Commonwealth Ombudsman - Annual Report 2009-2010 - Chapter 3

Chapter 3

On This Page

1. Performance at a glance
2. Program key performance indicators
3. Outcome 1
4. Feature: Rural outreach - Agfest 2010

Performance review

Performance review

This chapter summarises the office's performance based on the outcomes and outputs structure set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements and Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2009-10. It is complemented by the following chapters to give a more comprehensive view of the range of outcomes of our work:

• Chapter 5 - Agencies overview provides detailed assessments of our work with a number of agencies in handling complaints and carrying out inspections and other activities
• Chapter 6 - Helping people, improving government provides examples of the types of remedies we achieved for individuals and common themes emerging from our work where we have helped agencies improve their administrative practices
• Chapter 7 - Engagement outlines the way in which we engage with stakeholders such as the community, members of the public agencies, and national and international partners in promoting good administration. Feature pages appearing throughout the report shine a spotlight on the diversity of engagement activities undertaken throughout the year.

The Portfolio Budget Statements for 2009-10 defined the outcome for the office, which was:

• Fair and accountable administrative action by Australian Government agencies by investigating complaints, reviewing administrative action and inspecting statutory compliance by law enforcement agencies.

A financial overview for the office is provided in Chapter 4 - Management and accountability. Further financial information is in Appendix 6 - Agency resource statement and resources for outcomes and Appendix 7 - Financial statements.

Funding from other sources

The office receives funding from other sources for two functions.

The office has an agreement with the ACT Government for services provided by the Ombudsman as the ACT Ombudsman, and for complaint handling in relation to ACT Policing, performed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Detailed information on the outcome of this work is provided in the ACT Ombudsman Annual Report, which is submitted to the ACT Legislative Assembly.

The office also receives funds from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) to support the work of ombudsmen and similar services in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands more generally. The services provided by the Ombudsman contribute to the outcomes that are the responsibility of AusAID. Performance measures are contained in the AusAID Portfolio Budget Statements in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. A qualitative description of our work is provided in Chapter 7- Engagement .

Performance at a glance

Table 3.1: Summary of program objective and deliverable performance, 2009-10

Outcome 1: Fair and accountable administrative action by Australian Government agencies
Objective: To continue the current high standards of timeliness and quality in complaint handling. The office will ensure that its response to new areas of complaints and the increase in approaches to the office, without allowing current turnaround times for responses to increase.
Deliverable The number of complaints requiring long periods for resolution will decrease.	Outcome The office maintained its high standards of complaint handling and through its quality assurance program has enhanced service delivery. There has been a some reduction in the time taken to deal with the most complex and difficult complaints.
Objective: To continue to deliver reports on the inspections functions (reporting on intrusive law enforcement powers such as telephone interception) within required time frames and at high quality, despite increasing use of these powers.
Deliverable Compliance with legal requirements by agencies in the use of intrusive law enforcement powers. Inspection reports will identify areas for improvement.	Outcome Despite the increase in the use of intrusive powers by law enforcement agencies the office has maintained its high standards in delivering constructive and timely reports on its inspections of the records relating to the use of these powers.
Objective: To reduce the staff turnover rate and enhance staff training to ensure quality standards for complaint handling and records are maintained. The office will also ensure the continued timely and effective resolution of complaints through sound working relationships with Australian Government agencies.
Deliverable There will be improved public satisfaction with the quality of services provided by the office. The quality and timeliness of services of the office will improve through better front line service, clearer policies, more consistent processes, improved recording and better utilisation of staff skills.	Outcome Staff turnover has declined, resulting in better returns on investments in recruitment, training and corporate knowledge of staff. The office has engaged in regular liaison, meetings and training of agencies. Support has been enhanced through the provision of additional fact sheets and guides, consultation and issues papers.
Objective: Access for the public to services of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be maintained through targeted outreach and use of all media (such as the internet) to maintain current high levels of awareness of the office.
Deliverable The office will identify and report on significant problems in public administration.	Outcome The office continued an active program of outreach and engagement, both with agencies and broadly in the community. We produced reports, submissions, presentations and held our bi-annual national conference bringing together a broad representation of agencies and stakeholders. Ongoing challenges to sustaining access to our services include maintaining a service to remote indigenous communities despite the high cost of doing so, and likewise the challenge in meeting the demands of the immigration sector as the number of detainees, and both the number and geographic spread of detention centres, grows.
Objective: Targeted submissions to parliamentary and government enquiries, to contribute to debates on key administrative law, accountability and integrity issues in government.
Deliverable Parliament and government agencies will better understand the Commonwealth Ombudsman's role and importance.	Outcome The delivery of own motion reports, and submissions to parliamentary inquiries and other major reviews has continued the contribution to improved public administration. In particular, the following reports examined systemic administrative problems occurring across government: Report 11/2009 - Putting things right: compensating for defective administration-Administration of decision-making under the scheme for compensation for detriment caused by defective administration (CDDA) highlighted problems in CDDA administration that included unhelpful legalism by agencies; a compensation minimisation approach; unsupportive conduct by agencies; delay in deciding claims and poorly reasoned decisions. Report 12/2009 - Executive Schemes highlighted problems arising in financial benefit and grant schemes that do not have a legislative basis. An Ombudsman Issues Paper - Mistakes and unintended consequences: a safety net approach -proposed the need for safety net discretion powers to be written into legislation.

