CHAPTER 5 | looking at the agencies

The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate complaints against Australia Post is poised to undergo an important transformation in 2004–05. Legislation to create a separate office of Postal Industry Ombudsman was due to be introduced into the Parliament in August 2004, with a view to commencement in 2005 if enacted. A key aspect of the government proposal for a Postal Industry Ombudsman is to confer the role upon the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Additional resources for this office to perform the role were allocated in the 2004–05 Budget.

While the Commonwealth Ombudsman's role in relation to Australia Post will continue, in some respects it will become a different role. The proposed jurisdiction of a Postal Industry Ombudsman will extend to private sector postal operators that register to participate in the Postal Industry Ombudsman scheme. This scheme is distinctive in conferring jurisdiction upon a single ombudsman to handle complaints in the public and private sectors. This also reflects the commercial focus in Australia Post operations, which in turn has to be reflected in the approach to complaint handling taken by the Ombudsman.

'The proposed jurisdiction of a Postal Industry Ombudsman will extend to private sector postal operators …'

A separate office of Postal Industry Ombudsman will be expected to develop its own profile, and to be widely known as such by postal consumers. As an aspect of that challenge, it is envisaged that future reporting on complaints against Australia Post will be dealt with in a separate Postal Industry Ombudsman annual report. It is likely, however, that residual areas of jurisdiction over Australia Post will remain within the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. A possible example is Freedom of Information matters.

In 2003–04, the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 1,079 complaints about Australia Post, compared to 1,082 in the previous year. Complaint numbers have been relatively stable over the past five years, apart from 2001–02 when there was a marked decrease (896 complaints). Figure 5.2 shows the complaint trends since 1999–2000.

The point has been made in earlier reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman that the number of complaints received each year against Australia Post constitutes only a small percentage of total postal transactions (which reach as many as 50 million per day prior to Christmas). Most of the problems and complaints that arise are dealt with by Customer Complaint Centres established by Australia Post in each State and Territory. Our impression is that Australia Post's complaint handling is well managed, and in some instances the response to individual complaints exceeded what we consider was required under Australia Post's service obligations. However, no system is perfect, and occasions arose on which we formed the view that Australia Post might have handled a complaint differently or better.

In 2003–04, as in previous years, the complaints to the Ombudsman dealt mostly with domestic, international or parcel post mail deliveries: these accounted for roughly three-quarters of complaints.

Mail redirection featured as an ongoing issue, particularly where a customer's instructions on a mail redirection form were not properly followed. Australia Post addressed this issue during the year by introducing further improvements to forms to bring greater certainty and clarity to customers' requirements and expectations.

'… complaints to the Ombudsman dealt mostly with domestic, international or parcel post mail deliveries …'

Another topic that attracted some complaints during the year was Australia Post's Unaddressed Delivery Service. Australia Post delivers unaddressed advertising items (letters, mail, catalogues etc) to delivery points and letterboxes within a specified geographical area. There is no delivery confirmation for what Australia Post describes as a 'no-frills' service. When there is a dispute, it is generally only Australia Post that can determine whether all the items have been delivered. Given the low cost of the service, Australia Post is not inclined to commit resources to a 'thorough' investigation. In these circumstances, we had discussions with Australia Post about the level and type of investigation its customers might reasonably expect about their complaints.

Several complaints were received about cash-on-delivery items. Australia Post had taken the view that it would breach privacy principles if a customer were permitted to inspect an item before deciding whether to make a payment. We took a different view, and pointed to a section in the postal legislation stating that information clearly visible on the outside cover of an article is not specifically protected. We could not, therefore, see why a postal outlet customer should not have the opportunity to view an item prior to paying. Following our investigation of one such complaint, Australia Post agreed and amended its practices relating to inspection of items before payment is made.

Another complaint that resulted in a substantial response from Australia Post concerned the packaging of compact discs (CDs). The problem is that CD Mailers are on the margin of meeting the 20 mm limit for the large letter rate rather than the small parcel rate. Some packages were charged at the lower price and others at the higher rate, even though CD Mailers were identified in Australia Post literature as below the 20 mm limit. Australia Post responded to these complaints in a number of ways, including a refund in some cases, issuing a national instruction to all retail staff, providing better instructions to suppliers, addressing the issue specifically in training programs, redesigning the CD Mailer product, and tightening the procedures for measuring CD Mailer products. Our expectation is that these changes to products and practices should significantly reduce the potential for inconsistencies in charging.

Discretionary payment of compensation to individuals on a case-by-case basis is another theme in Ombudsman investigations of Australia Post complaints. This issue arises less frequently in relation to other government agencies, where complaints more commonly deal with decisions about entitlements, allowances and payments in accordance with legislation and policy. Australia Post, by contrast, is more likely to provide discretionary compensation as a remedy to a problem or complaint. In turn, this places an onus on Australia Post to be consistent in the exercise of that discretion. During the year, we took up the greater problem of inconsistency where the decision on compensation was made by an area within Australia Post other than the Customer Contact Centres.