ADMINISTRATIVEREVIEW COUNCIL

REPORT TO THEATTORNEY-GENERAL

ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

BY MEMBERS OF AUSTRALIA’SETHNIC COMMUNITIES

Report No. 34

Australian Government Publishing ServiceCanberra

Commonwealth of Australia 1991

ISBN 0 644 14758 X

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, AGPS Press, Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601.

Printed in Australia by P.J. GRILLS, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra

ii

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

14 July 1991

The Hon Michael Duffy MPAttorney-GeneralParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Attorney-General

I have pleasure in submitting to you a Report by the Administrative Review Council entitled Access to Administrative Review by Members of Australia’s Ethnic Communities, as adopted by the Council at its meeting on 21 June 1991.

Yours sincerely

Professor Cheryl SaundersPresident

iii

On the date this Report was adopted the members of the Administrative Review Council were:

Professor C A Saunders (President)The Hon Justice E A Evatt AOThe Hon Justice D F O’ConnorMr A CameronMr S P Charles QCMr C ConybeareMr S A HamiltonMr D A HollwayMr J F MuirMs C PetreMr A D RoseMr I RossMs H Vorrath

The members of the Steering Committee responsible for overseeing the final stages of the Project were Professor Saunders (Chair), Justice Evatt, Justice O’Connor, Mr Cameron, Mr Conybeare, Mr Hollway, Ms Vorrath and Ms Merle Mitchell AM.

Professor Dennis Pearce, whose membership of the Council ended in January 1991, was also a member of the Steering Committee.

The Council expresses its particular thanks to Ms Merle Mitchell, President of the Australian Council of Social Service and Director of the Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau, for making her knowledge and experience available to the Steering Committee.

iv

CONTENTS

Chapter PART A1 OVERVIEW 1

Aims 1Methodology 1Conclusions 2Recommendations 3Future Directions 5

2 BACKGROUND 6The Administrative Review Council 6The National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia 7The ARC’s Multicultural Project 7Other related projects 8

3 BUREAUCRATIC CULTURE AND OTHER CULTURES 9

PART B THE PROJECT4 OVERALL STRATEGY 12

Basic objectives 12Concentration on two communities 12Why the Footscray Vietnamese and the Auburn Turks? 13Strategy 13

5 THE SURVEYS 14Major surveys of target communities 14Community consultations 21Survey of GIA Workers 24Survey of Chinese solicitors 25Welfare Rights Centre: Social Security phone-in 25

6 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 27Rationale 27The Project’s publicity activities 29

The Vietnamese community 30The Turkish community 38

Conclusions 44Recommendations 46

7 TRAINING COMMUNITY WORKERS 47Rationale 47

Survey of GIA Workers 48The Project’s activities 51

Vietnamese workers 51Turkish workers 52Results 53

Conclusions 54Recommendations 55

v

8 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 56

(Administrative Review agencies)The Administrative Appeals Tribunal 56The Social Security Appeals Tribunal 58The Immigration Review Tribunal 59The Student Assistance Review Tribunal 60The Veterans’ Review Board 61The Commonwealth Ombudsman 61

(Primary service-providers)Introduction 65Informing people of their right to review 66Primary service providers and the Project 70

DSS 70DILGEA 71Telecom 72ATO 73

Language services 73General Recommendations 74

PART C9 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 76

The one-stop-shop 76The electronic solution 77

APPENDICES1 Full list of Recommendations 802 Acknowledgments and thanks 833 Report by MSJ Keys Young 844 Profiles of the Vietnamese and Turkish Communities 1295 Acronyms used in the Report 133

vi

PART ACHAPTER 1OVERVIEW

A short description of the Project’s aims, methods, conclusions and recommendations.

1.1 AimsThe Administrative Review Council’s Multicultural Australia Project was established to find out whether people from Australia’s ethnic communities - especially those whose first language is not English-have fair and effective access to the Commonwealth administrative review system and, if not, to identify barriers and explore ways of overcoming them.

The Council has a long-standing interest in the question of access. In 1987 it submitted a report to the Attorney-General recommending the establishment of a Code of Practice defining the responsibility of agencies to inform people effectively of their review rights. As the Report noted: ‘a right of review is of no value to a person who is not aware of it.’1

Since then, the Council’s work programme has invariably included an access project. The Multicultural Australia Project has constituted the Council’s current access project since December 1989. It was funded through the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia.

1.2 MethodologyThe Project concentrated on two discrete target communities. First it carried out a survey to measure knowledge of administrative review. Next, over several months, it conducted a series of community education and other intervention activities. Finally, it measured the effect of these activities with a second survey.

In addition, it commissioned a number of consultations with ethnic communities across Australia.

Target CommunitiesIn order to control and measure its activities, the Project concentrated on two communities which were both ethnically and geographically discrete; the Vietnamese in Footscray, Melbourne and the Turkish in Auburn, Sydney. Accurate measurement would have been virtually impossible had it tried to operate more broadly.

First surveyA detailed survey was conducted in each target community in May 1990 in order to measure existing knowledge and use of the administrative review system and its agencies. The results showed widespread ignorance of the existence of 1 Administrative Review Council, Access to Administrative Review Stage 1: Notification of Decisions and Rights of Review, Report No 27, AGPS, Canberra, 1987, p. 9.

1

administrative review agencies and a limited understanding of the concept of administrative review - that is, the simple fact that a person may complain about or appeal against government decisions.