Program key performance indicators

The work of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in pursuit its objectives and deliverables is guided by the following key performance indicators.

Administration of government programs will be attuned to accountability obligations and principles of good administration. While complaint numbers to the Ombudsman are unlikely to decline, administration of the areas of government exposed to this office will be improved.

The Office continues to undertake and produce investigation and own motion reports across a range of portfolios. Departments and agencies adopted the majority of Ombudsman report recommendations, leading to improvements in policy and program development, as well as administrative and complaint-handling practices.

Internal complaint handling within agencies will resolve an increasing proportion of complaints. Through assistance provided by the Ombudsman, agencies' responsiveness and capability to deal with complaints will improve. Such improvements will take a number of years to be achieved.

The office has developed complaint-handling training for agencies, with trials conducted during 2009-10 with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Medicare Australia. At the time of reporting, preparations were underway for a new round of internal training of Ombudsman staff to enable roll-out of this training program to other departments and agencies.

There will be strict compliance with legal requirements by agencies in the use of intrusive law enforcement powers. Inspection reports will identify areas for improvement.

In accordance with relevant Acts, the Ombudsman continues to oversight agencies that use intrusive law enforcement powers.The office produced inspection reports in 2009-10, that made recommendations to improve compliance in a number of areas, including accurate record keeping and securing appropriate authorisations. The office has complied with its reporting obligations to the Parliament.

The following detailed analysis of results against each of the key objectives and deliverables illustrates further ongoing progress against the key performance indicators.

Outcome 1

Objective-Continue current high standards of timeliness and quality in complaint handling.

Our 2009-10 targets for this key performance indicator were:

• efficiently close all approaches and complaints
• improvement in the achievement of our client service standards for all incoming approaches to the office and management of all complaints.

Approaches and complaints received

In 2009-10 we received 37,468 approaches and complaints, 18% less than in 2008-09. Of these, 18,313 were about agencies within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, compared to 19,412 the previous year (a 7% increase as a proportion of those received). There was a 27% decrease in the number of complaints about matters outside jurisdiction and requests for information, almost a comparative opposite to the 30% increase the previous year. Figure 3.1 shows the trend in approaches and complaints over the past six years.

Figure 3.1: Approach and complaint trends, 2004-05 to 2009-10

Approaches to the office range from simple contacts that can be resolved quickly, through to more complex complaints that require the formal use of the Ombudsman's statutory powers. The decision to investigate a matter more formally can be made for a number of reasons:

• a need to gain access to agency records by a formal statutory notice
• the complexity or seriousness of the issue under investigation
• the nature of the allegations made by a complainant
• the time taken by an agency to respond to our requests for information
• the likely effect on other people of the issues raised by the complainant.

The number of complaints and approaches received electronically increased slightly again in 2009-10. Over the past seven years, the percentage of approaches received electronically has increased from 5% to 15% of the total, as Table 3.2 shows.

