Chapter 3

1. Performance report
2. Program key performance indicators
3. Outcome 1

Performance report

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 2010–11.

An overview of human resource and financial management for the office is provided in Chapter 4— Management and accountability . Further financial information is available in Appendix 5— Consultancy services, advertising and market research , Appendix 6— Agency resource statement and resources for outcomes and Appendix 7— Financial statements

The following chapters give a more comprehensive view 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
• 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 2010–11 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.

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 the Ombudsman 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 .

Table 3.1: Summary of program objective and deliverable performance, 2010–11

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 it responds effectively to new areas of complaint, without impacting on timeliness.
Deliverable The number of complaints requiring long periods for resolution will decrease.	Outcome The office maintained a high standard of complaint handling with an overall increase in the number of approaches and complaints finalised. There was a slight increase in the duration to finalise those complaints. However, there was a decrease in the proportion of complaints that took more than six months to finalise.
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 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 We continued to focus on improving staff satisfaction and enhancing learning and development opportunities in support of sustaining quality standards in our complaint-handling and records practices. The office has engaged in regular liaison and meetings with agencies, and took part in the training of agency staff. Support to agencies has been enhanced through the greater use of fact sheets and guides, consultation and submissions. The office published its Work Practice Manual on 1 May 2011 on Ombudsman websites in accordance with new Freedom of Information requirements. The office continued efforts to improve public access to information about the office’s services, with further development of the four Ombudsman websites and integration of online SmartForms. The office undertook key surveys that assessed the level of public awareness which included feedback from Australian and ACT Government agencies, Commonwealth Members and Senators, and ACT Members of the Legislative Assembly about our services. This information is being used to better target community information and efforts to improve stakeholder engagement, outreach and education activities.
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 stakeholder engagement, outreach and education, both with agencies and more broadly with the community. We produced reports, submissions, and made presentations on a broad range of issues arising from our work.
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.	Outcome The delivery of own motion reports, and submissions to parliamentary inquiries and other major reviews has continued our contribution to improving public administration. The 13 reports examining systemic administrative problems occurring across areas of government included the following: Report 04/2011— Centrelink: Right to review–having choices, making choices identified systemic weaknesses in Centrelink’s review processes, including a lack of transparency and insufficient education about available options for Centrelink clients – and that the complexity of Centrelink’s review model was contributing to administrative drift and breakdown. Report 13/2010— Falling through the cracks–Centrelink, DEEWR and FaHSCIA: Engaging with customers with a mental illness in the social security system examined the difficulties people with a mental illness have when they interact with our social security system, and made several recommendations for improvements. Report 12/2010— Australian Taxation Office: Resolving Tax File Number compromise highlighted concerns about the way the Australian Tax Office handled complaints about compromised Tax File Numbers (TFNs). Report 10/2010— FaHCSIA and Centrelink: Review rights for Income managed people in the Northern Territory concerned an investigation into a failure to provide rights of review to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for individuals subject to Income Management as part of the intervention in the Northern Territory. The office engaged in numerous parliamentary inquiries and government agency reviews, providing submissions on a broad variety of policy and program matters, in particular to a series of discussion papers on Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws released by the Australian Law Reform Commission for comment. The office also undertook surveys of Australian and ACT Government agencies, as well as Commonwealth Members of Parliament and Senators, and members of the ACT Legislative Assembly. The results of these surveys will assist the office to better tailor its services and engagement with these important stakeholders.

Program key performance indicators

The work of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in pursuit of 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 oversighted by 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 vast majority of Ombudsman report recommendations, leading to improvements in policy and program development, program delivery, as well as administrative and complaint-handling practices. The Office continued to contribute strongly to parliamentary and agency inquiries and review of programs, with submissions made across a diverse range of policy and program areas.

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 2010–11 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

Our 2010–11 targets for this key performance indicator were:

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

Approaches and complaints received

In 2010–11 we received 38,919 approaches and complaints, 3.9% more than in 2009–10. Of these, 19,821 were about agencies within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, compared to 18,313 the previous year (a 2% increase as a proportion of those received – continuing a trend from the previous year of greater in-jurisdiction complaints). These are complaints for which the office is directly responsible to consider for investigation and possible remedy.

The office has a ‘no wrong door’ policy, meaning that we seek to assist every person who approaches us by referring them to more appropriate complaint bodies or giving them information on their options if we are unable to help them. Consistent with this policy, the Public Contact Team directed the balance of approaches or complaints back to the agency of complaint origin for review, or to another appropriate agency or tribunal.

