Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Good Practice Examples

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Australasia and Pacific Ombudsman Institutions

Abstract

In all jurisdictions examined there are some specific features that are worth highlighting. Each of them strengthens the respective Ombudsman’s independence, makes his or her mandate more comprehensive, or endows the Ombudsman with additional powers which enlarge his or her possibilities to protect a complainant or any person cooperating with the Ombudsman. This chapter presents a selection of these features in reference to the respective report on the different jurisdictions in Chap. 7. These features may serve as a catalogue of good practice examples and encourage peer-learning. The examples shed light on—or offer particularly good answers to—different aspects of elements that constitute an Ombudsman Institution in compliance with international standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf reports on different jurisdictions, Chaps. 7–22 for detailed information on all jurisdictions.

  2. 2.

    Cf Sect. 2.2.3, p. 25 and 2.2.7, p. 29 for details.

  3. 3.

    Cf report on Queensland, Chap. 10, p. 145 for details.

  4. 4.

    Cf s67 OA (Queensland).

  5. 5.

    Cf Sect. 2.2.1, p. 23.

  6. 6.

    Cf report on Queensland, Chap. 10, p. 145 for details.

  7. 7.

    Cf Sect. 3.3.4, p. 60 for details.

  8. 8.

    Cf Creyke 2007, p. 722 and Stuhmcke 2010, p. 233 et seq.

  9. 9.

    Cf Sect. 3.3.4, p. 60 for details.

  10. 10.

    Cf reports on different jurisdictions, Chaps. 9, 10, 11 and 20 for details.

  11. 11.

    Cf s14A(1) Ombudsman Act (South Australia). In the Northern Territory (s10 OA (Northern Territory)) and in Queensland (s12(c) OA (Queensland)) similar provisions exist while in Taiwan, the power of audit is exercised by the Control Yuan, which is empowered by the Constitution.

  12. 12.

    Cf Buck et al. 2011, p. 92 who assessed that “proposals to downgrade the complaint-handling role has found little favour in the [O]mbudsman community […]”.

  13. 13.

    In Samoa, the Government has started an initiative to set up the Samoa Human Rights Commission within the Ombudsman office, which will vest the Ombudsman with investigative powers also in regard to human rights.

  14. 14.

    Cf Sect. 3.2.6, p. 53 for details. New Zealand has also included human rights in regard to the role of the Ombudsmen as National Preventive Mechanism under OPCAT and as National Mechanism under the CRPD, cf ibid.

  15. 15.

    Cf Sect. 3.2.6, p. 53 for details.

  16. 16.

    Cf Sect. 4.1.2.2, p. 69 for details.

  17. 17.

    Cf Sect. 3.2.1, p. 49 for details.

  18. 18.

    ANZOA points out the growing use of the term by e.g. “bodies with regulatory functions and/or advocacy roles”, cf www.anzoa.com.au/Use_of_term_Ombudsman.html. Cf also Reif 2004b, p. 53.

  19. 19.

    In Tonga, the protected term currently is “Commissioner for Public Relations”, a name that has been considered misleading for a long time, cf report on Tonga, Chap. 21, p. 273.

  20. 20.

    Cf Sect. 4.1.3.4, p. 75 for details.

  21. 21.

    Matters involving minor maladministration only and not representing a systemic flaw.

  22. 22.

    Cf s30B PC Act (Western Australia).

  23. 23.

    Cf s37 OA (New South Wales).

  24. 24.

    Cf Sect. 4.1.3.2, p. 74.

  25. 25.

    Cf Sect. 4.1.2.2, p. 69 for details.

  26. 26.

    Cf Buck et al. 2011, p. 116.

  27. 27.

    Cf s26(2)(d1) OA (New South Wales).

  28. 28.

    Cf s26A OA (New South Wales).

References

  • Buck, Kirkham, Thompson (2011) The Ombudsman enterprise and administrative justice. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Creyke R (2007) Administrative justice – towards integrity in government. Melbourne Univ Law Rev 31(3):705–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif LC (2004) The Ombudsman, good governance, and the international human rights system. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuhmcke A (2010) ‘Each for themselves’ or ‘one for all’? The changing emphasis of the commonwealth Ombudsman. Federal Law Rev 38(1):143–167

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Vienna, Austria

    Michael Frahm

Authors
  1. Michael Frahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Frahm .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Frahm, M. (2013). Good Practice Examples. In: Australasia and Pacific Ombudsman Institutions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33896-0_6

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation