Section 2 Performance Report

This chapter summarises our office’s performance based on the outcomes and program structure set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements for 2012–13.

An overview of people and financial management performance is provided in Chapter 3. Further financial information is available in the appendixes.

The following chapters provide a more comprehensive review of the outcome of our work:

Our Outcome, as stated in the Portfolio Budget Statements for 2012–13, is:

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

Supporting the Outcome Statement was the program called the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Objectives, deliverables and key performance indicators

The Portfolio Budget Statements for 2012–13 state that the objectives of our office are to:

Our deliverables are:

Our key performance indicators are:

Complaints Overview

Complaints and approaches received

We experienced a significant downturn in the number of complaints and approaches received by our office during 2012–13. In 2012–13 we received a total of 26,474 complaints and other approaches (calls received) compared to the 40,092 received in 2011–12, a reduction of 34%.

An analysis of complaint data indicates that the reduction is primarily due to the new telephony processes we put in place to address customer satisfaction issues (as discussed under Deliverable one, below) and to reduce the number of approaches we receive which are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate or are from complainants who have not first approached the government agency which is the subject of their complaint. Complaint trends over the past seven years are shown in Figure 2.1.

The most significant reduction was a 51% decrease in the number of approaches which were out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate — 8,377 in 2012–13 compared with 17,101 in 2011–12. This continues a trend which began in 2011-12 when we introduced recorded information for incoming telephone calls to inform callers about out of jurisdiction matters. In November 2012, we installed a more comprehensive telephone queueing system with auto-attendant messaging that makes it clearer to callers which matters are within our jurisdiction to investigate and the preliminary steps they should take before making a complaint to our office. As expected, the new system appears to have made a bigger impact on the screening of complaints.

We received 21% fewer complaints which were about matters which are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate — 18,097 in 2012–13 compared with 22,991 in 2011–12. This is also a substantial reduction. It may represent a return to the average number of in-jurisdiction complaints, which has been relatively steady over the last few years but spiked in 2011–12. Additionally, any ongoing upward trend in complaint approaches may have been truncated by the introduction of the auto-messaging system and consequent diversion of complainants who had not yet lodged a complaint with the agency concerned. The latter view is supported by the concurrent diversion of out of jurisdiction approaches.

The number of in-jurisdiction complaints which were sent through to investigation officers remained stable between the 2011–12 and 2012–13 periods, despite the decrease in total approaches received by the office. This would indicate that the reduction in the in-jurisdiction approaches was primarily due to the diversion of those complainants who had not yet complained to the agency concerned.

A corresponding drop in the number of approaches received by telephone supports the view that the telephony change is the most likely reason for the significant reduction in both in and out of jurisdiction complaints. Table 2.2 shows the trends in the method by which approaches and complaints were received.

Figure 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, 2006–07 to 2012–13

Figure 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, 2006–07 to 2012–13

This chart shows the number of in jurisdiction complaints and out of jurisdiction complaints and approaches made to our office from 2006–07 to 2012–13. These are: in 2006–07 in jurisdiction 18,003 and out of jurisdiction 15,319; in 2007–08 in jurisdiction 19,623 and out of jurisdiction 20,311; in 2008–09 in jurisdiction 19,412 out of jurisdiction 26,307; in 2009–10 in jurisdiction 18,313 and out of jurisdiction 19,155; in 2010–11 in jurisdiction 19,821 and out of jurisdiction 19,098; in 2011–12 in jurisdiction 22,991 and out of jurisdiction 17,101; and in 2012–13 in jurisdiction 18,097 and out of jurisdiction 8,377.

Table 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, by method received, 2006–07 to 2012–13
Table 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, by method received, 2006–07 to 2012–13

Year

Telephone

Written

In person

Electronic

AFP

Total

2012–13

15,099

1,547

509

9,316

3

26,474

 

57%

6%

2%

35%

0%

 

2011–12

27,953

2,156

912

9,070

1

40,092

 

70%

5%

2%

23%

0%

 

2010–11

29,090

1,891

1,015

6,923

0

38,919

 

75%

5%

2%

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

0

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%

 

Complaint handling

In 2012–13 we finalised 34% fewer approaches and complaints than in 2011–12 (26,739 compared with 40,447). This reduction in complaint closures appears to correlate with the drop in the number of complaints and approaches received.

