Commonwealth Ombudsman 

Act: Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth).¹

Established: 1977, when the Act commenced — the first Ombudsman office at the Commonwealth level. It did not lead this family of offices, it followed them: Western Australia's Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971 came six years earlier, and South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales had all legislated by 1974, making the Commonwealth office the sixth in Australia rather than the first.

Purpose: The Commonwealth Ombudsman investigates complaints about the administrative actions of Australian Government agencies — how a decision was made or a process was run — rather than deciding whether the decision itself was legally or factually correct. It can report that action appears to have been contrary to law or based on a mistake of law or fact (Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) s 15), but it recommends and does not decide.

Powers conferred under the Act

The Ombudsman can investigate on complaint or on its own initiative, require agencies to produce documents and information, and make findings and recommendations. It cannot substitute its own decision for the agency's, award damages, or compel an agency to change a decision — its influence comes from investigation, reporting and public accountability, not binding orders.

What it does not do

The Ombudsman does not decide whether a decision was the "correct or preferable" one on the merits (that is the Administrative Review Tribunal's role), and it does not investigate corrupt conduct as such (that is the National Anti-Corruption Commission's role). A complaint that a decision was slow, poorly explained, or handled rudely points to the Ombudsman; a complaint that the decision itself was wrong points to the ART; a complaint that a bribe was involved points to the NACC.

How it relates to the other Commonwealth bodies

The Ombudsman, the ART and the NACC together cover the same three-way split every state and territory makes: general administration complaints, merits review, and integrity oversight are three different functions, answering three different questions, even where a single set of facts might touch on more than one.

Self-check

• Have I described the Ombudsman's role as investigating administration, not deciding legal rights?
• Have I distinguished the Ombudsman from the ART (merits review) and the NACC (corruption)?
• Have I recognised the Commonwealth Ombudsman as the model later copied by the states and territories, rather than treating it as a lesser-known variant of theirs?