Table 3.2: Approaches and complaints, by method received, 2003-04 to 2009-10

Year	Telephone	Written	In Person	Electronic	AFP	Total
2009-10	28,450	2,210	1,005	5,803	-	37,468
	76%	6%	3%	15%	0%
2008-09	35,738	2,654	875	6,452	-	45,719
	76%	6%	3%	15%	0%
2007-08	30,568	2,861	1,194	5,306	5	39,934
	77%	7%	3%	13%	0%
2006-07	26,081	2,626	812	3,539	264	33,322
	78%	8%	2%	11%	1%
2005-06	22,897	2,383	528	2,046	373	28,227
	81.1%	8.4%	1.9%	7.2%	1.3%
2004-05	24,561	2,323	623	1,429	387	29,323
	84%	8%	2%	5%	1%
2003-04	21,681	2,638	460	1,343	410	26,532
	81.7%	9.9%	1.7%	5.1%	1.5%

* Under previous legislation for dealing with complaints about the AFP, repealed at the end of 2006, the AFP notified the Ombudsman about complaints it received for Ombudsman staff to oversee the AFP's complaint-handling process.

Of the 18,313 approaches and complaints received within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, 14,355 (78%) were about seven agencies-Australia Post; Australian Taxation Office (ATO); Centrelink; Child Support Agency (CSA); Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR); Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA); and Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).

Approaches and complaints finalised and investigated

We finalised 37,434 approaches and complaints. Of these, 18,284 were about agencies within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction (compared to 19,719 in 2008-09). We investigated 4,489 separate complaints compared to 5,233 in 2008-09 (25% of complaints finalised compared to 27% in 2008-09). Of the complaints investigated, 21% required more substantial investigation, sometimes involving a high level of involvement by senior management and the use of formal powers (categories 4 and 5 in our five category classification system). This figure is not directly comparable to previous years as we modified the definition of these categories during the previous year.

Some agency error or deficiency was identified in 10% of complaints investigated, the same as last year. This followed an increase over 2007-08, generally reflecting revised internal procedures and training aimed at ensuring that we record all cases of administrative deficiency that we identify. In the past some agency errors have not been recorded to avoid delays in finalising a case, but this in turn denies agencies valuable feedback.

The most common type of deficiency noted was procedural deficiency (26% of the cases), followed by unreasonable delay (20%), flawed administrative process (14%), inadequate advice, explanation or reasons (11%), human error (9%) and government policy (8%).

Causes of complaint

The majority (77%) of the complaint issues finalised were about the correctness, propriety or timeliness of agencies' decisions or actions, down marginally from 79% in 2008-09. The remainder of the complaint issues involved other matters, such as the accuracy or completeness of advice given by agencies (13%), the application of policy or legislation to the complainant's circumstances (3%), the conduct of officers in agencies (3%) or unfair legislation (2%).

Complaints carried forward

The number of complaints carried forward (past 30 June 2010) was 1,553 compared to 1,484 at 30 June 2009. A backlog will always exist as some complaints are received late in the reporting period, and some complaints are complex and take longer to investigate.

Analysis of achievement

Overall we received 18% less approaches and complaints in 2009-10 than in the previous year. There was an increase in percentage terms of the number of approaches and complaints about agencies received within jurisdiction. There was only a marginal decrease in the number of complaints investigated, offset by an increase in the number of open cases carried forward. This increase is potentially reflective of the increase from 12% to 26% of cases that required more substantive investigation. Overall we met this objective.

Objective - Continue to deliver reports on the inspection functions within required time frames.

Our 2009-10 targets for this objective were:

• all inspections and reports completed according to the statutory inspection schedule
• Government and agencies accept the quality and relevance of findings and recommendations.

Detailed reporting on our inspections activity is contained in Chapter 5 - Agencies overview.

The Ombudsman is required to inspect the records of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Crime Commission (ACC), Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) and other agencies in certain circumstances, in accordance with three Acts. It is our practice to make a report to each agency on the outcome of each inspection in addition to the statutory reporting requirements to the Minister or to the Parliament.

Although there was a substantial increase in the inspections workload during 2009-10, all inspections and reports were completed according to statutory requirements. During 2009-10 we carried out 31 inspections, compared to 30 in 2008-09. We inspected the records of 16 different agencies, one more than in 2008-09.

