“A bit harsh? Alas, as at the end of 2025, only 37 per cent of surveyed Ombudsman customers were satisfied. Also telling, and dismal, is that the office aspiration is only 65 per cent.” bemoans HUGH SELBY.

The background papers to the latest Commonwealth Budget reveal that $66 million is to be spent in 2026/27 so that some 330 staff of the Commonwealth/ACT Ombudsman can fail.

Is that a bit harsh? Alas, as at the end of 2025, only 37 per cent of surveyed customers were satisfied. Also telling, and dismal, is that the office aspiration is only 65 per cent.

Those readers who relish deep despondency can find the details here. 

A half century ago, for a mere few years, we believed that changes brought about by legislation meant improvement; that is, that we had moved on from the past to a better future.

In retrospect, those well-meant beliefs were naive, ignoring the lessons of history that today’s so-called improvements are tomorrow’s problems being hatched.

Institutions established to bring about improvement lose their energy. Then they forget their mission. They become part of the problem.

When that happens they should be disbanded. It’s time to abolish the Ombudsman office.

The $66 million to be wasted there this next year would be better spent on public housing.

A collection of shams

The failure to maintain a credible Ombudsman office is but one example of the retreat from open and accountable government.

Consider how each, once useful, method to reach those goals has been undermined by current tactics.

Responding to hard issues and questions: Newspaper editorials, like Sunday sermons, once mattered. Silence by politicians was not an option. These days to make no response at all is the best approach because the news cycle is so short.

If that’s impossible, then claim that the issue is being looked at for so long that near everyone loses interest; attack the credibility of those pushing the issue while promoting falsely the quality of those under attack; release statements that are known to be false (for example, claiming that there is a viable business case for the light rail in the ACT); and, control media through threats to reduce/move advertising.

Community consultation: Whether it’s local planning issues, state/territory, or national issues, the modus operandi is the same: invite opinions, disregard those that criticise the intended actions, thank everyone for their efforts, and go ahead with the predetermined path. 

For example, the ACT Government couldn’t care less what “local residents” think about a development proposal. 

Nationally, the Albanese government has been consulting on whistleblowers.

They are proposing to give the Ombudsman the additional task, on top of all those that that office now fails to perform, of being the Ombudsman for whistleblowing. 

Actions speak much louder than words. Witness K blew the whistle on our appalling conduct in Timor Leste. He was prosecuted during a Coalition government as a lesson to any other would-be truth sayers. 

The Albanese government’s successive attorneys general have done nothing to give him the pardon that he deserves. 

This federal government has no more intention of “protecting” whistleblowers than it has to implement effective measures to control the scourge of gambling addiction.

Ad hoc inquiries: Whether these are called Royal Commissions or inquiries, the usual games played include: limit the terms of reference to avoid touching on the difficult and/or likely to embarrass the government; give too little time to do the job; appoint a second-rate person to do the job; appoint as the chair someone with a conflict of interest; let it be known that “counsel assisting” who gets the right result will be rewarded with a judicial or other “quality” appointment; sit on inconvenient recommendations for months or years; or, publish the government response when public attention is on another issue (for example, Albo’s response to “jobs for the ‘true believer’ girls and boys”; and, his “let’s avoid gambling controls that work” when the media and public focus was on the Budget.

Permanent bodies (for example, anti-corruption, Ombudsman, Human Rights, complaints about police, privacy/FOI/internet, inspectors of youth and adult prisons, law-reform bodies; Auditor-General): Appoint as the chief someone who won’t embarrass government; underfund and understaff; support measures to make these bodies unaccountable, as when the ACT Government supported our non-performing Integrity Commission being immune from Supreme Court review; ignore recommendations made by these bodies, an example being the ACT Government’s disinterest in reports about unacceptable youth or adult detention conditions.

What’s the solution?

Leading a bunch of self-interested career politicians is not the same as leading the nation, the state/territory, city or local government district. 

Leading the people means engaging with them, respecting them, building their trust, persuading them to join in the journey, and being open to their criticism.

The long-serving Sydney city Lord Mayor, Clover Moore AO, along with South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas reportedly have what it takes.

Sadly, it is clear that Albo, our megadebtor, and temporary Liberal leader Mr Taylor do not.

Let us hope that former SAS Troop Commander Andrew Hastie MP, by reason of his character, training and his “in-the-field” experience of motivating and leading others, has that leadership quality, and gets the chance to display it.

If so, we the people can hope for a new dawning of open government.

Hugh Selby is the CityNews legal affairs writer.