Despite the efficacy of the new telephony system, in approximately half of the complaints we received we advised the complainant to first take up the matter with the relevant agency.

The number of complaints which were assessed by investigation officers remained consistent (8,591 this year and 8,662 in 2011–12); however, the number of complaints investigated dropped by 32% (3,185 this year compared with 4,667 in 2011–12). This drop in investigations corresponds with an overall decrease in numbers of complaints across agencies, new practices in complaint management, and a focus on systemic issues (these are discussed in Chapter 4). In some complaint areas the proportion of complaints investigated has increased.

Of the complaints investigated, over 20% required more substantial investigation (categories four and five in our five category complaint system) some requiring the involvement of senior managers. This figure is comparable to last year.

There was no significant change to the number of complaints remaining open at the end of the year (1,043 compared to 1,058 in 2011–12).

Deliverables

Deliverable 1: Improved public satisfaction with the quality of services provided by the Ombudsman’s Office

New telephony system

In late 2012 we improved the telephone queueing and auto-messaging system on our toll free contact number. This followed our review in response to concerns about the increasing number of contacts and approaches to our office in the previous year. The difficulties callers were experiencing was indicated by a rise in the number of phone calls in which the caller abandoned their call before speaking to a public contact officer, the number of times callers needed to wait more than five minutes before being able to speak to a public contact officer, and the number of times callers elected to use the call back option.

In response to the review, the phone call system was redesigned to create designated queues for approaches relating to specific agencies. The associated auto-attendant messaging was changed to provide information about the matters which are in our jurisdiction to investigate and more targeted, agency specific advice to callers about making a complaint with the agency concerned. This gives many callers quick access to the information they need without having to speak to a public contact officer.

The new system has resulted in reductions in complaints and approaches as discussed above. In terms of public satisfaction it has meant that people are now able to speak to a public contact officer more quickly and the call abandonment rate has dropped significantly. We are pleased with the improvements resulting from the new system and reducing call wait times for the public.

Organisational restructure

During 2012–13 the office underwent a restructure, bringing together all teams that assessed and investigated complaints into the one Operations Branch. The restructure has made it easier for the office to identify improvements in complaint handling, including implementing strategies to achieve greater consistency. Over time, the restructure will also increase our capacity to more flexibly prioritise and allocate complaints, enabling us to better manage the timeliness of complaint handling and investigation.

Reviews

We have a formal review process for complainants who may be dissatisfied with the conclusions we reach and decisions we make about their complaint.

In 2012–13 we received 149 requests for review, compared to 217 in 2011–12. This lower number may reflect a change in procedure that was implemented in 2011–12. The changed procedure provides that if a complainant indicates dissatisfaction with the initial investigation and decision made by an investigation officer, the matter is referred to the investigation officer to reconsider. A complainant who is still dissatisfied following the reconsideration may seek a review by a senior officer not previously involved in the handling of their complaint.

In 20 cases, the request for review was declined. Reasons for declining a review request included that the matter was out of jurisdiction, the matter had been reviewed already, considerable time had elapsed before the review request had been made, or the complainant did not provide any information that gave grounds for a review.

We finalised 137 reviews during the year, including some we had received in 2011–12. Of the finalised reviews, the original outcome was affirmed in 128 reviews (93%), more than in 2011–12. We decided to investigate, or investigate further, three reviews (compared with 30 in 2011–12) and to change the decision on the original complaint in two reviews (compared with 15 in 2011–12). Four requests for review were withdrawn by the complainant.

One important factor we take into account in deciding whether to investigate further is whether there is any reasonable prospect of achieving a better outcome for the complainant. This helps to ensure that our resources are directed to areas of highest priority. If the result of a review shows that an investigation is required, the review manager usually allocates the complaint to a senior staff member, and they decide who should undertake the work.

Deliverable 2: Better targeted stakeholder engagement through the provision of information and education regarding our role and importance

Our staff regularly give presentations to stakeholder agencies and other non government bodies about the role of the Ombudsman office and complaint handling practices. We are involved in a number of forums in which we engage with stakeholders at regular events and around specific issues. A summary of key stakeholder initiatives over the reporting period is provided below.

