Managing complaints effectively during difficult times

The Canberra Evaluation Forum, The Lobby Restaurant - 10 April 2014 

Colin Neave, Commonwealth Ombudsman

Introduction 

Thank you Noel [Sutton]. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to be here with you this morning to talk about complaints. It’s such a bright and cheerful topic on which to start the day, don’t you think? 

First of all I’d like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and pay my respects to their elders, both past and present. 

The theme of my talk is managing complaints effectively during difficult times, and by difficult times I mean the period of constrained resources – financial and human – in which we find ourselves in the public sector at the moment.

I imagine none of your organisations are immune to the cutbacks and restrictions, so we are all fully aware of the challenging situation in which we now work.

During this presentation I will provide a bit of background on the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and then talk about some of the work we are doing to help government agencies improve their complaint-handling processes. 

Background 

I feel as if I have been involved with complaints nearly all my life, as a lawyer and in several ombudsman and consumer affairs roles. 

But even as a thoughtful, serious, risk-averse child keen to maintain harmony in my home, I recall regularly making peace between my mother and father and my sister, and often between my mother and father too. 

A while ago in Church Street, Brighton, which is one of those strip shopping centres in Melbourne where one feels that you should be extremely well dressed just to walk down the street, I ran into an old school friend whose nickname at school was Twisty. 

He was called Twisty because he was the high school high jump champion. When he went over the bar he didn’t use the scissors leap, which was still relatively current at school in the 1950s, but the roll technique in which he twisted himself over the bar. 

Twisty headed for me in the street to say he had heard about my appointment as Commonwealth Ombudsman and said, “You know, you have always been an umpire, Colin”.

I suppose that was the highest compliment that Twisty could offer, given the fact that at school we were not great mates but were both still alive and meeting by chance in Church Street, Brighton.

I should add that Twisty has been married several times, and he often wants to talk about his marriages and property settlements when we see each other. But on this occasion, remarkably, (and fortunately for me as it’s a long conversation) this time he did not do so.

I have been working for about 55 years in total. That includes holiday jobs, the first of which was in retail at the Myer Emporium in Melbourne when I was just 15.

It was in that job that I encountered my first experience with a customer complaint. 

The complaint arose as a result of me having sold to a woman several pairs of Holeproof PTU (“Pull them up”) undershorts for her husband. Now the woman appeared to me to be well and truly into her late 80s, but was probably in fact much younger. 

These PTUs were extremely popular at the time. They were floppy, loose undershorts, often luridly coloured and often had pictures of cars or animals. They were considered to be, by many people, suitable for anyone aged in their mid-20s, but not older. 

However, I had sold to this very fine person four pairs of these are PTUs on a pre-Christmas Saturday morning during which I sold £65 worth (about 130 pairs). 

Unfortunately those four pairs I sold to the dear lady had to be returned because her husband had refused to wear them.

Purely by chance on the day the purchaser wanted to return the shorts, one of the owners of the store, Mr Baillieu Myer, having noticed me struggling to write a credit note in the Myer invoice system, came to my rescue. The refund was given, the PTUs were put back into the stock and all was well. 

Mr Myer was a very supportive employer. He helped me deal with what was potentially “a complaint” by giving a refund.

I relate this story because I think how one approaches and views a job is often dictated very much by one's life experiences from the earliest on.

Ombudsman’s role 

As you may know, Ombudsman institutions have now been established in Australia for almost 40 years, handling complaints against every tier of government – state, territory and local. The number of complaints handled each year is impressive. 

The Commonwealth Ombudsman, for example, receives around 20,000 complaints a year from individuals, groups or organisations, and we will investigate about 5000 of them. 

Across Australia, the public sector Ombudsmen receive in excess of 60,000 complaints each year against governments. 

The complaints we receive range from the simple to the complex, across all the activities of government – a letter that can’t be understood, a benefit wrongly withheld, a contract given to the wrong person, a visa denied, lost records, alleged corruption, and delay are some examples.

This experience engenders an expertise in complaint handling and in assessing complaint-handling systems. 

The overall effectiveness of complaint processes is an issue that is close to our hearts. The notion is now embedded in Australia that people have a right to complain against government, without hindrance or reprisal, and to have their complaint resolved on its merits according to the applicable rules and the evidence. 

Where an agency has a complaint handling process that is well publicised, this office is less likely to receive complaints about that agency.

Complaints are directed to the agency in the first instance and are therefore resolved in a relatively timely and cost effective manner. 

Two further bonuses are that the agency’s relationship with the complainant is improved, and the complaint provides the learning that can be incorporated into the agency’s systems through continuous improvement. 

In the first instance, we usually advise complainants to try to resolve problems with the relevant agency, especially if we have confidence in the agency’s complaint-handling processes. 

To this end, we often help agencies to develop service charters and effective complaint-handling systems. 

Within the Ombudsman’s office, complaints are allocated to investigation staff based on the complexity of the issues and the subject matter. The emphasis is on achieving remedies for complainants and improving public administration. 