The main findings of this survey and the one which followed it in March 1991 appear throughout Part B of this Report. The consultant’s report is reproduced in full at Appendix 3.

Publicity and other activitiesFollowing the first survey an extensive programme of intervention was carried out within both communities. It had three broad targets. The public: the Project sought to inform members of the target communities

about the basic concept of administrative review, to tell them about their rights in dealing with government agencies, to help them recognise problems as they occur and, finally, to encourage them to exercise those rights if they felt they had not been dealt with fairly.

Community workers: a programme of training and familiarisation sessions was arranged to make these workers better informed and confident enough to deal with review agencies on behalf of clients.

Government services: the Project sought to involve a wide range of officials in the public education and community workers’ training programmes. Naturally it concentrated on review agencies and primary service-providers which have a lot of dealings with the public. It tried to encourage government officials to become more aware of the problems faced by ethnic communities and to make their services more accessible.

These different activities were designed to form an integrated programme, with each part having a strong influence on the others. In addition, they were evaluated so that their effectiveness could be assessed. Part B of this Report consists of a detailed explanation, description and evaluation of the intervention programme.

Second SurveyA second survey was held in March 1991. Virtually identical to its predecessor, it showed clearly that the aims of the intervention had been substantially met. Members of both communities (the Turks to a greater extent than the Vietnamese) were much better informed about the concept of administrative review, were more aware of the role of each review agency and appeared to be more able and willing to complain or appeal should the occasion arise.

ConsultationTo complement the quantified results obtained through these surveys, and to explore the extent of the problems, the Project arranged consultations with fifteen ethnic communities in various urban and rural locations around Australia. The qualitative information so obtained confirms that ignorance about administrative review and a sense of alienation from government apply widely throughout Australia’s ethnic communities.

1.3 ConclusionsMembers of ethnic communities do not have effective access to administrative review. This is mainly because review agencies have failed adequately to publicise themselves and their services.

2

1. The Project’s strategy, based on the application of basic marketing principles to publicising administrative review, has been demonstrably successful.

2. There is at present little knowledge or understanding, either theoretical or practical, of administrative review within Australia’s ethnic communities.

3. Impediments to effective access include: ignorance of the concept of administrative review - that is, that people have a

right to complain or appeal language difficulties and cultural alienation the fact that the people to whom members of ethnic communities look for

help and advice are themselves often poorly informed and apprehensive about how to deal effectively with government agencies

confusion caused by the diversity of institutions and remedies for review agencies’ failure to consider the specific needs of people from non English

speaking backgrounds the absence of proper arrangements for the provision of translators and

interpreters.

4. To date, efforts to publicise administrative review have mostly been uncoordinated and have concentrated on individual agencies rather than on the basic availability of a right of review. This message is not, in itself, a particularly complex one; nor need it be difficult to convey.

5. While the Project has concentrated on ethnic communities, there is little doubt that most of these conclusions apply to the community as a whole, especially to disadvantaged groups which depend more on government and welfare services and which might therefore be expected to have most need of review agencies’ services. Most of the following recommendations seem to be applicable to the wider community.

6. Access to the administrative review agencies cannot properly be considered in isolation from the primary service-providers. People who do not know that they have a right to review are likely to be handicapped in all their dealings with government agencies.

1.4 RecommendationsAdministrative review agencies have a responsibility to make themselves accessible to all members of the community. Basic marketing techniques can be applied. The Commonwealth Ombudsman is well-placed to take a leading role.

NB: Recommendations are summarised here under various headings. A complete list of recommendations is at Appendix 1.

Community Education (see Chapter 6)1. Commonwealth service-providers (including administrative review agencies) ought publicise their services more effectively, especially towards those sections of the community (including ethnic communities) in which special needs exist.

3

2. Agencies should become familiar with and apply the basic principles of marketing, especially market segmentation, targeting and measuring. This means they should: try out strategies on a limited scale before implementing them more widely. assess (preferably by empirical measurement) the effectiveness of various

activities and amend or even abandon those which are not meeting predetermined objectives.

design their publicity activities imaginatively.

3. Agencies should ensure that members and staff are involved in the planning of publicity activities, and are aware of and committed to agreed goals.

4. All forms of publicity (press, radio, TV, posters, handbills, public meetings, etc.) can be effective, but none is invariably appropriate for all target groups or for all purposes. Agencies should consider this when planning publicity. In particular, they should seek advice from knowledgeable individuals and organisations within target communities.

5. Agencies’ publicity should not be so complex as to overwhelm or deter a potential client - especially one with limited experience of Australian conditions or one who has little understanding of government processes. The basic message: ‘One has a right to question government actions and decisions’ is always to be preferred to publicity which concentrates on the jurisdictional boundaries and other somewhat arcane differences between the various review agencies.

6. When publicity material (or indeed anything else) is translated, agencies should institute reliable arrangements for checking translations for accuracy and cultural appropriateness.

Community Workers (see Chapter 7)7. Review agencies should develop closer links with ethnic community workers. This should include providing training and familiarisation sessions and encouraging workers to approach agencies for help and advice.

8. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs should review the content and delivery of the training and support it provides for Grant-in-Aid workers. The workers should be consulted in the review process.

9. Networks of Grant-in-Aid and other community workers ought be encouraged, if necessary by providing organisational advice and facilities. Workers should be consulted as to the most appropriate ways of achieving this.