The Immigration Detention Review team:

The Inspections and Law Enforcement team:

The Overseas Students Ombudsman team:

The Senior Assistant Ombudsman in the Community Services and Legal Branch:

Our Senior Management and Executive officers also delivered a number of speeches and lectures during the year to a variety of audiences including university law students, Australian Public Service graduate program students, international education agents, and organisations such as the Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic, the Ethical Leadership Congress, the Australia and New Zealand School of Government, the Australian Institute of Administrative Law, the Council of International Students Australia Conference, the Justice and Pro Bono Conference and the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission. A list and details of presentations and speeches is in Appendix 2.

Deliverable 3: Increased monitoring of internal service standards for complaint handling

The organisational restructure that led to a single branch being responsible for the assessment and investigation of complaints has put the office in a much better position to monitor the way complaints are managed. It has also removed some of the variables that previously impacted on our ability to monitor internal workflow in a consistent manner.

This restructure has made it easier to identify internal and external barriers that impact on our achievement of service standards. As a result, regular reporting to Senior Management in relation to workload and internal workflow provides more meaningful intelligence about issues that would benefit from specific intervention.

Deliverable 4: Identification and reporting on significant and systemic problems in public administration, making recommendations and reporting on implementation

The Ombudsman’s Office identifies and records recurring issues from complaints, statutory reports, inspections and stakeholder engagement. Significant or systemic issues are pursued with the agencies, and the Ombudsman makes recommendations where appropriate to improve public administration.

The following related activities were undertaken during 2012–13.

Deliverable 5: Demonstrated contribution to debates through speeches, reports, submissions and best practice guides

In 2012–13, we made formal submissions to the House of Representatives and Senate standing and joint select committees on a broad range of public interest matters, including the:

The office also made a number of submissions to other government activities and reviews(see also Chapter 6), including the:

Deliverable 6: Increased parliamentary and public assurance that covert powers are lawfully used by enforcement agencies

The Ombudsman is required by law to inspect the records of certain enforcement agencies in relation to their use of the following covert powers:

All inspections were completed, and all reports were submitted, in accordance with the relevant legislation. This year our inspections identified a high level of compliance by most agencies.

We also continued to enhance our auditing expertise and methodology. Staff members participated in our internal training program, and our methodologies were kept up-to-date with amendments to relevant legislation and changes to agencies’ business practices.

Key performance indicators

KP1: Improved administration following the Ombudsman’s reports and investigations

In May 2013 the Ombudsman released a report (02/2013) into suicide and self-harm in Australia’s immigration detention network. The report made nine recommendations to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) concerning, among other things, data collection, management and reporting, review of deaths and serious incidents of self-harm, information delivery and engagement with detainees, and prioritisation and processing of asylum claims and requests for Ministerial intervention. DIAC accepted eight of the recommendations in full or in principle.

In February 2013 the Ombudsman issued a report (01/2013) relating to the investigation of a complaint concerning the administration of youth allowance and made a number of recommendations. The Department of Human Services noted that ‘there is always a great deal that can be improved in service delivery by listening to customer and independent feedback’ and indicated that it would ‘continue to review (its) practices and ensure a high quality of service particularly to people with vulnerable circumstances’.

In December 2012 we published a report following an investigation into a complaint from an overseas student about a refund. The report was titled Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE): Administration of Student Refunds under the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000. After we became involved, the department liaised with the fund manager and a new decision was made to refund a further significant amount to the complainant.

KP2: Improved complaint handling within agencies

During 2012–13 we introduced new processes with Centrelink, Child Support, the Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the transfer of some complaints we receive about the agency directly back to the agency’s internal complaint resolution service. This is referred to as a ‘warm transfer’ and is made with the consent of the complainant.

This transfer process brings to the attention of the agency complaints we consider to require more immediate attention or where we consider that the agency should take up a second opportunity to resolve the complaint without intervention from our office. We have found that this process can facilitate quicker and more efficient resolution of complaints through direct contact with the agency. It also avoids our office having to initiate an investigation where the issue is one that can be more simply addressed by the agency.

