CHAPTER 9Problem areas in government decision making

Other issues

Documentary proof of an issue

A person's entitlement to a benefit or concession will often depend on whether they can satisfy an agency that they meet eligibility criteria. To assist applicants, the agency will sometimes specify what evidence will satisfy the criteria. While this can be useful guidance, there is a risk over time that agency officials will accept proof only in that manner, when in fact there is scope for flexibility.

Some complaints we received during the year arose from agencies requiring specific documents to be lodged in order to prove an issue. In some cases the agency was inflexible and would not accept alternative documents that proved the issue to an equal standard. In other cases, the agency insisted on a specific document being provided, even though it was impossible for the person to provide the document and it had not been required on previous occasions in relation to the same issue. Some people caught in this situation have been unable, without the intervention of the Ombudsman's office, to persuade the agency to accept alternative evidence.

Thoroughness of internal review

Most agencies offer a person dissatisfied with a decision of the agency an opportunity to have the decision reviewed by a more senior officer. It is important that the internal review process provide a genuine opportunity to correct any errors in the original decision. Some complaints this year illustrated that this is not always the case.

In one complaint investigation, we found factual errors in a decision that had not been picked up during an internal review process that confirmed the decision. The errors were apparent on the file and had not been clarified even though there had been subsequent discussion of the case between the agency and the applicant for review.

In another case, an agency had refused to consider fresh evidence or information during the internal review process. The justification given by the agency was that it regarded internal review primarily as a means of ensuring quality and consistency in agency decision making. The agency changed its approach after we pointed out that this was contrary to accepted notions of internal review (as, for example, spelt out in the Administrative Review Council publication, Internal Review of Agency Decision Making, Report No 44, 2000).

Though agencies have considerable latitude in defining the scope and procedure for internal review, an agency should clearly spell out in advance any departure from accepted notions. A person seeking internal review should do so with a proper understanding of what they can expect.

Intelligibility of letters

The intelligibility and adequacy of government letters is a frequent complaint issue. Some of the problems we have encountered are described in the 'Looking at the Agencies—Centrelink' section of Chapter 7, where we report on issues we have taken up with Centrelink in the context of its Letters Improvement Project. Generally, the problems we note in government correspondence fall mainly into three categories.

• There are deficiencies in the explanation provided to a person about how a decision was reached. For example, a letter may not adequately explain the reason for suspending a payment or the information that was included in an assessment. Unless the person seeks further information, they will not be in a position to evaluate whether the decision was correctly based, or an application for review should be made.
  
  
• Information about review rights is not communicated consistently in written correspondence. Review rights are given more prominence in some letters, but in others the information is included in the text on the back of a letter and is more easily overlooked.
  
  
• Standard text is sometimes not tailored to the circumstances of the recipient. Standard text can be advantageous in maintaining the consistency and quality of correspondence, but it should not do so at the expense of accuracy and relevance.