Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2014-2015 with a sidedish of Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman

Wading through annual reports can be a bit of a chore so I give you some highlights from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2014-2015 with a Shorter Ombudsman cheat sheet for those unable to find time to read the full document:

Department of Human Services & Centrelink

In 2014–15 we received 8116 complaints about DHS programs. This represents a 21.5% increase against the 6682 complaints we received in 2013–14, largely as a result of the 26.5% increase in the number of Centrelink complaints. Complaints about the Centrelink program made up 77.4% of complaints about DHS, followed by 18.1% about the Child Support program. Of the remaining complaints, most were about Medicare and the early release of superannuation benefits programs…..

In 2013–14 DHS paid out $159.2 billion to customers in respect of programs across the Australian Government and ‘touched the lives of around 99 per cent of Australians’ through the delivery of payments and services.1 It is inevitable that errors and delays will occur in an operation of this scale. However, the potential for these errors to impact on the lives of a significant number….

In 2014–15 we received 6280 complaints about Centrelink, an increase of 26.5% on the 4966 we received in 2013–14. This increase follows two years of reduced complaints about Centrelink. While it reflects a greater number of complaints across the board, there has been a particular increase in complaints about difficulties accessing DHS services and its own phone and online complaints mechanisms. These issues are discussed in greater detail below under Implementation of recommendations in Centrelink Service Delivery report. During 2014–15 we investigated 8.7% of all finalised Centrelink complaints compared to the 10.7% we investigated during 2013–14. This reduction is largely explained by two factors; namely, an increase in the number of referrals to the DHS Feedback and Complaints service where a complainant has not already accessed it, and ‘warm transfers’ to DHS’s internal complaint service for resolution where a complainant is vulnerable or requires assistance to communicate their complaint. This ‘warm transfer’ process allows DHS the opportunity to resolve the complainant’s concerns in the first instance without the need for investigation by our office. At the time of transfer the complainant is invited to contact the Ombudsman again if they are dissatisfied or do not hear from Centrelink within the agreed timeframe.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: Centrelink service delivery sucks but don’t expect our department to do much about it.

Department Human Services & Department Veterans’ Affairs

From 1 July 2014, as part of ongoing reforms to the aged care system, the arrangements for calculating residential aged care fees changed, with DHS taking over responsibility from DSS for assessing those fees.

In late 2014 we received a cluster of complaints about delays in processing of fee assessment applications. People also complained about fee assessments that were affected by errors and instances where people were sent multiple but contradictory assessment letters.

The impacts of these issues varied. Some people were advised by the aged care facility that they were unable to secure a permanent place until they had received notification of an aged care assessment determination, while some were charged higher respite care fees until they received their assessment. Others paid a much higher fee to the provider than they were ultimately assessed to pay in their corrected assessment.

Many complainants raised concerns that the higher fees depleted their funds, forcing some to make hard decisions about as whether their loved one could remain in the aged care facility. They also complained about out-of-pocket expenses incurred from juggling finances while trying to meet the higher fees, pending receipt of a corrected assessment notification and subsequent reconciliation process with the aged care facility. Overpaid fees meant people needed to negotiate a refund with the provider, sometimes encountering resistance because providers were not prepared to review their fees until they had received advice from DHS of the possible refund amount.

Our investigations, and information provided at DHS briefings, highlighted issues with the quality and timeliness of the fee assessments and with the transfer of what we do COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 31 data relevant to the assessment.

Both DHS and DVA have been affected by system issues. DHS became aware of the issues shortly after implementation and applied a manual quality-checking process for every automated assessment letter it produced, replacing incorrect letters with manual letters.

At the time a lack of established communication protocols between DHS and DVA also added to the delay in resolving complaints and led to customers’ frustration as they ‘bounced’ between departments. Multiple aged care phone lines maintained by all three departments (DHS, DVA and DSS) further complicated complaint resolution. Our office met with DHS several times, and with DVA, to discuss the complaint issues.

Those discussions centred on the errors made, the fixes they had applied and the strategies DHS and DVA had put in place to rectify the communication barriers and establish interdepartmental complaint-handling processes.

We suggested that the departments invite any customers in that position to make a claim under the Compensation for the Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme. DHS has agreed to include information about the CDDA scheme in its letters to affected customers. We also suggested that a comprehensive review into the multiple causes of the problems be undertaken so as to ensure they do not occur again in respect of this program or others. DHS has confirmed review processes were undertaken and that this information will be used to feed into future changes.

It has also committed to continue to engage with this office to support future change processes.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: When the Abbott Government changed the federal department responsible for processing aged care fee assessments things went pear shaped, but we fixed it.

