6 PRIME MINISTER
FOR MEDIA MONDAY OCTObER 25 1982
ADDRESS TO THE CONFERENCE OF
AUSTRALASIAN OBUDSMEN
Thank you very much for the invitation to o. pe, this Sixth Conference of
Australasian and Pacific Ombudsmen. We all have things other
than our interest in Ombudsmen in which we share in common.
We all share part of the Westminster system, and
perhaps sometimes our critics don't understand the extent
to which the system has evolved over the years, the extent
to which it has grown and adapted to changing circumstances.
There is no one particular thing which is the Westm-inster
system because the practice has changed. and the institution
has changed and evolved over the years. If somebody were
sitting down to try and describe the Westminster system
today, and you were comparing that with what the same person
might have written, say, 50 years ago, the changes would be
remarkable indeed?
The development of the institution of Ombudsman is a very
good example of the way in which The system grows, the
way in which it expands, and the way in which it responds
to different and emerging needs. Government in recent times
has become increasingly complex and sometimes harder to
understand. It often seems to be more impersonal. T'he role
of government itself has expanded. Programaes of government
are more pervasive and departments are larger. In these
circumstances it is so easy for governments or for departments
to become less responsive to individuals than they once were,
and we need to always have in mind that government is not just
for the powerful, it is not just for the organised, for people
who know-how to get access to see leaders within a department,
-or to see Ministers or even a Prime Minister. Government also
needs to be pre-eminently for average citizens and for those
who may not know how to get access to positions or to people
who can influence events.
The government, plainly, needs to be for everyone. It needs
to be for the weak, and unless it is, we don't have established,
a fair society. Now, the institution of the Ombudsman and the
development of other administrative changes. are enormously
important against this background, because so many of the
changes that have been introduced in recent years, are designed
to make sure that government, administration does remain
sensitive to the needs, to the requirements or average
citizens, and so many of the changes are designed to make
sure that average citizens and not just the powerful can get
/ utu=-nen -2-
justice to establish means and mechanisms which will enable
them to get proper redress.
In many ways, the institution of Ombudsman does make sure
that government is responsible, accountable and fair. It does
much to protect the rights of citizens. Professor Richardson
mentioned Sweden as the home of Ombudsmen the early part of
the last century, 1809, 1810. New Zealand I am told was the
first of this particular conference to enshrine the institution
of the Ombudsman. In 1977 of course, the first Cormmonwealth
Ombudsman was appointed in a federal system, but now, like
so many things, it is catching and there are eight Ombudsmen
within this federal system.
The contribution of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has been
significant since the foundation in 1977. There were some
who suggested that it would detract from Ministerial
accountability, that it would get in the way of departments,
sometimes it might have, and sor,,-eti.. es it should have. There
are some who suggested that it would only be doing what
doing what members of Parliament should be doing if they
were adequately looking after the needs and requirements of
their own constituents.
Well, the task has been filled without prejudice to the role
of Members of Parliament, and it certainly hasn't got in the
way of Minister-ial responsibill-y. .1believe it is making
departments more sensitive to the needs of their own people.
I doubt very much if you would have the circumstances now
as I did I won't say in which department -when there are
complaints, you get a letter drafted in reply which says
that the complaint has been examined and that there is no
substance to it, with no argument, no explanation, nothing.
That fact that that could ever occur I think emphasises the
need for the institution of the Ombudsman.
The institution helps government administration to be
responsible, to be adaptive and to be sensitive, again,
to the needs of average citizens. In Australia the nunber
of enquiries have increased quite considerably. In 1981,
there were about 11,500 oral enquiries, and nearly 3,000
written enquiries, a significant increase over the year before.
I don't think that should be surprising. I suppose at some
point the number of enquiries will level off, but as more
people understand that the institution is there, that it is
there to be used, that if they believe they are suffering
some wrong or injustice,-then they should seek redress.
The number of enquiries indicates a growing acceptance
by the public and the importance of the institution is
also recognised by Members of Parliament. It complements
their responsibilities. It can help to investigate constituents'
complaints. I sometimes use the Ombudsman and see what comes
up with the answer quicker the Ombudsman or normal departmental
enquiries. I am not going to give the answer, but it would be
an interesting one in relation to certain departments. It is
a game that is sometimes worth playing if enquiries take too
long in the making.
uflioua: 3man 3
The complaints that are put before the Ombudsman, can clearly
point to weaknesses within administration. Sometimes as I
have indicated, it can conflict with administration. Sometimes
there can be a change or a difference in interpretation between
the Ombudsman and elements of the Public Service. I think in the
early days, that was only natural, but in Australia, the
institution has been established well, with the minimum of
fuss, with the minimum of friction with departments, and
overwhelmingly I believe that departments have co-operated
with the institution and all have benefited as a consequence.
It is normal, as you would well know, for problems to be
resolved by consultation and by discussion, but the Governiment
does have a continuing commitment -1-o reform. There is. an
Ombudsman AL-endment Bill which was introduced in September
which gives legislative backing to the informal enquiries
of the Ombudsman to a situation so that oral complaints can
be properly resolved so that there. will be a greater advisory
discretion on the part of the Ombudsman and also to establish
a souder-satutory b-ase ' or co-opcoration with State Ombudsmen.
This is obviously of great importance within a federal system.
In addition of course, we are establishing the Commonwealth
Ombudsman also as the Defence Force Ombudsman. That . is a
significant advance, a significant extension of the role of
the Ombudsman in this country.
