Statistics on complaints of ASIC regarding Insolvency Practicioners
Australian Securities and Investments Commission March 2011
Insolvency practitioners complaints statistics These statistics summarise information provided in ASIC’s public submission to the Insolvency Enquiry and also brings them up to date. ASIC will provide six-monthly updates on these figures.
Complaints volume trend 2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11 To Dec
Total/ Average %
Total complaints and enquiries finalised
11,455
12,514
14,543
14,002
7,779
60,293
Total insolvency appointments
11,966
12,524
15,567
14,056
7,357
61,470
Total complaints and enquiries against insolvency practitioners
406
352
633
520
234
2,155
Total complaints and enquiries against insolvency practitioners excluding duplicates
344
317
438
467
218
1,784
% insolvency practitioners complaints and enquiries of total complaints and enquiries
3.5%
2.8%
4.4%
3.7%
3.0%
3.6%
% insolvency practitioner complaints and enquiries of total appointments
3.4%
2.8%
4.1%
3.7%
3.2%
3.5%
Statistics of complaints regarding Practitioners from the Insolvency Trustee service Australia. ( Note these are substantially lower) This is because Bankruptcy Regulation uses S134 (3) to justify misconduct
Table 8: All practitioners – complaints While the percentage of justified complaints increased marginally it is pleasing to note that the number of complaints received in 2010–11 decreased.
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
Number of complaints received
418
434
401
Percentage of complaints found to be justified
17%
10%
11%
Number of complaints not requiring investigation
189
195
214
Complaints not requiring investigation finalised within 14 days (standard 80%)
100%
97%
92%
Number of complaints investigated
229
239
187
Actual percentage of investigative complaints finalised within 60 days (standard 80%)
85%
86%
87
Of the 401 complaints received in 2010–11, 335 were against registered trustees and the Official Trustee (343 in 2009–10). These complaints encompassed six main areas:
..lack of information or responsiveness 29% (25%) ..decisions concerning the claiming or disposal of assets 21% (21%) ..the extent of trustees’ fees and costs 10% (11%) ..delays in the administration or lack of action 15% (9%) ..inappropriate conduct or conflict of interest 9% (11%) ..income and contribution liability assessments 5% (4%)
ASIC 169 49 83 31 11 2010-2011 ITSA 70 27 17 15 8 2010-2011 Anything higher than a category 4 should be referred to the Minister. The Ombudsman usually do a deal prior to this with the agency and send you a letter telling you to fuck off as they have solved the problem.
Also note only 20-25per cent of complaints are investigated. Refer to my blog put up on Saturday night Commonwealth Ombudsman Statistics 2010-2011 for an explanation.
Statistics on complaints
of ASIC regarding Insolvency Practicioners
Australian
Securities and Investments Commission March 2011
Insolvency
practitioners complaints statistics These
statistics summarise information provided in ASIC’s public
submission to the Insolvency Enquiry and also brings them up to date.
ASIC will provide six-monthly updates on these figures.
Complaints
volume trend 2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
To Dec
Total/
Average %
Total
complaints and enquiries finalised
11,455
12,514
14,543
14,002
7,779
60,293
Total
insolvency appointments
11,966
12,524
15,567
14,056
7,357
61,470
Total
complaints and enquiries against insolvency practitioners
406
352
633
520
234
2,155
Total
complaints and enquiries against insolvency practitioners
excluding duplicates
344
317
438
467
218
1,784
%
insolvency practitioners complaints and enquiries of total
complaints and enquiries
3.5%
2.8%
4.4%
3.7%
3.0%
3.6%
%
insolvency practitioner complaints and enquiries of total
appointments
3.4%
2.8%
4.1%
3.7%
3.2%
3.5%
Statistics of complaints regarding
Practitioners from the Insolvency Trustee service Australia. ( Note these are substantially lower) This is because Bankruptcy Regulation uses S134 (3)
to justify misconduct
Table
8: All practitioners – complaints While
the percentage of justified complaints increased marginally it is
pleasing to note that the number of complaints received in 2010–11
decreased.