Telecommunications records

Under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act), the Ombudsman is required to inspect the records of the AFP, the ACC and ACLEI to ensure telecommunications interception activities are in accordance with the provisions of the TIA Act. In 2009-10 we carried out two inspections each of the AFP and the ACC, the same as for 2008-09.

The Ombudsman is also required under the TIA Act to inspect the records of these and other agencies that access stored communications (for example SMS messages), to ensure their activities are in accordance with the Act. In 2009-10 we carried out three inspections of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (within different regional offices), two inspections of the AFP and one inspection each of the ACC, ASIC, New South Wales Crime Commission, NSW Police, Queensland Police, Crime and Misconduct Commission, South Australia Police, Tasmania Police, Victoria Police, Office of Police Integrity, Western Australia Police, and the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

The TIA Act requires the Ombudsman to report to the Attorney-General in writing before 30 September each year on the results of the inspection of each agency under telecommunication interception provisions and the stored communication access provisions during the preceding financial year. In accordance with this obligation, reports to the Minister were provided for the AFP and the ACC in respect of telecommunication interceptions and reports were provided to the Minister in respect of the AFP, ACC, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, ASIC and the 10 state and territory law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies in respect of stored communications access.

Surveillance devices

Under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (SD Act), the Ombudsman is required to inspect the records of the AFP, the ACC and ACLEI, and those state law enforcement agencies that have utilised powers under the SD Act, to ensure that the use of surveillance devices is in accordance with the Act. We carried out two inspections each of the records of the AFP and the ACC and one inspection of the CCC.

The SD Act requires the Ombudsman to report to the Attorney-General bi-annually on the results of the inspection of each agency. No inspections were finalised in the period 1 January to 30 June 2009, hence no report was provided to the Minister in the second half of 2009. A report was provided to the Attorney-General in March 2010 in respect of inspections finalised in the period 1July to 31 December 2009, which was tabled in the Parliament in June 2010 in accordance with our statutory obligation.

Controlled operations

Under the Crimes Act 1914 (Crimes Act), the Ombudsman is required to inspect the records of the AFP, the ACC and ACLEI to ensure compliance with Part 1AB of the Crimes Act. In 2008-09 we inspected the controlled operations records of the AFP and the ACC twice each. (A controlled operation is a covert operation carried out by law enforcement officers under the Crimes Act for the purpose of obtaining evidence that may lead to the prosecution of a person for a serious offence.)

Part 1AB of the Crimes Act also requires the Ombudsman to report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the inspections carried out in the previous financial year. An annual report for 2008-09 was presented to the Parliament in November 2009.

Biosecurity

During 2009-10, we undertook an own motion investigation into the activities of the Compliance Branch, Biosecurity Services Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The own motion investigation was conducted at the Sydney office of the Compliance Branch. The Compliance Branch undertakes investigations of possible breaches of legislation administered by DAFF (for example, the Quarantine Act 1908) , and provide briefs of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider criminal prosecution in certain cases. There are no statutory obligations attached to this function.

Analysis of achievement

Despite a significant workload and limited resources all inspections and reports were completed according to the statutory requirements.

Not all recommendations were accepted by all agencies in respect of our inspections of stored communications records, in particular that:

• agencies should hold sufficient records to demonstrate when stored communications were accessed by telecommunications carriers pursuant to a warrant
• a warrant should only be applied for in respect to a person who is suspected of committing a relevant offence (and not, for example in relation to a victim or witness).

Objective-Reduce staff turnover and enhance training to ensure quality standards for complaint handling and records are maintained. Maintain sound working relationships with Australian Government agencies.

Reduce staff turnover and enhance training to ensure quality standards for complaint handling and records are maintained.

Our office continues to focus efforts on improving staff satisfaction, reducing turnover and enhancing options for internal training in support of sustaining quality standards in our complaint-handling and records practices. Our most recent staff survey, conducted in March 2009, provided a positive measure of employee satisfaction at an organisation-wide level, with 93% of staff participating. A majority of Ombudsman office staff were satisfied with the office, with almost 90% indicating they were proud to tell others where they worked.

With an actual number of employees of 159 as at 30 June 2010, our staff turnover rate showed an improvement over that achieved in 2008-09 (26%), down to 20.5% for 2009-10. We continue to focus on training options, with a current suite of 11 training modules in place, designed specifically to develop core competency and skills in investigations, inspections, writing, administrative law, office practices and record keeping. A new electronic scheduling system was implemented which identifies learning and development opportunities, provides online booking facilities and records the training history for each employee.