Department of Human Services

Our last two Annual Reports mentioned the arrangements DHS has available to impose service restrictions on some customers to manage the way they interact with DHS. We are satisfied that in many cases this is a sensible practice, which aims to protect staff and other customers from risks presented by physical or verbal abuse.

However, we continue to receive complaints, albeit at a reduced rate, from DHS customers who are unhappy that their access to DHS services has been limited. Our investigations of these matters indicate that DHS generally manages these cases well. However, we consider that some areas of DHS’s administration of these arrangements could be improved. For example, recent complaints indicate that staff do not always clearly communicate the reasons and terms of the restrictions to customers, or record these in detail on DHS’s records.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: We are definitely not going to say that there may be some sly payback by Centrelink staff occurring from time to time.

Child Support

In 2014–15 we received 1468 complaints about Child Support, only a slight increase on 2013–14 when we received 1426. We classify the issues in the complaints we receive about Child Support according to whether the complaint was made by a payee (the person entitled to receive child support) or the payer (the person assessed to pay child support). As in previous years, we received just over twice as many complaints from payers (67.2% of all Child Support complaints) as from payees (30.7%).

During 2014–15 the proportion of complaints we investigated about Child Support dropped to 16.6%, compared to 18.4% in 2013–14. This continues the downward trend seen in past years resulting from our focus on encouraging complainants to allow DHS the opportunity to resolve their concerns in the first instance, either via complaints directly to DHS or via having their complaint warm transferred to DHS for priority response.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: We really wish that men behaving badly were not our problem.

Department of Employment

During 2014–15 our office saw a 53.1% increase in complaints about the Department of Employment with 344 complaints received this year compared to 224 in 2013–14. The majority of these complaints were recorded as being about the actions or decisions of job service providers.

From 1 July 2014 the Government commenced a phased process for ‘strengthening the jobseeker compliance framework’.

This process implemented arrangements to place a greater onus on jobseekers to engage with employment service providers and to impose more stringent consequences where they failed to complete these engagements without a good reason.

As part of these reforms, employment service providers have been empowered to recommend to DHS that a jobseeker’s income support payment be suspended where they have failed to attend an appointment without a good reason.

While the provider makes only a recommendation, as long as the jobseeker is in fact receiving an income support payment and is required to participate in job services, the DHS ICT system will then automatically apply the suspension.

During the past six months we have seen a spike in complaints about employment service providers where a jobseeker has their payment suspended as a result of a failure to attend an appointment, and then experiences difficulty in identifying whether DHS or the provider is responsible for assisting them to reconnect….

from 1 July 2015, job services providers are also able to recommend that DHS impose a financial penalty (in the form of a reduced income support payment) where a jobseeker has failed to attend an appointment….

We will be monitoring complaints in this area closely into 2015-16 to understand the practical implications for jobseekers, and will also engage with the Department of Employment and DHS to discuss their respective approaches to the new compliance arrangements.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: Trying to implement Abbott Government policy was a bit of a nightmare all round  – we  will follow closely on Prime Minister Turnbull’s watch.

Department of Social Security

The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), which commenced in 2008, is a partnership between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which aims to increase the supply of new affordable rental housing and reduce rental costs for low and moderate income households by offering incentives to invest in dwellings.

The scheme is administered by DSS. Approved participants are entitled to an annual incentive in respect of each dwelling that satisfies certain NRAS requirements, such as letting the property at 20% or more below the market rent value.

The incentive is either a cash amount or a tax offset certificate that is issued to the Approved Participant and then distributed to the individual investor who owns the property. Approved Participants are usually property developers, not-for-profit organisations or community housing providers.

NRAS is designed so that DSS has a direct relationship with the Approved Participants, but not with individual investors.

In early to mid-2014 DSS became aware that its administration of the scheme was not consistent with the regulations.

DSS also assessed that a high proportion of the Approved Participants’ claims for the 2013–14 NRAS year were likely to be refused.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: Ooopps!

OH, WHAT A FEELING!: vandalising a beach just for the fun of it

It happens on the NSW North Coast in holiday periods. Dragging the weekly shopping out to the car you suddenly notice the number of big, sleek, brutal looking four-wheel drive vehicles with well-known brand names and number plates which indicate they might be holidaymakers.

Every year somewhere along the coastline the drivers of these vehicles prove the relationship between images from car advertisements like this…..

Image from Toyota “Top to Bottom” ad campaign

And stories like this….

Echo NetDaily, 7 January 2016:

 A white Toyota 4WD is speeding straight for me. Collision course. But I’m not moving. I’m staring it down, like it’s a charging rhino.

Don’t blink. Don’t move. Mind over metal.

Toyota may be the go-to vehicle for your working man or jihadi terrorist – an unstoppable lump of heavy machinery – but I’m not budging.