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
Number
of complaints received
418
434
401
Percentage
of complaints found to be justified
17%
10%
11%
Number
of complaints not requiring investigation
189
195
214
Complaints
not requiring investigation finalised within 14 days (standard
80%)
100%
97%
92%
Number
of complaints investigated
229
239
187
Actual
percentage of investigative complaints finalised within 60 days
(standard 80%)
85%
86%
87
Of
the 401 complaints received in 2010–11, 335 were against registered
trustees and the Official Trustee (343 in 2009–10). These
complaints encompassed six main areas:
..lack
of information or responsiveness 29% (25%) ..decisions
concerning the claiming or disposal of assets 21% (21%) ..the
extent of trustees’ fees and costs 10% (11%) ..delays
in the administration or lack of action 15% (9%) ..inappropriate
conduct or conflict of interest 9% (11%) ..income
and contribution liability assessments 5% (4%)
ASIC 169 49 83 31
11
2010-2011
ITSA 70 27 17
15 8
2010-2011 Anything higher than a
category 4 should be referred to the Minister. The Ombudsman usually do a
deal prior to this with the agency and send you a letter telling you
to fuck off as they have solved the problem.
Also note only 20-25per cent
of complaints are investigated. Refer to my blog put up on
Saturday night Commonwealth Ombudsman Statistics 2010-2011 for an
explanation.
On the 22ndMay 2012 Senator Xenophon announced he
would back the Greens and call for something similar to ICAC to be set up
Federally.
While I applaud Senator Xenophon for his initiative
the actual responsibility lies with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Clearly the Commonwealth Ombudsman failure to comply
with its own Act should be of great concern to the Federal
Parliament.
Alison Larkins, Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman failure to
act on systemic corrupt conduct shows her willingness to SUCK IT ALL UP HER
ENORMOUS
ARSE.........
4.7 Systemic deficiency
Resolving a person’s grievance is not the last step in
effective complaint handling.The person’s complaint might point to a systemic
administrative problem in the agency—that is, an administrative defect that
either has occurred in other cases or could be repeated.This possibility should
always be considered when finalising a complaint.
For
example, a complaint could expose a need to improve the agency’s recordkeeping
or a need for better training or support for agency staff who have given
inaccurate or unhelpful advice� Delay in resolving a person’s complaint might
suggest a need for greater efficiency in the agency or better liaison between
different units of the agency or with other agencies that are jointly
responsible for the subject of the complaint� A review of agency procedures and
policies can be another beneficial outcome.
Responsibility for seeing that such improvements are
made usually lies elsewhere in the agency, rather than with the complaint
handling unit� It is therefore important that complaint issues and trends are
reported to and analysed by the executive and senior managers in an agency, as
discussed in
Element5—‘Analysis’�
Fact Sheet 2
Administrative
deficiency
December 2009
Section 15 of theOmbudsman Act 1976(Ombudsman Act) lists the grounds on which the
Ombudsman can formally make a report to an agency, and ultimately to the Prime
Minister and Parliament. Only a small number of reports are made each year to
agencies, and more rarely to the Prime Minister or
Parliament.
Most complaints to the Ombudsman can be resolved
informally, and without the need to reach a firm view on whether an agency’s
conduct was defective. This reflects the emphasis of our work on achieving
remedies for complainants, and improving agency complaint-handling processes and
public administration generally.
Instances nevertheless arise in which administrative
deficiency should be recorded and notified to an agency. This helps draw
attention to problems in agency decision making and processes, and feeds into
the systemic work of the Ombudsman’s office.
The purpose of a finding of administrative deficiency
is not to reprimand the agency concerned. The individual findings are not
separately published in the same way that reports under s 15 are usually
published. Rather, the individual findings are aggregated as part of the
statistics that are published each year in the Ombudsman’s annual report. This
provides agencies and the public with a statistical profile of the complaints
received each year by the Ombudsman’s office and the office’s view of how those
complaints were resolved. They also provide the Ombudsman’s office with a guide
to possible systemic issues that warrant further
consideration.