There was a further 2% decrease in the number of complaints about matters outside jurisdiction and requests for information, following a dramatic reduction of 27% in the previous year. During 2010–11, 45 complaints were received about the office of the Ombudsman, broadly consistent with numbers over recent years. The Ombudsman’s office continues to promote its services and to provide information about other Ombudsman and complaint-handling agencies, which is a potential factor in the continued reduction in out-of-jurisdiction enquiries. Figure 3.1 shows the trend in approaches and complaints over the past seven years.

Figure 3.1: Approach and complaint trends, 2004–05 to 2010–11

Table 3.2: Approaches and complaints, by method received, 2003–04 to 2010–11

Year	Telephone	Written	In Person	Electronic	AFP	Total
2010–11	29,090	1,891 *	1,015	6,923		38,919
	75%	5%	3%	18%	0%
2009–10	28,447	2,210	1,005	5,803	3	37,468
	76%	6%	3%	15%	0%
2008–09	35,738	2,654	875	6,452	-	45,719
	78%	6%	2%	14%	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%

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 through 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 again in 2010–11. Over the past seven years, the percentage of approaches received electronically has increased from 5% to 18% of the total (up a further 3% in the past financial year), as Table 3.2 shows.

The office is working to further integrate the use of SmartForms with its complaint management system, so that complaint details are populated automatically, negating the need for double-handling.

Of the 19,821 approaches and complaints received within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, 16,250 (82%) were about eight agencies – Centrelink, Australia Post, Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), Child Support Agency (CSA), the Departments of Defence and Veteran Affairs (and associated agencies), Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), and the Australian Federal Police.

Approaches and complaints finalised and investigated

We finalised 38,957 approaches and complaints, up from 37,434 the previous year. Of these, 19,903 were about agencies within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (compared to 18,284 in 2010–10). We investigated 4,468 separate complaints compared to 4,489 in 2009–10 (22.4% of complaints finalised compared to 25% in 2009–10). Of the complaints investigated, almost 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 comparable to the previous year.

Some agency error or deficiency was identified in 6% of complaints investigated, down from 10% last year.

The most common type of deficiency noted was unreasonable delay (33%), procedural deficiency (25%), followed by inadequate advice, explanation or reasons (15%), flawed administrative process or systems (13%), and human or factual error (9%). The balance of deficiencies were very small in number, and included legal error, unreasonable action, and resource limitations.

Causes of complaint

The majority (72%) of finalised complaint issues were about the correctness, propriety or timeliness of agency decisions or actions, down from 77% in 2009–10. The remainder of the complaint issues involved other matters, such as the accuracy or completeness of advice given by agencies (17%), the application of policy or legislation to the complainant’s circumstances (3.75%), the conduct of officers in agencies (5%) or unfair legislation (2.5%).

Complaints carried forward

The number of complaints carried forward (past 30 June 2010) was 1,657 compared to 1,553 at 30 June 2010. This continued an increasing trend of cases being carried forward. 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. In this instance the further overall increase in the number of complaints received during the year may also have contributed to the increase in numbers being carried forward.

Analysis of achievement

Overall we received 3.9% more approaches and complaints in 2010–11 than in the previous year. There was an increase in percentage terms of the number of approaches and complaints about agencies received within jurisdiction, with more than 51% in-jurisdiction. This was the first time since 2006–07 that we received more in-jurisdiction than out-of-jurisdiction complaints. It was also the highest number of in-jurisdiction complaints we have ever received. (In-jurisdiction complaints are those that are directly the office’s responsibility to investigate). There was only a very small decrease in the overall number of complaints investigated. As in previous years, around one fifth of cases require non-substantive investigation. Overall, we finalised 1,523 more cases in 2010–11 than the previous year. We met this objective.

Our 2010–11 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.

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 requirements to report to the Minister and/or to the Parliament.

During 2010–11, all inspections and reports were completed according to statutory requirements. We carried out 33 inspections of 16 different agencies.

Detailed reporting on our monitoring and inspections work is contained in Chapter 5— Agencies overview .

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 2010–11 we carried out two inspections each of the AFP and the ACC and one inspection of ACLEI.

