CHAPTER 5Challenges in complaint handling

Inherent complexity

Inherent complexity menu: Technical complexity | Multiple agency involvement

Some complaints are challenging by the very nature of the subject matter. For example, last year we discussed complexity in legislation as both a problem area for government and as a challenge for our office. Our investigation of the 247 referred immigration detention matters, discussed in Chapter 7—Looking at the agencies, is a case in point. Some of these cases required extensive investigation of complex legal and factual issues. Identifying themes across the 247 cases, and presenting those themes in six consolidated reports, was another facet of the complexity.

The discussion below picks up two other types of complexity, in one instance arising from the technical nature of the subject matter, and in the other from multiple agencies playing a role in the topic under investigation.

Technical complexity

The Ombudsman’s office can receive complaints arising in all areas of government. To deal with a complaint it is necessary for the investigation staff to acquire an understanding of a particular government program or activity. This can require investigation staff to grasp complex issues of an expert or technical kind, and to embark on a detailed, forensic investigation of matters that have changed over long periods of time.

An example of such complexity arose in the complaints we received about the F-111 aircraft deseal/reseal ex gratia payment scheme, which is administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). The Australian Government established the scheme in response to concerns over the exposure to chemicals by RAAF aircraft maintenance workers who worked on the F-111 aircraft over a 25-year period at RAAF Base Amberley. The specific process that gave rise to these concerns was the chemical desealing and subsequent resealing of the aircraft’s fuel tanks.

‘This can require investigation staff to grasp complex issues of an expert or technical kind ...’

The ex gratia scheme was announced in August 2005, and since then we have received 82 complaints relating to the four deseal/reseal programs, including 75 complaints in 2006–07.

Deseal/reseal complaints presented several challenges. First, although the process to assess claims is a recent activity and simple to understand, almost all of the evidence relied upon to assess claims was old—in some cases nearly 30 years old. Much of the material that was presented by complainants was, of itself, technical as well. For example, we dealt with extracts from aircraft maintenance logs, service duty statements and performance evaluation reports, and trade proficiency certificates.

Second, each of the four deseal/reseal programs was unique. Each employed different practices, took different amounts of time, and was performed by different personnel in different physical locations. Assessment of individual complaints was made more difficult by the fact that similar work was conducted at operational squadrons located at Amberley but was not recognisable under the payment scheme.

In addition, a number of different maintenance trades performed discrete functions as part of each overall deseal/reseal process. Some tradespeople were also employed ‘out of trade’. To add to this complexity, other non-maintenance trades were also deemed to be eligible to claim under the scheme. For example, RAAF fire fighters were involved in the incineration of some of the material used in the deseal/reseal process.

To deal properly with these complaints, Ombudsman staff had to conduct considerable research and develop an understanding of the processes employed in each of the four deseal/reseal programs and the roles of the various groups involved. In some cases they needed to gain an understanding of the sequence of maintenance events unique to each program and the roles of each of the trades involved, the fuel and engine systems of the F-111, the unusual tools used by maintenance workers, and the behaviour of some chemicals used in each program.

The strategy we employed to deal with deseal/reseal complaints was to centralise our handling of these complaints to allow a specialist team to develop an extensive body of knowledge. In partnership with DVA we developed clear lines of communication and we held numerous meetings to expand our knowledge about the F-111 and refine our understanding of key issues.

Top

Multiple agency involvement

Multiple agencies can be involved in delivering separate services in a single location, or in jointly delivering a single service. Private organisations may also be involved, either alongside or as partners in the project to deliver a service. Where multiple agencies are involved, it is particularly important that their roles and responsibilities in administering legislation, making policy, and handling complaints, are clearly spelt out and visible to the public.

In the absence of this clarity and visibility, members of the public can have difficulty in finding their way through the maze to obtain the appropriate service, or in finding the right agency to deal with a complaint in a timely manner. In some cases, this complexity can complicate complaint handling for offices such as the Ombudsman’s office.

