Commonwealth Ombudsman annual report 2006-2007

CHAPTER 5 | Challenges in complaint handling

Introduction

In previous annual reports we have discussed some of the challenges faced by the office in dealing with complaints. The way that complaints are managed is no less important than the outcome of investigations. This chapter deals with some of the challenges that arose in the year, relating to the complexity of investigations, work practice changes, and making the Ombudsman’s office better known to the community.

Inherent complexity

Technical complexity | Multiple agency involvement

Some complaints are challenging by the very nature of the subject matter. For example, last year we discussed complexity in legislation as both a problem area for government and as a challenge for our office. Our investigation of the 247 referred immigration detention matters, discussed in Chapter 7—Looking at the agencies, is a case in point. Some of these cases required extensive investigation of complex legal and factual issues. Identifying themes across the 247 cases, and presenting those themes in six consolidated reports, was another facet of the complexity.

The discussion below picks up two other types of complexity, in one instance arising from the technical nature of the subject matter, and in the other from multiple agencies playing a role in the topic under investigation.

Technical complexity

The Ombudsman’s office can receive complaints arising in all areas of government. To deal with a complaint it is necessary for the investigation staff to acquire an understanding of a particular government program or activity. This can require investigation staff to grasp complex issues of an expert or technical kind, and to embark on a detailed, forensic investigation of matters that have changed over long periods of time.

An example of such complexity arose in the complaints we received about the F-111 aircraft deseal/reseal ex gratia payment scheme, which is administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). The Australian Government established the scheme in response to concerns over the exposure to chemicals by RAAF aircraft maintenance workers who worked on the F-111 aircraft over a 25-year period at RAAF Base Amberley. The specific process that gave rise to these concerns was the chemical desealing and subsequent resealing of the aircraft’s fuel tanks.

‘This can require investigation staff to grasp complex issues of an expert or technical kind ...’

The ex gratia scheme was announced in August 2005, and since then we have received 82 complaints relating to the four deseal/reseal programs, including 75 complaints in 2006–07.

Deseal/reseal complaints presented several challenges. First, although the process to assess claims is a recent activity and simple to understand, almost all of the evidence relied upon to assess claims was old—in some cases nearly 30 years old. Much of the material that was presented by complainants was, of itself, technical as well. For example, we dealt with extracts from aircraft maintenance logs, service duty statements and performance evaluation reports, and trade proficiency certificates.

Second, each of the four deseal/reseal programs was unique. Each employed different practices, took different amounts of time, and was performed by different personnel in different physical locations. Assessment of individual complaints was made more difficult by the fact that similar work was conducted at operational squadrons located at Amberley but was not recognisable under the payment scheme.

In addition, a number of different maintenance trades performed discrete functions as part of each overall deseal/reseal process. Some tradespeople were also employed ‘out of trade’. To add to this complexity, other non-maintenance trades were also deemed to be eligible to claim under the scheme. For example, RAAF fire fighters were involved in the incineration of some of the material used in the deseal/reseal process.

To deal properly with these complaints, Ombudsman staff had to conduct considerable research and develop an understanding of the processes employed in each of the four deseal/reseal programs and the roles of the various groups involved. In some cases they needed to gain an understanding of the sequence of maintenance events unique to each program and the roles of each of the trades involved, the fuel and engine systems of the F-111, the unusual tools used by maintenance workers, and the behaviour of some chemicals used in each program.

The strategy we employed to deal with deseal/reseal complaints was to centralise our handling of these complaints to allow a specialist team to develop an extensive body of knowledge. In partnership with DVA we developed clear lines of communication and we held numerous meetings to expand our knowledge about the F-111 and refine our understanding of key issues.

Top

Multiple agency involvement

Multiple agencies can be involved in delivering separate services in a single location, or in jointly delivering a single service. Private organisations may also be involved, either alongside or as partners in the project to deliver a service. Where multiple agencies are involved, it is particularly important that their roles and responsibilities in administering legislation, making policy, and handling complaints, are clearly spelt out and visible to the public.

In the absence of this clarity and visibility, members of the public can have difficulty in finding their way through the maze to obtain the appropriate service, or in finding the right agency to deal with a complaint in a timely manner. In some cases, this complexity can complicate complaint handling for offices such as the Ombudsman’s office.

‘... members of the public can have difficulty in finding their way through the maze to obtain the appropriate service ...’

During 2006–07 we dealt with two areas that highlighted complexity of this kind. One concerned an own motion investigation we conducted into complaint handling at Australian airports. Different agencies deliver separate services at airports, such as quarantine inspection and protective security. The other area concerned complaints we received about the Welfare to Work initiatives that were introduced in July 2006. Here, responsibility for administering legislation, policy making and service delivery is divided among three separate government departments, as well as Centrelink and contracted private and not-for-profit organisations.

Complaint handling in Australian airports

This investigation examined the visibility and accessibility of complaint-handling systems in airports, inter-agency collaboration in complaint handling, and how well agencies resolved systemic issues identified through complaints. During the investigation we consulted with the Australian Customs Service; Australian Federal Police; Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources; Department of Immigration and Citizenship; and Department of Transport and Regional Services.

Overall we found that agencies could do more to make travellers aware of their right to complain and how to exercise that right. We also found that agencies could work more cooperatively in managing complaints. To this end, we made 14 recommendations, including that agencies:

The great majority of the recommendations were accepted by all the agencies, and they all recognised the importance of dealing with complaints consistently and effectively. The investigation report is available at www.ombudsman.gov.au.

Welfare to Work

The Welfare to Work reforms made significant changes to the way income support payments are administered.

Although Centrelink continues in its role of assessing people’s qualification for social security pensions and allowances and making payments, responsibility for the Welfare to Work policy and various aspects of program delivery are spread across a number of government agencies. Both Commonwealth and private sector providers deliver these programs. The involvement of a number of different agencies with different roles and responsibilities has made our complaint-resolution processes more complex and lengthy. The complex policy, service and contractual arrangements under the Welfare to Work initiatives present particular challenges to our office in dealing with complaints related to these initiatives.

Under Welfare to Work, a complaint could involve Centrelink for the payment matters, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) for the policy and contracted Provider of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES) actions, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) for the job capacity assessment component. In the case of a job seeker with a disability, the complaint may also involve the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA).

The involvement of multiple agencies can make it difficult for a person to resolve any issues of concern. They may be unclear as to which agency is best placed to address their concerns and the role of different agencies in dealing with their particular circumstances.

It also makes our investigations more complex. For example, in investigating a complaint about a Centrelink decision or action it is often necessary to seek details of the policy or procedural guidelines on which the decision was based. However, as Centrelink is a service delivery agency and must work within policy guidance provided by DEWR and DHS, there have been instances where our requests for documentation on a specific policy have been refused on the basis that ‘it is not Centrelink’s information’.

‘The involvement of multiple agencies can make it difficult for a person to resolve any issues of concern.’

Similarly, questions arise about which agency is responsible for poor administration relating to flawed policies and guidelines. For example, if this office forms the view that a Centrelink decision was based on flawed policy, the question arises as to which agency is responsible: DEWR as the policyholder or Centrelink as the service delivery agency, or both. This also makes it difficult to identify which agency is best placed to achieve the appropriate remedy because in some instances three or more agencies may all have some degree of shared responsibility.

It is important that there are clear lines of responsibility and inter-agency collaboration in dealing with complaints. It is also imperative that appropriate processes to address these issues are set up at the start of the implementation of such major initiatives.

Some of these issues are discussed further in the sections on Centrelink and employment and workplace relations in Chapter 7.

Responding to complaint—handling challenges

Work practice changes | Public Contact Team | Complaint management system | Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants | Relations with government agencies | New policy on administrative deficiency

There has been considerable change in the office in recent years. A number of new functions have been acquired, such as the Immigration Ombudsman role, Law Enforcement Ombudsman role, and the Postal Industry Ombudsman role. Other major changes, described below, have also been made to the way that complaints are managed.

Work practice changes

Work practices were changed in 2005–06 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of complaint handling. These changes included:

A post-implementation review commenced in 2007 to assess whether these changes met their intended objectives. An external consultant is conducting the review and is expected to provide practical solutions to any identified gaps. The review will be completed in early 2007–08.

Top

Public Contact Team

The introduction of the PCT in early 2006 enabled complaint handling to be streamlined in the office. During 2006–07 the PCT managed some 50,000 telephone calls, and took on responsibility for the initial assessment of and (in appropriate cases) response to written complaints. Approximately 71% of all initial approaches to the office were finalised by the PCT. This freed investigation officers to focus on more complex and demanding cases.

The PCT provides an important service in being the first point of contact to the office for members of the public. We received over 33,000 approaches during the year, with over 15,000 of these being enquiries, requests for information, and complaints outside our jurisdiction. For those matters within our jurisdiction, we dealt with nearly 14,000 without investigation.

Many people who approach the office do so because they do not know how to resolve their problem. Our surveys of public awareness have indicated that there is a reasonably high level of awareness of ‘the Ombudsman’ as an avenue to resolve problems about government agencies, and ‘the Ombudsman’ is the most commonly preferred choice for dealing with complaints about Australian Government departments and agencies. However, many people have difficulty in understanding the roles of different Ombudsmen. In addition, organisations such as Telstra frequently refer people to the Ombudsman when they ask for someone to assist them. This emphasises the importance of having good procedures in place to advise people of the most appropriate body to deal with their specific concerns.

In some cases, people’s problems cover a range of issues and different levels of government. For example, a sole parent may contact us when they find themselves in difficulty, which could involve housing issues (for example, public housing provided by a state agency, with rent deduction from Centrelink), child support issues (possibly involving the Child Support Agency and Family Court), income support issues (possibly involving Centrelink, DEWR and PAGES) and child welfare issues (involving state departments). In some cases, the situation can be so dire that the person needs some form of emergency assistance.

In these circumstances, PCT staff work hard to provide people with advice about the best avenues to pursue their problems. For example, they will advise them which state organisations, including state Ombudsmen, to contact and how. They will give them advice about how to raise their concerns with agencies such as Centrelink and DEWR, or pass these matters to our investigation staff to consider further. If the person seems to be in need of emergency assistance, PCT staff will give them contact information for relevant organisations such as the Salvation Army.