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 2010–11 we carried out one inspection each of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs), the AFP, the ACC, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), New South Wales Crime Commission, New South Wales Police, Northern Territory Police, Queensland Police, Crime and Misconduct Commission, South Australia Police, Tasmania Police, Victoria Police, Office of Police Integrity and the Western Australia Police.

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 about telecommunications interceptions undertaken by the AFP, the ACC and ACLEI; and about access to stored communications by the AFP, ACC, Customs, ASIC and the 10 State and Territory law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies; were provided to the minister.

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 Victoria Police (ACLEI advised that it had not used the provisions of the SD Act).

The SD Act requires the Ombudsman to report to the Attorney-General every six months on the results of the inspection of each agency. A report was provided to the Attorney-General in November 2010 in respect of inspections finalised in the period 1 January to 30 June 2010. The report was then tabled in the Parliament in March 2011 in accordance with our statutory obligation. A second report was provided to the Attorney-General in March 2011 in respect of finalised inspections in the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, and tabled in the Parliament in May 2011.

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 (outlining the provisions relating to controlled operations). In 2010–11 we inspected the controlled operations records of the AFP and the ACC twice (ACLEI advised that it did not use the provisions of Part 1AB of the Crimes Act). (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 Minister for Home Affairs on the inspections carried out in the previous financial year. An annual report for 2009–10 was provided to the Minister in November 2010 and presented to the Parliament in March 2011.

Biosecurity

During 2010–11, we undertook a series of audits of the investigations conducted by the Compliance Branch, Biosecurity Services Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) under the Ombudsman’s own motion powers. Audits were conducted in the Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Sydney offices 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.

The agencies responded positively to all our recommendations.

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 and enhancing options for learning and development activities in support of sustaining quality standards in our complaint-handling and records practices. Our turnover rate for 2010–11 was 20%, marginally down from that achieved in 2009–10 (20.5%). 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. In addition, the 2010–11 Enterprise Agreement provides employees with a number of health initiatives to support their wellbeing in the workplace.

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 and many of the findings have been incorporated into operational improvements in the subsequent years. At the time of reporting, planning had commenced for next complainant satisfaction survey. As reported last year, key surveys were commissioned; they researched public awareness of the Ombudsman and the views of Commonwealth and ACT Government agencies. In addition a survey of the members of the Commonwealth House of Representatives and Senate, and members of the Legislative Assembly was undertaken. The 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 2010–11, we finalised 75% of all approaches and complaints within one month of receipt, down from 77% in 2009–10. Figure 3.2 shows the time taken to finalise all approaches and complaints for the periods 2001–05 to 2010–11.

Figure 3.2: Time taken to finalise all approaches and complaints, 2005–06 to 2010–11

In 2010–11, 20.5% of investigated complaints were finalised in one month (down from 24% the year before) and 59.7% were finalised in three months (down from almost 64%). 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 issues for selected agencies, 2010–11 (2009–10)

Agency	Number investigated	% finalised within one month	% finalised within three months
Australia Post	871 (730)	19 (37)	87 (90)
ATO	708 (365)	10 (17)	47 (59)
Centrelink	1,269 (1,351)	44 (39)	79 (74)
CSA	751 (920)	30 (29)	68 (70)
Defence agencies	162 (213)	4 (5)	31 (53)
DEEWR	150 (186)	9 (7)	59 (51)
DIAC	373 (649)	4 (12)	40 (61)
AFP	104	0	60

There has been an increase in the time taken to close approaches and complaints, and to finalise 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 more than 79% of the complaints investigated. This represents the highest incidence of remedy outcomes for complainants in the past eight 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 (51%). Other remedies included a financial remedy (11.5%), an agency action being expedited (9.5%), an apology being offered by an agency (8%), an agency decision being changed or reconsidered (7%), the provision of an alternate financial remedy (6%) or disciplinary action (1.5%).

Chapter 6— Helping people, improving government provides an explanation of: the types of remedies achieved for individuals; identified system changes; and administrative deficiencies recorded for agencies 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.

Under the Ombudsman Act the office has a range of discretionary powers to decline to 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. In 2010–11 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 (51% in 2009–10).

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

There was a slight improvement in staff turnover rates, and an overall improvement in the achievement of our client service standards for all incoming approaches to the office, although there has been a decrease in timeliness reflecting the increased complaint numbers.