Most investigations are conducted informally, but more complex investigations may require the review of many files and documents, formal interviews, and independent specialist advice. 

The Ombudsman has no power to force an agency to change a decision or provide a service and must rely on agencies to cooperate to resolve problems. However, the majority of recommendations we make are accepted by agencies. 

As the Ombudsman I may choose to use my ‘own motion’ power to initiate an investigation. I will often exercise this power following receipt of several complaints about the same issue, indicating a recurring problem. 

An own motion investigation can look comprehensively at the scale of a problem, the likely causes and possible remedial action, either specifically in an individual case, or generally by a change to legislation or administrative policies or procedures. 

Own motion investigations that result in published reports have become increasingly important, with the uptake of recommendations producing measurable improvements to government administration and service delivery. 

We have published reports on matters as diverse as visa processing, mail redirection, departure prohibition orders, administrative compensation, executive schemes, heritage protection, use of interpreters, immigration detention, re-raising tax debt, postal compensation, disability support, taxation compliance visits, use of coercive powers, government economic stimulus payments, housing reforms in the Northern Territory, and income management decisions. 

At the moment, and particularly relevant for today, we have almost completed an own motion investigation into Commonwealth agency complaint management, based mainly on our previous investigations and published reports. I’ll talk more about that later in this presentation. 

So that’s a bit of background into my office and our bread and butter complaint work. 

The value of complaints

It’s worth asking, why have a complaint system? I suppose there are two basic answers to that. 

The first is, for efficiency’s sake. A complaint system provides for continuous improvement, it can save relationships with individuals, and often it helps prevent larger disputes. 

The second reason is quite simply because we have a moral imperative to do so. The community has a right to use your services and a right to complain if those services are poor or inadequate. 

As I said at the beginning, we have all been affected to some degree by the fiscal and staffing constraints across the public sector. 

In this environment it may be tempting to pay less attention to complaints or to reduce the resources deployed to deal with them. 

But our responsibility for providing fair and effective services to our customers or clients or whatever we may call members of the public doesn’t change. 

Neither does our responsibility for providing a means for them to complain if we don’t meet their needs. 

The consequences of failing to deal with complaints is confirmed by consumer research showing that it is more profitable for a business to keep and deal with its dissatisfied customers, than to have them take their dissatisfaction elsewhere. 

A study a few years ago by British Airways quantified that lesson, by estimating it cost $131 when a dissatisfied consumer approached its customer service department.

In contrast, the estimated loss when no complaint was lodged and business was taken elsewhere was $1184. 

This lesson applies equally to government agencies, where dealing with a complaint in a professional and courteous manner at the outset can prevent prolonged, entrenched correspondence with the complainant later on. 

Drawing attention to system problems at an early stage can avert costly and damaging mistakes and disputes. 

There are further interesting facts about unhappy customers. Again these statistics are mainly relevant to commercial enterprises, but they apply equally I think to the public’s interaction with government organisations.

Research shows that: 

However, on the reverse side, research shows that customers who get their issue satisfactorily resolved tell four to six people about their experience, and dissatisfied customers whose complaints are taken care of are more likely to remain loyal satisfied customers. 

The point is, we all make mistakes. Errors, misunderstandings, client dissatisfaction and unexpected problems happen in all administrative systems. 

It’s how we manage those mistakes that defines us as an organisation and determines if we will continue to have “return business”. 

It’s fair to say that up to about 20 years ago, most APS departments and agencies looked upon complaints as an embuggerance.

I’m pleased to say things have changed substantially. Agencies now accept that complaints are a predictable and necessary part of business, and are taking the issue more seriously.

Pretty much every Australian Government agency now has well-developed complaint-handling systems in place, and they treat complaints as a valuable source of information for continuous improvement. 

And that makes good sense. Agencies should embrace feedback, whether it’s from the public, its minister or an organisation like mine. 

It’s been said plenty of times in my office – complaints from members of the public are rivers of gold, a strategic resource that is entirely free of charge. One way in which agencies can make this happen is to shift their attitude towards complaints. 

That means making it easy for people to make complaints and ensuring that complaint-handling processes are not only set up to effectively resolve issues for individuals, but to help identify systemic administrative problems as, or ideally before, they arise. 

Causes of complaints 

Many of the complaints we receive about government agencies arise from poor communication. 

Some common examples of poor, or even lazy, communication include: 

Poor communication is overwhelmingly the main source of complaints to my office from Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, where our outreach programs currently operate.

For instance, there is often confusion about how people are affected by government programs, due to insufficient communication, or communication that is too high level, or has been over-simplified to the point of excluding important information, or doesn’t explain how government initiatives will affect lives. 

Services and programs should be accessible to all, and feedback mechanisms should be easily and widely accessible.

Knowledge of the intricacies of Australian Government service delivery arrangements should not be a prerequisite for members of the public to provide feedback on, or complain about, the programs they receive. 

The avenues of complaint and the information provided should be in simple language, available through a variety of mechanisms and widely understood. These mechanisms should be approachable, simple and responsive to circumstances.