The term ‘administrative deficiency’ is not
defined—or even specifically referred to—in the Ombudsman Act. It is a phrase
used by the Ombudsman’s office when referring to agency action that is assessed
as being ‘deficient’ for a reason specified explicitly or implicitly ins 15 of
the Act. Other Ombudsman offices use similar reporting terms, such as ‘agency
defect’, ‘adverse finding’, ‘complaint sustained’ or
‘maladministration’.
Categories of administrative
deficiency
The Ombudsman’s office applies 15 categories of
administrative deficiency that fall into two groups: administrative deficiency
in an individual case, and administrative deficiency in the agency or system of
government.
There is overlap between those categories, and some
agency errors can fall into more than one category. An error is recorded only
once in the most appropriate category, unless an investigation exposes multiple
weaknesses in an agency’s administration.
Not every minor administrative error is recorded as
administrative deficiency. The prime focus of the Ombudsman’s office is upon
whether an error was inexcusable, caused disadvantage to a member of the public,
or reveals a weakness in agency administration that should be
addressed.
Administrative deficiency in an individual
case
Unreasonable delay
An agency took too long without good cause to make
a decision or take an action
Examples: unreasonable delay in processing a person’s
application, responding to an enquiry or implementing a decision; failing to
comply with FOI statutory time limits in handling a person’s FOI request;
failing to meet time frames published in the agency’s service charter in
responding to a person’s request.
Inadequate advice, explanation or
reasons
A reasonable person could not easily understand
the advice, explanation or reasons given by
an
agency, either directly to the person or in an
agency publication
Examples: giving a person incomplete, incorrect,
misleading or confusing oral or written advice; refusing to provide a written
explanation for a decision; providing a statement of reasons that contains an
error or contradiction or does not deal with a critical issue in the
decision.
Procedural deficiency
The procedure adopted by an agency in an
individual case was flawed
Examples: not recording oral advice given to a person
on an important issue; not answering a person’s request for information or
advice; inefficient handling of a person’s application or enquiry; not
consulting appropriately with a person before making a decision; failing to keep
a person advised of progress on a matter; failing to advise a person of an
agency requirement; failing to implement a decision, or to implement a decision
correctly; failing to deal adequately with a person’s complaint; inadequate
internal review of a disputed decision.
Human or factual
error
The integrity of an agency process was impaired by
an avoidable error or mistake by an
officer
Examples: entering incorrect information on a
person’s file; misreading or misunderstanding the facts or data in making a
decision; basing a decision on faulty information; inadequate assessment of
evidence submitted by a person; losing or misfiling a person’s application or
documents; giving the wrong application form to a person; sending personal
information to the wrong address.
Legal error
An agency made a probable legal error that could
lead to its decision or action being set aside as unlawful by a court on a
ground listed in s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977,
or on some other basis
Examples: misconstruing or misapplying legislation;
making a decision without a proper delegation; not giving a person prior notice
of adverse action against them (ie, breaching natural justice); basing a
decision on an irrelevant consideration, or failing to consider a relevant
matter as required by legislation; breaching the terms of a contract; conflict
of interest in a tendering process.
Unprofessional behaviour by an
officer
The standards of professional behaviour expected
of officials in dealing with the public were not
observed
Examples; rudeness, discourtesy or unhelpful or
disrespectful behaviour in dealing with a member of the public; failing to
honour a promise or commitment given to a person; imprudent disclosure of
confidential or private information to an unauthorised
recipient.
Breach of duty/misconduct by an
officer
Evidence of misconduct or unprofessional behaviour
by an officer is serious enough to warrant referral by the Ombudsman to an
agency head under s 8(10) of the Ombudsman
Act
Examples: dishonesty; harassment; serious conflict of
interest; improper use of official information or agency property; other
activity in breach of the APS Code of Conduct (see Public Service Act 1999 s
13).