Where the PCT staff are unsure, they are able to draw on the resources of the office, including our specialist teams, to provide the best advice to the person.

Dealing with callers can be challenging. Many people who contact the office can be frustrated by their dealings with bureaucracy, and distressed because of problems that may involve children, families, health and serious financial matters. Some of the people who are most in need of assistance are not well placed to find that assistance or articulate their concerns. They may have poor levels of education or literacy, mental health or other illness, or simply be worn down by the difficulties they and their family face.

‘Many people who contact the office can be frustrated by their dealings with bureaucracy ...’

In these circumstances, it is important for PCT staff to be able to deal with the caller sensitively, and help to unravel the problems so they can provide the best assistance possible. It also means it is important for our staff to be well-supported in their work and to have the necessary skills to assess a complaint and determine the most appropriate course of action. There are times when a person’s initial expectations of what we can do are unrealistic. The PCT manage each call to ensure that realistic outcomes are identified and managed.

Several aspects of the way our PCT operates enable this valuable service to occur. First, we find many people who contact us are very pleased that a person answers their phone call and they do not have to navigate through a range of options with recorded messages to find the right person to speak to, or, if they write, that their initial letter or email is responded to by a telephone call. This brings a touch of humanity that some people find missing in modern life, especially if the person is feeling marginalised from society.

Second, we do not restrict the length of time our staff can spend on any one phone call—we do not have performance indicators built on strict time limits. We want to make sure that we provide the best service possible, and to take the time to clarify a person’s concerns and discuss their options with them.

Third, we do not have scripted responses. Every person is treated as an individual. We maintain consistency through training, the provision of information resources, team work and quality assurance. This enables us to give a high standard of service to each person, best suited to their circumstances.

The PCT can also provide important early warning of problems. For example, on occasions an agency’s telephone system has malfunctioned and members of the public are not able to contact the agency, or an agency has sent out automatically generated letters advising that a person’s benefit has ceased because the agency does not have their address, though the letter is sent to that person’s address. In such situations, PCT staff contact our specialist teams who are able to make immediate contact with the relevant area in the agency involved, to advise them of the problem or to find out the status of efforts to resolve it.

‘The PCT can also provide important early warning of problems.’

Top

Complaint management system

The new complaint management system introduced in 2005–06 has been operating smoothly. Some refinements were introduced during 2006–07 to incorporate the new Ombudsman roles discharged by the office, and to improve template letters and issue strings which are used to categorise complaints and assist in statistical analysis.

Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants

Last year’s annual report outlined our participation in a cross-agency project, coordinated by the New South Wales Ombudsman’s office, to develop and trial management strategies for complainants who behave unreasonably. The project recognises categories of unreasonable conduct that place an inequitable burden on the organisation’s resources and often cause distress for staff.

We are now trialling various management strategies for responding to unreasonable conduct. Staff attended one-day training sessions and were given material outlining a range of recommended responses to difficult behaviour. Staff have been asked to test these strategies when a complainant exhibits particular behaviour. The data from this trial will inform the project’s conclusions and final paper.

Relations with government agencies

Our capacity to deal with complaints in an effective and timely manner depends to a significant extent on how we relate to, and interact with, government agencies. While we have surveyed people who complain to the office, it is many years since we undertook a systematic review of our interactions with agencies.

In June 2007 we commenced a survey of agencies to ascertain their views about our effectiveness and our interactions, and to identify areas where we could improve processes to lead to speedier and more effective resolution of complaints. During 2007–08 the survey results will be assessed and changes implemented as required.

Top

New policy on administrative deficiency

Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act spells out in broad terms the grounds on which the Ombudsman can formally make a report to an agency, and ultimately to the Prime Minister and Parliament. The s 15 grounds are broader than those on which a court undertaking judicial review can declare administrative conduct to be unlawful. It has thus been common for Ombudsman offices to use broad labels such as ‘maladministration’, ‘agency defect’ or ‘adverse finding’ to capture the scope of conclusions in an Ombudsman investigation.

In 2006 the Ombudsman adopted a new policy on ‘administrative deficiency’ to provide detailed guidance on when an adverse conclusion should be recorded following an investigation of a complaint. The policy lists sixteen categories of administrative deficiency. Some of the categories apply when an error has occurred in an individual case—such as a human error, factual error, legal error, unreasonable delay, breach of duty by an officer, or inadequate explanation of a decision. Some other categories apply where the administrative deficiency is systemic or inherent in an agency—such as a resource deficiency, inadequate training of agency staff, or an unreasonable or harsh impact of legislation or a government policy.

‘... the Ombudsman adopted a new policy on ‘administrative deficiency’ to provide detailed guidance ...’

The early experience of the Ombudsman’s office is that the new policy is effective in at least two ways. First, the clear definition of when it is appropriate to record administrative deficiency against an agency has led to more consistent practice in the office. This is important, given the large number of investigation staff, complaints and agencies that come within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. An added requirement of the policy—that a finding of administrative deficiency be approved by a Senior Assistant Ombudsman—has introduced more rigour to the process.