This system results in direct benefits to the complainant, the relevant agency and our office. It also increases the focus on the complaint-handling process itself by encouraging agencies to look at how the complaint-handling could have been improved, while giving them a second chance to provide an available remedy to the complainant. Our oversight of the warm transfer process also provides us with information about potential systemic complaint-handling issues, enabling us to work with agencies to resolve underlying problems at an earlier stage.

KP3: Improved compliance with legal requirements by enforcement agencies in the use of covert powers

This year our inspections identified a high level of compliance by most agencies, and we noted that most agencies had implemented our previous recommendations and best practice suggestions. One of the key improvements we noticed was agencies maintaining sufficient records to demonstrate whether or not they were only dealing with lawfully obtained information.

KP4: Inspection reports will be timely and identify areas for improvement

We are required to report to relevant ministers and the Parliament on the results of our inspections on an annual or biannual basis. During 2012–13 we submitted all 21 of our statutory reports on our inspections of covert powers within the legislated timeframes. The key focus of our reports this year was ensuring that enforcement agencies monitor obtained information to ensure its lawfulness, and quarantine it in instances where there is doubt or insufficient information to determine its lawfulness.

We also submitted inspection reports to the Parliament on our review of the AFP’s complaint-handling system, as required under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and on the use of coercive powers under the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012 – both in accordance with the legislated requirements.

In order to ensure that our suggestions and recommendations were useful to agencies in relation to the above inspections, we met with some agencies during 2012–13 to improve our understanding of their procedures and practices. We also continued with our practice of providing a report to the relevant agency on the results of our inspections before submitting our statutory reports to ministers and the Parliament.

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

      Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2012—13 | Section 2

      Section 2 Performance Report

      This chapter summarises our office’s performance based on the outcomes and program structure set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements for 2012–13.

      An overview of people and financial management performance is provided in Chapter 3. Further financial information is available in the appendixes.

      The following chapters provide a more comprehensive review of the outcome of our work:

      • Chapter 4 provides an overview of complaint issues, statistics and other information relevant to the five agencies that produced the highest volume of complaints made to the office during the past year
      • Chapter 5 comprises case studies of complaints handled by the office during the reporting period, focusing particularly on our work with agencies and the outcomes achieved for individuals
      • Chapter 6 provides a summary of the published Ombudsman reports and submissions made to inquiries
      • Chapter 7 looks at the specialist roles and functions performed by our office.

      Our Outcome, as stated in the Portfolio Budget Statements for 2012–13, is:

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

      Supporting the Outcome Statement was the program called the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

      Objectives, deliverables and key performance indicators

      The Portfolio Budget Statements for 2012–13 state that the objectives of our office are to:

      • respond effectively to new areas of complaint and continue to develop compliance auditing expertise and improvement of auditing methodologies and reporting
      • enhance staff capability to ensure quality standards for complaint handling and reporting
      • ensure the continued timely and effective resolution of complaints through sound working relationships with Australian Government agencies and related service providers
      • enhance engagement opportunities for collaboration with stakeholders and intermediaries, national integrity agencies, and regional and international partners
      • contribute to debates on key public administration, integrity, accountability, and transparency issues that promote delivery of fair and just government policies and programs
      • contribute to improving transparency and accountability of government through oversight and administration of prescribed legislative functions
      • undertake own motion investigations and produce reports.

      Our deliverables are:

      • improved public satisfaction with the quality of our services
      • better targeted stakeholder engagement through the provision of information and education about our role and importance
      • increased monitoring of internal service standards for complaint handling
      • identification and reporting on significant and systemic problems in public administration, making recommendations and reporting on implementation
      • demonstrated contribution to debates through speeches, reports, submissions and best practice guides
      • increased parliamentary and public assurance that covert powers are lawfully used by enforcement agencies.

      Our key performance indicators are:

      • improved administration following the Ombudsman’s reports and investigations
      • improved complaint handling within agencies
      • improved compliance with legal requirements by enforcement agencies in the use of covert powers
      • timely inspection reports that identify areas for improvement.

      Complaints Overview

      Complaints and approaches received

      We experienced a significant downturn in the number of complaints and approaches received by our office during 2012–13. In 2012–13 we received a total of 26,474 complaints and other approaches (calls received) compared to the 40,092 received in 2011–12, a reduction of 34%.

