Mr. William Prasifka:

Senator O'Keeffe is correct that there has been a relatively small take-up of the mediation option. When I say "mediation" I am referring to formal mediation where both parties come into our office and meet with our staff members who are trained as mediators and can work to facilitate agreement. We are required, under the legislation, to offer mediation, but it can only happen where both parties consent to it. Many providers are not willing to give that consent because, in their view, they have already made their case and, in some cases, have already made a settlement offer. They are not willing to go any further.

Having said that, the incidence of settlements has been increasing in recent years. "Settlement" simply means the parties talking to each other, which we encourage. I always make the point in regard to mediation that we fully understand it is never going to be a means of resolving most or a large number of cases. By the time complaints have been made, positions have hardened. Mediation will only take place when both parties come forward with a willingness to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. However, I tell providers every time I see them that there is scope for more than one mediation per month. Many of the companies that have availed of it have found it to be beneficial. It is a means of resolving those cases where parties are willing to compromise. The take-up is not that high but, as I said, more cases are being settled, which is a good thing.

The Senator asked where people can go if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of their appeal and whether we have an internal mechanism for dealing with such cases.

The simple answer is that there is no internal mechanism. The courts have stated our findings are legally binding. If either party, the complainant or the financial service provider, is dissatisfied, they can appeal to the courts. That is where they have to go.

In response to the question about systemic concern and how we report to the Central Bank, we have a very open relationship and meet it formally every quarter and copies of findings go directly to it from time to time, which raises issues. We occasionally have a follow-up with it on where certain matters have gone. We are not the regulator. The information goes to the Central Bank. We have a memorandum of understanding with it, which allows us to exchange information on a broad range of issues. We are the Ombudsman and the Central Bank is the regulator. The Ombudsman can be a very good early warning system, particularly during turbulent times. We see many issues before others would. All of our information feeds into the Central Bank which can use it for a variety of means. It can use it to prioritise where it will work and carry out investigations; it can even assist it in identifying areas of concern and certain financial service providers. At the end of the day, it is up to the regulator. We are there to adjudicate on cases and provide the regulator with information.