A second benefit is that the conclusions in individual cases feed into the systemic work of the office, by highlighting issues that may need further examination by specialist teams. This better categorisation of the problem areas in agency decision making also sharpens attention on the remedial action that will best resolve problems. For example, the proportion of cases in which ‘human error’ is recorded as the basis for administrative deficiency highlights the importance of agencies apologising for errors that cause inconvenience to members of the public.

The main drawback of introducing a new policy is that it can lead in the early days to fewer findings of administrative deficiency being recorded than is probably warranted. This stems partly from occasional resistance by agencies to a new category of error or deficiency being recorded against the agency. It can also stem from the reluctance of Ombudsman staff to record such a finding when they lack experience in applying a new policy. These matters will receive further attention by the office in 2007–08.

Community engagement and public awareness

Service delivery to Indigenous Australians | Outreach to regional and rural areas | Awareness survey | Outreach activities

Service delivery to Indigenous Australians

In 2005–06 we reported on the establishment of an Indigenous Working Group (IWG) in the Ombudsman’s office. The aim of the IWG is to develop a program of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, organisations and communities, with a dual focus on improving our services and identifying key issues that arise in the delivery of government services to Indigenous people and communities.

Ombudsman office staff visiting the remote community of Nguiu in the Tiwi Islands.

The IWG prepared an interim report in mid-2006 outlining a range of initiatives, including:

The Ombudsman endorsed the findings and recommendations of the IWG interim report. Implementation of the recommendations began in 2007, although progress has been slower than we would have hoped. A key step towards implementation has been our commitment to developing a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). We are currently working with Reconciliation Australia on our draft RAP, which embodies many of the initiatives outlined above. We hope to launch the RAP later in 2007.

Ombudsman staff among participants in the Sydney Good Service Forum.

Top

Outreach to regional and rural areas

The office has an active program of outreach to regional and rural Australia. A main objective of the program is to target key stakeholders so that services provided by the Ombudsman’s office are better known and used.

Awareness survey

In 2006 we contracted a market research company to survey people in regional and rural Australia, to establish a benchmark for the level of public awareness of the office. The survey was repeated in 2007.

The 2007 survey showed that people’s unprompted awareness of ‘the Ombudsman’ had increased from 27% to 33%, and ‘the Ombudsman’ was now their most commonly preferred choice for dealing with complaints about an Australian Government department or agency. There was a lower level of prompted awareness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, with 64% indicating they have heard of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, compared to 74% in 2006. As found in the last survey, many people appeared to have difficulty distinguishing between the roles of various Ombudsman offices.

The results of this awareness survey will be used in the coming year to better target our outreach activities and communication.

Top

Outreach activities

In 2006–07 we conducted 116 outreach activities across all states and territories, continuing our aim of conducting or participating in an average of at least one focused outreach activity each week during the year.

We continued to target community information ‘gatekeepers’ in rural and regional Australia, to inform them of our role and to listen to their concerns and observations about government service delivery. In recognition of the role played by local members in resolving complaints about Australian Government agencies, we placed a particular emphasis in 2006–07 on engaging with federal parliamentarians and their staff. Information sessions for electorate staff of state and federal members of parliament were held in all states during the year.

‘... we conducted 116 outreach activities across all states and territories ...’

In our Immigration Ombudsman role, we conducted roundtable discussions with migration agents, community groups and other immigration stakeholders in all state capital cities.

Other highlights included a visit by senior staff to Indigenous communities in the Western Cape York area of North Queensland and around Darwin, and visits to the regional centres of Alice Springs, Cowra, Dalby, Dubbo, Nowra, Port Augusta, Toowoomba, Wollongong, and Young, as well as to smaller communities on the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland.

In June 2007 we undertook a major outreach visit to Tasmania, attending functions coordinated by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Hobart Community Legal Centre in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie. Although the number of people attending some functions was not high, feedback indicates that our visit was appreciated by the participants. From our perspective, the opportunity to engage with both the business and community sectors was valuable.

Towards the end of the financial year we undertook limited targeted advertising in 117 regional and rural newspapers to support our outreach activities. The small advertisements promoted our contact details. We are analysing the results of this advertising in order to help better target our outreach activities in future.

Areas visited during outreach activities in 2004 to 2007

Ombudsman staff among participants in the Sydney Good Service Forum.click to open window containing large version of map diagram

Skip to main content
    0 results available.
      0 results available.
      language assistant menu topper outer language assistant menu topper inner

      Read documents in your language

      If you need more translations, please contact us via: 1300 362 072 or ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au

      Chapter 5 | Challenges in complaint handling | Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2006-07

      Commonwealth Ombudsman annual report 2006-2007

      CHAPTER 5 | Challenges in complaint handling

      Introduction

      In previous annual reports we have discussed some of the challenges faced by the office in dealing with complaints. The way that complaints are managed is no less important than the outcome of investigations. This chapter deals with some of the challenges that arose in the year, relating to the complexity of investigations, work practice changes, and making the Ombudsman’s office better known to the community.