10. A user-friendly guide to the administrative review system ought be prepared and circulated. It should cover all aspects of the review system and, to a large extent, replace the mass of individual brochures, pamphlets, posters, leaflets and other material which is now in circulation. The Administrative Review Council will pursue this as part of its continuing interest in access to review. (The final Chapter of this Report notes the potential for this to be developed through computer technology).

Review agencies and service-providers (see Chapter 8)

4

11. Agencies should collect ethnicity data on clients, in accordance with the guidelines published by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. This should be used in planning and implementing publicity activities, and especially in identifying needy groups.

12. Review bodies and service-providers should: ensure that appropriately-qualified and properly-trained translators and

interpreters are routinely available make financial provision for translators and interpreters ensure that translations are both accurate and culturally appropriate.

13. Review agencies should critically examine the standard ways in which potential clients are informed by primary decision-makers of their review rights. The recommendations of the Council’s Report, Access to Administrative Review (op. cit.), should be used as a guide.

14. Review agencies should be encouraged to work more closely together so as to eliminate duplication and gaps. They should, wherever possible, share resources, facilities and knowledge. This has the potential to offer a better, cheaper and more accessible service for all users.

15. Members and staff of review bodies (and all officials who deal with the public) should receive training in cross-cultural communication.

The following recommendation applies specifically to the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see Chapter 8.6).

16. The Ombudsman should: publicise the fact that his office is available as a central reference point for

those who are dissatisfied with a government decision, but who do not know what remedies are available.

adopt a leading role in the dissemination of information about administrative review, particularly the basic message that one can complain or appeal.

(in consultation with the other review agencies) take a leading and coordinating role in the promotion of administrative review, especially towards specific communities whose need can be demonstrated.

receive additional resources to enable these recommendations to be implemented.

In cooperation with the Ombudsman, the Council intends to monitor the implementation of these recommendations and to review progress in their implementation over the next12-24 months.

1.5 Future DirectionsFinally, here are two ideas for future developments which, in the Council’s view, merit further investigation (see Chapter 9):17. Consideration should be given to establishing, on a trial basis, a

Commonwealth Government complaints office in a regional centre. The Council suggests that funding be shared between participating agencies and that relevant State agencies be invited to participate and contribute.

5

18 The Council will investigate the possibility of developing a programme of computer-based training in administrative review.

6

CHAPTER 2BACKGROUND

What is the Administrative Review Council? What is the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia? What do the terms ‘administrative review’ and ‘multiculturalism’ actually mean? How was this Project established?

2.1 The Administrative Review CouncilThe Administrative Review Council was established in 1976 under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Its statutory function is to advise the Commonwealth Attorney-General on all aspects of administrative review within Commonwealth agencies.

Administrative review is a generic term which describes a range of remedies available to a person who is dissatisfied with, or simply wants to find out more about, the actions of a Commonwealth government agency.

The Australian administrative review system includes both internal and external review. Internal review refers to the procedures under which some agencies reconsider their own decisions. It is most relevant in agencies which have a lot of public contact, for example, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Telecom, and the Australian Taxation Office. Although it is not independent, internal review is - or should be-fast, informal and readily accessible.

External review is provided by the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and four specialist tribunals: the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Immigration Review Tribunal, the Student Assistance Review Tribunal and the Veterans’ Review Board. Two Commonwealth Acts, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 are also relevant.

While each of these review bodies has its own jurisdiction and procedures, together they constitute an integrated package of reform and review which is intended to offer a cheap, fast, accessible and independent means of resolving disputes with Commonwealth agencies.

The Council’s job-put very simply-is to monitor the operation of the system and to advise the government when it thinks adjustments are necessary. More information about the Council and its activities may be found in its Annual Reports.

For many years the Council has been particularly interested in the accessibility of administrative review. A Report to the Attorney-General in March 1987 noted that ‘a right of review is of no value to a person who is not aware of it’.2

The Report made a number of recommendations designed to ensure that people subject to administrative decisions are effectively told about their rights. In January 1991 the Attorney-General informed the Council that he intends to implement virtually all of these recommendations.2 Access to Administrative Review, op. cit.

7

2.2 The National Agenda for a Multicultural AustraliaThe National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia was announced by the Prime Minister in July 1989. It has two main aims: to define what Australian multiculturalism means and to commit the government to supporting a number of specific programmes.

What is multiculturalism? In a descriptive sense it is simply a word to describe Australia’s cultural and ethnic diversity, but as a public policy it has wider ramifications. It describes how, over the past fifteen years or so, the Commonwealth government has responded to that diversity by introducing policies which do not try to assimilate migrants into a dominant culture but; instead, recognise their rights to retain aspects of their own cultural heritage. This has coincided with a growing appreciation of the benefits which cultural diversity brings to Australian society.

In this sense multiculturalism has three basic themes: Cultural identity: the right of all Australians to retain aspects of their

cultural heritage Social justice: the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and

opportunity, and the removal of barriers which arise because of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth

Economic efficiency: the need to develop, maintain and use the skills and talents of all Australians.

In his July 1989 statement, the Prime Minister announced a number of important policy initiatives and programmes designed to meet both short-term needs and long-term objectives. One of them was this Project.

