What you told us
Views and expectations on service delivery Summary Report,
September 2011
A summary report on Australians’ concerns with how we deliver services and their suggestions for
improvement.
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to the time, ideas and contributions from all those who attended the community
forums between April and July 2010. Of course, all opinions, errors and omissions remain our own.
Disclaimer
This publication was prepared for general information and guidance on matters of interest only, and
does not constitute professional advice. You should not act on the information contained in this
publication without obtaining specific professional advice.
No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the
information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, the author(s) do not
accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences you or anyone else
acting or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or any decision
based on it.
Further information
For more information about this publication or the research project please contact:
Research and Evaluation Unit
Co-design Branch
Department of Human Services
Phone: +61 2 6214 7512
Email: co.design@humanservices.gov.au
Foreword
This publication is about what Australians told us in community forums about the services provided
by the Department of Human Services — incorporating Centrelink, Child Support and Medicare
Australia.
Successful strategies start with having fresh, original insights about the people who use our services.
Those insights come only when you observe directly what’s happening in their world.
Giving people a greater voice in how our public services are designed is one of the Government’s
principles for social inclusion1. It means providing opportunities for the community to identify their
needs and give feedback about the design and delivery of policies and programs. Detailed feedback
from community members and genuine and inclusive consultation are valuable sources of information
to improve service design and delivery.
Co-design is intended to extend the role of the public by inviting them to contribute to the design of
services.
In line with international trends in service design, Australians increasingly expect to have a say about
service design and are more willing to share information with the Government than ever before. They
not only expect services to be more accessible and reliable; they expect them to meet their personal
needs. Furthermore, Australians see reform in the area of government service delivery, and
harvesting new technology to make this possible, as ‘moving with the times.’
In 2010 the Department of Human Services ran a series of community forums with people across
Australia to further inform the development of new service offers under the Australian Government’s
Service Delivery Reform (SDR)2 agenda. The forums — part of our ongoing research to better
understand people’s thoughts and ideas on service delivery — provide an important first step towards
using co-design to help improve our future service delivery arrangements.
Our research provides a deeper insight into how people experience our services, the obstacles they
face and their daily frustrations. It shows the diversity and complexity of circumstances and
preferences surrounding people’s use of and access to government services.
I am pleased to share this research. We have sought to honestly represent how people are feeling
about and experiencing our services and what they think needs to change. We thank the participants
for that privilege and for the time they spent to help us get to know more about them and how they
experience us.
A summary publication, Service Delivery Reform — Transforming Government Service Delivery,
highlights the Department of Human Services’ key Service Delivery Reform achievements. A number
of initiatives, including co-location of services, one website and one telephone number, are now
underway and help address the issues and ideas raised by participants in the forums. I look forward
to continuing to share our research outcomes and how we are responding to these as we move
forward with Service Delivery Reform.
Kathryn Campbell
Secretary
Department of Human Services
1 More information about the Social Inclusion Agenda and its principles can be accessed via the
Social Inclusion website at http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au
2 More information about Service Delivery Reform can be accessed via the Human Services website:
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/information/welcome
Overview
Over the next four years the Department of Human Services will be making significant operational
changes to improve the efficiency as well as the effectiveness of services — with the goal of making
it simpler and easier for people.
The Government announced the start of Service Delivery Reform in December 2009, beginning with
the progressive co-location of Centrelink and Medicare offices and the implementation of a single
Department of Human Services website and telephone number.
The Government also announced its intention to integrate the principal agencies of the Department of
Human Services into a single department of state.
Service Delivery Reform will transform the delivery of services provided through the Department of
Human Services and will provide better outcomes for generations of Australians. It will put people first
in the design and delivery of services and will ensure services are delivered more effectively and
efficiently, especially to people who need more intensive support and to those with complex needs.
Service Delivery Reform means looking at the way we are providing services to the Australian
people, whether they be Medicare Australia, Centrelink or Child Support services, and coming up
with ways to do it better.
The aim is to join up our services across the department, where and when it makes sense to do so.
The reform will let us cut even more red tape — for those who require a government service, and
those who provide it. Through Service Delivery Reform we will be able to provide Australians with
better access to social, health and welfare services.
To build our understanding of customers’ views and expectations of our service delivery and the
reforms, we ran 29 group discussion forums across Australia. Over 250 people participated in these
forums.
They represented a wide range of the community: families, working people, older Australians,
Indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, families of children with disabilities and those who
use mobile servicing4. More information on the forums can be found in the appendix.
The research scope included:

elements of current service delivery people find difficult or frustrating;

preferences for service delivery options, including channel choice, frequency of contact and
agency information sharing options;

ideas for improving service delivery views of Department of Human Services programs; and

reactions to the Service Delivery Reform initiative.
4 Australian Government Mobile Service Units or Mobile Offices travel around rural and remote
Australia to assist the community with Centrelink and Medicare enquiries. Specialised Centrelink
staff, including Rural Services Officers, Social Workers and Customer Service Advisors travel with
the bus. They can provide the region’s farmers, small businesses, families, students and older
Australians with information on Australian Government payments and services. Staff on the Mobile
Service Unit can assist with Centrelink matters, such as general payment information, updating
customer contact details, printing documents and health care cards, making appointments and
dealing with new claim enquiries and lodgements. As an additional service, Medicare staff members
are also available to assist rural families with non-cash transactions, such as paying Medicare claims
by cheque or EFTPOS, enrolling people for Medicare, or updating their contact details. More
information can be accessed via the website http://www.centrelink.gov.au and search ‘Australian
Government Mobile Offices’
Key insights
How should services be delivered?
‘Make it about me’
Personalised — as much as possible services should be tailored to the individual needs of people
(i.e. not one size fits all).
‘Connect me where it counts’
Linked up — people are looking for better coordinated services with easier and quicker access as
well as services that are linked between different tiers of government.
‘Be clear and simple’
Good communication and information — people want to deal with staff who have empathy for their
circumstances and they want simple processes and forms.
‘Give me flexibility’
Easy and appropriate access — this did not necessarily mean ‘online services’ in all cases as some
people prefer face to face options particularly when dealing with very sensitive or complex situations.
What it means to different groups of people?
Older Australians would like to see enhanced staff awareness training in services for seniors,
reduced complexity in forms, better information and fewer tiers of government services and
information.
Working people are looking for quick and easy access to services through longer opening hours, a
centralised website, better coordinated reference information about services and more personalised
or case managed services if needed.
Indigenous people felt strongly that Department of Human Services staff (and those from other
government agencies) could have an improved understanding of their history, values and culture, and
that communication should be more tailored to their needs.
Families would like to see the creation of new opportunities for employment and education, as well
as access to information that helps them understand decisions that affect them.
People with a disability and families of children with a disability are seeking improvements to
our office environment and more convenient office opening hours, increased staff training and
knowledge about their circumstances and better access to information and support.
What you told us
The research identifies four common themes in people’s expectations of service delivery.
People want service delivery to be…
Personalised: tailoring services to the individual
‘Make it about me’
and…
Linked up: improving and integrating coordination and communication across services
‘Connect me where it counts’
with…
Good communication and information: clear, empathetic and simple
‘Be clear and simple’
and…
Easy and appropriate access: different channels for different situations and simple and flexible
processes and procedures
‘Give me flexible, easy access’
Naturally each theme is interdependent and is the focus of both participants’ frustrations with existing
service delivery as well as the basis for their suggestions on where things could improve.
Common frustrations dealing with Department of Human Services programs included:

accessing relevant, accurate, clear information;

a lack of understanding / empathy / competency / staff with the right knowledge;

complex, inflexible or unfair policy and procedures;

delays and long waiting times;

lack of individualised services (no case management); and

services that are not integrated or linked up.
Two of the most important ideas for improvement were ‘personalised service delivery’, including a
case management approach, and ‘linked up services’, with the idea of a ‘one stop shop’. ‘Well
trained, respectful staff’ and better communication through simpler policies and procedures and a
reference book for different groups of people were also identified as desirable in the forums.
Other suggestions were about making access to service delivery agencies easier and quicker
through longer opening hours, including weekends, having more staff available (office and call
centre), having a centralised website and improving office environments (increased number of seats,
expanded waiting areas and more private areas).
The following sections expand on each major theme.
Personalised — ‘Make it about me’
A service not fitting individuals’ circumstances was a common discussion topic in the forums. Many
felt that Department of Human Services staff needed to take more time to understand people’s needs
and agencies could be set up in a way that would allow staff to do this better.
One of the key areas identified for future service delivery was the notion of providing more
individualised service – something along the lines of a case management approach. This could
involve staff identifying services that may be required and actioning them on behalf of the individual.
It was suggested that there should be specialised areas within agencies, for example, an area for
people with disability, or for seniors, and within these areas, specialists who understand and are
knowledgeable or experts in that particular sector.
“Almost like a case worker I guess, you go to a person who shuffles you off to the right departments,
who knows everything, it’s hard to get each department to know about everyone else you know,
because they’ve got their job to do, but if you have a case worker who knows, that’s their specific job,
that would be great.”
Families of children with disability, no payments
It was evident from those who had been delighted and surprised by government service delivery, that
the key driver in their satisfaction was that a staff member had adopted more of a case management
approach, that is, they had spent the time getting to know the person and had been proactive in
solving their issues and problems, or at least had tried to.
Indigenous participants also felt that to better understand their needs staff needed to have a better
understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. Most felt that the government services
did not really assist them with what was happening in their lives and that people often had to be
prepared to fit the set of circumstances expected by service providers and repeat their information
many times when dealing with different agencies.
Allied to people’s concerns over a lack of individualised service was a feeling that because
government services are not well tailored to an individual and people are expected to fit ‘nicely into a
box’, the Department of Human Services programs are unable to really understand or assist people
to better manage what is happening in their lives.
“But the problem is, if you do not fit in and tick every box in that category even if one box isn’t ticked,
you don’t get in there and they can’t even refer you.”
Seniors, 55+ years Centrelink customer
There was general consensus that the level of understanding of people’s circumstances and support
requirements needs to improve across all levels of service delivery — essentially, people wanted to
feel that they were respected and valued as people, and not treated like a number.
Staff understanding, empathy, competency and knowledge
People were of the general view that service delivery staff could improve their skills and knowledge
base, as well as their overall attitude towards those seeking information and help from official
channels. Common frustrations included:
(a) Sufficient staff to handle the volume of traffic within call centres / offices. This was evidenced by
the long wait times being on hold on the phone or in a queue at a service centre.
“Just last week I was lining up in line in Centrelink with my uni son, you wait in line for nearly three
quarters of an hour, and then you’ve got to sit for another three quarters of an hour. It’s bad.”
Working people
(b) Having well trained and knowledgeable staff. This was evidenced by the need for people to have
to repeat their information when dealing with various Department of Human Services programs and
the apparent lack of consistency around information provision. That is, one person being given two
different answers or opinions to the same question.
“You ring up and every time you ring up you get a different answer.”
Families of children with disability
(c) Essentially, many people feel frustrated dealing with Government service delivery agencies
because staff are unable to empathise with them, i.e. they lacked the knowledge and/or experience in
sensitively handling people’s circumstances (which were often quite complex). Participants saw this
lack of empathy reflecting poor training and limited time.
“I think there’s different types of organisations, like there are places like Centrelink where people just
work, but then there’s places like …where people, well they care as well, that’s their career, they
want to work with people with disabilities and they want to work, because they are interested...”
Families of children with disability, no payments
(d) There was a strong call by people for the Department of Human Services to resource and skill-up
agency staff appropriately such that they understand better, and are more sympathetic towards, the
