Abstract
This article deals primarily with complaint handling system with reference to an ombudsman that established by the government as opposed to the private ombudsman variety in Indonesia and Australia’s jurisdictions. In practice, group of people or persons have often arisen complaints or grievances in public service, and it requires solutions. It is widely known that the Ombudsman office has long been regarded as an effective office in resolving people complaint. This is mainly because the nature of the Ombudsman as an independent and impartial institution. This article argues that regardless of the different context of introduction of an ombudsman in Indonesia and Australia because of different political and social context, however, the performance of ombudsman in both countries has showed significant role in enhancing public services through their expanded mandates and stronger powers.
Highlights
This article deals primarily withThe nature of the modern state mostly relates to its complaint handling system reference to an ombudsman with that main function providing the best quality of services to its established by the government as people
In Ombudsman office in New Zealand in 1962.16 addition, it is argued that having presidential Following this, Australian regional public decree as its legal base would mean that the administration groups organised a NOC was under “the President’s power”, conference in 1963, discussing citizens’ rights and this could lead to the problem of against the modern state
The establishment of the Ombudsman of individual complaints as a central function offices in Australia and Indonesia were of an Ombudsman
Summary
The nature of the modern state mostly relates to its complaint handling system reference to an ombudsman with that main function providing the best quality of services to its established by the government as people. In Ombudsman office in New Zealand in 1962.16 addition, it is argued that having presidential Following this, Australian regional public decree as its legal base would mean that the administration groups organised a NOC was under “the President’s power”, conference in 1963, discussing citizens’ rights and this could lead to the problem of against the modern state. The Kerr Committee proposed final reason was the inadequacy of the to locate its “grievance man” within the legal existing accountability mechanisms, to system of administrative review, rather than ensure justice for individuals in the exercise in the parliament-executive context.32 This led of massive discretionary power and the Committee to suggest a dual function for administrative authority. the General Counsel for Grievances. Grievances: advising complainants of their rights before courts or tribunals or proceeding on their behalf. 40 Further, the
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