2.3 The ARC’s Multicultural Australia ProjectEarly in 1989 the Council proposed a twelve to eighteen month project whose main tasks would be: to identify deficiencies from a multicultural point of view in the existing

system of administrative decision-making and review (2) Access to Administrative Review, op. cit.

to work with government agencies to develop and try out new ways of administrative decision-making, having appropriate regard to the cultural diversity of the Australian population

to cooperate with review agencies to assess the suitability of existing procedures for handling grievances.

The Project was approved as part of the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, and an amount of $451,000 was made available over two years.

In July 1989 the Council appointed a Steering Committee to plan and supervise the Project. From the outset it was intended that the Project would not just conduct research into problems and recommend solutions. Its first aim was to identify obstacles to effective access and, this done, to design, plan and try out new and better ways of overcoming them.

In December 1989 a Project Leader, Denis Tracey, was appointed. He was joined in

8

April 1990 by two Project Officers, Margaret McDonald and Larry Stillman.Rosemarie Mikhail (January 1990 to March 1991) and Rosie Adams (March-June 1991) were Office Managers. The Project was based in Melbourne.

9

2.4 Other Related ProjectsThe National Agenda has supported two other projects which have much in common with the Council’s Project. The Australian Law Reform Commission is considering whether Australian family law, contract law and the laws relating to the creation and punishment of offences are appropriate to Australia’s multicultural society.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department has recently published a Report concerning the provision of interpreters in the judicial system. This is referred to in Chapter 8.3.

The Bureau of Immigration Research has recently published a study examining the problems of migrants living in rural areas and their dealings with government agencies. This is referred to in Chapter 5.2.

10

CHAPTER 3BUREAUCRATIC CULTURE AND OTHER

CULTURES

The disadvantages that members of ethnic communities face in access to government services (and in many other aspects of life in Australia) are often explained by referring to the problems of language and to something called ‘cultural factors’. While the former are fairly obvious (but certainly not simple), many people find it hard to understand the implications of the differences between traditional Australian culture and the cultures to which many migrants are accustomed. This chapter explains what these ‘cultural factors’ are, and puts them into context.

Contemporary Australian culture (which until quite recently derived almost completely from Western Europe) is itself divided into many sub-cultures. Each of these has its own values, standards, myths and legends and, quite often, its own language. One branch of mainstream Australian culture is bureaucratic culture; administrative review might be regarded as a sub-branch.

Like all cultures, bureaucratic culture is characterised by rules, procedures and customs which emphasise and ensure its individuality and, significantly, tend to exclude outsiders. Whether or not this last characteristic is deliberately engi-neered, its existence and effect is hard to deny.

Now anyone who feels part of mainstream Australian culture will usually have little trouble acquiring some working knowledge with the hundreds of sub-cultures which make up Australian society; though, of course this depends very much on the person’s sophistication, confidence and flexibility and also on the extent to which the group in question wants to preserve its exclusivity. Examples are obvious; most Australians (most Australian men, anyway) seem utterly confident when discussing football teams or horses (sporting culture), and many non-lawyers think they can discuss the law with members of the legal profession on more or less equal terms. On the other hand, few lay people would feel they had much to say in a scholarly gathering of brain surgeons or computer scientists.

When people who are familiar with Australian conditions - or even with the broad themes of Western European civilisation - encounter terms such as ‘appeal’, ‘complaint’, ‘public official’ and especially ‘administrative review’, they will interpret them with reference to certain quite complex criteria which they have acquired through a lifetime’s experience.

But what of people who have little or no familiarity with the mainstream culture? Their prospects of operating with confidence and to good effect are poor. Their attempts to find a way through the various processes are inevitably handicapped by the absence of points of reference through which the subtleties of the sub-culture can be understood. To these people the sub-cultures can seem very inaccessible. They find that the most basic words and phrases have no familiar linguistic or cultural counterparts. To succeed, they must bridge not one gap, but two, and, on the basis of the Project’s observations, the crossing is

11

unlikely to be successfully achieved without considerable confidence, a great deal of courage and, if possible, a knowledgeable and sympathetic guide.

It amounts to this: people who are familiar with Australian cultural institutions might not know about the office of the Ombudsman, but in all probability they will be aware, however vaguely, that administrative decisions are not in themselves immutable, that an aggrieved person need not remain silent, that help and advice should be available somewhere. On the other hand, a person whose cultural roots lie elsewhere may never realise that there should be an institution such as the Ombudsman.

As an illustration, consider a very simple example of administrative review. It ought be simple to explain the theory and practice of how to appeal against DSS decisions. This is especially so since, as described elsewhere in this Report, both the Department and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal have done a good deal to publicise that particular review system. But, as the first major survey and other evidence gathered by the Project revealed, relatively few people in the target communities know about the review system or how to use it. Not surprisingly, this ignorance is even more marked in fields which lack Social Security’s high profile and its well-established network of support and referral organisations.

At this stage an even more pernicious aspect of the problem can be introduced. Some migrants quickly acquire language skills quite sufficient for day-to-day living. With apparent fluency and confidence they discuss the weather, go shopping and take part in ordinary social activities. This may lead to the assumption that their English language skills are sufficient for them to understand more complicated matters, especially if they themselves are unwilling to admit that they are out of their depth. A recent report on interpreters in the legal system3 has some useful comments on this. Of course, this is hardly a new observation. Many people, school teachers, for example, know it well and have simple ways of checking whether their message is being understood. Similar checks are an essential part of cross-cultural communication. They should be routinely applied by officials who deal with members of ethnic communities.

