Click to print this pageIncrease text sizeDecrease text size

In this section

References

Chapter 7

Helping people, improving government

Good administration

An individual complaint can highlight a recurring problem in agency administration. Following investigation, the Ombudsman's office may recommend broader changes, such as better training of agency staff, a change to agency procedures or policies, a revision of agency publications or advice to the public, or a review of government policy or legislation that is having harsh or unintended consequences.

These recommendations may be pursued in various ways. For example, we may raise the issues with an agency through regular liaison meetings, propose improvements in the course of the investigation of an individual complaint, or make a formal recommendation.

During 2008–09 the office published 18 formal reports. Some of these reports dealt with an individual complaint investigation, some arose from the investigation of numerous similar complaints, and others were own motion investigations dealing with systemic issues that had been noted during complaint investigations. The reports are:

Improving communication and advice to the public

People rely on government agencies for advice and information about the legislation and programs the agencies administer. They expect this advice to be accurate and practical. Any qualification or limitation on the general advice provided by an agency should be explained. If appropriate, a person should be cautioned to seek specific or independent advice relevant to their individual circumstances.

An example of an advice problem we dealt with during the year involved a complaint that checklists provided by DIAC to assist applicants for a partner visa application were inconsistent. This could lead to confusion and potentially result in inadequate documentation being submitted in support of an application. Our investigation showed that there was, indeed, an inconsistency in the information provided by DIAC in the relevant migration booklet, in checklists and on DIAC's website. DIAC acknowledged the problem and advised that it would make amendments to the checklists and information booklet.

The general advice provided by an agency may need supplementation for specific groups of people. This was highlighted by a complaint we received from a person who lived in New Zealand. He was upset that the CSA's accounts of payments it received that he had made to the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department were always behind, because of the delays in an international money transfer from a New Zealand agency to an Australian agency. He said that his former wife and his daughter believed that he was behind with his payments and that this affected his relationship with his daughter. The CSA provided him with a better explanation of his account and the payment cycle. It also undertook to prepare a suite of country–specific fact sheets to send to CSA customers with international cases to explain the issues that can arise with international enforcement of child support. These fact sheets will be prepared for the five largest 'reciprocating jurisdictions', assisting CSA customers in more than 24,000 cases and covering 59% of all international cases.

The issue of advice and improved communication with the public was a recurring theme in reports we published during 2008–09. For example:

Having good procedures

Agencies must have sound procedures in place to administer complex legislation and government programs in a manner that is efficient, effective, fair, transparent and accountable, and that delivers the appropriate services to members of the public. Many complaints to the Ombudsman's office arise from poor agency procedures.

This point is illustrated by a complaint we received from a person who had changed employment from the Department of Defence to another department. Defence sent his personal security file to the other department by ordinary post. The file, which contained sensitive personal information, was lost. Following our investigation Defence agreed to use their contracted courier services to move all personal security files between Defence establishments and between Defence offices and outside agencies.

Many of the reports we published during the year contained recommendations aimed at improving agency administrative procedures. For example, we recommended:

Interpreting and applying legislation and guidelines correctly

The public relies on government agencies to act lawfully and make lawful decisions. An agency should always be aware of the danger that staff are not correctly interpreting legislation or agency guidelines. To deal with this risk, agencies need to have adequate internal quality controls, look for inconsistencies in the application of legislation or guidelines, and focus on problem cases.

The risk of error increases generally where the legislation is more complex. For example, a person who was the payer in a child support case complained that the CSA had failed to keep proper accounts of the debt he owed. In particular, he said the CSA had failed to take into account certain amounts that he had paid to the payee and which, by law, can be offset against a proportion of the amount he has to pay to the CSA. We found that the CSA's automated accounting system was not programmed to correctly apply the offset rules in every situation. The agency staff who spoke to the person were not aware of this shortcoming, nor that the CSA had internal procedures to manually adjust the debt in such a case where the debtor falls behind with their payments and then catches up. We have asked the CSA to consider how it can improve its system to avoid similar instances.

We made recommendations about the application of legislation and guidelines in several reports published in 2008–09. For example, we considered that Centrelink was applying the criteria for the Equine Influenza Business Assistance Grant (third payment) wrongly in some cases. The grant was administered by Centrelink, based on policy guidance produced by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) in response to ministerial directions. We recommended Centrelink and DAFF review unsuccessful applications for the payment (Report No. 13/2008). As a result, more than $2 million was paid to 463 claimants who had previously been unsuccessful.

