Disclaimer: This article contains a factual account and direct quotes from official correspondence with the Victorian Ombudsman. It is for educational and advocacy purposes only.
The Watchdog That Wouldn't Bark
When government departments and local councils fail to perform their duties, citizens have one primary avenue for recourse: the Victorian Ombudsman. This office is meant to be the independent watchdog, with the power to investigate administrative errors and hold the bureaucracy to account.
After the failures of our local council, Agriculture Victoria, and Local Government Victoria, we placed our trust in this process, lodging three detailed complaints. We have now received the official response: a rejection of all three. The reasoning provided is not just disappointing; it is a case study in flawed logic that serves to protect the bureaucracy rather than the public.
Failure 1: Misinterpreting the Law on Data Collection
Our complaints against Agriculture Victoria (AV) and Local Government Victoria (LGV) centered on their systemic refusal to collect and publish dog attack data. The Ombudsman's office dismissed this by stating:
"I have researched the Domestic Animals Act and can confirm that there is no provision that allows for raw data on dog attacks to be provided to the public."
This is a stunningly narrow interpretation. We did not argue that the law forced them to provide data; we argued that a failure to collect this data is a fundamental failure of good governance. The Ombudsman's role is to investigate poor administration, not just to confirm the bare minimum required by law. By this logic, any form of government incompetence is acceptable as long as it isn't explicitly illegal.
The office further misrepresented our complaint, claiming we were seeking access to the "dangerous dogs register," a separate and far narrower issue, thereby dismissing a systemic problem by refuting an argument we never made.
Failure 2: Misunderstanding the Role of Oversight
Our complaint to the Ombudsman was not about re-litigating the original dog attack investigation. It was a complaint about the failure of the Banyule City Council's formal review process to adequately address the serious issues we had raised. The Ombudsman's role was not to investigate the attack itself, but to investigate whether the council's internal review of its own staff's conduct was fair, thorough, and properly administered.
The Ombudsman's office completely failed to grasp this distinction. Their response dismissed our complaint by simply stating a fact about a council's general powers:
"...a council can declare any dog that has seriously attacked a human or other animal can be declared to be a dangerous dog and therefore the same sanctions will apply."
This response is a profound non-sequitur that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of their jurisdiction. Instead of assessing the integrity of the council's review process, the investigator attempted to address a single, cherry-picked item from our original complaint to the council.
This is a critical failure of oversight. The Ombudsman's duty was to determine if the council's internal complaint handling was adequate. By ignoring that duty and instead offering a simplistic and irrelevant statement about a council's powers, the office failed to perform its core function.
The Final Dismissal: An Abdication of Responsibility
The Ombudsman's office concluded its rejection of all three complaints with a statement that encapsulates its failure to act:
"...as I cannot find any significant error in any of these organisation’s dealings with you, and as there is no practical outcome that can be achieved, I have closed the matters."
To find "no significant error" in a system that deliberately refuses to measure its own outcomes, and in an investigation that fails to speak to the most important witness, is a profound failure of oversight. To claim "no practical outcome can be achieved" is an abdication of the Ombudsman's very purpose, which is to recommend the policy and procedural changes that constitute a practical outcome.
This is not an acceptable end. When the watchdog itself fails, the only remaining path is to appeal to the body that oversees the watchdog.