ACT Ombudsman 

Act: Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT).¹

Established: 1989, as part of the framework put in place for ACT self-government. The office has existed continuously since, but — unlike every other body in this overlay set — it has never had its own, separately-appointed office-holder.

Purpose: the ACT Ombudsman investigates maladministration by ACT public authorities: conduct that is contrary to law, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or otherwise wrong. This is the same kind of general administrative-complaints jurisdiction NSW's and WA's Ombudsman factsheets describe.

The genuinely unusual part: who actually holds the office

Under an arrangement made when ACT self-government began, whoever holds office as the Commonwealth Ombudsman is, at the same time, the ACT Ombudsman — a status confirmed by the A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (Cth), s 28, and reflected in the ACT's own Act.¹ The role is performed under a funded services agreement between the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office and the ACT Government, rather than through a separately recruited ACT appointee. A student comparing this factsheet to NSW's or WA's Ombudsman factsheet should not assume every jurisdiction's Ombudsman is an independently appointed ACT (or state) officer with no other role — here, it is the same person and the same office as the Commonwealth's, wearing an ACT hat as well.

Powers conferred under the Act

The ACT Ombudsman can investigate complaints (and start investigations of its own motion), obtain information and documents, and report findings and recommendations to the relevant agency and to the Legislative Assembly. These are investigative and reporting powers, not powers to overturn a decision or award a remedy directly.

Is it a prosecuting authority?

No. The Ombudsman investigates and reports; it does not prosecute offences or determine legal rights.

No specific leading case on the ACT Ombudsman's jurisdiction is cited here.

Self-check

• Have I correctly stated that the ACT Ombudsman is not a separately-appointed ACT officer, but the Commonwealth Ombudsman performing an additional ACT role under Commonwealth legislation?
• Have I kept the Ombudsman's general maladministration jurisdiction separate from ACAT's merits review and the Integrity Commission's corrupt-conduct jurisdiction?
• Have I noted that the same office-holder also currently performs the Inspector of the Integrity Commission role, rather than treating these as two unrelated appointments?