      Inherent complexity

      Technical complexity | Multiple agency involvement

      Some complaints are challenging by the very nature of the subject matter. For example, last year we discussed complexity in legislation as both a problem area for government and as a challenge for our office. Our investigation of the 247 referred immigration detention matters, discussed in Chapter 7—Looking at the agencies, is a case in point. Some of these cases required extensive investigation of complex legal and factual issues. Identifying themes across the 247 cases, and presenting those themes in six consolidated reports, was another facet of the complexity.

      The discussion below picks up two other types of complexity, in one instance arising from the technical nature of the subject matter, and in the other from multiple agencies playing a role in the topic under investigation.

      Technical complexity

      The Ombudsman’s office can receive complaints arising in all areas of government. To deal with a complaint it is necessary for the investigation staff to acquire an understanding of a particular government program or activity. This can require investigation staff to grasp complex issues of an expert or technical kind, and to embark on a detailed, forensic investigation of matters that have changed over long periods of time.

      An example of such complexity arose in the complaints we received about the F-111 aircraft deseal/reseal ex gratia payment scheme, which is administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). The Australian Government established the scheme in response to concerns over the exposure to chemicals by RAAF aircraft maintenance workers who worked on the F-111 aircraft over a 25-year period at RAAF Base Amberley. The specific process that gave rise to these concerns was the chemical desealing and subsequent resealing of the aircraft’s fuel tanks.

      ‘This can require investigation staff to grasp complex issues of an expert or technical kind ...’

      The ex gratia scheme was announced in August 2005, and since then we have received 82 complaints relating to the four deseal/reseal programs, including 75 complaints in 2006–07.

      Deseal/reseal complaints presented several challenges. First, although the process to assess claims is a recent activity and simple to understand, almost all of the evidence relied upon to assess claims was old—in some cases nearly 30 years old. Much of the material that was presented by complainants was, of itself, technical as well. For example, we dealt with extracts from aircraft maintenance logs, service duty statements and performance evaluation reports, and trade proficiency certificates.

      Second, each of the four deseal/reseal programs was unique. Each employed different practices, took different amounts of time, and was performed by different personnel in different physical locations. Assessment of individual complaints was made more difficult by the fact that similar work was conducted at operational squadrons located at Amberley but was not recognisable under the payment scheme.

      In addition, a number of different maintenance trades performed discrete functions as part of each overall deseal/reseal process. Some tradespeople were also employed ‘out of trade’. To add to this complexity, other non-maintenance trades were also deemed to be eligible to claim under the scheme. For example, RAAF fire fighters were involved in the incineration of some of the material used in the deseal/reseal process.

      To deal properly with these complaints, Ombudsman staff had to conduct considerable research and develop an understanding of the processes employed in each of the four deseal/reseal programs and the roles of the various groups involved. In some cases they needed to gain an understanding of the sequence of maintenance events unique to each program and the roles of each of the trades involved, the fuel and engine systems of the F-111, the unusual tools used by maintenance workers, and the behaviour of some chemicals used in each program.

      The strategy we employed to deal with deseal/reseal complaints was to centralise our handling of these complaints to allow a specialist team to develop an extensive body of knowledge. In partnership with DVA we developed clear lines of communication and we held numerous meetings to expand our knowledge about the F-111 and refine our understanding of key issues.

      Top

      Multiple agency involvement

      Multiple agencies can be involved in delivering separate services in a single location, or in jointly delivering a single service. Private organisations may also be involved, either alongside or as partners in the project to deliver a service. Where multiple agencies are involved, it is particularly important that their roles and responsibilities in administering legislation, making policy, and handling complaints, are clearly spelt out and visible to the public.

      In the absence of this clarity and visibility, members of the public can have difficulty in finding their way through the maze to obtain the appropriate service, or in finding the right agency to deal with a complaint in a timely manner. In some cases, this complexity can complicate complaint handling for offices such as the Ombudsman’s office.

      ‘... members of the public can have difficulty in finding their way through the maze to obtain the appropriate service ...’

      During 2006–07 we dealt with two areas that highlighted complexity of this kind. One concerned an own motion investigation we conducted into complaint handling at Australian airports. Different agencies deliver separate services at airports, such as quarantine inspection and protective security. The other area concerned complaints we received about the Welfare to Work initiatives that were introduced in July 2006. Here, responsibility for administering legislation, policy making and service delivery is divided among three separate government departments, as well as Centrelink and contracted private and not-for-profit organisations.

      Complaint handling in Australian airports

      This investigation examined the visibility and accessibility of complaint-handling systems in airports, inter-agency collaboration in complaint handling, and how well agencies resolved systemic issues identified through complaints. During the investigation we consulted with the Australian Customs Service; Australian Federal Police; Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources; Department of Immigration and Citizenship; and Department of Transport and Regional Services.

      Overall we found that agencies could do more to make travellers aware of their right to complain and how to exercise that right. We also found that agencies could work more cooperatively in managing complaints. To this end, we made 14 recommendations, including that agencies:

      • review their complaint-handling systems to ensure they comply with Australian Standard AS ISO 10002–2006
      • make complaint-handling systems more visible to passengers
      • develop a joint complaint-handling mechanism at major airports
      • improve their websites to make complaint information easier to locate and available in a range of formats so that no traveller is disadvantaged
      • review complaint-handling information to ensure that it is available in the languages most frequently spoken by passengers travelling to Australia.

