Advised to pursue elsewhere—complainant advised to pursue complaint directly with agency, court or tribunal, industry or subject specialist, member of parliament or minister

AFP evaluation—AFP conducted preliminary enquiries to evaluate the merits of a complaint and reviewed by the Ombudsman

AFP investigation—AFP investigated complaints against AFP members and reviewed by the Ombudsman

AFP workplace resolution—complaints managed by the AFP in the workplace and reviewed by the Ombudsman

Approach/complaint not pursued—withdrawn by complainant, or written complaint requested but not received

Approaches/complaints finalised—approaches/complaints finalised in 2006–07, including some complaints carried over from previous years

Approaches/complaints received—approaches/complaints received in 2006–07

Category 1 approaches—resolved without investigation, outcomes include decisions not to investigate and referrals to appropriate agency or authority

Category 2 approaches—approaches that cannot be resolved at category 1 and require further internal enquiries/research or more information from the complainant, resolved without contacting the agency

Category 3 approaches—investigation conducted and agency contacted

Category 4 approaches—further investigation conducted, as the complaint/approach was not able to be resolved in category 3

Category 5 approaches—further investigation conducted, as the complaint/approach was not able to be resolved in category 4; involves formal reporting processes

Conciliated—complaint conciliated through the AFP’s workplace-resolution process and reviewed by the Ombudsman

Incapable of determination—sufficient evidence was not available to support a clear conclusion

Issues—approaches/complaints can contain a number of issues, each requiring a separate decision as to whether to investigate; each issue may result in a separate outcome

Ombudsman decision not to investigate—the Ombudsman may decide not to investigate where a person has not tried to resolve their problem directly with the relevant agency or there is a more appropriate avenue of review available

Ombudsman investigation (for complaints being dealt with under the Complaints Act)—investigation, following consideration by the AFP, asking more questions and reviewing the agency’s files, policies and procedures

Ombudsman investigation not warranted—investigation of the approach/complaint judged to be unnecessary for one of the following reasons: over 12 months old, frivolous or not in good faith, insufficient interest, related to commercial activity, or ‘not warranted’ having regard to all the circumstances; this includes approaches/complaints that were considered by the AFP and reviewed by the Ombudsman where investigation or further investigation would serve no useful purpose having regard to all the circumstances

Out of jurisdiction—complaint not within the Ombudsman’s legal powers

Remedies—complaints can contain a number of issues, each requiring separate investigation and possibly resulting in a number of different remedies

Special investigation—investigations conducted under s 46 of the Complaints Act may be conducted solely by the Ombudsman or jointly with the AFP

Substantiated—complaint issue was found to be true

Unsubstantiated—there were no grounds for the complaint issue.