      An analysis of complaint data indicates that the reduction is primarily due to the new telephony processes we put in place to address customer satisfaction issues (as discussed under Deliverable one, below) and to reduce the number of approaches we receive which are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate or are from complainants who have not first approached the government agency which is the subject of their complaint. Complaint trends over the past seven years are shown in Figure 2.1.

      The most significant reduction was a 51% decrease in the number of approaches which were out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate — 8,377 in 2012–13 compared with 17,101 in 2011–12. This continues a trend which began in 2011-12 when we introduced recorded information for incoming telephone calls to inform callers about out of jurisdiction matters. In November 2012, we installed a more comprehensive telephone queueing system with auto-attendant messaging that makes it clearer to callers which matters are within our jurisdiction to investigate and the preliminary steps they should take before making a complaint to our office. As expected, the new system appears to have made a bigger impact on the screening of complaints.

      We received 21% fewer complaints which were about matters which are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate — 18,097 in 2012–13 compared with 22,991 in 2011–12. This is also a substantial reduction. It may represent a return to the average number of in-jurisdiction complaints, which has been relatively steady over the last few years but spiked in 2011–12. Additionally, any ongoing upward trend in complaint approaches may have been truncated by the introduction of the auto-messaging system and consequent diversion of complainants who had not yet lodged a complaint with the agency concerned. The latter view is supported by the concurrent diversion of out of jurisdiction approaches.

      The number of in-jurisdiction complaints which were sent through to investigation officers remained stable between the 2011–12 and 2012–13 periods, despite the decrease in total approaches received by the office. This would indicate that the reduction in the in-jurisdiction approaches was primarily due to the diversion of those complainants who had not yet complained to the agency concerned.

      A corresponding drop in the number of approaches received by telephone supports the view that the telephony change is the most likely reason for the significant reduction in both in and out of jurisdiction complaints. Table 2.2 shows the trends in the method by which approaches and complaints were received.

      Figure 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, 2006–07 to 2012–13

      Figure 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, 2006–07 to 2012–13

      This chart shows the number of in jurisdiction complaints and out of jurisdiction complaints and approaches made to our office from 2006–07 to 2012–13. These are: in 2006–07 in jurisdiction 18,003 and out of jurisdiction 15,319; in 2007–08 in jurisdiction 19,623 and out of jurisdiction 20,311; in 2008–09 in jurisdiction 19,412 out of jurisdiction 26,307; in 2009–10 in jurisdiction 18,313 and out of jurisdiction 19,155; in 2010–11 in jurisdiction 19,821 and out of jurisdiction 19,098; in 2011–12 in jurisdiction 22,991 and out of jurisdiction 17,101; and in 2012–13 in jurisdiction 18,097 and out of jurisdiction 8,377.

      Table 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, by method received, 2006–07 to 2012–13
      Table 2.1: Approach and complaint trends, by method received, 2006–07 to 2012–13

      Year

      Telephone

      Written

      In person

      Electronic

      AFP

      Total

      2012–13

      15,099

      1,547

      509

      9,316

      3

      26,474

       

      57%

      6%

      2%

      35%

      0%

      		 

      2011–12

      27,953

      2,156

      912

      9,070

      1

      40,092

       

      70%

      5%

      2%

      23%

      0%

      		 

      2010–11

      29,090

      1,891

      1,015

      6,923

      0

      38,919

       

      75%

      5%

      2%

      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

      0

      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%

      		 

      Complaint handling

      In 2012–13 we finalised 34% fewer approaches and complaints than in 2011–12 (26,739 compared with 40,447). This reduction in complaint closures appears to correlate with the drop in the number of complaints and approaches received.

      Despite the efficacy of the new telephony system, in approximately half of the complaints we received we advised the complainant to first take up the matter with the relevant agency.

      The number of complaints which were assessed by investigation officers remained consistent (8,591 this year and 8,662 in 2011–12); however, the number of complaints investigated dropped by 32% (3,185 this year compared with 4,667 in 2011–12). This drop in investigations corresponds with an overall decrease in numbers of complaints across agencies, new practices in complaint management, and a focus on systemic issues (these are discussed in Chapter 4). In some complaint areas the proportion of complaints investigated has increased.

