CHAPTER 7 | problem areas in government decision making

Other issues

Other problem areas in agency administration that we have noted during the year, which will receive close attention by the Ombudsman's office in 2004–05, are discussed briefly below.

Agency complaint handling

A consistent theme in Ombudsman reports is that the integrity and professionalism of complaint handling within agencies is a key element of an administrative justice system. Whether there is effective internal complaint handling can have a measurable impact on the number and seriousness of complaints coming to the Ombudsman and the time taken to resolve those complaints. Our general experience is that internal complaint handling is of distinct benefit to agencies, in terms of their accountability and responsiveness in service delivery, and their policy development and organisational learning.

For this reason the Ombudsman's office works closely with agencies to assist them to develop and improve complaint-handling processes and structures. During the year we worked with a number of agencies in training, development and consultation about complaint handling. In particular we worked closely with the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and DOTARS.

Compensation for defective administration

Some mention is made in the 'How the Ombudsman helped people' chapter of the role played by the Ombudsman in investigating complaints about failure of claims under the scheme for Compensation for Detriment Caused by Defective Administration (CDDA).

We received numerous complaints during the year, relating to a few different agencies, about CDDA claims. Among the matters complained about were inconsistency between agencies in making CDDA decisions; lack of experience of CDDA decision makers; rejection of CDDA claims at an inappropriate level in the agency; reluctance to talk directly to the claimant in examining a claim; a tendency without proper investigation to prefer an agency's version of events to a claimant's; failure to address the core issues underlying a claim; undue delay (of between 6 and 18 months in one agency) in deciding CDDA claims; and inadequate reasons explaining why a claim had been rejected.

Apologising for agency error

One of the more common remedies that the Ombudsman's office suggests to agencies is to apologise to a complainant for a difficulty that arose. This can often be an adequate remedy, for instance, where the matter complained about was an agency letter that was unnecessarily threatening or demanding in tone.

Some agencies will readily accept the need to apologise, whereas others can be more reluctant. One obstacle we encounter at times is a misplaced concern that an apology will be construed as an admission of liability should legal action ensue.

'We would like to see more agencies taking the initiative to offer an apology as a possible remedy without having to be prompted …'

Our general point in raising this issue is to draw attention to the role that an apology can play. Too often we find that an agency is reluctant to offer an expression of regret, or in the event that an acknowledgment is forthcoming, that the quality and content of the apology is meaningless. We would like to see more agencies taking the initiative to offer an apology as a possible remedy without having to be prompted or goaded into doing so by the Ombudsman's office.

Persistent complainants

We note in the 'Challenges in complaint handling' chapter that we are taking up the problem posed by complainants who are persistent and inflexible beyond any reasonable limit. We are aware that this can also be a problem for agencies, and we have generally been supportive of steps taken by agencies to address the problem.

'We are taking up the problem posed by complainants who are persistent and inflexible beyond any reasonable limit.'

An example is a draft plan adopted by Centrelink in 2003, outlining the manner in which staff should deal with difficult and persistent customers. The focus in the draft Centrelink plan is heavily on one-on-one interaction and on nominating a specific case officer to manage an individual's needs. By nominating a point of contact, the individual is less likely to become frustrated at repeatedly having to tell their circumstances and may develop a relationship of confidence with the individual officer dealing with their complaints. The strategy is aimed at correctly capturing the issues raised by the individual and not allowing old or exhausted issues to keep resurfacing. There is a strong focus on finalising outstanding issues, reporting in writing, and closing the issue to further discussion. This approach can avoid duplication of work and instruction, and reduce miscommunication or misinterpretation.

We have sometimes shared with agencies our own experience and strategies. For example, at times we have felt the need to restrict a complainant to communicating with the office in writing, and on other occasions to explain that subsequent correspondence will be read and filed but may not be answered if no new issue is raised.