      The great majority of the recommendations were accepted by all the agencies, and they all recognised the importance of dealing with complaints consistently and effectively. The investigation report is available at www.ombudsman.gov.au.

      Welfare to Work

      The Welfare to Work reforms made significant changes to the way income support payments are administered.

      Although Centrelink continues in its role of assessing people’s qualification for social security pensions and allowances and making payments, responsibility for the Welfare to Work policy and various aspects of program delivery are spread across a number of government agencies. Both Commonwealth and private sector providers deliver these programs. The involvement of a number of different agencies with different roles and responsibilities has made our complaint-resolution processes more complex and lengthy. The complex policy, service and contractual arrangements under the Welfare to Work initiatives present particular challenges to our office in dealing with complaints related to these initiatives.

      Under Welfare to Work, a complaint could involve Centrelink for the payment matters, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) for the policy and contracted Provider of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES) actions, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) for the job capacity assessment component. In the case of a job seeker with a disability, the complaint may also involve the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA).

      The involvement of multiple agencies can make it difficult for a person to resolve any issues of concern. They may be unclear as to which agency is best placed to address their concerns and the role of different agencies in dealing with their particular circumstances.

      It also makes our investigations more complex. For example, in investigating a complaint about a Centrelink decision or action it is often necessary to seek details of the policy or procedural guidelines on which the decision was based. However, as Centrelink is a service delivery agency and must work within policy guidance provided by DEWR and DHS, there have been instances where our requests for documentation on a specific policy have been refused on the basis that ‘it is not Centrelink’s information’.

      ‘The involvement of multiple agencies can make it difficult for a person to resolve any issues of concern.’

      Similarly, questions arise about which agency is responsible for poor administration relating to flawed policies and guidelines. For example, if this office forms the view that a Centrelink decision was based on flawed policy, the question arises as to which agency is responsible: DEWR as the policyholder or Centrelink as the service delivery agency, or both. This also makes it difficult to identify which agency is best placed to achieve the appropriate remedy because in some instances three or more agencies may all have some degree of shared responsibility.

      It is important that there are clear lines of responsibility and inter-agency collaboration in dealing with complaints. It is also imperative that appropriate processes to address these issues are set up at the start of the implementation of such major initiatives.

      Some of these issues are discussed further in the sections on Centrelink and employment and workplace relations in Chapter 7.

      Responding to complaint—handling challenges

      Work practice changes | Public Contact Team | Complaint management system | Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants | Relations with government agencies | New policy on administrative deficiency

      There has been considerable change in the office in recent years. A number of new functions have been acquired, such as the Immigration Ombudsman role, Law Enforcement Ombudsman role, and the Postal Industry Ombudsman role. Other major changes, described below, have also been made to the way that complaints are managed.

      Work practice changes

      Work practices were changed in 2005–06 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of complaint handling. These changes included:

      • redeveloping the Work Practice Manual
      • introducing a Work Practice Steering Committee
      • designing and implementing a new complaint management system
      • creating a Public Contact Team (PCT)
      • adopting a five-tier category structure for categorising and escalating complaints.

      A post-implementation review commenced in 2007 to assess whether these changes met their intended objectives. An external consultant is conducting the review and is expected to provide practical solutions to any identified gaps. The review will be completed in early 2007–08.

      Top

      Public Contact Team

      The introduction of the PCT in early 2006 enabled complaint handling to be streamlined in the office. During 2006–07 the PCT managed some 50,000 telephone calls, and took on responsibility for the initial assessment of and (in appropriate cases) response to written complaints. Approximately 71% of all initial approaches to the office were finalised by the PCT. This freed investigation officers to focus on more complex and demanding cases.

      The PCT provides an important service in being the first point of contact to the office for members of the public. We received over 33,000 approaches during the year, with over 15,000 of these being enquiries, requests for information, and complaints outside our jurisdiction. For those matters within our jurisdiction, we dealt with nearly 14,000 without investigation.

      Many people who approach the office do so because they do not know how to resolve their problem. Our surveys of public awareness have indicated that there is a reasonably high level of awareness of ‘the Ombudsman’ as an avenue to resolve problems about government agencies, and ‘the Ombudsman’ is the most commonly preferred choice for dealing with complaints about Australian Government departments and agencies. However, many people have difficulty in understanding the roles of different Ombudsmen. In addition, organisations such as Telstra frequently refer people to the Ombudsman when they ask for someone to assist them. This emphasises the importance of having good procedures in place to advise people of the most appropriate body to deal with their specific concerns.

      In some cases, people’s problems cover a range of issues and different levels of government. For example, a sole parent may contact us when they find themselves in difficulty, which could involve housing issues (for example, public housing provided by a state agency, with rent deduction from Centrelink), child support issues (possibly involving the Child Support Agency and Family Court), income support issues (possibly involving Centrelink, DEWR and PAGES) and child welfare issues (involving state departments). In some cases, the situation can be so dire that the person needs some form of emergency assistance.

      In these circumstances, PCT staff work hard to provide people with advice about the best avenues to pursue their problems. For example, they will advise them which state organisations, including state Ombudsmen, to contact and how. They will give them advice about how to raise their concerns with agencies such as Centrelink and DEWR, or pass these matters to our investigation staff to consider further. If the person seems to be in need of emergency assistance, PCT staff will give them contact information for relevant organisations such as the Salvation Army.