      Of the complaints investigated, over 20% required more substantial investigation (categories four and five in our five category complaint system) some requiring the involvement of senior managers. This figure is comparable to last year.

      There was no significant change to the number of complaints remaining open at the end of the year (1,043 compared to 1,058 in 2011–12).

      Deliverables

      Deliverable 1: Improved public satisfaction with the quality of services provided by the Ombudsman’s Office

      New telephony system

      In late 2012 we improved the telephone queueing and auto-messaging system on our toll free contact number. This followed our review in response to concerns about the increasing number of contacts and approaches to our office in the previous year. The difficulties callers were experiencing was indicated by a rise in the number of phone calls in which the caller abandoned their call before speaking to a public contact officer, the number of times callers needed to wait more than five minutes before being able to speak to a public contact officer, and the number of times callers elected to use the call back option.

      In response to the review, the phone call system was redesigned to create designated queues for approaches relating to specific agencies. The associated auto-attendant messaging was changed to provide information about the matters which are in our jurisdiction to investigate and more targeted, agency specific advice to callers about making a complaint with the agency concerned. This gives many callers quick access to the information they need without having to speak to a public contact officer.

      The new system has resulted in reductions in complaints and approaches as discussed above. In terms of public satisfaction it has meant that people are now able to speak to a public contact officer more quickly and the call abandonment rate has dropped significantly. We are pleased with the improvements resulting from the new system and reducing call wait times for the public.

      Organisational restructure

      During 2012–13 the office underwent a restructure, bringing together all teams that assessed and investigated complaints into the one Operations Branch. The restructure has made it easier for the office to identify improvements in complaint handling, including implementing strategies to achieve greater consistency. Over time, the restructure will also increase our capacity to more flexibly prioritise and allocate complaints, enabling us to better manage the timeliness of complaint handling and investigation.

      Reviews

      We have a formal review process for complainants who may be dissatisfied with the conclusions we reach and decisions we make about their complaint.

      In 2012–13 we received 149 requests for review, compared to 217 in 2011–12. This lower number may reflect a change in procedure that was implemented in 2011–12. The changed procedure provides that if a complainant indicates dissatisfaction with the initial investigation and decision made by an investigation officer, the matter is referred to the investigation officer to reconsider. A complainant who is still dissatisfied following the reconsideration may seek a review by a senior officer not previously involved in the handling of their complaint.

      In 20 cases, the request for review was declined. Reasons for declining a review request included that the matter was out of jurisdiction, the matter had been reviewed already, considerable time had elapsed before the review request had been made, or the complainant did not provide any information that gave grounds for a review.

      We finalised 137 reviews during the year, including some we had received in 2011–12. Of the finalised reviews, the original outcome was affirmed in 128 reviews (93%), more than in 2011–12. We decided to investigate, or investigate further, three reviews (compared with 30 in 2011–12) and to change the decision on the original complaint in two reviews (compared with 15 in 2011–12). Four requests for review were withdrawn by the complainant.

      One important factor we take into account in deciding whether to investigate further is whether there is any reasonable prospect of achieving a better outcome for the complainant. This helps to ensure that our resources are directed to areas of highest priority. If the result of a review shows that an investigation is required, the review manager usually allocates the complaint to a senior staff member, and they decide who should undertake the work.

      Deliverable 2: Better targeted stakeholder engagement through the provision of information and education regarding our role and importance

      Our staff regularly give presentations to stakeholder agencies and other non government bodies about the role of the Ombudsman office and complaint handling practices. We are involved in a number of forums in which we engage with stakeholders at regular events and around specific issues. A summary of key stakeholder initiatives over the reporting period is provided below.

      The Immigration Detention Review team:

      • provided training to new stakeholder staff responsible for running immigration detention facilities on the role of the Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman
      • held regular meetings, discussions, and question and answer sessions with stakeholder groups during visits to facilities throughout the detention network. This also provided opportunities to give live feedback, observations and recommendations, while on site
      • was involved in targeted stakeholder engagement through regular meetings and discussions with staff from a number of organisations, including the Australian Red Cross, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Children’s Commissioner.