Unreasonable, harsh or discriminatory action or
decision
The decision or action of an agency seriously
flouted the principles of good
administration
Examples: the agency decision or action was
irrational, capricious, excessive, inequitable, contrary to reason or good
sense, or in breach of the sex, race or disability standards in
anti-discrimination legislation; a decision maker disregarded the severe impact
that a discretionary decision could have on a person; a person was treated
inconsistently and less favourably than others, without explanation or
justification; a change in agency rules was applied retrospectively to deny a
person a benefit.
Administrative deficiency in the agency or system
of government
Legislation: unreasonable or harsh impact or
unintended consequence
A complaint has highlighted a legislative anomaly
that the Ombudsman should draw to the government’s
attention
Examples: complex legislation has an unexpected or
unexplained operation that disadvantages a person or class of persons;
legislation has a disadvantageous impact on one class of persons as against
another, without apparent justification; legislation imposes a condition or
requirement for accessing a benefit or concession that is harsh
or
Administrative
deficiency
Fact Sheet 2 — page
2
difficult to meet; an apparent error or oversight in
legislation disadvantages a person or class of
people.
Government or agency policy: unreasonable or harsh
impact
A complaint has highlighted a defect in government
or agency policy or an executive
scheme
Examples: a grant scheme administered by an agency is
poorly drafted and unreasonably disadvantages some people; the rules of
entitlement in an executive scheme, or the administrative requirements for
lodging an application, are discriminatory, unfair, unnecessarily onerous or
difficult to meet; an arbitrary cut-off date is imposed for lodging
applications; the agency rules on selecting people for audits can operate
unreasonably.
Flawed agency processes or
systems
A complaint has highlighted an inherent or
systemic weakness in agency processes or
systems
Examples: there is a programming error in the
agency’s automated system; the agency website is dysfunctional; a public access
counter is not open during business hours; the agency contact number is
incorrect or not answered; misleading or inconsistent guidance is given in
agency publications or on the agency website; agency template letters are
incorrect; there is no agency system for complaint
handling.
Resource deficiency in
agency
A complaint has highlighted a resource deficiency
in an agency that impairs the agency’s ability to discharge its statutory
functions or meet its policy commitments to the
public
Examples: an agency cannot process applications,
respond to enquiries or finalise internal reviews within a reasonable timeframe;
there is an unacceptable backlog in the agency in investigating and resolving
complaints to the agency.
Inadequate knowledge/training of agency
staff
An administrative deficiency in a particular case
occurred more through a systemic weakness in staff skills than through the lack
of competence of the individual decision maker or contact
officer
Examples: staff are not properly trained to
understand or apply legislation administered by the agency; repeated data entry
or retrieval errors by staff indicate skill weaknesses; the manuals or
guidelines provided to staff are inadequate or poorly
drafted.
Australian Government programs: deficiency arising
from their interaction
The programs administered either within an agency
or by two or more Australian Government agencies are not as integrated or
coordinated as they could be
Examples: unreasonable delay occurs in making
decisions that require input from multiple agencies; the complaint handling
procedures of multiple agencies that jointly administer a program are poorly
integrated; blockages occur between agencies in exchanging information that is
required for decisions to be made; different information is required by two or
more agencies to substantiate a similar issue; an agency provides incorrect
advice about the rules or requirements of another
agency.
The programs administered by Australian Government
and State agencies are not as integrated or coordinated as they could be, and an
Australian Government agency is partly at
fault
Examples; an Australian Government agency relied
uncritically on a questionable medical or other assessment by a State officer;
an Australian Government agency delegated responsibility for undertaking an
activity to a State agency, without adequate care and oversight; there was
inadequate preparation for undertaking a joint Commonwealth-State regulatory
task; Australian Government and State agencies have not concluded a memorandum
of understanding for discharging a joint function.
Recording administrative
deficiency
The practice followed in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s
office is that a finding of administrative deficiency can only be recorded after
investigation and with the approval of a Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Deputy
Ombudsman or the Ombudsman.
