It’s always good when the newbies turn up to run interference. Number of posts: 1. Welcome aboard, ‘Flaming galah’.
More sophistry.
First: Why don’t you educate us all and define the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate. Even a first time interference poster wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest that each year there are only single digit figures of people - or even zero - who have complaints about CASA.
One of the marvellous consequences of the creation of the ICC is that poor bastards who used to be able to reach out to the Ombudsman directly can no longer do so. They have to go through the ICC process first. That’s why the ICC was created. Lots of people are ground into despair by dealing with CASA and then the ICC. The prospect of dealing with yet another government bureaucracy that could be as awful as CASA is often enough to deter complainants.
Secondly: The 2015/16 numbers you quoted are bull****. I know it, first hand. Let me stress that I’m not suggesting that you’re making it up. After all, a first time poster would only post material in good faith. I’m asserting that the Ombudsman received at least one “within jurisdiction” approach about CASA during 2015/16, and investigated. It may well be that the Ombudsman didn’t report it as such. That outcome would, sadly, be yet another manifestation of the general degradation of government integrity.
And... what are the figures for 2014, and 2013, and 2012....
I could be wrong. It could be that everyone is a now very happy with CASA’s behaviour and the number of legitimate complaints about CASA each year these days can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And pigs might fly.
Enjoy the pieces of silver.