CHAPTER 9Problem areas in government decision making

Administrative irritants

Many of the problems that people experience with government are not major in themselves, but cause irritation as they can add to the stress of daily life and often seem avoidable. Examples are delay in being served at a government counter or in having a telephone call answered; being sent the wrong form by a government agency; calling an agency and being told that the contact person has now left or has changed; or receiving a government letter that is not easy to understand, has a harsh tone or is outdated because of some other development. Problems of this kind will possibly increase over time, because of the frequency and variety of ways that people now interact with government, the growth in size of government agencies and the pressures on people's time.

We do not always investigate these irritations, because they usually pass or can be taken up directly with an agency. However, complaint letters and telephone calls to the office are sprinkled with administrative irritations that arise during people's interaction with government. Government agencies should always try to reduce or eliminate administrative burdens when planning and delivering services. Following are some examples of where agencies have considered this.

In March 2006, we published a report into the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) administration of the Superannuation Co-contribution Scheme. We recognised and praised the ATO's attempts to reduce the administrative burden on taxpayers who benefit from this scheme. The ATO does not require an application process, and instead automatically assesses entitlement to the co-contribution when a taxpayer, who makes a contribution and satisfies all the eligibility criteria, lodges their tax return.

Although this minimisation of interaction between the ATO and the taxpayer advantages taxpayers, it increases the burden on the agency to ensure that taxpayer expectations are adequately managed through publicity campaigns. Our report on the co-contribution scheme, based on complaints we had received, suggested that the ATO may need to explore new ways of encouraging taxpayers to clarify their understanding and seek additional information where necessary.

In an example of a different kind, the ATO contacted our office before implementing a strategy to contact small business debtors at home in the early evening, when other attempted contact had been unsuccessful. The ATO recognised that this method of contact may increase complaints, and therefore briefed our office on the reasons behind the strategy so that we could respond to any contacts from this group. The planning that went into this strategy seems to have been successful in averting too many complaints.

Centrelink has also recognised the potential to reduce the impact of its administrative processes on customers. Many people transfer from another Centrelink payment on their age pension qualification date (63 years for women and 65 years for men). From April 2006, Centrelink implemented new procedures to streamline the transfer process for these people.

A transferee is sent a Transfer to Age Pension Review form, pre-populated with the information Centrelink held about them before their age pension qualification date. Information is provided that explains the advantages and disadvantages of transferring to the age pension and the taxation implications of the different payment. This reduces the administrative burden on the claimant, and allows them to make an informed choice about transferring or remaining on their previous payment (where possible). It also gives them an opportunity to check that the information Centrelink holds about them is accurate and to provide any additional information about their circumstances.