Our service charter outlines the service that complainants can expect from the office, ways to provide feedback and steps that can be taken if standards are not met. As discussed in more detail later in this chapter, we periodically undertake major surveys of clients to help gauge our effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. The most recent survey of complainants was undertaken at the end of 2007-08. At the time of reporting, planning had commenced for two key bi-annual surveys to be commissioned before the end of 2010; these will research public awareness of the Ombudsman and the views of Commonwealth and ACT Government agencies. Results of these surveys will contribute to ongoing efforts to improve our services and engagement with complainants and agencies.

Timeliness-our service charter indicates that we aim to investigate complaints as quickly as possible, acting fairly, independently and objectively.

In 2009-10, we finalised 77% of all approaches and complaints within one month of receipt, an improvement from 74% in 2008-09. Figure 3.2 shows the time taken to finalise all approaches and complaints for the periods 2004-05 to 2009-10.

Figure 3.2: Time taken to finalise all approaches and complaints, 2004-05 to 2009-10

Note: Data from 2004-05 is not directly comparable because of changes in work practices.

In 2009-10, 24% of investigated complaints were finalised in one month and almost 64% were finalised in three months. This compares with 23% and almost 63% respectively in 2008-09. Table 3.3 shows some of the variation in the time it takes to finalise investigated complaints about different agencies.

Table 3.3: Time to finalise investigated complaints for selected agencies, 2009-10 (2008-09)

Agency	Number investigated	% finalised within one month	% finalised within three months
Australia Post	730 (821)	37 (28)	90 (78)
ATO	365 (321)	17 (21)	59 (52)
Centrelink	1,351 (1,459)	39 (34)	74 (70)
CSA	920 (712)	29 (26)	70 (69)
Defence agencies	213 (194)	5 (12)	53 (59)
DEEWR	186 (187)	7 (5)	51 (51)
DIAC	649 (669)	12 (12)	61 (52)

Note: changes were made to the way we count investigated complaints for the ATO, so the ATO figures are not directly comparable with years prior to 2008-09.

Overall, reflecting the previous reporting, there has been an improvement in timeliness for closing all approaches and complaints, and for all investigated complaints. We continue to review the way we deal with incoming approaches, in part to identify ways to improve our timeliness.

Remedies-our service charter advises that we will recommend changes to fix any problems where appropriate.

We recommended one or more remedies in 71% of the complaints investigated (compared to 74% in 2008-09, 75% in 2007-08, 67% in 2006-07, 54% in 2005-06 and around 68% in the previous two years). A breakdown of remedies is provided in Appendix 3 - Statistics .

The most common remedy for complainants was an explanation of the circumstances by the Ombudsman's office (29%). Other remedies included the provision of a better explanation by an agency of its decision or action (18%), an agency action being expedited (13%), a financial remedy (10%), an agency decision being changed or reconsidered (8%), and an apology being offered by an agency (8%).

Chapter 6 -Helping people, improving government provides some examples of the types of remedies achieved for individuals, and systemic remedies, during the year.

Decisions not to investigate - our service charter indicates that if we do not investigate a complaint, we will explain why and, where appropriate, advise the complainant of any other avenues to pursue their complaint.

The Ombudsman Act gives the office a range of discretionary powers to not investigate matters in particular circumstances. The most common reason for not investigating a complaint is that the person has not first raised the complaint with the agency involved. There are advantages for both the complainant and the agency if an issue is first raised at the source of the problem and an attempt made to resolve it before external intervention. In 2009-10 we advised the complainant to take the matter up with the relevant agency in the first instance in 51% of the matters within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction (58% in 2008-09).

While a large number of approaches and complaints are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, or are not investigated, we endeavour to provide a high level of service to these people and refer them to more appropriate avenues to resolve their concerns wherever possible.

Analysis of achievement

With strong staff satisfaction and improvement in staff turnover rates, there was overall an improvement in the achievement of our client service standards for all incoming approaches to the office and management of all complaints.

Maintain sound working relationships with Australian Government agencies.