Another common cause of complaints made to my office is the inadequacy of reasons provided by agencies. 

Often an agency may make a decision that is perfectly appropriate, just badly explained. Even when the agency does not change its decision, a proper explanation can reduce a person’s concerns and reassure them that the correct process was followed and their views taken into consideration. 

Sometimes a lengthy complaint process can be remedied with a simple apology. 

Own motion into complaint handling

Earlier I mentioned that my office had almost completed an investigation into agency complaint handling. 

We undertook this project to help us achieve our strategic objective of The fair treatment of people by the agencies we oversight. In particular the suboutcome of Agencies have effective complaint handling systems.

I’d like to share some of the key points from that draft report. Our investigation had three main strands. 

First, to describe the existing state of complaint management. This will then provide us with a benchmark into the future. 

Second, to analyse to see what is not working and why. It will also allow us to identify high-risk areas and trigger points. 

The third element was to revise our Better Practice Guide, setting out the theory of what a good complaint-handling system looks like and needs to have. 

We expect the report to be finalised in July. 

Current state of agency complaint handling 

Our main source of information was an agency survey. We asked about 150 government agencies to fill in the survey and received about a 65 per cent response rate, which we were pleased with considering it was immediately post-election and during the MOG changes that affected a number of the respondents. 

I should point out the survey is not particularly reliable in terms of data analysis; some organisations completed separate survey forms for different programs, which will skew the figures. However, it is the most comprehensive snapshot of Commonwealth complaint handling that has ever been done. 

We found that complaint numbers haven’t really increased or decreased, but you can’t tell much from raw complaint numbers anyway. 

It is clear that many factors influence raw complaint numbers so the number of complaints cannot, in itself, be an accurate indicator of agency performance. 

Many factors that go towards improved performance, such as increasing the focus on complaints and rigour around recording them, can increase raw complaint numbers.

Equally, a reduction in numbers may be due to a change in responsibilities rather than an improvement in agency performance.

In some situations, the number of complaints did not necessarily increase, but centralised recording of all complaints became more widespread. For example, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs created a specific Feedback Management Team in 2010, resulting in increased training and awareness of the complaints system across all DVA staff. 

This greatly increased staff recording of complaints, with DVA reporting an eight-fold increase in complaint numbers from 2008-09 to 2009-10. 

Another relevant factor is raising public awareness of either the organisation or the complaints mechanism. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority noticed an increase in complaints, and partially attributed it to an outreach program raising the profile of the Industry Complaints Commissioner. 

For smaller organisations, a single issue can result in a marked difference to their complaint numbers. The National Library reported that reduced parking was the main factor driving their complaint increase.

In 2011 responsibility for the early release of superannuation benefits under compassionate grounds moved from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to the Department of Human Services. APRA’s complaint numbers show a marked decrease since that change. 

Many agencies also attributed a decrease in complaint numbers to an increase in the number of ways their customers or stakeholders could resolve problems with the agency. For example, the Aged Care Complaint Scheme moved the emphasis of complaint resolution to the local provider level. 

The National Capital Authority credits its new “community to community” engagement model with reducing complaint numbers by resolving problems before they can escalate. 

OK, so if raw numbers are of little use, what is? 

Quality. 

We asked the agencies whether they thought the quality of their complaint handling had improved or deteriorated. 

Not surprisingly, no agency admitted to having worse complaint management than they did five years ago. In fact by far the biggest group thought the agency had improved markedly in the past five years. 

Even allowing for a bias towards positive self-reporting, this shows complaint management tends to be included in organisational continuous improvement. 

Many agencies gave concrete examples of improvements they had made in their own processes to create a more effective complaint management system. 

However, the level of confidence in improved complaint systems was not always matched by empirical data that their systems are considered better by the users of that system. 

Fifty seven agencies had had either internal or external reviews of their complaint system in the last three years. This represents about two-thirds of the agencies that responded to our survey. 

The responses show there is a broad spectrum of maturity and sophistication in an agency’s complaint management.

Agencies were asked what elements contributed to improved complaint management. Improved processes was the most common reason. 

This is consistent with our office’s view that good complaint management has many factors in common with good case management. 

Clear and sensible processes support every aspect of complaint management, in particular efficiency, fairness and responsiveness. 

But the second cause for improvement was less expected; not because it isn’t important but because we didn’t think it happened that much. 

Senior leadership support is vital for organisational changes, particularly cultural changes such as creating or fostering a culture that values complaints.

In our survey we specifically asked who the senior management owner of the complaints process was. Fifteen responses nominated the Chief Executive Officer or Commissioner, 58 indicated a Senior Executive Service level officer, and a further 10 stated it was a manager. 

Even allowing for discrepancies in position titles, the responses show that complaints processes are commonly the responsibility of senior officers. 

Agencies were also asked to list any other reasons for complaint management improvement that did not appear on the survey list. The three most common additional reasons were:

Interestingly, increased resources was quite low on the list. This may be because no-one had actually received more resources, but it could also be because it is only one of the smaller factors in improving agency complaint management. 