      Where the PCT staff are unsure, they are able to draw on the resources of the office, including our specialist teams, to provide the best advice to the person.

      Dealing with callers can be challenging. Many people who contact the office can be frustrated by their dealings with bureaucracy, and distressed because of problems that may involve children, families, health and serious financial matters. Some of the people who are most in need of assistance are not well placed to find that assistance or articulate their concerns. They may have poor levels of education or literacy, mental health or other illness, or simply be worn down by the difficulties they and their family face.

      ‘Many people who contact the office can be frustrated by their dealings with bureaucracy ...’

      In these circumstances, it is important for PCT staff to be able to deal with the caller sensitively, and help to unravel the problems so they can provide the best assistance possible. It also means it is important for our staff to be well-supported in their work and to have the necessary skills to assess a complaint and determine the most appropriate course of action. There are times when a person’s initial expectations of what we can do are unrealistic. The PCT manage each call to ensure that realistic outcomes are identified and managed.

      Several aspects of the way our PCT operates enable this valuable service to occur. First, we find many people who contact us are very pleased that a person answers their phone call and they do not have to navigate through a range of options with recorded messages to find the right person to speak to, or, if they write, that their initial letter or email is responded to by a telephone call. This brings a touch of humanity that some people find missing in modern life, especially if the person is feeling marginalised from society.

      Second, we do not restrict the length of time our staff can spend on any one phone call—we do not have performance indicators built on strict time limits. We want to make sure that we provide the best service possible, and to take the time to clarify a person’s concerns and discuss their options with them.

      Third, we do not have scripted responses. Every person is treated as an individual. We maintain consistency through training, the provision of information resources, team work and quality assurance. This enables us to give a high standard of service to each person, best suited to their circumstances.

      The PCT can also provide important early warning of problems. For example, on occasions an agency’s telephone system has malfunctioned and members of the public are not able to contact the agency, or an agency has sent out automatically generated letters advising that a person’s benefit has ceased because the agency does not have their address, though the letter is sent to that person’s address. In such situations, PCT staff contact our specialist teams who are able to make immediate contact with the relevant area in the agency involved, to advise them of the problem or to find out the status of efforts to resolve it.

      ‘The PCT can also provide important early warning of problems.’

      Top

      Complaint management system

      The new complaint management system introduced in 2005–06 has been operating smoothly. Some refinements were introduced during 2006–07 to incorporate the new Ombudsman roles discharged by the office, and to improve template letters and issue strings which are used to categorise complaints and assist in statistical analysis.

      Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants

      Last year’s annual report outlined our participation in a cross-agency project, coordinated by the New South Wales Ombudsman’s office, to develop and trial management strategies for complainants who behave unreasonably. The project recognises categories of unreasonable conduct that place an inequitable burden on the organisation’s resources and often cause distress for staff.

      We are now trialling various management strategies for responding to unreasonable conduct. Staff attended one-day training sessions and were given material outlining a range of recommended responses to difficult behaviour. Staff have been asked to test these strategies when a complainant exhibits particular behaviour. The data from this trial will inform the project’s conclusions and final paper.

      Relations with government agencies

      Our capacity to deal with complaints in an effective and timely manner depends to a significant extent on how we relate to, and interact with, government agencies. While we have surveyed people who complain to the office, it is many years since we undertook a systematic review of our interactions with agencies.

      In June 2007 we commenced a survey of agencies to ascertain their views about our effectiveness and our interactions, and to identify areas where we could improve processes to lead to speedier and more effective resolution of complaints. During 2007–08 the survey results will be assessed and changes implemented as required.

      Top

      New policy on administrative deficiency

      Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act spells out in broad terms the grounds on which the Ombudsman can formally make a report to an agency, and ultimately to the Prime Minister and Parliament. The s 15 grounds are broader than those on which a court undertaking judicial review can declare administrative conduct to be unlawful. It has thus been common for Ombudsman offices to use broad labels such as ‘maladministration’, ‘agency defect’ or ‘adverse finding’ to capture the scope of conclusions in an Ombudsman investigation.

      In 2006 the Ombudsman adopted a new policy on ‘administrative deficiency’ to provide detailed guidance on when an adverse conclusion should be recorded following an investigation of a complaint. The policy lists sixteen categories of administrative deficiency. Some of the categories apply when an error has occurred in an individual case—such as a human error, factual error, legal error, unreasonable delay, breach of duty by an officer, or inadequate explanation of a decision. Some other categories apply where the administrative deficiency is systemic or inherent in an agency—such as a resource deficiency, inadequate training of agency staff, or an unreasonable or harsh impact of legislation or a government policy.

      ‘... the Ombudsman adopted a new policy on ‘administrative deficiency’ to provide detailed guidance ...’

      The early experience of the Ombudsman’s office is that the new policy is effective in at least two ways. First, the clear definition of when it is appropriate to record administrative deficiency against an agency has led to more consistent practice in the office. This is important, given the large number of investigation staff, complaints and agencies that come within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. An added requirement of the policy—that a finding of administrative deficiency be approved by a Senior Assistant Ombudsman—has introduced more rigour to the process.