There is another cultural barrier to effective access which should be mentioned. People who are accustomed to life in Australia have, or need have, no fear that a complaint against the authorities might lead to physical danger. Sadly, people who come from certain other countries may need a good deal of reassurance on this point. Fear of possible repercussions was mentioned frequently by participants in the consultations conducted with various ethnic communities across Australia (see Chapter 5.2).

All this means that some members of ethnic communities are alienated from many aspects of mainstream Australian culture, especially more complex or seldom-encountered aspects like the administrative review system. On many occasions the Project encountered people (including quite a few community workers) who seemed to know vaguely about the system but had never tried to use it, apparently because they felt it was not really for the likes of them. This too was frequently mentioned in the consultations with ethnic communities.

3 Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, Access to Interpreters in the Australian Legal System, AGPS, Canberra 1991.

12

It is clear that many of the traditional methods by which government agencies have sought to publicise and explain their services have simply not worked. The main reason for this seems to be that agencies have neither understood nor taken into account the sort of cultural factors described here. Overcoming the resulting obstacles will not be easy, but, as the results of this Project suggest, it is not impossible. The solution can be found in an imaginative application of standard marketing procedures combined with a willingness to experiment with different tactics (see Chapter 6.1).

Finally, here is a passage from a standard text about the sociology of knowledge. The writers are concerned not with different cultures, but with how reasonably well-informed people solve problems with government agencies. The term they use is recipe knowledge:

I know what I must do to apply for a passport . . . I do not care, and do not know, how my application is processed in government offices, by whom after what steps approval is given, who puts a stamp in the passport . . . I am not making a study in government bureaucracy-I just want to go on a vacation abroad.

My interest in the hidden workings of the passport-getting procedure will be aroused only if I fail to get my passport in the end. At that point, .very much as I call on a telephone-repair expert after my telephone has broken down, I call on an expert in passport-getting - a lawyer, say, or my Congressman, or the American Civil Liberties Union.

. . . [A] large part of the social stock of knowledge consists of recipes for the mastery of routine problems. Typically, I have little interest in going beyond this pragmatically necessary knowledge as long as the problems can indeed be mastered thereby.4

If administrative review agencies are to succeed in making themselves accessible to all Australians they will need to find ways of making the relevant recipe knowledge more widely available than it is now. Culturally-conditioned behaviour is notoriously resistant to change (and it should be acknowledged that this applies to members of the bureaucratic culture as well as to members of ethnic communities), but improvements are not-likely until this problem is recognised and agencies become alert to its likely manifestations. Once there is an acknowledged explanation for these problems, strategies can be developed to overcome, or at least to minimise, their ill effects.

4 P L Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin Books, Ringwood, 1971, pp. 56-7.

13

PART BTHE PROJECTCHAPTER 4

OVERALL STRATEGY

This Chapter describes the considerations which led to the Project’s overall strategy.

4.1 Basic ObjectivesThe Project’s general strategy was formed by three important considerations: the need to identify problems the need to demonstrate practical solutions to them the need to reach conclusions and recommendations which are supported by

verifiable evidence.

The Project’s main objective has always been to identify factors which deny or inhibit effective access to administrative review by people from ethnic communities, and to design, develop and demonstrate ways in which these obstacles can be overcome by making better use of existing structures.5 The Project’s focus has thus been extremely practical, rather than theoretical. It tried, wherever possible, to support its conclusions with data which were clear, empirical and demonstrably valid.

4.2 Concentration on Two CommunitiesThis objective raised a difficult problem. The people who comprise Australia’s ethnic communities are divided into hundreds of potential target groups according to standard demographic criteria and, of course, by ethnic background. In view of this (and because time and resources were limited) the Council decided to concentrate on two communities which were ethnically and geographically discrete. After consultation with representatives of umbrella ethnic-based organisations, relevant government agencies, welfare agencies and other people with experience and knowledge in the field, the Council selected the Vietnamese community in Footscray, Victoria and the Turkish community in Auburn, New South Wales.

The detailed information on which the main conclusions are based has thus been collected mainly within these two specific urban communities. While the Council does not wish to dismiss or minimise the limitations so caused (it does not, for example, assume that the problems and solutions identified here will apply uniformly elsewhere), hindsight has confirmed the wisdom of this decision. Had the Project tried to operate over a broader target, it would not 5 In this context it is worth mentioning that the Project team was very conscious of the problems which might arise if it established programmes, facilities or systems which would last only as long as the Project did. For example, when the Working Groups (see Chapter 6.2) were set up, the team was told that the most pressing need was for more community workers, and was asked whether funds might be provided for this purpose. The point may have been a reasonable one, but the request was declined on the grounds that the Project was committed to operating within existing resources.

14

have been able to gather sufficient evidence to justify the conclusions presented in this Report. It might have been accused of superficiality.

In addition, by commissioning consultations in several other ethnic communities throughout Australia (see Chapter 5.2), the Council been able to confirm that the ignorance and misapprehensions about administrative review which were measured in the two target communities apply far more widely.

4.3 Why the Footscray Vietnamese and the Auburn Turks?Hindsight also suggests that the two communities selected were very suitable. According to standard socio-economic indicators (income, occupation, numbers of people receiving government pensions and benefits, unemployment levels, educational levels and so on) both communities are considered to be disadvantaged, but the manifestations of and reasons for this state of affairs are somewhat different.

