CHAPTER 7 | problem areas in government decision making

Record keeping

If an agency is called on to explain or justify its actions, the written record will be the key to doing so. An investigation by the Ombudsman's office will often focus heavily on scrutinising the written record. Inadequacies in the record trail are therefore a matter of special concern to this office. General problems with record keeping that were identified during the year included the effectiveness of agency systems for registering correspondence and papers, repeated requests by agencies for information already provided, and the quality of agency documents.

As a matter of good administrative practice, a relatively detailed record should be kept of any significant meeting between an agency and an individual. Ideally, the record should be agreed between the parties to avoid any future dispute about precisely what was said and agreed.

This point was illustrated by one case handled during the year, in which millions of dollars were potentially riding on the outcome. Our investigation did not uncover sufficient evidence to challenge the agency's account of the meeting—the most plausible explanation was that this was at best a misunderstanding on the part of the complainant—but we were able to impress upon the agency that the importance of the meeting should have been reflected in the way it was minuted. If nothing else, it would then be easier to deal with any future complaint.

'… a relatively detailed record should be kept of any significant meeting between an agency and an individual.'

We have been critical of agencies in the past for reaching decisions based on the presumption that the absence of information on the agency's electronic system is evidence in itself that no such information was provided. Regrettably, complaints of this nature continue to be received, even in agencies that now require an electronic notation of every contact with a customer. An area of particular difficulty is that people often feel that they raised more issues with an agency than the record suggests. Another area of concern is the quality of record keeping in relation to decisions on compensation for detriment caused by defective administration.

We do, on the other hand, appreciate the reasons sometimes given by agencies for not keeping a more elaborate record, especially of oral advice. They include lack of time, the pressure to attend to the next customer, that the information sought was so general as not to warrant recording, or that it is staff practice to record only the primary issues discussed with a client.

We accept that recording of oral advice is a complex issue. Record-keeping requirements for oral advice should not inhibit an agency's capacity to provide prompt, efficient service. To record all oral advice in detail would be an unreasonable and excessive burden. Yet these realities of administrative practice should not overshadow the extent to which this problem cannot be ignored. People rely on government for accurate advice; the receipt of, or eligibility for substantial benefits can sometimes hinge on the advice that is given. Government itself accepts that providing advice is one of its functions. It is correspondingly important to perform that function with an understanding of the expectations to which it gives rise, and of the standards that must be observed.

Numerous complaints were received during the year about agencies making continual requests for the same information. One complainant reported he had been asked more than eight times for his wife's tax file number, even though he had already provided it on several occasions. Another general problem area was that a medical certificate that a benefit recipient was required to lodge was lost or missing. It was clear that the certificate had been received, as payment of the benefit had continued. However, the absence of the certificate on the file meant that no alteration was made to a condition imposed on the recipient to report or attend an information session, with the result that an administrative breach was recorded against the person.

On other occasions we were told that a customer file was missing and was therefore not accessible for review by Ombudsman staff. In some instances this problem originated from off-site records management and batch filing practices. Related problems were that files did not contain documents that should have been there, that files were lacking in chronology, that inadequate folioing meant that the adequacy of record keeping could not be scrutinised easily, and that numerous files on an individual were held in different locations. For these and other reasons we regularly ask to see the agency file when investigating a complaint.

'The accuracy or quality of agency advice … is a recurring theme …'