Of the 80 recommendations made in published reports during 2010–11, 90% were accepted in full and 9% in part. The remaining were not accepted or we had not yet received a response from the agency. We now request updates or have developed collaborative action plans with agencies on the implementation of recommendations. The individual agency sections in Chapter 5—Agencies overview show many areas of public administration where our feedback and recommendations have resulted in improvements.

During the year, the office increased stakeholder engagement – roundtable forums, case conferences, new advisory panels and forums with Police, Tax and Defence representatives. Initiatives such as trialling assisted transfer of complaints to the Australian Tax Office are an example of efforts to improve complaint outcomes through partnerships with agencies.

Analysis of achievement

We met this objective.

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 and general public awareness surveys. The most recent 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.

An analysis of the findings of these surveys can be found in Chapter 1— Ombudsman’s overview .

We continued to implement a range of strategies to further improve our services. They included:

• incorporating more communication training in 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.

The office also established a number of internal working groups, including on social inclusion, improving international communication, the use of administrative deficiency and ways to achieve better complaint-handling outcomes for the public. The complaint handling working group identified a number of improvements including to: the operations of the Public Contact Team; information on the website; the use of SmartForms; integration of SmartForms with the office’s complaint management system; and the implementation of assisted transfer of complaints to agencies.

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

In 2010–11 we received 251 requests for internal review. We declined to conduct a review in 36 cases for reasons including that 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.

Table 3.4: Internal review of Ombudsman’s office decisions, 2010–11

Complainant’s reason for seeking review		Outcome Affirmed	Outcome Varied	Further Investigation	Review Withdrawn	Total
Decision/Action	Failed to Address Issue	46	1	5	2	54
	Misunderstood Issue	7			1	8
	Wrong	125	1	14	6	146
	Other	9	1	4	2	16
Advice	Fail to Provide	1		1		2
	Inadequate/Unclear			2		2
Practice and Procedures	Unreasonable	2				2
Total		190	3	26	11	230

We finalised 230 reviews during the year, with some carried over from 2009–10 (Table 3.4). Of the finalised reviews, the original outcome was affirmed in 190 reviews (82%). This was more than in 2009–10 (77%). The office decided to investigate or investigate further 26 reviews (22 in 2009–10) and to change its decision on the original complaint in three reviews (one in 2009–10). Eleven reviews were withdrawn by the complainant.

Of the 104 reviews finalised, 97% related to decisions or actions of the investigation officer, up from 88% in 2000–10. 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.

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 an investigation or further investigation is required, the review team allocates the complaint to a senior staff member who decides who should undertake the work.

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.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman continued to actively contribute to debates on key administrative law, accountability and integrity issues in government, making submissions to 8 parliamentary inquiries:

• Inquiry into Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
• Inquiry into the Public Service Amendment (Payments in Special Circumstances) Bill 2011
• Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill 2011
• Inquiry into Biosecurity and Quarantine Arrangements
• Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
• Inquiry into the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
• Inquiry into Caring for Older Australians
• Inquiry into the Reform of Australian Government Administration.

In addition the Ombudsman made submissions on the:

• Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network
• SuperStream working group – Tax File Numbers and account consolidation
• Consultation on Victoria’s Anti-Corruption Commission
• Response to the Australian Law Reform Commission Issues Paper 39 – Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws: Social Security
• Response to the Australian Law Reform Commission Issues Paper 38 – Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws: Child Support and Family Assistance
• Response to the Australian Law Reform Commission Issues Paper 36 – Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws: Employment and Superannuation
• Consultation on Work Related Expenses – Propose Standard Deduction
• Consultation on Designing a New Tax Advisory Board
• Consultation on Exposure Draft for Stronger Super using Tax File Number
• ACT Public Sector Review
• Discussion paper on Reforms to the Lobbyist Code of Conduct and Register.

The Ombudsman released public reports on 13 own motion and major investigations in 2010–11. The reports related to a number of agencies, including the AFP, ACC, Australia Post, ATO, Centrelink, DAFF, CSA and DIAC. The Ombudsman also released inspection reports on Controlled operations and use of surveillance devices by law enforcement agencies, and Activities under Part V of the AFT Act. 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 2010–11 we continued to receive high numbers of requests to distribute a key better practice guide, first published in 2009 – the Better practice guide to managing unreasonable complainant conduct . This guide was prepared to assist staff in government agencies when dealing with the small proportion of complainants whose conduct is especially challenging.

Analysis of achievement

The breadth of our submissions, investigation and own motion reports, and publications highlights the contribution the office has made to improving public administration during the year.