Scrap Ombudsman Tasmania

The consensus opinion of PETE GODFREY, SVEN WIENER, GERALDINE ALLAN, JOHN HAYWARD based on their various independent experiences attempting to deal with Ombudsman Tasmania is that this independent government office doesn’t fulfil any useful purpose.
A brief summary of my personal experience with Ombudsman Tasmania in relation to petitioning West Tamar Council to have a 2008 public meeting on the pulp mill is:

1. 1. Ombudsman Tasmania did preliminary examination of the facts and came to the preliminary conclusion that the Local Govt Act 1993 had been broken by the council.

2. 2. Ombudsman Tasmania said they would not conduct any further examination of the matter because their office had no power to compel the council to hold a public meeting.

3. 3. When asked as to why Ombudsman Tasmania would not, as detailed within its powers under the Ombudsman Act 1978, recommend to the council that a public meeting should be held, Ombudsman Tasmania (more specifically Principal Officer Richard Connock) responded that this could not be done without conducting a more thorough investigation of the matter.

Peter’s, Geraldine’s and John’s experiences read similarly to mine. Perhaps other Tasmanian Times readers would like to elaborate regarding their experiences dealing with Ombudsman Tasmania.

So what useful value does the average Tasmanian taxpayer get in return for Ombudsman Tasmania’s state budget allocation?

Premier Bartlett would do well to scrap Ombudsman Tasmania. If we’re not going to be getting any useful value from it, why bother paying the million plus dollars each year that Ombudsman Tasmania chews up in state government funding?

At hearings of the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct, committee chairperson Jim Wilkinson seemed to be promoting the idea of ramping up future funding for Ombudsman Tasmania. That seems like throwing good money after bad; a bigger waste of money even though the resulting service provided to Tasmanians couldn’t be any worse, i.e. nil.

The Ombudsman Tasmania annual report for 2007/2008 shows how little they actually did end up formally investigating: http://www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au/publications/annual_reports_list

While there is need for an investigative body fulfilling Ombudsman Tasmania’s mission statement, in a time of major economic stress, this non-functional government body is probably THE BEST candidate for trimming off given its present context within the Bartlett Government. Quite seriously it could be just as effective replaced by a cardboard cutout facade maintained at a fraction of the present cost.