The Turkish community in Auburn is a relatively long-settled group. A large proportion of the population is old and many people are financially dependent on some form of pension or benefit. Many are neither skilled nor confident in written and spoken English.

Vietnamese people in Australia seem to suffer many of the disadvantages common to more recent migrants. Some are traumatised by experiences overseas and are disturbed at having come-often reluctantly-to a place which, physically, culturally and politically, is extremely alien. In addition, there is no doubt that they suffer from a good deal of racially-based hostility and discrimination. These problems are exacerbated in Footscray by the fact that many Vietnamese do not stay there long, but tend to move fairly quickly to other parts of Melbourne. There are thus fewer local Vietnamese people to share knowledge and experience of Australian conditions with new arrivals. Welfare organisations there are under considerable strain. More detailed descriptions of these two communities appear at Appendix 4.

4.4 StrategyHaving chosen its target groups, the Project’s basic strategy was very simple. It had three stages: a detailed survey to measure knowledge and experience of the administrative

review system and its agencies a programme of intervention designed to inform members of the

communities, and encourage and enable them to make better use of the system

a second survey to measure the effect of the intervention.

The first and third stages (the surveys) are described in the following Chapter. The second (the intervention programme) is described in considerable detail in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. It was divided into three broad categories: educating the community training bilingual community workers encouraging Commonwealth officials to be more accessible to members of

ethnic communities.

15

CHAPTER 5THE SURVEYS

This Chapter describes the research, both quantitative and qualitative, on which the Project’s conclusions and recommendations are based.

5.1 Major Surveys of Target CommunitiesIn May 1990 the Project commissioned a detailed survey of the two target communities in order to obtain basic information about their knowledge and use of the administrative review system and its agencies. In March 1991 a second survey, very similar to the first, was held to measure the effectiveness of the Project’s intervention strategies. Both surveys were carried out by the firm MSJ Keys Young.

Each survey involved face-to-face interviews with 200 adults of Turkish background and a similar number of Vietnamese background. The survey questionnaires were available in English, Turkish, or Vietnamese and interviews were conducted in whichever language was appropriate. The second survey contained some additional questions to investigate respondents’ awareness of particular activities of the Project.

The main findings are set out below in graphic form with brief commentaries. More detailed results appear throughout the next three chapters of this Report. MSJ Keys Young’s full report (which includes a detailed description of the methodology and findings) is reproduced at Appendix 3.

Awareness of administrative review agenciesIn each survey, respondents were asked the same series of questions about their awareness of and experience with various government bodies. The first question asked respondents whether they had heard of some specified government agencies, including the Ombudsman and the three administrative review agencies listed in Figure 1.

Figure 1 shows a marked increase in knowledge of the review agencies over the ten month period of the Project’s activities. Knowledge of the Ombudsman increased from 23% to 52% in the Turkish community and from 11% to 35% in the Vietnamese community. Knowledge of the SSAT was at a higher base but still increased considerably in both communities. Knowledge of the AAT showed a dramatic increase in the Turkish community, from 8% of the first sample to 45% of the second.

Respondents were not asked about the IRT in the first survey because it was so newly established. However, it was included in the second survey and, as Figure 1 shows, 53% of both groups reported knowledge of the Tribunal. This is consistent with the improved knowledge of other review agencies.

16

Awareness of rightsFigure 2 illustrates the dramatic increase in the target communities’ awareness of the right to complain or appeal against government decisions which affect them adversely. The increase is more dramatic in the Turkish community because it started from a lower base. For example, in the first survey, only 41% of Turkish respondents were aware of the right to appeal against Telecom decisions compared with 72% of Vietnamese. In the second survey, the percentage of Turks who knew of this right had risen to 83% compared with 81% of Vietnamese.

17

Use of administrative review agenciesIn each survey, respondents were asked whether they had ever had a problem with a government agency. Those who had (and the numbers were not large) were then asked what action they had taken. The results are reported in Figure 3.

The number of people who did nothing abut a problem declined over the survey period, particularly in the Turkish community. Whereas in the first survey a considerable proportion (41%) of Turkish respondents said they had done nothing about their problems with government departments, this declined to only 17% of respondents in the second survey. In both Vietnamese samples, the number of people who did nothing about their problem was small.

Corresponding to the decline in the number of people who did nothing about a problem was an increase in the number of people who used the formal complaint process. In the case of the Vietnamese community the increase was threefold. The number of Turks who used the formal complaints process more than doubled.

Figure 3 also shows a small increase in the numbers of people who contacted migrant associations to help them with their problems. The numbers who contacted the appropriate government department or agency themselves did not change significantly.

Attitudes to administrative reviewIn both surveys respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of five statements relating to administrative review. The responses are summarised below (Figures 4 to 8).

18

This demonstrates an increase in both communities in the number of people who said that they would probably appeal or complain if they were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government department. The increase in the Turkish community is more marked than the increase in the Vietnamese community.

There was also a very large increase in the number of Turkish respondents who felt that there was some point in trying to do something about a mistake made by a government department. In the first survey, less than half the respondents felt this way, whereas in the second a large majority of respondents (83%) gave this response. There was no change in the Vietnamese community on this issue: in each survey just over half the respondents agreed that there was some point in taking action. These results are illustrated in Figure 5.

19

Figure 6 is very similar. It shows responses to the statement that there are government officials whose job it is to help people complain or appeal.