      The Inspections and Law Enforcement team:

      • gave presentations at induction training for members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) who had recently joined AFP Professional Standards. The team highlighted the role of the Commonwealth and Law Enforcement Ombudsman in relation to the AFP, including details about our reviews of the AFP’s internal complaint handling system under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, our compliance inspections of certain covert and coercive powers used by the AFP, and our complaint handling role
      • engaged with the AFP Association to provide information about the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and Law Enforcement Ombudsman.

      The Overseas Students Ombudsman team:

      • participated in a panel discussion at the July 2012 Council of International Students Australia annual conference which brings together international student representatives, peak bodies and stakeholders from around Australia
      • attended the Australian Council for Private Education and Training and the English Australia conferences, meeting private providers from the English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students, Vocational Education and Training and Higher Education sectors
      • participated in a multi-agency forum bringing together the Department of Innovation, Industry, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, the Australian Skills Quality Authority and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

      The Senior Assistant Ombudsman in the Community Services and Legal Branch:

      • provided presentations to the Student Financial Advisors Conference and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs staff
      • met with representatives of welfare rights and community legal centres and Indigenous non-government organisations during the year.

      Our Senior Management and Executive officers also delivered a number of speeches and lectures during the year to a variety of audiences including university law students, Australian Public Service graduate program students, international education agents, and organisations such as the Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic, the Ethical Leadership Congress, the Australia and New Zealand School of Government, the Australian Institute of Administrative Law, the Council of International Students Australia Conference, the Justice and Pro Bono Conference and the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission. A list and details of presentations and speeches is in Appendix 2.

      Deliverable 3: Increased monitoring of internal service standards for complaint handling

      The organisational restructure that led to a single branch being responsible for the assessment and investigation of complaints has put the office in a much better position to monitor the way complaints are managed. It has also removed some of the variables that previously impacted on our ability to monitor internal workflow in a consistent manner.

      This restructure has made it easier to identify internal and external barriers that impact on our achievement of service standards. As a result, regular reporting to Senior Management in relation to workload and internal workflow provides more meaningful intelligence about issues that would benefit from specific intervention.

      Deliverable 4: Identification and reporting on significant and systemic problems in public administration, making recommendations and reporting on implementation

      The Ombudsman’s Office identifies and records recurring issues from complaints, statutory reports, inspections and stakeholder engagement. Significant or systemic issues are pursued with the agencies, and the Ombudsman makes recommendations where appropriate to improve public administration.

      The following related activities were undertaken during 2012–13.

      • Three own motion reports were published (these reports are summarised in Chapter 6).
      • The Immigration Ombudsman’s post-immigration detention visit reports form a core part of our detention oversight function. Included in these reports are our observations and recommendations on issues we observe and concerns that are raised by people in detention. These visits provide an opportunity to engage with Department of Immigration and Citizenship staff and their contracted service providers as well as other stakeholders, assess the administrative functions undertaken within the facilities, and discuss operational issues and concerns.
      • A review of complaint handling within the detention network was undertaken. Following an increased focus, we have been able to note a general improvement over the previous 12 months in the administration of an individual’s property in detention. We have noted better record keeping practices and attention to detail in recording of a person’s personal property. This is particularly relevant in recording of valuables and money in most centres.
      • Statutory reporting under section 486N of the Migration Act 1958 included 78 recommendations from the Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in section 486O reports tabled in the Parliament on the circumstances of people in immigration detention for 24 months or more.

      Deliverable 5: Demonstrated contribution to debates through speeches, reports, submissions and best practice guides

      In 2012–13, we made formal submissions to the House of Representatives and Senate standing and joint select committees on a broad range of public interest matters, including the:

      • Inquiry into the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
      • Inquiry into the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
      • Roundtable on International Education by the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
      • Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
      • Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Annual Public Hearing with the Commissioner of Taxation to which we submitted a joint response with the Australian Taxation Office, as well as a separate submission.

      The office also made a number of submissions to other government activities and reviews(see also Chapter 6), including the:

      • Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs’ (FaHCSIA) exposure draft of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants Support) Bill 2013, establishing the Housing Payment Deduction Scheme
      • Independent Review of the Department of Human Services’ Centrepay Scheme
      • Dr Allan Hawke AC review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010.