people they are dealing with. Many participants at the forums suggested that staff should specialise
in one particular area as the system was already becoming too big and the amount of information and
varied circumstances staff had to deal with would be overwhelming for them.
“And the problem is if you ring up and ask for someone and you get John one time and Sue the next
they give you two different answers to the same question.”
Working people
The comments below indicate a desire for personalised service:
“You deal with different people all the time. There is no continuity so I get different answers all the
time and have to repeat information all the time, it’s annoying. It has to be annoying for them having
me come in all the time when if they just used what they already had on record I wouldn’t have to go
in at all!”
“If you just have general process stuff it is good, the problem is when things fall down. If things get
complicated that is when it gets bad. It seems to be when I deal with a younger person, that is when
there are problems.”
“I was in a tough situation; I didn’t have any money and there was confusion about my details. I went
to Centrelink to resolve this and refused to move until I got the answers that I needed. They
threatened to use the duress button on me and I wasn’t violent, I wasn’t swearing, I was calm. It was
only when someone took the time to look at the record and listen to what I was saying; then they
fixed the problem.”
“Put yourselves in our shoes — they don’t know what’s going on in the outside world and we don’t
know what’s going on in the inside. They need to come out to our communities and experience what
it’s like for us, to live like us and make it real for them, it should be a part of their training.”
“I’m pretty satisfied but maybe the whole system is getting too big and they can’t handle it anymore.
There are so many different nationalities and problems and I know that if I was working behind a desk
and listening to people all day and getting grief, that it would be pretty hard to deal with.”
Linked up — ‘Connect me where it counts’
Participants at all forums talked about poor coordination across services.
“They operate separately and don’t really talk to one another.”
Families of children with disability, no payments
“I know the information is available, you know, in all different shapes and forms, but it doesn’t seem
to be all linked up, like you sort of might have something here, something there, something else you
can access, but it’s not really, like when my son is having problems, they turned into school related
problems, they are hopeless, it’s a Catholic school and it’s fit in or ship out.”
Families of children with disability, no payments
Very few people felt that government agencies worked well together to assist them. Indeed, some felt
that with the bigger, more complex agencies, such as Centrelink and to some extent Child Support,
they actually do not work well internally, let alone together with others.
“But the network is so big...we have to look at it the other side of things — how can you expect one
department to know about the ins and outs of the other department, when they don’t know their own
very well.”
Seniors, 55+ years, Centrelink customer
“See if you get a person sitting at home, and they need some of these services, most people, most of
them, don’t know where to go and start. So we’ve got to educate the public.”
Working people
This theme was endorsed by a number of people who cited examples of having to provide the same
information to a number of different Department of Human Services programs, and that there
appeared to be little co-operation and integration of information and service delivery between the
different tiers of government. This perception contributed to the view that government deliberately
holds back (or at least is not forthcoming with) information about what services there might be to help
people. Some felt that this was about government wanting to save money.
“I’m thinking about my experience with Centrelink when my son turned sixteen, I think, if you can get
one person who you can build up a rapport with, regardless of which organisation it is, if you can kind
of find someone that you connect with, it just makes dealing with that whole service a lot easier, like
we had a social worker at Centrelink and she was a great referral source, she’s not just working with
Centrelink...”
Families of children with disability, no payments
For a number of people, the notion of better integration and coordination of services goes beyond
linking databases to encompass the idea of an holistic approach to government service delivery
including different tiers of government, via a ‘one stop shop’. People from the regional centres also
wanted all forms of contact and communication from the Department of Human Services to
demonstrate that they understand the implications of distance issues. Others, in particular those
caring for a child with a disability want greater flexibility, sensitivity, and consistency in how they as
carers are recognised between state and federal government.
“I think for disabilities there should be one service, that interconnects with everything else, as far as a
case worker or whatever, that interconnects with Centrelink that connects with Child Support, with all
of the services that you may need.”
Families of children with disability, no payments
People also want to be better prepared and informed about what they could or should be doing about
the future, and feel government should pre-empt service and information needs. Some people (self
funded retirees and working people) have sourced an agent or private organisation to find out
everything they need to know and what they are eligible for. People suggested there were particular