You see, I’m on a beach. Yes, a beach. I’m not on a slippery building site wearing a hard hat, or in a desert storm wearing a kalishnokov, I’m on a beach in a national park. I’m a bloke in a sarong and I’m standing my ground against this pippi-crushing mechanical monster. I’m angry…..

Rest of the story here.

Rather hard for the Turnbull Government to keep justifying cuts to safety-net health & welfare when statistics like these keep surfacing

According to the OECD report, Pensions at a Glance 2015, thirty-six per cent (36%) of Australian pensioners are living in poverty ie had less than fifty per cent (50%) of the median household income (adjusted for size) in 2014:

The report, released last month, found the Australian government contributes less to old-age benefits than other OECD countries. The Australian government spends 3.5 per cent of GDP on the pension, below the OECD average of 7.9 per cent.

The weirdness that was the Abbott Government continues in the Turnbull Government

New Zealand offers to take 150 asylum seekers off Australia’s hands each year from 2014-15. 

The Abbott & Turnbull Governments could have saved anywhere between $35M and $60M a year on the back of this offer, but what did these two coalition federal governments do?

They said “No!”.

The Guardian, 11 January 2016:

In a deal brokered between prime ministers Key and Julia Gillard in 2013, New Zealand agreed to accept 150 refugees from Australia’s offshore processing centres each year from 2014-15.

The quota remains in New Zealand’s forward planning for humanitarian resettlement.

But when the former Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, was elected he effectively scrapped the deal at the Australian end, saying it would be called upon only “if and when it becomes necessary”.

“Our determination is to stop the boats and one of the ways that we stop the boats is by making it absolutely crystal clear that if you come to Australia illegally by boat you go not to New Zealand but to Nauru or Manus and you never ever come to Australia,” he said.

The Coalition government is loath to have refugees resettled in New Zealand as it is seen as undermining a fundamental tenet of the policy: that boat-borne asylum seekers will never be settled in Australia.

Refugees resettled in New Zealand can apply to become citizens after five years. New Zealand citizenship would give those people the right to travel and work in Australia.

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said he believed resettlement in New Zealand would be an incentive for asylum seekers to board boats.

Canberra Times, 12 January 2016:

The time asylum seekers spend in Australian detention centres has blown out to a record high under the Turnbull government, leaving men, women and children languishing behind wire, facing an uncertain future.

The latest statistics from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection show that in December, people in onshore immigration detention had been there for an average 445 days. In November, the figure was 446 days.

The average detention period has increased steadily since May last year and is now the longest since the government took power. It is more than double the 200-day wait four years ago under the Labor government.

Australian Government DIBP Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary 30 December 2015:

At 30 December 2015, there were 1,792 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1,647 in immigration detention on the mainland and 145 in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

On that date there were also 537 asylum seekers (including 68 children) in detention in the Republic of Nauru and 922 adult asylum seekers in detention on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

Refugee Action Coalition Sydney (RAC):

Detaining a single asylum seeker on Manus or Nauru costs $400,000 per year. Detention in Australia costs $239,000 per year.

Last week Michael Pascoe started the 2016 political year off with his tongue-in-cheek and gave readers a good belly laugh

The Age newspaper along with Fairfax journalist & BusinessDay contributing editor Michael Pascoe deserve a hearty round of applause for this effort on New Year’s Day 2016, Crystal ball reveals 2016's highs and lows in business:

January

Senator Eric Abetz declares a Day of Shame over Tony Abbott not being named Australian of the Year. "Monckton warned me – it's the United Nations World Government again," the Tasmanian senator says.

At his first official function as Ambassador – an Australia Day barbie – Joe Hockey lauds the McDonald's all-day breakfast as the sort of innovation Australia needs. Embassy staff quietly ask guests not to tell him it's already available here.

February

After the year's first RBA board meeting, governor Stevens says "chilling out" is working well for the economy by reducing speculation. To assist, the RBA board will only meet quarterly.

The UN General Assembly declares thermal coal a hazardous substance. Environment Minister Greg Hunt says: "If coal's a hazard, all you have to do, to get rid of it, is burn the stuff."

March

The Bureau of Meteorology says 2016 is already on track to take 2015's Hottest Year Ever title.

Under instructions from Minister Hunt, BoM apologises to Alan Jones for using alarmist language and re-scales expectations for 2016 to perhaps be Least Coldest Year.

Missing person report is filed for Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

April

ASIC and ATO jointly announce a royal commission into banking/finance/superannuation industry and promise a no-holds-barred crackdown on executive expenses rorting and multinational tax dodging.

The sharemarket plunges. An ASIC spokesperson asks why no journalist noticed the date on the release, April 1. "This was a perfect example of "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't true".