We need to have in mind,' that while the Ombudsman is a very
significant administrative advance against the background
which I have mentioned of a larger and more comnplex administration,
to guard against the dangers of insensitivity and remoteness,
there are also other administrativc-changes which I think,
have been of great importance. The Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, the Administrative Decisions Judiciary Review Act,
and they both work in their own environment and their own
areas of responsibility. Collectively, they work with the
Ombudsman to help individuals and to help protect the rights
of individuals within Australia. When looking at administrative
reform it is necessary to look at these three areas i. n. a sense,
as one, because they complement each other and they are driving
in the same direction, although with clear and defined, and
very often quite separate areas of responsibility.
In addition there is the freedom of information legislation
which I know the whole Public Service is looking forward to
with a great sense of joy and elation, but to provide some
right of access to documents again, the right to enable
citizens to be informed with obviously important exceptions,
and hopefully to assist in making government more comprehensible
and enabling some of the aspects of government to be open to
greater public scrutiny. There are going to be other consequences
of that change, of course. Our Ministers are suddenly being
jumped with bits of paper which they never knew existed at
Question Time, and how they -respond to them is something
that Ministers themselves are going to have -to work out. It is
also worth noting that freedom of information legislation is
not the answer to all requests for information. I don't think
one of those telephone book-thick sets of papers that John Howard
tabled the other day would have got through if you had applied
a freedo. m of information test. So, some : things being tabled
Ombudtsmen still will depend on the attitudes of governmrents rather than
on the law itself.
The community is responding to t1-hese reforms. Growing use is
made of legislation. There is some criticisIM Of it of course.
There will always be the constant argument that some want a
faster pace of change, but for others, it has all happened
too quickly, and a government's role in this is to steer
a steady course, and not to put upon a complex administration
a pace of change which puts unnecessary strains on the
administration itself. We do need to understand, all of us,
that the amount of work put upon the Public Service as a
result of these administrative changes and as a result of
the freedom of information legislation, is collectivel. y
enormous and adds quite significantly to the staffing
requirements of all departments.
But there is still work to be done. The Review of Commonwealth
Administration which I establishe-d a few w'. eekj-s ago is looking
at other areas of the Public Service. We all know that
there have been some areas where the delivery of services on
the ground have broiken down, and there is no need, again to
identify the areas. But I have the view that the service and
the modes and mechanisms of operation of the service woul. d
have developed in quieter and -more peaceful times when there
weren't the stresses and the strains on the service as there
have been on recent times. For examp~ le, 20 years ago, would
any of us have believed that any entrepreneur, any businessman,
no matter how disreputable, would conceive ofE a meat substitution
operaticn that could run the risk1-of destroying Australia's
entire export market for meat? Now, there is an attitude
of people, of challenge, on the meat inspection service which
nobody believed could arise. I think it would have been beyond
our understanding, beyond our comprehension of 20 years ago
to think th at that substitution scandal could have occurred
with the consequences that might have been. It was only the
swiftest action by the Department, by the Minister and by
many people right throughout the Commonwealth that enabled
Australia to retrieve a reputation. All of that was done
very quickly. When they knew the danger, the Department
responded magnificently. That was made very plain by the
Royal Commission report, But so-mehow or other, we need tLo
be able to get within the minds of people who want to challenge
the system and chop off the opportunities before they arise,
and that is the best way to protect administration.
So the Review of Commonwealth Administration that John Reid
is pursuing is not trying to look for faults, it is not trying
to see what has gone wrong in one area or another, what it is
seeking to do is see whether the service and the second division
in particular, has available to it the management tools, the
techniques, the equipment and the support that is necessary
to not drag along behind the private sector and those elements
of the private sector that would challenge proper administration,
but rather to enable the Public Service to be so far ahead.
Whether that is in relation to taxation or meat inspection or
Customs or Narcotics Bureaux, 1 think the objective must be a
thoroughly desirable one, and it is important that this k11ind of
examination of the service be made.
It is something that wasn't done by the Royal Commission,
by Dr Coombes. It is something that hasn't been done by
any of the examinations of the service over recent times.
Ladies and gentlemen, the public h'as a perfect right to
expect good and solid administration, and in all cases,
to expect honest administration. We need to understand
that government adiministration is larger and more complex
than it ever was. That puts a challenge on all of uspeople
within the Public Service, within government,
the Ombudsmen, the institution of Ombudsman-because
they all have a role to play in making Isure that the
general public get what they have a right to, and what
they deserve.
I think the institution of the ombudsman has contributed
very significantly over recent years to better administration
in the particular areas where it has operated so effectively
and as I believe, so efficiently.. I am sure that nothing.
but good can come of the discussions that you will be holding
over the next four or five days, because we are living in
an evolving, changing situation. We are never going to be
in a position in which all reforms are done and the world
is perfect and there will be nothing for somebody,, else to do,
because there will be challenges id difficulties and
there will be a need for change as new challenges emerge.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that a conference
of this kind can help in unfolding, giving us some prior
notice of what those challenges might be, of how governments
should react. If there is a need for a change in law, then
what ought it to be? If there is going to be a greater
challenge on the institution of Ombudsman, then you of this
conference will have a good opportunity to define what the
future might hold.
I wish you well, and have great pleasure in declaring this
conference open.
* n 1-1 11