20

The second survey of the Turkish community shows consistent increase in knowledge of administrative review agencies, of the right to appeal or complain and of the existence of government officials whose job it is to help people to appeal or complain. It is not surprising therefore to find that there was also a large increase in the number of Turkish respondents who agreed with the statement that migrants have the same rights as people born in Australia to appeal or complain about government decisions. This result is reported in Figure 7.

Finally respondents were asked whether they agreed with the proposition that their local community organisations knew how to help them appeal against government decisions.

Figure 8 shows an increase in the number of people who agreed with this statement. The increase is small, but it should be noted that the base figure, particularly for the Vietnamese, was high.

21

ConclusionThe Turkish survey results show a clear and consistent increase in knowledge of the existence of appeal rights and of administrative review agencies over the survey period. They confirm the effectiveness of the information campaign carried out by the Project in Auburn.

Increases in knowledge revealed by the Vietnamese surveys are smaller but are nevertheless consistent, indicating that the Project’s strategies had some effect. They should also be evaluated in the light of the considerable differences between the two communities. Consider the following points: the Vietnamese are recent arrivals to Australia and are likely to be

preoccupied with day-to-day survival. The Turks have been here longer most Vietnamese came here as refugees (many having had recent traumatic

experience in dealings with government). The Turks mostly came as voluntary migrants

Vietnamese culture discourages overt litigation or complaint, especially against established authority. Vietnamese migrants are still coming to terms with the very different cultural values which apply here (see Chapter 3)

the Vietnamese population in Footscray is somewhat transient. The Turkish community in Auburn is long-settled and stable

Vietnamese organisations in Footscray are not as well-established as their counterparts in the Auburn Turkish community

22

the Vietnamese community in Footscray is served by fewer community workers than the Turkish community in Auburn. In addition, the Vietnamese workers tend to be younger and less experienced

the Project was able to obtain more media exposure in Sydney than in Melbourne.

This illustrates the point (often overlooked) that ethnic communities in Australia must never be regarded as a single or homogeneous group. While some problems may be common to many communities (such as their inadequate access to review), the reasons for these and ways of overcoming them may be very different. Chapters 6 and 7 of this Report describe how the Project’s publicity activities had different effects in the Turkish and Vietnamese communities.

5.2 Community ConsultationsChapter 4.2 noted the limitations which arose as a result of the decision to concentrate on two discrete communities. In order to broaden its knowledge, and to ensure that its conclusions applied as broadly as possible, the Project team sought qualitative information among several other ethnic communities in different parts of Australia.

With considerable financial and organisational support from the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) it commissioned a series of consultations on knowledge of and attitudes toward the administrative review system. The consultations were conducted by the OMA’s Group Facilitators, a network of bilingual people who use their community networks to convene small groups of people from a particular language community to discuss and report on matters of interest. OMA explains these consultations as follows: The least articulate in the English language are likely to be the most isolated

from conventional consultation procedures. Hence the need for an innovative approach to lift the barriers for people of non English-speaking background . . .

Group Facilitators . . . are employed for direct and specific consultations with various community groups. They are chosen for their range of linguistic, cultural, analytical and writing skills . . .

Group Facilitators are seen as people in whom community groups can place their trust, people who understand their language and their culture and who are prepared to listen to their views. Their primary role is to help participants articulate their ‘grass roots’ concerns with the greatest clarity possible.6

In order to preserve confidentiality, participant groups or individuals are not specifically identified in the detailed discussion which follows.

Fifteen consultations were commissioned, as follows:Western Australia Malays, Italians, Greeks and Filipinos in Perth and a mixed group in

Bunbury.Northern Territory East Timorese and Indonesians in Darwin.Queensland Filipino groups in Cairns and the Atherton - Tablelands; Italian,

6 Office of Multicultural Affairs, Making it Happen, Access and Equity at Work Around Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1991, pp. 6,7.

23

Polish and Spanish-speaking groups in Brisbane.Victoria Greeks in Mildura; Maltese and Spanish-speaking in Melbourne.

The groups were chosen to give a reasonable representation of ethnic communities across Australia. They include urban and rural communities, recent arrivals and longer-term residents, men and women, young and old.

Altogether 224 people took part in the fifteen group consultations. All were from non English-speaking backgrounds and most were born overseas. The majority had only a fair to poor grasp of English (self-rated). A few who had been born in Australia spoke English very well; a few spoke no English at all.

Results

Knowledge and Use of Administrative ReviewThe consultations confirm that members of ethnic communities have very little knowledge, either theoretical or practical, about administrative review. This was consistent across all 15 groups consulted.

As the table below shows, there was great ignorance of the AAT, the SART and the Ombudsman. The very few people who had any knowledge at all of review agencies were most likely to know about the SSAT and/or the IRT.

Participants were asked whether they had heard of the Ombudsman and the four review tribunals (AAT, SSAT, IRT, SART). Responses were recorded for 154 participants (some Group Facilitators did not record answers to this question).

Agency Number PercentageAAT 14 9%OMBUDSMAN 23 15%SSAT 42 27%IRT* 26 17%SART 4 3%

* Note: 15 participants claimed knowledge of MIRO, the first tier of Immigration review. Others expressed confusion as to the difference between MIRO and the IRT. The IRT figures might therefore be understated.

Some of those who had heard of the Ombudsman had no clear idea of his role or of the operations of his office. One person expressed the view that the Ombudsman was concerned only with ‘big things’. Only one participant (who had once successfully complained to the Ombudsman) seemed to understand that the Office can investigate complaints against government agencies, including matters as mundane as a phone bill.