The intention to record administrative deficiency is
always notified to an agency, sometimes by letter, but also by email when there
is a less formal style of investigation. An explanation is
given
Appendix
3—Statistics
Explanations
of terms used in Appendix 3
Approaches/complaints
finalised—approaches/complaints finalised in 2010–11, including some
complaints carried over from previous years Approaches/complaints
received—approaches/complaints received in 2010–11 Category
1—resolved without investigation, outcomes include decisions not to
investigate and referrals to appropriate agency or authority Category
2—cannot be resolved at category 1 and require further internal
enquiries/research or more information from the complainant, resolved without
contacting the agency Category 3—investigation conducted and
agency contacted Category 4—further investigation conducted,
as the complaint/approach was not able to be resolved in
category 3 Category 5—further investigation conducted, as
the complaint/approach was not able to be resolved in category 4; involves
formal reporting processes Issues—approaches/complaints can
contain a number of issues, each requiring a separate decision as to whether to
investigate; each issue may result in a separate
outcome Remedies—complaints can contain a number of issues,
each requiring separate investigation and possibly resulting in a number of
different remedies
Table
A1: Approaches and complaints about Australian Government agencies, received and
finalised, and remedies 2010–11
Portfolio/Agency
Received
Finalised
Finalised
Total Received Approaches
No Investigation
Investigated
Total Finalised Approaches
Remedies
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Action expedited
Apology
Decision changed or reconsidered
Disciplinary action
Explanation
Financial remedy
Law, policy or practice changed
Other non-financial remedy
Remedy provided by agency without Ombudsman intervention
Total Remedies Finalised
ACT Government
742
369
239
127
37
2
774
18
15
27
2
125
9
6
9
9
220
ACT Arts Bureau
1
1
1
ACT Corrective Services
169
81
49
30
12
172
5
3
10
2
1
2
23
ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety
5
2
3
5
ACT Dept of Business, Arts, Sport & Tourism
1
1
1
ACT Emergency Services Agency
4
2
2
1
5
1
1
ACT Gambling and Racing Commission
2
1
1
2
1
1
ACT Health
18
12
4
16
ACT Land Development Agency
1
1
1
ACT Legislative Assembly
1
1
1
ACT Magistrates Court and Tribunals
5
4
1
5
ACT Office of Regulatory Services
19
8
7
4
19
1
3
2
1
1
1
9
ACT Planning and Land Authority
35
13
18
4
1
36
1
1
1
1
2
6
ACT Policing
142
93
39
12
3
1
148
4
1
74
1
1
81
ActewAGL
12
6
6
2
14
1
1
2
ACTION
8
4
1
2
7
1
1
2
Canberra Institute of Technology
9
1
6
4
1
12
1
1
Chief Minister’s Department
3
1
1
2
1
1
Civil and Administrative Tribunal
8
4
1
2
7
Department of Disability Housing and Community Services
14
7
2
3
12
2
1
3
Department of Education and Training
12
4
8
2
1
15
1
1
2
Department of Land and Property Services
1
1
1
Department of the Territory and Municipal Services
36
16
13
13
4
46
2
2
3
1
3
3
1
3
18
Department of Treasury
15
7
6
2
1
16
3
2
5
Director of Public Prosecutions
1
1
1
Environment ACT
4
3
1
4
Housing ACT
146
66
45
33
11
1
156
7
8
8
23
2
1
3
4
56
Human Rights Commission
4
3
1
4
Legal Aid Commission of the ACT
7
3
4
7
1
1
Office for Children, Youth and Family Support
16
9
7
16
Office of the Public Advocate of the ACT
2
1
1
1
3
Public Trustee for the ACT
11
5
1
4
10
2
2
Roads ACT
22
10
9
2
21
1
1
1
1
1
5
Supreme Court of the ACT
2
2
1
3
University of Canberra
6
1
3
1
5
1
1
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
69
30
18
15
6
69
1
3
2
18
1
3
1
29
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
4
2
1
3
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
5
3
1
4
1
1
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
41
19
9
11
3
42
1
3
2
11
1
2
20
