That’s ostensibly positive. But…
Who decides what’s ‘relevant’ in the sense used in the Chairman’s response? Not the Board.
And do you get to see what information CASA has provided to the Ombudsman, so that you get an opportunity to say: “What CASA didn’t tell you is….”, or “That allegation against me was baseless, which is why no action was taken about it”, or ….? If not, it’s just another opaque process which shouldn’t be opaque.
What’s emerging from the Robodebt Royal Commission is that the Ombudsman’s Office was misled by the agencies concerned. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman’s Office should have had the competence and integrity to be dubious about and test, for itself, what it was being told by those agencies.
Keep your chin up, Glen. There are lots of people who want to see you be properly compensated.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Nov 2022 at 06:55.