As with all public sector service delivery, more money and more staff are not the only way to make a process better. And I’ll give some examples of those improved processes in just a moment. 

The main challenges that still exist 

Most agencies we surveyed dealt with vulnerable or marginalised sectors of our society. 

Vulnerable people are a vital part of a complaints process because they are more likely to fall out of the machinery of public administration. 

Problems with access, literacy, mobility and understanding lead to greater difficulty in accessing public services, or a greater likelihood of falling foul of regulatory authorities. 

The natural tendency is for public sector organisations, with limited resources, to focus their attention towards the greatest good for the greatest number, with fewer resources devoted to those who are more intensive and problematic. 

But the role of a good complaint system is to act as a safety net, and put people safely back in the system with no loss of entitlement and with a minimum of stress to all concerned. 

However, this process is made more difficult by the very attributes that make it more likely that people will have a complaint in the first place. 

It is therefore critical that a complaint system places a great deal of emphasis on being accessible to vulnerable groups, even where this level of accessibility is unaffordable across the broader organisation. 

When dealing with people there must be some flexibility somewhere in the system to deal with those who fall towards the edges.

It can be hard to build that flexibility into systems based on complex legislation. However, this can be overcome by allowing for a flexible complaint system. 

Our survey uncovered – or confirmed – three key aspects to providing flexible complaint-handling systems. 

First, you have to remove the barriers. Reaffirming the right of a client to complain, and making a public statement of your organisations’ commitment to that right, is not merely words. 

One significant, if intangible, barrier to complaints is the preconception that it won’t make a difference; that nothing in government will ever change. 

Emphasising openness, listening, trust and transparency can affect someone’s decision as to whether or not to attempt to fix their problem. 

Conversely, presenting your complaint system in a way that is distant, formal and unsympathetic can in itself present a significant barrier to access. 

Services and programs should be accessible to everyone, and feedback mechanisms should be easily and widely accessible. 

The avenues of complaint and the information provided should be in simple language, available through a variety of mechanisms and widely understood. 

These mechanisms should be approachable, simple and responsive to circumstances. 

Second, make lots of channels available. In one good example from the survey, Australia Post allows complaints to be made directly onto its Facebook page, with staff providing a response in the same way. 

Both the complaint and response are public, with anyone able to read the issues and replies.

For many people a Facebook page is a non-threatening and straightforward way of requesting advice or giving negative feedback, without the perceived formality of an email, and the wait associated with a voice call to any large call centre. 

Finally, assist people through the process. Five organisations stated specifically that they took action to modify the complaint process to meet special needs. 

This can be quite simple, for example the Australian National Preventative Health Agency advised that they may waive or change timeliness requirements in order to effectively deal with a complaint. 

Both the Australian Taxation Office and the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations advised that they can meet complainants face to face if necessary, at a location convenient to the complainant, and outside their offices where required. 

Many organisations also have specific policies that govern their dealings with vulnerable groups in all circumstances, including during the complaint process. For example, the Australian Federal Police has comprehensive policies on how they interact with young people. 

One method of assistance that could be more widely used is the use of advocates and advocacy groups to assist complainants through the complaint process. 

Advocates who have experience in the bureaucracy and understand a particular vulnerability can save time, money and stress, and are able to repair or maintain a relationship that in many cases will need to exist for years or even decades. 

Conclusion 

Let’s face it, complaints – and complainants – can be difficult, time-consuming and resource-intensive. 

But when you pull it to pieces and analyse it, you’ll find that complaints are part of the solution for an agency, not the problem. 

We actively encourage agencies to focus not just on resolving individual complaints, but to look for systemic issues, lessons and broader opportunities for improvement. 

And as I hope some of the examples prove, fewer resources is no excuse for reducing the focus on managing complaints effectively. 

I encourage you to embrace those who complain, because complaints provide an opportunity to address the shortcomings that are an almost inevitable part of any system, and which most often are only apparent some way – and sometimes too far – down the track.

I’ll leave you with this thought: when was the last time you asked yourself how your complaint system was being received and used by those who it is designed to help? 

Thank you for your time this morning.

Skip to main content
    0 results available.
      0 results available.
      language assistant menu topper outer language assistant menu topper inner

      Read documents in your language

      If you need more translations, please contact us via: 1300 362 072 or ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au

      10 April 2014: Managing complaints effectively during difficult times

      Managing complaints effectively during difficult times

      The Canberra Evaluation Forum, The Lobby Restaurant - 10 April 2014 

      Colin Neave, Commonwealth Ombudsman

      Introduction 

      Thank you Noel [Sutton]. 

      Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to be here with you this morning to talk about complaints. It’s such a bright and cheerful topic on which to start the day, don’t you think? 

      First of all I’d like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and pay my respects to their elders, both past and present. 

      The theme of my talk is managing complaints effectively during difficult times, and by difficult times I mean the period of constrained resources – financial and human – in which we find ourselves in the public sector at the moment.

      I imagine none of your organisations are immune to the cutbacks and restrictions, so we are all fully aware of the challenging situation in which we now work.