Our experience in preparing own motion investigation reports, and finalising individual complaint investigations, is that agencies generally accept the recommendations made. Of the 77 recommendations made in published reports during 2009-10, 75% were accepted in full and 8% in part. The remainder were not accepted or there was no formal response from the agency, often because of other work occurring in the agency, or because the recommendation required either joint action with another agency or a response from government. We now request updates from agencies on the implementation of recommendations on a regular basis, and are looking at how we might present this information publicly. The individual agency sections in Chapter 5- Agencies overview show many areas of public administration where our feedback and recommendations have resulted in improvements.

Analysis of achievement

We met this objective.

Objective-Maintaining access for the public to services of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The main method by which we gauge the level of public satisfaction with the quality of our services is through periodic surveys of people who have made a complaint to the office. The most recent bi-annual survey occurred in 2007-08, and was conducted by an independent market research company. We analysed the results in detail in early 2008-09. The survey aimed to obtain information on three key aspects-access, demographics and quality of service.

As mentioned previously in this chapter, at the time of reporting, planning had commenced to commission two significant surveys in the 2010-11 year; these will explore public awareness of the roles and work of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the results of our dealings with Commonwealth and ACT Government agencies.

In brief, the results from the previous survey, as reported last year, showed the overall level of satisfaction of complainants with the Ombudsman's office increased from 58% in our last survey (conducted in 2004) to 60%. For people whose complaint we investigated, overall satisfaction fell from 64% to 57%. There was a high correlation between overall satisfaction with the office and satisfaction with the result of the office's investigation. The level of satisfaction for people whose complaint we did not investigate increased from 54% to 62%.

The majority of the people surveyed considered we kept them well informed about our handling of their complaint, and rated the courtesy of our staff highly. The majority considered we dealt with their complaint in about the right time, or less time than they expected.

They also considered we understood the critical issues in their complaint. While our staff were perceived as being clear in communication, and professional and ethical, around one-fifth of respondents considered our staff were not independent or impartial.

Partly as a result of the survey, we continued to implement a range of strategies to further improve our services. They include:

• incorporating more communication training in to our core training modules
• creating scripts to be used by our public contact officers
• reviewing our template letters
• redesigning our internet sites
• reviewing how we manage approaches to the office.

We have also introduced a comprehensive quality assurance program to complement the oversight line managers give to the handling of complaints. A panel of experienced senior investigation officers from across the office, led by a Deputy Ombudsman or Senior Assistant Ombudsman, audit a sample of complaints closed each month. This panel provides feedback to the staff who handled the complaints and, where necessary, their manager. The panel also produces a report identifying areas for improvement in complaint handling, as well as best practice examples they have seen. This is part of our overall quality assurance process that includes normal supervision, a capacity to require more senior sign-off as part of our complaint management system, peer or supervisor checking of all correspondence, our system of case reviews and our complaint and feedback processes (including complainant surveys).

We also have a formal review process for complainants who may be dissatisfied with our conclusions and decision about a complaint. We expect the complainant to provide reasons for seeking a review, as this assists the office to fully understand the issues being raised by the complainant.

In 2009-10 we received 236 requests for internal review, 6% less than in 2008-09 (251). We declined to conduct a review in 161 cases for reasons such as the matter was out of jurisdiction, the matter had been reviewed already, the complainant did not provide any information that gave grounds for a review, or the complainant had not taken up our previous advice to raise the matter with the relevant agency in the first instance.

We finalised 104 reviews during the year, with some carried over from 2008-09 (Table 3.4). Of the finalised reviews, the original outcome was affirmed in 80 reviews (77%). This was more than in 2008-09 (70%). The office decided to investigate or investigate further 22 reviews (65 in 2008-09) and to change its decision on the original complaint in one review (five in 2008-09). One review was withdrawn by the complainant.

Of the 104 reviews finalised, 88% related to decisions or actions of the investigation officer, comparable to 2008-09. The main reasons expressed by complainants for seeking a review were that they believed the decision we made was wrong or that we failed to address or misunderstood the complaint issue.