‘... members of the public can have difficulty in finding their way through the maze to obtain the appropriate service ...’

During 2006–07 we dealt with two areas that highlighted complexity of this kind. One concerned an own motion investigation we conducted into complaint handling at Australian airports. Different agencies deliver separate services at airports, such as quarantine inspection and protective security. The other area concerned complaints we received about the Welfare to Work initiatives that were introduced in July 2006. Here, responsibility for administering legislation, policy making and service delivery is divided among three separate government departments, as well as Centrelink and contracted private and not-for-profit organisations.

Complaint handling in Australian airports

This investigation examined the visibility and accessibility of complaint-handling systems in airports, inter-agency collaboration in complaint handling, and how well agencies resolved systemic issues identified through complaints. During the investigation we consulted with the Australian Customs Service; Australian Federal Police; Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources; Department of Immigration and Citizenship; and Department of Transport and Regional Services.

Overall we found that agencies could do more to make travellers aware of their right to complain and how to exercise that right. We also found that agencies could work more cooperatively in managing complaints. To this end, we made 14 recommendations, including that agencies:

• review their complaint-handling systems to ensure they comply with Australian Standard AS ISO 10002–2006
  
  
• make complaint-handling systems more visible to passengers
  
  
• develop a joint complaint-handling mechanism at major airports
  
  
• improve their websites to make complaint information easier to locate and available in a range of formats so that no traveller is disadvantaged
  
  
• review complaint-handling information to ensure that it is available in the languages most frequently spoken by passengers travelling to Australia.

The great majority of the recommendations were accepted by all the agencies, and they all recognised the importance of dealing with complaints consistently and effectively. The investigation report is available at www.ombudsman.gov.au.

Welfare to Work

The Welfare to Work reforms made significant changes to the way income support payments are administered.

Although Centrelink continues in its role of assessing people’s qualification for social security pensions and allowances and making payments, responsibility for the Welfare to Work policy and various aspects of program delivery are spread across a number of government agencies. Both Commonwealth and private sector providers deliver these programs. The involvement of a number of different agencies with different roles and responsibilities has made our complaint-resolution processes more complex and lengthy. The complex policy, service and contractual arrangements under the Welfare to Work initiatives present particular challenges to our office in dealing with complaints related to these initiatives.

Under Welfare to Work, a complaint could involve Centrelink for the payment matters, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) for the policy and contracted Provider of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES) actions, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) for the job capacity assessment component. In the case of a job seeker with a disability, the complaint may also involve the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA).

The involvement of multiple agencies can make it difficult for a person to resolve any issues of concern. They may be unclear as to which agency is best placed to address their concerns and the role of different agencies in dealing with their particular circumstances.

It also makes our investigations more complex. For example, in investigating a complaint about a Centrelink decision or action it is often necessary to seek details of the policy or procedural guidelines on which the decision was based. However, as Centrelink is a service delivery agency and must work within policy guidance provided by DEWR and DHS, there have been instances where our requests for documentation on a specific policy have been refused on the basis that ‘it is not Centrelink’s information’.

‘The involvement of multiple agencies can make it difficult for a person to resolve any issues of concern.’

Similarly, questions arise about which agency is responsible for poor administration relating to flawed policies and guidelines. For example, if this office forms the view that a Centrelink decision was based on flawed policy, the question arises as to which agency is responsible: DEWR as the policyholder or Centrelink as the service delivery agency, or both. This also makes it difficult to identify which agency is best placed to achieve the appropriate remedy because in some instances three or more agencies may all have some degree of shared responsibility.

It is important that there are clear lines of responsibility and inter-agency collaboration in dealing with complaints. It is also imperative that appropriate processes to address these issues are set up at the start of the implementation of such major initiatives.

Some of these issues are discussed further in the sections on Centrelink and employment and workplace relations in Chapter 7.