The Ombudsman has named the Attorney-General’s Department for spreading false and misleading information and then taking more than a year to correct it.
The case of a local building company and a departmental media release is among those highlighted by Ombudsman Richard Bingham in his annual report in a year where the number of complaints about departments, agencies and administrative services increased by more than 23 per cent to 11,960.
The company, not named here to avoid compounding the damage already done, had been the subject of a minor complaint to the Office of Business and Consumer Affairs and received what a court would later describe as a “modest deterrent fine” for failures relating to not “keeping proper paperwork”.
The complaint had been resolved quickly and the court noted in its decision that the “defendants immediately corrected their practices and came before the court with an untarnished record”.
The “modest deterrent”, however, would soon turn into a 16 month nightmare for the local builder.
Bingham’s report details how OCBA, part of the Attorney-General’s Department, issued a media release which contained false or misleading information.
“My investigation concluded that whilst the media release contained accurate information in part, it did contain false or misleading information regarding the court proceedings; the omission of the court’s findings that the company had corrected its practices; and that the company had an otherwise ‘untarnished record’,” the report said.
“Furthermore, despite a request within the agency to remove the media release until it could be amended, it was removed only as a result of investigation by my office 16 months later.”
The Ombudsman said there were failures in OCBA’s internal consultation process about the draft media release.
Stay informed, daily
“Further, there was no reasonable justification for information known by the agency to be false or misleading to remain publicly available for a further 16 months without action.”
As for the damage done to the business, and its 20-year reputation, it appears that there was little the Ombudsman could do.
“I concluded that the agency acted in a manner that was unreasonable within the meaning of Ombudsman Act and recommended that the agency send a letter of apology to the complainant for its errors.
“It was agreed that the issuing of an amended media release was inappropriate, in that it would likely bring more attention to the complainant, and appear as a new release.
“Following confirmation that the media release remained accessible through Google searches, I recommended that the agency take immediate steps to ensure the complete removal of the media release and its parts from the internet.”
Want to see more stories from InDaily SA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDaily SA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDaily SA". That's it.