Table 3.4: Internal review of Ombudsman office decisions, 2009-10

Complainant's reason for seeking review		Outcome affirmed	Outcome varied	Further investigation	Review withdrawn	Total
Decision/action	Bias	2		1		3
	Failed to address issue	41		14	1	56
	Misunderstood issue	1		1		2
	Wrong	26		4		30
	Other	4	1	1		6
Advice	Fail to provide			1		1
	Inadequate/unclear	4				4
	Misleading	1				1
Behaviour	Incompetence	1				1
Total		80	1	22	1	104

A centralised team considers first whether a review should be undertaken, and then conducts the review if required. In some cases, discussion with the person seeking a review may indicate that the person needs a clearer explanation of information we have already provided, or has misunderstood our role, and further investigation is not necessary.

One important factor we take into account in deciding whether we should investigate further is whether there is any reasonable prospect of getting a better outcome for a person. This helps ensure that the office's resources are directed to the areas of highest priority. If, as a result of a review, investigation or further investigation is required, the review team allocates the complaint to a senior staff member who decides who should undertake the investigation or further investigation.

Analysis of achievement

The survey results and the continuing high number of approaches to the office indicate there is a good degree of public satisfaction with the office. We continue to review our processes and measures to further improve our services.

Objective-Maintaining access for the public to services of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman continued to actively contribute to debates on key administrative law, accountability and integrity issues in government, making submissions to 11 parliamentary inquiries:

• Inquiry into Review of Government Compensation Payments
• Inquiry into National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010
• Inquiry into Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 and Information Commissioner Bill 2009
• Inquiry into the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009
• Inquiry into the Independent Arbitration of Public Interest Claims
• Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures) Bill 2009
• Inquiry into the Welfare of International Students
• Inquiry into Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009
• Inquiry into Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009
• Inquiry into the Operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006
• Inquiry into the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009.

In addition the Ombudsman made submissions on the following:

• Review into the Australian Taxation Office's 'Change Program'
• Consultation on a strategic framework for access to justice
• Delivering quality outcomes review-Child Support program
• Review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000
• Review of the Aged Care Complaints Investigation Scheme
• Review of secrecy laws
• Review of military compensation arrangements.

The Ombudsman released an issues paper on Mistakes and unintended consequences: a safety net approach, and commented on the following papers:

• discussion paper on future purchasing of employment services
• proposals paper: Action against fraudulent phoenix activity
• discussion paper on innovation in payments and information services.

The Ombudsman released public reports on 19 own motion and major investigations in 2009-10. The reports related to a number of agencies, including the AFP, ACC, Australia Post, ATO, Centrelink, DAFF, CSA and DIAC. Further details on individual reports are contained in the relevant sections of Chapter 5- Agencies overview. Chapter 6- Helping people, improving government provides a list of the reports and outlines some of the different types of recommendations made in the reports.

In 2009-10 we produced one better practice guide-the Better practice guide to managing unreasonable complainant conduct . This guide has been prepared to assist staff in government agencies when dealing with the small proportion of complainants whose conduct is especially challenging.

We produced two new fact sheets, supplementing seven produced in the previous year to assist agencies:

• Unreasonable complainant conduct (Fact Sheet 8)
• Compensation for detriment caused by defective administration (Fact Sheet 9).

We released Fact Sheet 8 to accompany/complement the Better practice guide to managing unreasonable complainant conduct .

Analysis of achievement

The breadth of our submissions and publications indicates that we met this objective.

Feature - Rural outreach-Agfest 2010

In May 2010, a member of our Melbourne office attended Agfest in Launceston, Tasmania to host an 'Ombudsman Services' marquee with the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the Ombudsman of Tasmania.

Agfest is one of the largest agricultural field shows in Australia. It provides a great opportunity for the office to promote the role and services of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, especially to rural and regional Australia.

More than 67,000 people from around Australia attended Agfest over the course of the three-day event. While the weather was cold, spirits were high and many people were keen to talk to us about Ombudsman services. Of particular interest was information on making a complaint about Centrelink or the ATO.

Visitors were given show bags containing brochures and other information about what we do, pens and fridge magnets. As always, the Postal Industry Ombudsman trucks were a huge success with children and the anti-stress balls a hit with the mums and dads.

This was the second consecutive year we have participated in Agfest and we are keen to reaffirm our ongoing commitment to working with other ombudsman offices to ensure our services are familiar and accessible to rural Australians.

Agfest 2010 in Launceston, Tasmania