times when it would be easy for government agencies to offer appropriate, relevant information.
These included events such as: a death in the family, birth of a child, a child having a significant
birthday, etc. They suggested that where possible it would be appropriate to have information in
advance but where this could not happen, information should be made available as soon as possible.
“When you have a baby they give you a bunch of forms in hospital. They know you’ve had a baby so
later on they could send you other information. Like when she turns 3 months and 6 months. They
could tell you about nappy services, child-care, and later on it could be about kindy and school.”
“If the government wanted to make it easier they would contact you directly, they could be proactive
and ring or send you information via mail.”
“They need to let you know if there is a change in something that you may be eligible for. If they know
we are already in a program or receiving a certain service, then they could let you know if there was a
change.”
Many participants believe that government agencies already talk to each other but generally agreed
that this only happens to catch someone out, rather than to work to assist people. Some people were
aware that their records were shared between the two agencies because they had been advised by
Centrelink where declared income did not match the records of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
While most agreed this demonstrated an important link between government departments, they could
not understand why the same link didn’t work in their favour.
This belief contributed to a view that service providers may deliberately hold back information about
services that might assist people in an attempt to protect government funds. Community advocates
felt strongly about the issue of information sharing and suggested that ‘red tape’ was the main
inhibitor to using information effectively to assist people. Whether co-located in the form of a one stop
shop or simply linked electronically, people felt that having services linked would mean far less
likelihood of missing out on payments and services they might otherwise be eligible for.
The comments below indicate a desire for personalised service:
“If they were linked together you could ask a question at Centrelink and they would be able to tell you
everything else you were entitled to from other places. I didn’t know anything about the free train trips
until a friend told me but if they’d had the information in front of them I would have known straight
away.”
“Government agencies should work together. Housing asks if they can supply information to
Centrelink which makes it easier for us, but you still have to supply the information and forms twice.
Are we doing their job for them?”
“I have a disability and I have to get into Centrelink on public transport and I find it difficult to walk
long distances. They have the connections already. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to do this for us?”
“When my husband went off the disability pension onto the Age Pension it was ridiculous everything I
had to go through. They had all my information and I had to do it all again.”
“My daughter has to deal with the Child Support Agency and then with Centrelink and Housing, all
because her ex starts and stops paying child support payments. They all know what’s happening but
she’s the one who ends up running around to all the agencies.”
Good communication and information — ‘Be clear and simple’
Most participants felt that finding the information they needed was difficult and suggested that
communicating with government agencies was frustrating and confusing.
In general, communications were often described as not being customer friendly, i.e. they use a lot of
jargon and are not easily accessible. Participants called for simplified processes and forms for easier
access to information and services.
Participants also expressed their concern over the impact of staff not taking the time to break down
information into terms people could easily understand. Importantly, participants at all forums were
able to describe the impact of poor communication between government agencies and the people
they are there to help. Some suggested that the language used by Department of Human Services
programs can alienate people and prevent them from accessing the help they need.
Some revealed that they have so much difficulty trying to find the answers to their questions they give
up and sometimes end up going without.
People’s greatest frustration in this area was that they did not know what questions they needed to
ask or where to start looking, with many choosing to ask friends or family before approaching any
official channels.
There was a strong belief by most participants that government makes it difficult for people to
navigate the ‘system’ and therefore find useful and relevant information. People described the
process and ease of seeking out information from government service delivery agencies to be
difficult, confusing and ultimately, frustrating. Many participants said that they felt a need to doublecheck information.
They would frequently seek further clarification because of fear or lack of trust in their own ability to
interpret the information, but also because they thought Department of Human Services’s information
and communication were designed to be confusing.
Only a few felt that they now have a good sense of what information and support is available to them,
and this has taken them some time — and even now, they only feel that they know one part of one
‘system’.
People often do not start looking for information or communication regarding services and assistance
until they are in some sort of crisis or have a pressing need.
Hence, people usually:

don’t know what they don’t know before they start looking;

don’t know what questions to therefore ask; and

don’t know where to start looking.
Whilst many people rely heavily on their personal contacts to initially source information and help,
many also claim to use the internet. This was most likely to be the case for working people and
families of children with disability, and to a lesser extent senior Australians. Indeed, many claimed
that Google is now used as their primary information source – having replaced the Yellow Pages, the
telephone directory (government services section), and / or other hard copy information products,
such as a local services directory produced by local councils.
“Yeah five years ago you’d open the Yellow Pages, but now you just use Google, and do everything.”
Working people
Notwithstanding this, there were a few people who were quite negative about accessing information
via the internet, simply because they felt that there is so much available and because they are not
always confident the information being presented is from a trusted source. Access to and use of the
internet was also found to be quite variable between the different cohorts, particularly for those with
disability and families of children with disability and some seniors.
Further, and specifically in relation to government-related information, people felt that there is little
coordination of information between the agency’s websites, and that they can therefore be quite
difficult to navigate through. Thus, in terms of accessing relevant and accurate information via the
internet, there were quite strong feelings of frustration surrounding this:
“They need really clear website pages. I’ve tried going online and there are a million different sites
and it leads you to things that are fruitless, so really clear, simple web pages would be good.”
Seniors, 55+ years, Centrelink customer
“But trying to access stuff on the internet for example is close to impossible. It’s so complicated and
time consuming. No one has the time to be reading all this stuff and trying to make their way through
it.”
Families of children with disability, Centrelink customer
The comments below indicate the importance of good communication
and information:
“I look after my daughter and wanted to know if I could get any help. The way they described the
payment to me made it sound like I wasn’t eligible so I missed out on that for 12 months. It was only
when I spoke to a friend who was in the same position as I was, that I worked out I was eligible. That
made me furious.”
“I have enough schooling to be able to fill in a form and it took three of us to work out how to answer
a particular question and I was forced into a situation where I had to lie so my form could get
processed. The forms you have to fill out are filled with confusing language that not everyone can
understand.”
“I have a friend and she just seems to know everything that’s available and she knows how to get it.
I’m not sure how it is she knows all of this. I think it might be because she really needs it, so I find out
things through her.”
“What I need is to speak to someone to get their advice or opinion I don’t want them to just repeat
info back to me, I want to understand them and for them to understand me. I am an accountant and I
wouldn’t put someone on the front desk who couldn’t converse with my clients.”
“Sometimes language is very important and use of language in the government arena can impede
the way we work together. Our clients don’t have a choice and it can alienate the very people
government agencies are trying to help.”
Easy and appropriate access — ‘Give me flexible, easy access’
Most participants reported having to deal with complex processes and procedures, including dealing
with several agencies to get something done, and overly complex, long, repetitive and confusing
forms. Many participants also raised the issue of how “the rules” often seemed unfair and thought
that when their circumstances were not straight forward the system seemed “unable to cope”. A
combination of poor staff knowledge and inflexible procedures were seen as the main contributors to
these problems.
People’s preferences on how to access services vary according to their personal circumstances and
predispositions towards using technology-based service solutions, such as the internet, Instant Voice
Recognition (IVR) and SMS. In general, when people’s information needs are straightforward they
feel comfortable using technology-based systems to do this, such as the internet. However, with
greater complexity, there is a preference for face to face contact, or at least having someone at the
end of the phone. Few rely on just one mode of communication. This is because they are not
confident that the information given is correct or that they have been given all the information they
need.
Not surprisingly, young people are most comfortable using and have greater access to technology.
Older Australians and those who feel themselves to be particularly disadvantaged, such as disabled
people and families of children with a disability, tend to have a preference for face to face interaction.
The key issue though is about having someone to talk to who is knowledgeable and empathic
towards their situation — whether this is face to face or by phone.
However, participants felt that phone channels would not be a preference if government outsourced
service delivery outside Australia or if it relied heavily on an IVR system.
Notwithstanding, all participants showed widespread support for government agencies to be at the
‘cutting-edge’ of technology in terms of having sophisticated customer relationship systems. Hence, a
number of people were quite supportive of the idea that government service delivery could embrace
more interactive communications, including email, SMS and blogs. Many supported the idea of
Department of Human Services programs being more proactive in making contact with people,
especially in terms of advising them on what services are available. Some participants suggested
Department of Human Services programs could pre-empt people’s information and service needs,
perhaps by some trigger, such as turning a certain age, having a baby or another major life event.
Most people were happy with the idea that to improve access to services there would need to be
information sharing between programs. As such, they would be happy to play their part in this by, for
example, updating their details online and/or by downloading forms — things essentially that would
save them and the department time and money.
Waiting and delays
A common frustration for people relates to time: time spent waiting on the phone (on hold) and/or in a
queue in a service centre, or being transferred from one place to another.
“Well each person was giving me a snippet of a little bit more, or knowledge for me, you know, for me
to get my end response, so I was happy.”
Working people, Shepparton
“Sometimes when you supposedly get the person to answer your question, they don’t know the
answer, they have then either got to put you onto somebody, which maybe you wait another five to
ten minutes, and then they’ll get back to you and then take half a day.”
Self-funded retiree