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
17
6
7
3
1
17
3
1
1
5
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation
2
1
1
2
2
2
National Rural Advisory Council
1
1
1
1
Attorney-General’s
453
188
169
125
25
1
508
4
2
5
32
1
6
3
1
54
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
18
8
10
1
19
Attorney-General’s Department
30
12
15
3
1
31
1
1
2
1
5
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
3
1
3
4
1
1
Australian Crime Commission
3
2
1
3
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
107
56
37
13
5
1
112
1
1
1
12
1
3
1
20
Australian Federal Police
207
78
79
90
11
258
Australian Human Rights Commission
5
1
4
5
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
3
2
1
3
Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
70
27
17
15
8
67
2
1
3
17
2
3
28
Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
7
2
4
6
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
3,212
1,171
1,438
499
22
3,130
102
175
56
71
787
145
9
101
44
1,490
Australia Post
3,123
1,130
1,402
486
21
3,039
101
175
55
71
777
145
9
99
44
1,476
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
16
8
7
1
16
2
2
Australian Communications and Media Authority
33
10
21
4
35
3
3
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
40
23
8
9
40
1
1
5
2
9
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
308
112
109
101
27
349
9
5
13
54
38
7
4
7
137
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
305
112
108
100
27
347
9
5
13
52
38
7
4
7
135
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
3
1
1
2
2
2
Commonwealth Parliamentary Services
2
1
1
2
Department of Parliamentary Services
1
1
1
Joint House Department
1
1
1
Courts
85
42
43
5
2
92
2
1
3
Fair Work Australia
25
10
14
1
1
26
1
1
2
Family Court of Australia
32
18
15
2
35
Federal Court of Australia
8
2
3
2
7
1
1
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
19
11
9
1
21
High Court of Australia
1
1
2
3
Defence
632
217
239
97
54
2
609
9
11
12
77
7
1
5
6
128
Australian Army
103
46
28
17
12
103
3
2
3
16
1
3
28
Australian Army Cadets
3
2
1
3
Australian Navy Cadets
1
Australian War Memorial
1
1
1
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority
5
4
1
1
6
1
1
Defence Housing Australia
32
16
7
4
2
29
1
6
2
1
10
Department of Defence
229
75
95
34
23
2
229
4
3
4
28
3
1
1
1
45
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
172
57
68
26
8
159
1
3
5
17
1
1
28
Royal Australian Air Force
29
6
18
3
2
29
3
1
4
Royal Australian Navy
50
14
15
10
6
45
1
2
6
2
11
Toll Transitions
5
1
2
3
1
1
Veterans’ Review Board
2
2
2
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
642
251
246
126
41
664
27
5
16
119
15
1
8
2
193
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority
1
1
2
2
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
1
1
1
1
1
Australian National University
17
5
6
3
14
1
3
4
Comcare
64
22
30
10
6
68
5
1
1
9
1
17
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
481
203
171
100
29
503
20
4
11
92
14
1
8
1
151
Fair Work Ombudsman
79
21
39
12
5
77
2
3
12
1
18
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
288
69
126
130
51
1
377
20
1
5
136
1
5
47
3
218
Aboriginal Hostels Limited
9
1
6
2
9
2
1
3
Anindilyakwa Land Council
2
2
4
Central Land Council
3
2
1
3
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs
131
23
38
113
41
1
216
18
4
120
1
5
45
2
195
Indigenous Business Australia
4
2
2
1
5
2
1
3
Indigenous Land Corporation
3
2
2
Northern Land Council
24
2
9
4
5
20
1
8
1
10
Outback Stores
3
1
1
Registrar of Indigenous Corporations
12
3
7
1
11
1
1
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
97
37
56
8
3
104
1
1
1
3
6
Torres Strait Regional Authority
2
1
1
2
Finance and Deregulation
95
35
32
16
14
97
3
2
20
1
26
Australian Electoral Commission
30
13
10
5
1
29
2
3
5
Commissioner for Superannuation (ComSuper)
16
10
3
1
14
Department of Finance and Deregulation
49
12
19
10
13
54
1
2
17
1
21
