CHAPTER 3Performance report

Output 1—Review of administrative action

1.2—Handling of inquiries, approaches and investigated complaints meets service standards

Timeliness

Our service charter indicates that we aim to investigate complaints as quickly as possible, acting fairly, independently, objectively and impartially.

In 2006–07, we finalised 77% of all approaches and complaints within one month of receipt (in line with previous years), and finalised 32% of investigated complaints within one month (compared to 54% in 2005–06 and 65% in 2004–05). As noted below, changed work practices make this comparison unreliable.

Data from our complaint management system is used to monitor response times by the office and to identify delays in complaint investigation. With many of the complaints we investigate, we need to factor in the time that it takes an agency to provide us with information. This may reflect the complexity of the issues, the number of different areas of the agency that need to be consulted, and in some cases the need for cross-agency responses.

There are sharp variations in the time it takes to finalise investigated complaints about different agencies, as Table 3.4 shows. In the case of complaints about the Australian Federal Police (AFP), this is partly due to different legislative requirements relating to complaints received before 2007 (see ’ Law enforcement’ section in Chapter 7 for more detail).

In part the decrease in timeliness of investigating complaints is due to some changed work practices that do not necessarily have an impact on complainants. For example, all investigated complaints are subject to quality assurance before closure, and we routinely advise complainants of our intended conclusion and give them a period of time to respond to this information before finalising the complaint. Under our previous work practices, formal quality assurance occurred after a complaint was finalised, and we could re-open a complaint if the complainant took issue with our conclusions. The latter process was separate to our formal review processes, described later in this chapter.

The decrease in timeliness of investigating complaints would be of concern if it reflected a drop in efficiency rather than the work practice changes, such as those identified above, which have little impact on most complainants. We are examining our data and work practices in more detail to ensure that we fully understand the causes, and to make sure we identify any changes which may be required in our practices to improve efficiency. This analysis will take some time to complete.

Top

Remedies

Our service charter advises that, if appropriate, and where possible, we will recommend changes to fix a problem.

The most common remedy for complaints was the provision of a detailed explanation by an agency of its decision or action (26% of cases where a remedy was identified). Other major types of remedy were an explanation of the circumstances by the Ombudsman’s office (19%), agency action being expedited (13%), agency decision changed or reconsidered (11%), a financial remedy (11%) and an apology being offered by an agency (9%).

A remedy was identified in 67% of the complaints investigated (compared to 54% in 2005–06 and around 68% in the previous two years). A breakdown of remedies is provided in Appendix 4—Statistics.

Decisions not to investigate

Our service charter indicates that if we do not investigate a complaint we will explain why, and advise the complainant of any other avenues to pursue their complaint.

The legislation administered by the Ombudsman gives the office a range of discretionary powers not to investigate matters in particular circumstances. We most commonly decide not to investigate if a person has not raised their complaint with the agency. There can be advantages for both the complainant and the agency in an issue first being raised at the source of the problem and an attempt made to resolve it before external intervention. This year we advised the complainant to take their concerns up with the relevant agency in the first instance in 60% of the matters within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Many agencies have worked on improving their internal complaint-handling mechanisms, and have appropriate procedures in place to respond to dissatisfied clients. The Ombudsman is more likely to accept a complaint without the matter first being handled by the agency in the following circumstances:

• the relationship between the person and the agency is difficult
• the person is effectively unable to manage their own complaint, whether because of agency recalcitrance or the person’s inability to articulate their problem
• it is doubtful that the complaint will be handled adequately by the agency, whether because of the nature of the complaint or the effectiveness of the agency’s complaint mechanism.

We recognise that some complainants are reluctant to raise their concerns with the agency involved for a number of reasons. In the ‘Looking at the agencies—Australian Taxation Office’ section in Chapter 7, we describe a trial the office has undertaken of directly assisting the transfer of tax complaints to the ATO.

While a large number of approaches and complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, or are not investigated, we endeavour to provide a high level of service to these people and refer them to more appropriate avenues to resolve their concerns wherever possible. The description of the work of the Public Contact Team in Chapter 5—Challenges in complaint handling provides more insights into the services we provide.