      Deliverable 6: Increased parliamentary and public assurance that covert powers are lawfully used by enforcement agencies

      The Ombudsman is required by law to inspect the records of certain enforcement agencies in relation to their use of the following covert powers:

      • interception of telecommunications and access to stored communications under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. During 2012–13 we conducted a total of 25 inspections of Commonwealth, state and territory enforcement agencies under this Act
      • use of surveillance devices under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, under which we conducted 10 inspections of Commonwealth, state and territory enforcement agencies during the year
      • controlled operations conducted under Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914, under which we conducted four inspections of Australian Government enforcement agencies in 2012–13.

      All inspections were completed, and all reports were submitted, in accordance with the relevant legislation. This year our inspections identified a high level of compliance by most agencies.

      We also continued to enhance our auditing expertise and methodology. Staff members participated in our internal training program, and our methodologies were kept up-to-date with amendments to relevant legislation and changes to agencies’ business practices.

      Key performance indicators

      KP1: Improved administration following the Ombudsman’s reports and investigations

      In May 2013 the Ombudsman released a report (02/2013) into suicide and self-harm in Australia’s immigration detention network. The report made nine recommendations to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) concerning, among other things, data collection, management and reporting, review of deaths and serious incidents of self-harm, information delivery and engagement with detainees, and prioritisation and processing of asylum claims and requests for Ministerial intervention. DIAC accepted eight of the recommendations in full or in principle.

      In February 2013 the Ombudsman issued a report (01/2013) relating to the investigation of a complaint concerning the administration of youth allowance and made a number of recommendations. The Department of Human Services noted that ‘there is always a great deal that can be improved in service delivery by listening to customer and independent feedback’ and indicated that it would ‘continue to review (its) practices and ensure a high quality of service particularly to people with vulnerable circumstances’.

      In December 2012 we published a report following an investigation into a complaint from an overseas student about a refund. The report was titled Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE): Administration of Student Refunds under the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000. After we became involved, the department liaised with the fund manager and a new decision was made to refund a further significant amount to the complainant.

      KP2: Improved complaint handling within agencies

      During 2012–13 we introduced new processes with Centrelink, Child Support, the Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the transfer of some complaints we receive about the agency directly back to the agency’s internal complaint resolution service. This is referred to as a ‘warm transfer’ and is made with the consent of the complainant.

      This transfer process brings to the attention of the agency complaints we consider to require more immediate attention or where we consider that the agency should take up a second opportunity to resolve the complaint without intervention from our office. We have found that this process can facilitate quicker and more efficient resolution of complaints through direct contact with the agency. It also avoids our office having to initiate an investigation where the issue is one that can be more simply addressed by the agency.

      This system results in direct benefits to the complainant, the relevant agency and our office. It also increases the focus on the complaint-handling process itself by encouraging agencies to look at how the complaint-handling could have been improved, while giving them a second chance to provide an available remedy to the complainant. Our oversight of the warm transfer process also provides us with information about potential systemic complaint-handling issues, enabling us to work with agencies to resolve underlying problems at an earlier stage.

      KP3: Improved compliance with legal requirements by enforcement agencies in the use of covert powers

      This year our inspections identified a high level of compliance by most agencies, and we noted that most agencies had implemented our previous recommendations and best practice suggestions. One of the key improvements we noticed was agencies maintaining sufficient records to demonstrate whether or not they were only dealing with lawfully obtained information.

      KP4: Inspection reports will be timely and identify areas for improvement

      We are required to report to relevant ministers and the Parliament on the results of our inspections on an annual or biannual basis. During 2012–13 we submitted all 21 of our statutory reports on our inspections of covert powers within the legislated timeframes. The key focus of our reports this year was ensuring that enforcement agencies monitor obtained information to ensure its lawfulness, and quarantine it in instances where there is doubt or insufficient information to determine its lawfulness.

      We also submitted inspection reports to the Parliament on our review of the AFP’s complaint-handling system, as required under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and on the use of coercive powers under the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012 – both in accordance with the legislated requirements.

      In order to ensure that our suggestions and recommendations were useful to agencies in relation to the above inspections, we met with some agencies during 2012–13 to improve our understanding of their procedures and practices. We also continued with our practice of providing a report to the relevant agency on the results of our inspections before submitting our statutory reports to ministers and the Parliament.