After six months of holding his head with a slight tilt to the left, while smiling beneficently through media conferences, Prime Minister Turnbull experiments with a slight tilt to the right. "Innovation is what we're all about," he says.

May

RBA governor Stevens announces "chilling out" policy is being replaced by "hanging loose". RBA board meetings are to be bi-annual.

Treasurer Morrison's first budget solves spending and revenue problems by privatising and outsourcing e.g. ABC is to be sold to Foxtel, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the IPA, the Health Department to a consortium of tobacco and drug companies, the Defence Department to Donald Trump; Centrelink clients will be auctioned off for body parts.

Tasmanian Senator Abetz declares Tony Abbott a genius. "The budget proves my leader is actually running the government from his hideout in the Brindabellas," he says. "Morrison is his puppet."

June

The Queensland government agrees to a take-or-pay contract with Adani in order to secure a Galilee Basin coal mine. Every Queenslander is to be guaranteed a monthly coal ration of 10 tonnes, delivered to their door.

Read predictions for the second half of the year here.

Sixteen parternalistic buybodies delivered a report to the Turnbull Government which may change your relationship with your GP

The Daily Telegraph, 4 January 2016:

LAST year was the year we avoided a $7 GP fee and a $5 prescription medicine price hike but six major reviews are plotting other major changes to the health system for 2016.

Primary health care, Medicare rebates, private health insurance, prescription medicine payments, mental health care and electronic health records are all slated for major changes under these reviews.

These and other health reforms, to be rolled out from 2016, will push up the cost of blood tests and scans, change your relationship with your GP, see you dragooned into an e-health record and increase your private health insurance costs — but might save you $1 on your prescriptions.

Seven million Australians with chronic and complex illness like diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, asthma and mental illness will be asked to enrol with a single GP practice.

The practice would receive an annual budget to keep them well under major reforms to primary health care being considered by the government.

The government is also considering changing the way GPs are paid.

The current fee for service model might only apply for acute health problems like visits for the flu or accidents.

Doctors might receive a fixed budget to treat chronically ill patients and could be paid for performance on reducing hospital admissions or improving blood sugar, blood pressure or cholesterol readings in patients.

A new class of salaried care co-ordinators could be paid to help patients navigate the health system under the system proposed and reduce the red tape burden on doctors.

The government’s Primary Health Care Advisory Group, headed by former Australian Medical Association chef Steve Hambleton, which proposed these measures handed its report to government early this month…… [my red bolding]

Who on earth came up with the damn stupid notion that my choice as both a patient and consumer should be limited or removed by tying me to using one particular medical practice? A practice which in all likelihood will not receive maximum recompense from the federal government unless it also strong arms its patients into staying in the opt-out eHealth system.

Ah yes, it was these sixteen paternalistic busybodies.

I refuse to have my personal medical data inserted into digital government records vulnerable to hackers, I need a care co-ordinator like a hole in the head and, I want to retain the freedom to change doctors without delay if I so wish and without a mountain of paperwork to negotiate before I do.

So Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Minister for Health & Aging Sussan Ley, I don’t want what you you will try to spin as the best thing to happen to the health system since antibiotics. It’s just too Orwellian for me.

Primary Health Care Advisory Group Discussion Paper [August 2015] here.

A Trans Pacific Partnership negotiated for Australia by the Coalition Government? Well, what did you expect!

It seems that the Australian Liberal-Nationals Federal Government laboured to bring forth a puny bundle of little joy.....

World Bank, Global Economic Prospects, January 2016:

On October 4, 2015, 12 Pacific Rim countries concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest, most diverse and potentially most comprehensive regional trade agreement yet. The 12 member countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 January 2016:

Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.

Prepared by staff from the World Bank, the study says the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership would boost Australia's economy by just 0.7 per cent by the year 2030.

The annual boost to growth would be less than one half of one 10th of 1 per cent….

Since sealing the deal in October the Australian government has been reluctant to commission an economic analysis of its effects, turning down an offer from the Productivity Commission.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the deal as a "gigantic foundation stone", saying it would deliver "more jobs, absolutely".

It opens up trade between members but makes trade more difficult with non-members through a process known as "cumulative rules of origin" where members lose privileges if they source inputs from countries outside the TPP.

The Productivity Commission has been strongly critical of the provisions saying that they turn so-called free trade agreements into "preferential" agreements.

The Partnership also requires members to sign up to tough intellectual property provisions and to submit to investor-state dispute settlement procedures administered by outside tribunals.

World Trade Online says the negotiating parties are planning to sign the agreement in New Zealand on February 4. It says Chile has confirmed the date and some trade ministers have already made arrangements to travel to Auckland, but it says New Zealand has yet to issue formal invitations.