In another report, we noted that few Australian Government agencies are aware of their obligation to prepare a heritage strategy for managing places they own or control, in accordance with s 341ZA of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Ombudsman recommended that the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts write to all departments, alerting them to the obligation under s 341ZA resting on all agencies within their portfolio (Report No. 9/2009).

Good complaint handling

Good complaint handling is a central theme of Ombudsman work. A good complaint–handling process provides a way for problems to be dealt with quickly and effectively. It can also provide an agency with early information about systemic problem areas in agency administration. Poor complaint handling can exacerbate what may have been a simple error or oversight, potentially giving rise to other complaints from the person concerned and to a loss of public confidence in the agency.

Over the years the Ombudsman's office has put considerable effort into helping agencies improve their complaint–handling processes. We have done this in a variety of ways, including liaison and training, reviews of agency complaint–handling systems, and the publication of relevant material.

In April 2009 the Ombudsman released the Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling. The guide defines the essential principles for effective complaint handling. It can be used by agencies when developing a complaint–handling system or when evaluating or monitoring an existing system.

Most complaints investigated by the Ombudsman's office have already been dealt with by an agency. A problem that has not been effectively resolved by the agency may point to a deficiency in the agency's complaint–handling process. Our investigation can point to areas that an agency needs to address when it deals with complaints.

For example, we dealt with a complaint about delays in investigating a complaint made to the Aged Care Complaints Investigation Scheme (part of the Department of Health and Ageing). An officer had started investigating the complaint, but after a change in staff the complaint was not progressed and the department failed to keep the complainant informed about the investigation. When we contacted the department it acknowledged the complaint had been handled poorly. The department put in place a range of new procedures to ensure there would be no recurrence. The changes included reviewing all cases that were taking longer than usual to resolve or where there had been a change in the lead investigation officer; changes to the management of case loads for staff known to be leaving the department or taking extended leave; and reviewing the processes in place where an investigation officer changes during the investigation.

Some of the investigation reports published during 2008–09 contained recommendations related to improving complaint handling. For example:

Recordkeeping

Many complaints that the office deals with each year arise because of poor recordkeeping practices in agencies. The problems are often compounded by a delay in making a decision in a person's case or in resolving their complaint about the matter. Poor recordkeeping can also undermine transparency in agency decision making and lead to allegations of deception, bias, incompetence or corruption.

Sometimes seemingly simple errors such as misplacing or losing a file, failing to keep a proper record of an important decision or conversation, or inadvertently confusing people who have similar or identical names, can lead to substantial problems for a person. Poor recordkeeping can also mean that, even if an agency's decision or action was correct, it cannot demonstrate this to an aggrieved person.

In some cases problems with poor recordkeeping are compounded by reliance on automated systems that cannot deal with the specific circumstances properly. For example, we received a complaint from a person that DIAC had not made a decision on an application for citizenship for his son, who lived overseas. When we investigated, we found DIAC had no record of a decision letter being sent. This was due to the inability of DIAC's computer system to generate a decision letter when the application was processed offshore. DIAC put local procedures in place to ensure that all citizenship decision letters are generated manually and copies retained electronically and on file.

The need for improved recordkeeping was a common theme in reports published during the year. For example:

Unreasonable or harsh impact of legislation or government policy

A complaint may reveal that a legislative anomaly exists such that the application of the legislation is having a harsh or unreasonable impact on a person, or an unintended consequence. Similarly, a complaint may show that a government or agency policy has a harsh or unreasonable impact on some individuals. Several reports published during 2008–09 addressed these issues.

The Ombudsman's report on the assessment of claims for disability support pension from people with acute or terminal illness (Report No. 2/2009) pointed to gaps in the support for people with an aggressive illness that would either require a lengthy period of treatment or recovery, or require additional investigation to identify a more conclusive prognosis. The Ombudsman recommended that consideration be given to developing a new category of Centrelink payment for people in these circumstances, and creating a list of conditions that would automatically qualify a customer for the new payment.

In the report on the ATO's re–raising of tax debts it had previously written off (Report No. 4/2009), the Ombudsman recommended that the ATO should consider the reasonableness of seeking to recover debts which had not been pursued for many years, taking into account the period of time for which taxpayers could be expected to retain relevant tax records.

Return to the topTop

Previous sectionPrevious page | Next page—Chapter 7–Administrative deficiencyNext Section