      During this presentation I will provide a bit of background on the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and then talk about some of the work we are doing to help government agencies improve their complaint-handling processes. 

      Background 

      I feel as if I have been involved with complaints nearly all my life, as a lawyer and in several ombudsman and consumer affairs roles. 

      But even as a thoughtful, serious, risk-averse child keen to maintain harmony in my home, I recall regularly making peace between my mother and father and my sister, and often between my mother and father too. 

      A while ago in Church Street, Brighton, which is one of those strip shopping centres in Melbourne where one feels that you should be extremely well dressed just to walk down the street, I ran into an old school friend whose nickname at school was Twisty. 

      He was called Twisty because he was the high school high jump champion. When he went over the bar he didn’t use the scissors leap, which was still relatively current at school in the 1950s, but the roll technique in which he twisted himself over the bar. 

      Twisty headed for me in the street to say he had heard about my appointment as Commonwealth Ombudsman and said, “You know, you have always been an umpire, Colin”.

      I suppose that was the highest compliment that Twisty could offer, given the fact that at school we were not great mates but were both still alive and meeting by chance in Church Street, Brighton.

      I should add that Twisty has been married several times, and he often wants to talk about his marriages and property settlements when we see each other. But on this occasion, remarkably, (and fortunately for me as it’s a long conversation) this time he did not do so.

      I have been working for about 55 years in total. That includes holiday jobs, the first of which was in retail at the Myer Emporium in Melbourne when I was just 15.

      It was in that job that I encountered my first experience with a customer complaint. 

      The complaint arose as a result of me having sold to a woman several pairs of Holeproof PTU (“Pull them up”) undershorts for her husband. Now the woman appeared to me to be well and truly into her late 80s, but was probably in fact much younger. 

      These PTUs were extremely popular at the time. They were floppy, loose undershorts, often luridly coloured and often had pictures of cars or animals. They were considered to be, by many people, suitable for anyone aged in their mid-20s, but not older. 

      However, I had sold to this very fine person four pairs of these are PTUs on a pre-Christmas Saturday morning during which I sold £65 worth (about 130 pairs). 

      Unfortunately those four pairs I sold to the dear lady had to be returned because her husband had refused to wear them.

      Purely by chance on the day the purchaser wanted to return the shorts, one of the owners of the store, Mr Baillieu Myer, having noticed me struggling to write a credit note in the Myer invoice system, came to my rescue. The refund was given, the PTUs were put back into the stock and all was well. 

      Mr Myer was a very supportive employer. He helped me deal with what was potentially “a complaint” by giving a refund.

      I relate this story because I think how one approaches and views a job is often dictated very much by one's life experiences from the earliest on.

      Ombudsman’s role 

      As you may know, Ombudsman institutions have now been established in Australia for almost 40 years, handling complaints against every tier of government – state, territory and local. The number of complaints handled each year is impressive. 

      The Commonwealth Ombudsman, for example, receives around 20,000 complaints a year from individuals, groups or organisations, and we will investigate about 5000 of them. 

      Across Australia, the public sector Ombudsmen receive in excess of 60,000 complaints each year against governments. 

      The complaints we receive range from the simple to the complex, across all the activities of government – a letter that can’t be understood, a benefit wrongly withheld, a contract given to the wrong person, a visa denied, lost records, alleged corruption, and delay are some examples.

      This experience engenders an expertise in complaint handling and in assessing complaint-handling systems. 

      The overall effectiveness of complaint processes is an issue that is close to our hearts. The notion is now embedded in Australia that people have a right to complain against government, without hindrance or reprisal, and to have their complaint resolved on its merits according to the applicable rules and the evidence. 

      Where an agency has a complaint handling process that is well publicised, this office is less likely to receive complaints about that agency.

      Complaints are directed to the agency in the first instance and are therefore resolved in a relatively timely and cost effective manner. 

      Two further bonuses are that the agency’s relationship with the complainant is improved, and the complaint provides the learning that can be incorporated into the agency’s systems through continuous improvement. 

      In the first instance, we usually advise complainants to try to resolve problems with the relevant agency, especially if we have confidence in the agency’s complaint-handling processes. 

      To this end, we often help agencies to develop service charters and effective complaint-handling systems. 

      Within the Ombudsman’s office, complaints are allocated to investigation staff based on the complexity of the issues and the subject matter. The emphasis is on achieving remedies for complainants and improving public administration. 

      Most investigations are conducted informally, but more complex investigations may require the review of many files and documents, formal interviews, and independent specialist advice. 

      The Ombudsman has no power to force an agency to change a decision or provide a service and must rely on agencies to cooperate to resolve problems. However, the majority of recommendations we make are accepted by agencies. 

      As the Ombudsman I may choose to use my ‘own motion’ power to initiate an investigation. I will often exercise this power following receipt of several complaints about the same issue, indicating a recurring problem. 

      An own motion investigation can look comprehensively at the scale of a problem, the likely causes and possible remedial action, either specifically in an individual case, or generally by a change to legislation or administrative policies or procedures. 

      Own motion investigations that result in published reports have become increasingly important, with the uptake of recommendations producing measurable improvements to government administration and service delivery. 

      We have published reports on matters as diverse as visa processing, mail redirection, departure prohibition orders, administrative compensation, executive schemes, heritage protection, use of interpreters, immigration detention, re-raising tax debt, postal compensation, disability support, taxation compliance visits, use of coercive powers, government economic stimulus payments, housing reforms in the Northern Territory, and income management decisions. 

      At the moment, and particularly relevant for today, we have almost completed an own motion investigation into Commonwealth agency complaint management, based mainly on our previous investigations and published reports. I’ll talk more about that later in this presentation. 

      So that’s a bit of background into my office and our bread and butter complaint work. 

      The value of complaints

      It’s worth asking, why have a complaint system? I suppose there are two basic answers to that. 

      The first is, for efficiency’s sake. A complaint system provides for continuous improvement, it can save relationships with individuals, and often it helps prevent larger disputes. 

      The second reason is quite simply because we have a moral imperative to do so. The community has a right to use your services and a right to complain if those services are poor or inadequate. 

      As I said at the beginning, we have all been affected to some degree by the fiscal and staffing constraints across the public sector. 

      In this environment it may be tempting to pay less attention to complaints or to reduce the resources deployed to deal with them. 

      But our responsibility for providing fair and effective services to our customers or clients or whatever we may call members of the public doesn’t change. 

      Neither does our responsibility for providing a means for them to complain if we don’t meet their needs. 

      The consequences of failing to deal with complaints is confirmed by consumer research showing that it is more profitable for a business to keep and deal with its dissatisfied customers, than to have them take their dissatisfaction elsewhere. 

      A study a few years ago by British Airways quantified that lesson, by estimating it cost $131 when a dissatisfied consumer approached its customer service department.

      In contrast, the estimated loss when no complaint was lodged and business was taken elsewhere was $1184. 

      This lesson applies equally to government agencies, where dealing with a complaint in a professional and courteous manner at the outset can prevent prolonged, entrenched correspondence with the complainant later on. 

      Drawing attention to system problems at an early stage can avert costly and damaging mistakes and disputes. 

      There are further interesting facts about unhappy customers. Again these statistics are mainly relevant to commercial enterprises, but they apply equally I think to the public’s interaction with government organisations.

      Research shows that: 

      • for every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who haven’t complained. So the actual complaint is just the tip of the iceberg 
      • 96 per cent of unhappy customers don’t complain, but 91 per cent of those will simply leave and never come back 
      • a dissatisfied customer will tell between nine and 15 people about their experience – the power of word of mouth 
      • a customer is four times more likely to defect to a competitor if the problem is service-related than price- or product-related. Big point to note: service is more important than price or range 
      • it costs six to seven times more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing one. 

      However, on the reverse side, research shows that customers who get their issue satisfactorily resolved tell four to six people about their experience, and dissatisfied customers whose complaints are taken care of are more likely to remain loyal satisfied customers. 

      The point is, we all make mistakes. Errors, misunderstandings, client dissatisfaction and unexpected problems happen in all administrative systems. 

      It’s how we manage those mistakes that defines us as an organisation and determines if we will continue to have “return business”. 

      It’s fair to say that up to about 20 years ago, most APS departments and agencies looked upon complaints as an embuggerance.

      I’m pleased to say things have changed substantially. Agencies now accept that complaints are a predictable and necessary part of business, and are taking the issue more seriously.

      Pretty much every Australian Government agency now has well-developed complaint-handling systems in place, and they treat complaints as a valuable source of information for continuous improvement. 

      And that makes good sense. Agencies should embrace feedback, whether it’s from the public, its minister or an organisation like mine. 

      It’s been said plenty of times in my office – complaints from members of the public are rivers of gold, a strategic resource that is entirely free of charge. One way in which agencies can make this happen is to shift their attitude towards complaints. 

      That means making it easy for people to make complaints and ensuring that complaint-handling processes are not only set up to effectively resolve issues for individuals, but to help identify systemic administrative problems as, or ideally before, they arise. 

      Causes of complaints 

      Many of the complaints we receive about government agencies arise from poor communication. 

      Some common examples of poor, or even lazy, communication include: 

      • computer-generated form letters, or letters that cut and paste great tracts of impenetrable legislation, or refer to websites to which their clients may not have access 
      • sending people too much correspondence, or too little, or none at all 
      • call centre staff who don’t have enough information themselves, or don’t have the authority to make proper decisions 
      • failing to provide key information, such as the right to review and how to complain 
      • writing in bureaucratese rather than plain language, using jargon, acronyms and abbreviations 
      • failing to provide simple explanations for people with cognitive impairment 
      • taking an officious tone 
      • not providing translations or interpreters
      • having no single point of contact so that people have to repeat their concerns over and over again.

      Poor communication is overwhelmingly the main source of complaints to my office from Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, where our outreach programs currently operate.

      For instance, there is often confusion about how people are affected by government programs, due to insufficient communication, or communication that is too high level, or has been over-simplified to the point of excluding important information, or doesn’t explain how government initiatives will affect lives. 

      Services and programs should be accessible to all, and feedback mechanisms should be easily and widely accessible.

      Knowledge of the intricacies of Australian Government service delivery arrangements should not be a prerequisite for members of the public to provide feedback on, or complain about, the programs they receive. 

      The avenues of complaint and the information provided should be in simple language, available through a variety of mechanisms and widely understood. These mechanisms should be approachable, simple and responsive to circumstances.

      Another common cause of complaints made to my office is the inadequacy of reasons provided by agencies. 

      Often an agency may make a decision that is perfectly appropriate, just badly explained. Even when the agency does not change its decision, a proper explanation can reduce a person’s concerns and reassure them that the correct process was followed and their views taken into consideration. 

      Sometimes a lengthy complaint process can be remedied with a simple apology. 

      Own motion into complaint handling

      Earlier I mentioned that my office had almost completed an investigation into agency complaint handling. 

      We undertook this project to help us achieve our strategic objective of The fair treatment of people by the agencies we oversight. In particular the suboutcome of Agencies have effective complaint handling systems.

      I’d like to share some of the key points from that draft report. Our investigation had three main strands. 

      First, to describe the existing state of complaint management. This will then provide us with a benchmark into the future. 

      Second, to analyse to see what is not working and why. It will also allow us to identify high-risk areas and trigger points. 

      The third element was to revise our Better Practice Guide, setting out the theory of what a good complaint-handling system looks like and needs to have. 

      We expect the report to be finalised in July. 

      Current state of agency complaint handling 

      Our main source of information was an agency survey. We asked about 150 government agencies to fill in the survey and received about a 65 per cent response rate, which we were pleased with considering it was immediately post-election and during the MOG changes that affected a number of the respondents. 

      I should point out the survey is not particularly reliable in terms of data analysis; some organisations completed separate survey forms for different programs, which will skew the figures. However, it is the most comprehensive snapshot of Commonwealth complaint handling that has ever been done. 

      We found that complaint numbers haven’t really increased or decreased, but you can’t tell much from raw complaint numbers anyway. 

      It is clear that many factors influence raw complaint numbers so the number of complaints cannot, in itself, be an accurate indicator of agency performance. 

      Many factors that go towards improved performance, such as increasing the focus on complaints and rigour around recording them, can increase raw complaint numbers.

      Equally, a reduction in numbers may be due to a change in responsibilities rather than an improvement in agency performance.

      In some situations, the number of complaints did not necessarily increase, but centralised recording of all complaints became more widespread. For example, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs created a specific Feedback Management Team in 2010, resulting in increased training and awareness of the complaints system across all DVA staff. 

      This greatly increased staff recording of complaints, with DVA reporting an eight-fold increase in complaint numbers from 2008-09 to 2009-10. 

      Another relevant factor is raising public awareness of either the organisation or the complaints mechanism. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority noticed an increase in complaints, and partially attributed it to an outreach program raising the profile of the Industry Complaints Commissioner. 

      For smaller organisations, a single issue can result in a marked difference to their complaint numbers. The National Library reported that reduced parking was the main factor driving their complaint increase.

      In 2011 responsibility for the early release of superannuation benefits under compassionate grounds moved from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to the Department of Human Services. APRA’s complaint numbers show a marked decrease since that change. 

      Many agencies also attributed a decrease in complaint numbers to an increase in the number of ways their customers or stakeholders could resolve problems with the agency. For example, the Aged Care Complaint Scheme moved the emphasis of complaint resolution to the local provider level. 

      The National Capital Authority credits its new “community to community” engagement model with reducing complaint numbers by resolving problems before they can escalate. 

      OK, so if raw numbers are of little use, what is? 

      Quality. 

      We asked the agencies whether they thought the quality of their complaint handling had improved or deteriorated. 

      Not surprisingly, no agency admitted to having worse complaint management than they did five years ago. In fact by far the biggest group thought the agency had improved markedly in the past five years. 

      Even allowing for a bias towards positive self-reporting, this shows complaint management tends to be included in organisational continuous improvement. 

      Many agencies gave concrete examples of improvements they had made in their own processes to create a more effective complaint management system. 

      However, the level of confidence in improved complaint systems was not always matched by empirical data that their systems are considered better by the users of that system. 

      Fifty seven agencies had had either internal or external reviews of their complaint system in the last three years. This represents about two-thirds of the agencies that responded to our survey. 

      The responses show there is a broad spectrum of maturity and sophistication in an agency’s complaint management.

      Agencies were asked what elements contributed to improved complaint management. Improved processes was the most common reason. 

      This is consistent with our office’s view that good complaint management has many factors in common with good case management. 

      Clear and sensible processes support every aspect of complaint management, in particular efficiency, fairness and responsiveness. 

      But the second cause for improvement was less expected; not because it isn’t important but because we didn’t think it happened that much. 

      Senior leadership support is vital for organisational changes, particularly cultural changes such as creating or fostering a culture that values complaints.

      In our survey we specifically asked who the senior management owner of the complaints process was. Fifteen responses nominated the Chief Executive Officer or Commissioner, 58 indicated a Senior Executive Service level officer, and a further 10 stated it was a manager. 

      Even allowing for discrepancies in position titles, the responses show that complaints processes are commonly the responsibility of senior officers. 

      Agencies were also asked to list any other reasons for complaint management improvement that did not appear on the survey list. The three most common additional reasons were:

      • incorporating complaints into everyone’s normal role 
      • publicising their complaint process
      • regular detailed reporting to senior management. 

      Interestingly, increased resources was quite low on the list. This may be because no-one had actually received more resources, but it could also be because it is only one of the smaller factors in improving agency complaint management. 

      As with all public sector service delivery, more money and more staff are not the only way to make a process better. And I’ll give some examples of those improved processes in just a moment. 

      The main challenges that still exist 

      Most agencies we surveyed dealt with vulnerable or marginalised sectors of our society. 

      Vulnerable people are a vital part of a complaints process because they are more likely to fall out of the machinery of public administration. 

      Problems with access, literacy, mobility and understanding lead to greater difficulty in accessing public services, or a greater likelihood of falling foul of regulatory authorities. 

      The natural tendency is for public sector organisations, with limited resources, to focus their attention towards the greatest good for the greatest number, with fewer resources devoted to those who are more intensive and problematic. 

      But the role of a good complaint system is to act as a safety net, and put people safely back in the system with no loss of entitlement and with a minimum of stress to all concerned. 

      However, this process is made more difficult by the very attributes that make it more likely that people will have a complaint in the first place. 

      It is therefore critical that a complaint system places a great deal of emphasis on being accessible to vulnerable groups, even where this level of accessibility is unaffordable across the broader organisation. 

      When dealing with people there must be some flexibility somewhere in the system to deal with those who fall towards the edges.

      It can be hard to build that flexibility into systems based on complex legislation. However, this can be overcome by allowing for a flexible complaint system. 

      Our survey uncovered – or confirmed – three key aspects to providing flexible complaint-handling systems. 

      First, you have to remove the barriers. Reaffirming the right of a client to complain, and making a public statement of your organisations’ commitment to that right, is not merely words. 

      One significant, if intangible, barrier to complaints is the preconception that it won’t make a difference; that nothing in government will ever change. 

      Emphasising openness, listening, trust and transparency can affect someone’s decision as to whether or not to attempt to fix their problem. 

      Conversely, presenting your complaint system in a way that is distant, formal and unsympathetic can in itself present a significant barrier to access. 

      Services and programs should be accessible to everyone, and feedback mechanisms should be easily and widely accessible. 

      The avenues of complaint and the information provided should be in simple language, available through a variety of mechanisms and widely understood. 

      These mechanisms should be approachable, simple and responsive to circumstances. 

      Second, make lots of channels available. In one good example from the survey, Australia Post allows complaints to be made directly onto its Facebook page, with staff providing a response in the same way. 

      Both the complaint and response are public, with anyone able to read the issues and replies.

      For many people a Facebook page is a non-threatening and straightforward way of requesting advice or giving negative feedback, without the perceived formality of an email, and the wait associated with a voice call to any large call centre. 

      Finally, assist people through the process. Five organisations stated specifically that they took action to modify the complaint process to meet special needs. 

      This can be quite simple, for example the Australian National Preventative Health Agency advised that they may waive or change timeliness requirements in order to effectively deal with a complaint. 

      Both the Australian Taxation Office and the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations advised that they can meet complainants face to face if necessary, at a location convenient to the complainant, and outside their offices where required. 

      Many organisations also have specific policies that govern their dealings with vulnerable groups in all circumstances, including during the complaint process. For example, the Australian Federal Police has comprehensive policies on how they interact with young people. 

      One method of assistance that could be more widely used is the use of advocates and advocacy groups to assist complainants through the complaint process. 

      Advocates who have experience in the bureaucracy and understand a particular vulnerability can save time, money and stress, and are able to repair or maintain a relationship that in many cases will need to exist for years or even decades. 

      Conclusion 

      Let’s face it, complaints – and complainants – can be difficult, time-consuming and resource-intensive. 

      But when you pull it to pieces and analyse it, you’ll find that complaints are part of the solution for an agency, not the problem. 

      We actively encourage agencies to focus not just on resolving individual complaints, but to look for systemic issues, lessons and broader opportunities for improvement. 

      And as I hope some of the examples prove, fewer resources is no excuse for reducing the focus on managing complaints effectively. 

      I encourage you to embrace those who complain, because complaints provide an opportunity to address the shortcomings that are an almost inevitable part of any system, and which most often are only apparent some way – and sometimes too far – down the track.

      I’ll leave you with this thought: when was the last time you asked yourself how your complaint system was being received and used by those who it is designed to help? 

      Thank you for your time this morning.