raising a potential issue of misconduct or maladministration in public administration should be referred to this Office.

Disagree to referral

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 administration should be referred to this Office for investigation, expressed a view that the matter should not be referred to him.

ICAC exercise Ombudsman powersThis outcome means the Ombudsman considers that a matter raising a potential issue of misconduct or maladministration in public administration should be investigated by the Commissioner by exercising the powers of the Ombudsman.

Partially agree with Referral

This outcome means the Ombudsman, in response to a proposal by OPI/ICAC that matters raising potential issues of misconduct or maladministration in public 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.

ICAC InvestigationThe Commissioner may refer matters raising potential issues of misconduct or maladministration to the Ombudsman for investigation (see section 24(2)(a) of the ICAC Act).

DiscontinuedThis means that the Ombudsman has determined that an investigation into misconduct or maladministration on referral from the Commissioner is unnecessary or unjustifiable (for example, because of a lack of evidence).

Finding of MaladministrationThis means a matter that has been referred from the Commissioner has resulted in the Ombudsman making a finding of ‘maladministration’ as defined in the ICAC Act.

Finding of MisconductThis means a matter that has been referred from the ICAC has resulted in the Ombudsman making a finding of ‘misconduct’ as defined in the ICAC Act.

No finding of Misconduct or MaladministrationThis means a matter that has been referred from the ICAC has resulted in the Ombudsman making a finding there has not been ‘misconduct’ or ‘maladministration’ as defined in the ICAC Act.

79 APPENDICES

Appendix E

Description of outcomes: Freedom of Information jurisdiction

Outcome Description

FOI Application For Review Withdrawn By Applicant

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 pursue document access.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.

FOI Application Settled During Review (Section 39(5))

This outcome means that the Ombudsman exercised settlement powers under section 39(5)(c). A ‘Notice of Finalisation’ is sent to parties. There is no formal determination by the Ombudsman under section 39(11).

FOI Determination Confirmed (Section 39(11))

This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed (in whole) with the agency’s determination (section 39(11)).*Note − the Ombudsman’s reasons may differ from the agency (for example, a different exemption clause may apply).

FOI Determination Reversed (Section 39(11))

This outcome means that at the conclusion of the external review, the Ombudsman disagreed (in whole) with the agency’s determination (section 39(11)).

FOI Determination Revised By Agency (Section 19(2)(A))

This outcome means that all documents were released by the agency under section 19(2A) after the commencement of the external review.The outcome may occur, for example, in an external review dealing with an agency’s ‘double deemed refusal’, where the agency has had a chance to consider the documents and decides that the documents should be released.

Foi Determination Varied (Section 39(11))

This outcome means that at the end of the external review, the Ombudsman agreed in part and disagreed in part with the agency’s determination (section 39(11)).

Foi Extension Of Time For Application For Review (Section 39(4))Discretion Not Varied

This outcome means that the Ombudsman did not exercise his discretion to accept an external review application out of time under section 39(4).


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

81 APPENDICES

Notes


83 APPENDICES

Notes






Ombudsman SA

Level 9, East Wing

55 Currie Street

Adelaide SA 5000






Our CultureEthical

Professional

Efficient

Learning

Communicating

Collaborating





Ombudsman SA

Level 9, East Wing

55 Currie Street

Adelaide SA 5000






Our CultureEthical

Professional

Efficient

Learning

Communicating

Collaborating

Contacting Ombudsman SA

Our business hours are

9.00am - 5.00pm, Monday to Friday

Level 9, East Wing

55 Currie Street

Adelaide SA 5000


Facsimile 08 8226 8602

Toll free (outside metro area) 1800 182 150


www.ombudsman.sa.go v.au

Designed and printed by Openbook Howden Print & DesignOBH22325

Om

budsman SA

AN

NU

AL R

EP

OR

T 2

017/2

018

Ombudsman SAANNUAL REPORT 2017/2018

ombudsman sa...contacting ombudsman sa our business hours are 9.00am - 5.00pm, monday to friday...

Documents