“Yeah the perception is if you phone them, you are going to be on hold and then you are going to get
put from Department to Department so, try and do as much online as you can.”
Working people
People did not necessarily mind if their question or issue was complex and that some transferring
and delay might be necessary. Indeed, they expected that if a staff member does not know the
answer, they would know who does, and transfer them appropriately. People’s expectations are that
after the initial contact, each subsequent contact person is expected to add value to their service
delivery experience — even if they do not have the entire answer or can solve the problem.
“One of the things I’ve found with Centrelink, I’ve forgotten which number it is, it must be the single
parent income, if you try and call the number, you either don’t get connected through or you are
waiting half an hour or forty minutes sometimes, and I mean I’ve got things to do, I’ve got a three year
old. But sometimes you literally can’t get through, they say call back later.”
Families of children with disability, no payments
Another related frustration was the time it takes for people to travel between different agencies and
re-tell their story.
“Taking an hour to go to one side of town to visit some other office where they say sorry, we can’t
help you, then you go to another office, over the other side of town, yeah, you know ringing around all
day, that’s what I’ve done over the years, yeah, frustrating.”
Families of children with disability, no payments
Furthermore, the time it takes for people to access information and services can be a lengthy process
and these delays are felt to have had a detrimental impact on people’s health and wellbeing.
“My beef is the time it takes for that expert, firstly to ring you back, and secondly, to either come out
or send somebody out to do an assessment or whatever they call it, you know before they can
provide the service and then after, it takes a while for this assessment to go through their system,
and then it takes a while for the help that you need to come, so there’s a great lag of time between
the first phone call and when somebody, you know when you find out if you are eligible for the
services, and they send somebody out.”
Self funded retiree
The comments below indicate the importance of having easy and
appropriate access to services:
“With the Internet I can wait until the house is quiet and do what I need to do then. You should try
using the phone service (voice recognition) when the kids are around. It’s like they wait until you pick
up the phone and then they’re glued to legs.”
“I don’t want to stand at the counter and talk about my medical condition or even share things like my
address and phone number. Other people are quite close by and you don’t know who can hear you.”
“It’s easier to go into the office, it means less confusion. If I’m standing there I feel like they have to
get it done whereas over the phone I have no idea what they do when I hang up.”
What different groups told us
While participants expressed many similar frustrations around service delivery, the following clusters
show the areas of greatest frustration for people.
Working people
Waiting and delays, takes up too much time
No individualised services
Lack of integrated or linked services
Being able to see or talk to the right person
Indigenous people
Difficulty accessing services and support
Communication difficulties
Safety concerns
Mistakes and delays
Lack of opportunity and individual attention
Lack of understanding and empathy
Rural and remote
customers
Difficulty accessing information
Complex and inflexible policy and procedures
Delays and waiting
Lack of access to essential services — health, legal, housing
Mobile servicing
community advocates
Complex and inflexible system
Lack of understanding and compassion by service providers
Lack of outreach services
Lack of coordination and information sharing between
services
Inconsistent information
Families
Waiting and delays
Dealing with unhelpful staff
Difficulty accessing relevant and accurate information
Lack of help with the basics — health and childcare
Complex processes and procedures
Not knowing what help is available
Working people
Waiting and delays, takes up too much time
No individualised services
Lack of integrated or linked services
Being able to see or talk to the right person
People with disabilities
Lack of understanding / empathy by the Department of
Human Services of issues faced
Lack of knowledge about types of disabilities
Accessing relevant, clear and accurate information
Additional physical barriers of getting to an office or using a
service channel
Multiple disabilities e.g. physical and mental health issues —
clients do not ‘fit neatly into a box’
Fear and anxiety about having to ‘re-tell’ their story or making
mistakes
Difficulty with inflexible policies and procedures
Frustration when trusted information source is not available
Families of children with
disabilities
Inconsistency and lack of coordination between local, state
and federal government service delivery
(in addition to the previous
section):
Inflexibility of office hours, waiting and delays when already
time poor
Lack of privacy, concerns for safety and lack of adequate
facilities for children when visiting Department of Human
Services shopfronts
Dealing with so many different people, agencies and
organisations
Inconsistencies in accuracy and relevancy of information
Lack of sensitivity around making them ‘jump through hoops’
Inequity of system where there are different levels of
recognition for disabilities
Working people
Waiting and delays, takes up too much time
No individualised services
Lack of integrated or linked services
Being able to see or talk to the right person
Seniors, including those
receiving aged care
payments
Impatient staff that lack understanding or knowledge
Intimidated and uncertain about who and where to access
information
Lack of privacy, feeling unsafe, unwelcome and
uncomfortable when visiting an office
Complex and unfair system for self funded retirees, feeling of
unfairly ‘missing out’
Lack of coordination and integration across agencies
Waiting and delays
Perception that Department of Human Services programs
want to save money and ‘hold back’ information about
benefits for seniors
Views on Service Delivery Reform
Participants were provided with information about what is being proposed under Service Delivery
Reform within the Department of Human Services and were asked to discuss how they felt about it.
What will change?
You will have access to more services in the one physical location. Where possible, Medicare,
Centrelink and Child Support Agency services will be offered under the same roof. Improved
services will be delivered to regional and remote Australians through mobile offices across the
country. You will be able to access all the information you need more easily, through one single
phone number and website.
The Department of Human Services is starting work to give you service delivery you deserve.
Reactions towards the outlined initiative were positive across all cohorts. Indeed, people thought that
much of what they would like to see change in terms of service delivery was broadly covered in this
statement. The main benefits of Service Delivery Reform seen were:

A ‘one-stop-shop’; a central repository of information and services would potentially speed up the
search for and access to services, which may have benefits for those in particular need of more
urgent help.

Co-locating offices would assist time-poor people and/or those who have difficulty accessing
multiple sites, for example, families of children with disability and working people.

People will not have to repeat their situation to multiple organisations. The concept of sharing
information between agencies was largely endorsed for this reason.

More Australians would potentially have better access to government information and services,
especially those in rural/regional areas. The concept of mobile offices was endorsed.

With a central phone number and website, navigation through the system may be easier and
quicker.

With greater information sharing between government agencies, there is potential for those who
are rorting the system to be exposed.

The Department of Human Services is ‘moving with the times’.
However, some participants saw greater centralisation and co-location compounding existing
frustrations and creating further confusion for people. For example:

Feeling that they would become more like a number rather than receive more personalised and
quality service.

Although it was already assumed that government departments and agencies shared information
and were comfortable about this, privacy was also an issue for some participants, in particular
Indigenous Australians, and others simply did not trust that the information would be used to
deliver better information and service.

Some people are hesitant towards technology-based service solutions and prefer to interact on a
personal level. They fear greater centralisation and a focus on technology would in fact lead to
poorer service delivery.

Whilst having co-located offices may have advantages for some people in terms of saving them
time travelling between them, there was strong concern that offices would still need to be
reasonably accessible — people do not want one or two ‘mega-offices’ just in the city for example.

Unless there was a change in Government service delivery more broadly to encompass greater
flexibility in for example the office’s opening hours, to include weekends and longer hours during
the week, then there were few advantages to having co-located offices.
The comments below broadly reflect customer views on Service
Delivery Reform:
“You’re going to one place for everything. If they can pull it off, it’ll be brilliant.”
“I think it would be great... I’ve got a real thing about people claiming extra money that they shouldn’t
have, so that would root out all those kinds of people.”
“I think it would be highly impressive, it would I think instil a lot more faith in them if you got something
like that, you’d go “Wow, these people actually do care about my circumstances. This is good!””
“It sounds like what we’ve been asking for and the lead up to this whole thing but we’ll see what it’s
like in practice.”
Appendix
A total of 237 participants attended 20 forums held by EPS Consulting between 25 March and 16
April 2010.
A total of 68 people attended 9 forums held by Market Access Consulting and Research between 25
June and 5 July 2010; each forum had between 8 and 10 participants.
EPS Forums
Number & Type
Total
Participants:
237
Locations
5 Families Forums
45
Coffs Harbour (NSW), Parramatta (NSW), Brisbane
(QLD), Traralgon (VIC), Melbourne (VIC).
5 Seniors Forums
73
Coffs Harbour (NSW), Sydney (NSW), Beenleigh
(QLD), Midland (WA), Melbourne (VIC).
5 Indigenous Forums
70
Perth (WA), Northam (WA), Belyuen (NT), Darwin
(NT) x 2.
2 Mobile Servicing
Forums —
12
Darwin (NT): Nominees, Traralgon (VIC): Rural.
3 Mobile Servicing
Forums
— Community
Advocates
37
Brisbane (QLD): Homelessness, Gold Coast (QLD):
Homelessness, Melbourne (VIC): Prison Servicing.
Market Access Consulting
Melbourne Shepparton
forums
forums
Seniors accessing aged care services
Self funded retirees who are accessing aged care services, but
who are NOT receiving any Centrelink payment / allowance.
This group was aged 65+ years old
1
Aged 55-64 years old, who are still working (full/part-time) AND
who have accessed aged care services on behalf of an elderly
parent / partner. They were NOT receiving a Centrelink
payment.
Aged 55+ years year old who have accessed aged care
services on behalf of an elderly parent / partner who DOES
receive Centrelink payments
1
1
Working people who are not accessing welfare payments
Aged 40 years and younger
1
Aged 41+ years old
1
Families of children with disabilities
Receiving a Centrelink payment/allowance
1
Melbourne Shepparton
forums
forums
NOT receiving any payments from Centrelink. This group was
self defining in terms of the children who have a sickness /
illness / disability / injury
1
People with disability
These people were receiving a Centrelink payment/allowance
These people were NOT receiving any payments from
Centrelink. This group was self-defining in terms of their
sickness / illness / injury / disability
8075.1108
1
1