      A second benefit is that the conclusions in individual cases feed into the systemic work of the office, by highlighting issues that may need further examination by specialist teams. This better categorisation of the problem areas in agency decision making also sharpens attention on the remedial action that will best resolve problems. For example, the proportion of cases in which ‘human error’ is recorded as the basis for administrative deficiency highlights the importance of agencies apologising for errors that cause inconvenience to members of the public.

      The main drawback of introducing a new policy is that it can lead in the early days to fewer findings of administrative deficiency being recorded than is probably warranted. This stems partly from occasional resistance by agencies to a new category of error or deficiency being recorded against the agency. It can also stem from the reluctance of Ombudsman staff to record such a finding when they lack experience in applying a new policy. These matters will receive further attention by the office in 2007–08.

      Community engagement and public awareness

      Service delivery to Indigenous Australians | Outreach to regional and rural areas | Awareness survey | Outreach activities

      Service delivery to Indigenous Australians

      In 2005–06 we reported on the establishment of an Indigenous Working Group (IWG) in the Ombudsman’s office. The aim of the IWG is to develop a program of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, organisations and communities, with a dual focus on improving our services and identifying key issues that arise in the delivery of government services to Indigenous people and communities.

      Ombudsman office staff visiting the remote community of Nguiu in the Tiwi Islands.

      The IWG prepared an interim report in mid-2006 outlining a range of initiatives, including:

      • refining the consultation process: identifying and testing consultation options that can be used by specific teams in the office, as part of a broader office planning and reporting process
      • own motion investigations: identifying and undertaking own motion investigations in areas of specific concern to Indigenous people and communities
      • Indigenous employment strategy: building an effective secondment program in the office, as a step in developing an Indigenous recruitment strategy
      • partnerships with existing contact networks in Indigenous communities: establishing direct contact points between investigation officers and Indigenous communities, that can facilitate complaint handling and training
      • targeted outreach: through radio and print media, and direct consultation
      • internal management: improve data capture within the office about approaches from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and provide training in Indigenous cultural awareness for all staff.

      The Ombudsman endorsed the findings and recommendations of the IWG interim report. Implementation of the recommendations began in 2007, although progress has been slower than we would have hoped. A key step towards implementation has been our commitment to developing a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). We are currently working with Reconciliation Australia on our draft RAP, which embodies many of the initiatives outlined above. We hope to launch the RAP later in 2007.

      Ombudsman staff among participants in the Sydney Good Service Forum.

      Top

      Outreach to regional and rural areas

      The office has an active program of outreach to regional and rural Australia. A main objective of the program is to target key stakeholders so that services provided by the Ombudsman’s office are better known and used.

      Awareness survey

      In 2006 we contracted a market research company to survey people in regional and rural Australia, to establish a benchmark for the level of public awareness of the office. The survey was repeated in 2007.

      The 2007 survey showed that people’s unprompted awareness of ‘the Ombudsman’ had increased from 27% to 33%, and ‘the Ombudsman’ was now their most commonly preferred choice for dealing with complaints about an Australian Government department or agency. There was a lower level of prompted awareness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, with 64% indicating they have heard of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, compared to 74% in 2006. As found in the last survey, many people appeared to have difficulty distinguishing between the roles of various Ombudsman offices.

      The results of this awareness survey will be used in the coming year to better target our outreach activities and communication.

      Top

      Outreach activities

      In 2006–07 we conducted 116 outreach activities across all states and territories, continuing our aim of conducting or participating in an average of at least one focused outreach activity each week during the year.

      We continued to target community information ‘gatekeepers’ in rural and regional Australia, to inform them of our role and to listen to their concerns and observations about government service delivery. In recognition of the role played by local members in resolving complaints about Australian Government agencies, we placed a particular emphasis in 2006–07 on engaging with federal parliamentarians and their staff. Information sessions for electorate staff of state and federal members of parliament were held in all states during the year.

      ‘... we conducted 116 outreach activities across all states and territories ...’

      In our Immigration Ombudsman role, we conducted roundtable discussions with migration agents, community groups and other immigration stakeholders in all state capital cities.

      Other highlights included a visit by senior staff to Indigenous communities in the Western Cape York area of North Queensland and around Darwin, and visits to the regional centres of Alice Springs, Cowra, Dalby, Dubbo, Nowra, Port Augusta, Toowoomba, Wollongong, and Young, as well as to smaller communities on the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland.

      In June 2007 we undertook a major outreach visit to Tasmania, attending functions coordinated by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Hobart Community Legal Centre in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie. Although the number of people attending some functions was not high, feedback indicates that our visit was appreciated by the participants. From our perspective, the opportunity to engage with both the business and community sectors was valuable.

      Towards the end of the financial year we undertook limited targeted advertising in 117 regional and rural newspapers to support our outreach activities. The small advertisements promoted our contact details. We are analysing the results of this advertising in order to help better target our outreach activities in future.

      Areas visited during outreach activities in 2004 to 2007

      Ombudsman staff among participants in the Sydney Good Service Forum.click to open window containing large version of map diagram