Foreign Affairs and Trade
149
75
61
13
6
155
5
16
2
2
25
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)
11
9
4
13
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
1
1
1
1
1
2
Australian Trade Commission
4
2
3
5
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
133
64
54
13
5
136
5
15
2
1
23
Health and Ageing
148
68
43
23
6
140
1
1
3
11
1
1
5
2
25
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
1
1
1
Australian Institute of Sport
1
1
1
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
1
1
1
1
1
Australian Sports Drug Agency
1
1
1
1
1
Department of Health and Ageing
120
59
35
14
5
113
1
1
1
8
1
1
3
16
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
1
1
1
National Health and Medical Research Council
3
1
1
2
Office of Hearing Services
1
1
1
Office of the Aged Care Commissioner
19
7
4
7
1
19
2
3
2
7
Human Services
7,270
3,758
1,748
1,449
282
4
7,241
226
155
208
11
1,086
211
19
81
95
2,092
Australian Hearing
1
1
1
Centrelink
4,954
2,723
1,089
967
129
2
4,910
137
75
129
5
663
173
7
58
61
1,308
Child Support Agency
2,121
937
586
463
139
2
2,127
86
79
79
6
398
36
10
22
34
750
Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service
9
3
6
2
11
1
1
Department of Human Services
6
3
3
6
Medicare Australia
177
91
63
17
13
184
3
1
23
2
2
1
32
Professional Services Review
2
1
1
2
1
1
Immigration and Citizenship
2,178
1,040
807
290
49
2
2,188
33
14
17
132
6
9
15
16
242
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
2,137
1,028
786
286
48
2
2,150
33
13
17
127
6
9
15
16
236
Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal
26
8
14
2
24
1
1
Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority
15
4
7
2
1
14
1
4
5
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
71
23
33
13
9
78
3
6
2
18
2
2
1
1
35
Airservices Australia
8
3
4
4
11
1
2
1
4
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
1
1
1
Australian Rail Track Corporation
1
1
1
2
1
1
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
3
1
2
3
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
27
7
12
5
1
25
1
8
1
10
Department of Infrastructure and Transport
31
11
14
7
4
36
2
6
1
7
2
2
20
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
90
27
55
6
2
90
1
1
7
4
13
AusIndustry
26
8
15
3
26
2
2
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
3
3
3
Australian Research Council
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
6
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
12
3
8
11
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
36
9
24
3
36
3
1
4
IP Australia
12
6
5
1
12
1
1
Out of Jurisdiction
19,098
18,325
698
22
9
19,054
Commonwealth Ombudsman
579
324
223
547
Ombudsman FOI Requests
114
3
79
22
9
113
Out of Jurisdiction
18,405
17,998
396
18,394
Overseas Student Ombudsman
95
4
22
10
36
5
3
5
2
1
16
Prime Minister and Cabinet
142
53
62
20
1
136
1
12
13
Australia Council for the Arts
3
1
1
Australian Public Service Commission
16
14
2
16
Australian Sports Commission
5
3
2
1
6
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local
Government
5
2
2
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
8
2
2
3
7
2
2
Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief
4
1
2
1
4
1
1
National Archives of Australia
4
2
1
1
4
National Capital Authority
1
1
1
1
National Film and Sound Archives
1
1
1
2
2
National Library of Australia
2
1
1
2
1
1
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
51
17
22
3
42
1
1
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
37
11
26
6
43
1
1
2
Screen Australia
6
2
2
2
1
7
3
3
Private Postal Operators
20
2
11
5
1
19
1
4
1
1
7
Resources, Energy and Tourism
6
4
1
5
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
6
4
1
5
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
32
16
8
8
3
1
36
12
2
2
1
17
Australian Antarctic Division
1
1
2
3
3
1
4
Bureau of Meteorology
3
3
3
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities
