Home > The Values and relations with the Public > Reviews of service delivery

REVIEWS OF SERVICE DELIVERY

A suite of Commonwealth administrative law mechanisms supports public scrutiny of government decision-making. These mechanisms include the Ombudsman (who is also the Defence Force Ombudsman and the Taxation Ombudsman), external review by specialist tribunals and the AAT, review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth), and access to documents under the FOI Act.¹⁸ With the exception of the Ombudsman, these processes generally concentrate on administrative decision-making, rather than on the process of service delivery. Many of the ANAO’s performance audits of specific government programs also deal with issues related to service delivery and accuracy of decision-making. Information from ANAO audits on service delivery issues and the activities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman are discussed below.

ANAO PERFORMANCE AUDITS

In 2003—04, the ANAO tabled several performance audit reports which addressed the theme of service delivery in the context of the delivery of specific programs or components of programs.¹⁹ Recommendations stemming from these reports related specifically to the programs audited, but key themes included the need to have:

• basic systems and controls to promote the quality and transparency of service delivery
• adequate guidance and training available to agency employees who are required to deliver services
• measurement and control frameworks related to administration of services delivered
• up to date guidelines and documentation
• improved performance management and reporting, including by enhancing the range of performance indicators and means of measuring performance.

In each case, the agency concerned agreed to the ANAO’s recommendations.

COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC TO THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

The Ombudsman’s office receives complaints across the entire spectrum of government administration. It is uniquely placed, therefore, to develop a broad perspective on the overall effectiveness of service delivery in the APS, and some of the practical issues facing agencies.

Information in this section has been provided by the Ombudsman, and contains statistics included in the Ombudsman’s 2003—04 annual report and additional analysis of systemic issues facing the APS.

Own motion investigations

During the year, the Ombudsman issued public reports on three own motion investigations relating to APS agencies. Two of the investigations were completed in late 2002—03 and involved the complaint-handling activities of the ATO and DEWR (including Job Network provider complaints mechanisms). These were mentioned in last year’s report.

The third investigation involved the CSA’s change of assessment decisions made on the basis of parents’ income, earning capacity, property and financial resources. The report pointed to regional differences in the quality of decisions and the criteria applied by decision makers in assessing a parent’s liability or entitlement.

Recommendations included the need for the CSA to provide more guidance to decision makers and to develop training programs that address areas of weakness and inconsistency.

Another own motion investigation completed in 2003—04 audited the ATO’s use of entry and search powers, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in 2000. The initial review of the ATO’s use of access powers examined a sample of high profile cases from the serious non-compliance and aggressive tax planning areas of ATO operations. This audit did not bring to notice any significant difficulty with the ATO’s use of these powers. Consistent with the Standing Committee’s recommendation that the Ombudsman conduct ongoing monitoring, a further own motion investigation will be conducted in 2004—05.

A number of other own motion investigations commenced during the year are due to be completed in early 2004—05. The Ombudsman intends to continue a rolling program of reviews of agency complaint and review services.

Complaints to the Ombudsman

Many larger agencies have established effective mechanisms for reviewing decisions, handling complaints and obtaining customer feedback to enable improvements to services. This means that for many of the approaches made by members of the public, the Ombudsman does not initially investigate the matter but advises the person about using agency mechanisms for complaint handling and review. Complainants may subsequently request the Ombudsman’s assistance if the agency does not resolve the issues.

In 2003—04, the Ombudsman did not initially investigate 67% of complaints received, a similar rate to that for the previous two years. The complaints that are investigated by the Ombudsman about the activities of both APS and non-APS agencies tend to involve more complex and difficult issues.

The total number of complaints received by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 2003—04 was 17,496, a decrease of 12% over the previous year.²⁰ In 2003—04, 14,380 complaints about agencies that comprise the APS were received, a decrease of 14% from the 16,635 received in the previous year. This year’s decrease was spread across most agencies. The decrease follows a fairly stable number of complaints over the past few years. However, there is still a steady increase in the number of more complex matters and complaints raising systemic issues.

While it is difficult to establish a clear reason for the overall decrease in complaint numbers, there has been a long-term trend for the Ombudsman to receive fewer complaints in years in which an election is to be held, and more complaints in the middle years of an election cycle when new programs are more likely to be introduced.

Centrelink remains the APS agency about which the most complaints are received, probably due to its primary role in the delivery of a large number of Commonwealth programs to the Australian public. Complaints about Centrelink finalised during the year fell by 17% to 8075, accounting for 56% of complaints finalised about APS agencies. The Ombudsman chose not to investigate over two-thirds of complaints received about Centrelink, instead referring 75% of these complaints to Centrelink’s internal complaint or review processes.

Of the 2589 Centrelink issues investigated, the Ombudsman identified an arguable administrative defect or error in 620 issues (24%). Remedies were achieved for 2124 (82%) of issues investigated.

The number of complaints received about the ATO continued to decline (1711, down by 10% on last year), perhaps reflecting the bedding down of the major changes to the taxation system over the past three to four years. Complaints about the ATO represent 12% of complaints received about APS agencies. This equates to the level of complaints received by the Ombudsman about the ATO prior to the introduction of the new tax system.

The Ombudsman received 1951 complaints about the CSA, representing almost 14% of complaints received about APS agencies and a decrease of 20% on CSA complaints received last year. The reduction in the number of complaints about the CSA is due primarily to the bedding down of the new CSA computer system introduced in 2002.

DIMIA was another substantial source of complaints received by the Ombudsman during the year, with 865 complaints received, a decrease of 23% on last year. The Ombudsman investigated 46% of complaint issues arising from complaints about DIMIA, against the general average of 31% across all Commonwealth agencies.²¹ The higher investigation rate perhaps reflects the more limited availability of review for DIMIA’s complainants. Of the 486 DIMIA issues investigated, the Ombudsman identified arguable administrative defect or error in only 76 issues (16%). This compares favourably to the Commonwealth average of 21%.

Systemic issues

Many complaints about APS agencies raise common themes. Most complainants are concerned about agency decisions that directly affect them, and complain that they have not been given sufficient reasons or that the decisions are flawed. Investigation of such complaints is often complicated due to poor record keeping by agencies or failure to record oral advice.

This latter issue is of particular importance given the widespread use of customer contact centres to respond to queries in large service delivery agencies. Complaints about call centres arise particularly in relation to Centrelink, the CSA and the ATO.

The other major area that continues to result in many complaints to the Ombudsman is delay by agencies in taking actions or making decisions, and also delays in handling FOI requests and issuing documents. The Ombudsman commenced an own motion investigation relating to the quality of processing of FOI requests. This investigation follows on from the 1999 Ombudsman’s report Needs to Know and from the work done this year by the ANAO.²² In 2004—05, the Ombudsman will publicise the general trends resulting from this investigation.

Other matters identified by the Ombudsman in complaints include harsh or unreasonable use of statutory powers to gather information or enter premises, unreasonable debt recovery policies and practices, failure to coordinate decisions and actions between agencies, loss of correspondence, and inadequate, misleading or ambiguous information in publications or on websites.

Private contractors

Where a government service has been ‘contracted out’, the Ombudsman can often look at the responsibility of the government agency that is contracting the service, even if the contractor itself is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

One example is that of a private company managing the immigration detention facilities (IDFs). This does not absolve DIMIA from responsibility for the operation of detention facilities. Many complaints to the Ombudsman about the facilities are taken up with the Department.

During 2002—03, the Ombudsman conducted a review of conditions in IDFs and how complaints were being investigated in those facilities. The review identified a range of concerns about how the detention service provider was managing detention facilities, and how the provider’s performance was being monitored by DIMIA against the agreed immigration detention standards.

The Ombudsman did not produce a separate report on the review, chiefly due to a change in the detention service provider and the closure of some IDFs. The information gathered from the review was put to use in other ways, such as consultation with DIMIA about contractual conditions applying to the new detention service provider. As well, the Ombudsman provided significant elements from this review to the ANAO for its audit of the detention services contract conducted during 2003—04.²³ The ANAO acknowledged that the information provided assisted them to determine areas requiring particular scrutiny. The ANAO’s report makes a number of recommendations about monitoring the detention service provider’s contract.

The new detention service provider has implemented new complaint-handling guidelines. Feedback from detainees about the effectiveness of the new policies has been encouraging. One measure of the positive change achieved by the new complaints management regime is that in the period January to June 2004 there was a 45% reduction in complaints compared to the same period in 2003, against a small drop in the number of detainees.

Another area of complaint relating to private contractors is the Job Network, which is managed by DEWR. The Ombudsman’s Own motion investigation into complaint handling in the Job Network checked the progress made by DEWR in implementing recommendations made by the Ombudsman in 2001 to improve complaint handling arrangements. The Ombudsman noted that some of the recommendations had already been incorporated into requirements under the new employment services contract, which commenced in July 2003.

While the investigation revealed that there had been significant progress in complaint handling within DEWR, improvements were still required to arrangements for complaints made directly to Job Network providers. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor DEWR’s administration of complaints about the Job Network.

18 The availability of review mechanisms varies depending on a range of factors, including the specific legislative context. For a comprehensive description of Commonwealth administrative law refer to the federal Attorney-General’s website <http://www.ag.gov.au>

19 ANAO, Audit Activity Report: July to December 2003, Performance Audit Report No. 28, February 2004, and ANAO, Performance Audit Reports: No’s 30, 44, 46, 47, 54, 56, 57, published in 2003—04, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

20 Complaints received in all jurisdictions, including Defence Force, Australian Federal Police and ACT.

21 Commonwealth and Defence Force complaints (excludes Australian Federal Police and ACT complaints).

22 ANAO, Administration of Freedom of Information Requests, Performance Audit Report No. 57, June 2004, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

23 ANAO, Management of the Detention Centre Contracts–Part A, Performance Audit Report No. 54, June 2004, <http://www.anao.gov.au>