In fact, participants frequently mentioned problems with Telecom. Many said they had resigned themselves to paying bills because of a feeling of helplessness or intimidation.

Two participants were students and had heard of the SART. However, they had no idea how it worked, or in what circumstances they might want to appeal.

24

Upon finding out about the SART, one participant said that she would appeal against a decision made against her by the Department of Education, Employment and Training.

A few people had actually appealed to the SSAT and the IRT (though in the case of the latter, they may have been referring to its predecessor, the Immigration Review Panel).

Attitudes to administrative reviewOverall, participants who had any perception at all of administrative review saw it as complex and intimidating rather than simple, easily accessible and helpful.

It was a surprise to find that the older, longer-resident groups, such as the Italians, Greeks and Poles, seemed to know no more about administrative review than the younger, more recently arrived groups, such as the Filipinos and the Malay Cocos Islanders. However, the longer-established groups seemed to be more resigned than more recent arrivals. The latter expressed surprise at the existence of the review bodies and frustration to the point of anger that they had not known about them earlier.

One participant in a longer-established community said this:I believe that most of us . . . know something about the right to appeal. But, for some reason or other, we, as a community, are terrified of appeal. I’ve acted as an interpreter many times for people who had serious complaints against Social Security. When these people get knocked back by the Department and they are advised to appeal, they immediately shy away from the idea, which is perceived as an enormous task to undertake and a battle not worth fighting.

When asked who was to blame for their ignorance, the participants were almost unanimous in pointing the finger at government. It is, they felt, the government’s responsibility to inform and educate ethnic communities about the existence and functions of administrative review agencies. A few people thought that they themselves might have made more effort to find out, but even they agreed that it was primarily the government’s responsibility.

While expressing great interest in administrative review and applauding the existence of these hitherto unknown agencies, participants were cynical about the government’s good intentions. Fear of government and possible retribution consistently featured in the interviews. Here are some typical remarks:

David only raises against Goliath in the Bible and not in real life.Rocking the boat too much only invites other trouble . . . So why add to your problems.Why complain? They’re the law, they’re not going to change their minds.Whether migrants have the same rights as others

Participants were asked if they thought migrants have the same rights as people born in Australia. Without exception they replied: in theory, but not in practice. In the real world, they said, there is unhelpfulness, rudeness and discrimination against members of ethnic communities by government officials. Individuals told of their own experiences of being treated as lesser citizens. One said: ‘When they hear the accent, they change the treatment.’

What should the government do to make administrative review more accessible to ethnic communities?

25

Many participants had strong ideas about how governments should inform ethnic communities about administrative review. They are listed here in the priority they were given. Provide better and accessible language services and teach administrative

review agency staff how to use them effectively. Advertise on television (especially SBS). Advertise on ethnic radio programmes. Advertise in ethnic newspapers. Send out government officers to talk to ethnic groups. Train community workers in administrative review so that they know how to

help their clients appeal or complain about government decisions. Establish a government information centre in each city and major regional

centre (perhaps along the lines of the one-stop-shop recommended in Chapter 9).

Produce leaflets in community languages.

On this final point, participants pleaded for care to be taken with translations of government publications. One group was particularly critical of a pamphlet translated into the Indonesian language. It was, they said, a perfectly grammatical, even an elegant translation-probably the work of an academic. But it was quite hard to understand, and probably unintelligible to the people (Indonesian fishermen, for example) at whom it was presumably aimed.

Sources of help or adviceParticipants were asked where they would look for help or advice if they had a problem with a government agency. The great majority said they would turn to family or friends. A few mentioned others in the community, such as community workers or religious leaders.

People in rural areas felt especially isolated. A recent report by the Bureau of Immigration Research confirms the low level of awareness and access to government services by many immigrants living in rural areas.7

The study noted that isolation and ignorance of the bureaucratic process is common among rural people of non English-speaking background. Agencies admit that they know very little about these people, or how to assess and plan for their special needs.

Whether women are as likely to appeal as menRespondents were asked whether they thought women from ethnic communities would be as likely as men to appeal against a government decision. There were no clear trends in discussion of this matter. However, it was mentioned on a number of occasions that women might be more preoccupied with their families and therefore more isolated and unable to speak out, especially if language was a problem.

ConclusionsThe information provided by these consultations confirms and expands the findings of the two quantitative surveys. It is clear that ethnic communities in Australia know very little about administrative review or indeed about the most basic mechanisms of government.

7 I W Grey, P F Dunn, B M Kelly and C J Williams, Immigrant Settlement in Country Areas, AGPS, Canberra, 1991.

26

In addition, the consultations provide rich insight into the difficulties faced by members of ethnic communities in gaining access to review. These are referred to throughout the Report, and especially in Chapters 6 and 8.

5.3 Survey of GIA WorkersLate in 1990, Project staff designed and supervised a small survey of 30 community workers employed in the western suburbs of Melbourne through DILGEA’s Grant-in-Aid Scheme. At the same time a lecturer and students in the Law School at the University of New South Wales carried out a similar survey of GIA and other community workers throughout Sydney.

These surveys were designed to measure knowledge and use of administrative review among ethnic community workers. The results of the surveys are reported in some detail in Chapter 7. They indicate that, in many cases, community workers are not much better informed about administrative review than the people they are meant to advise.

5.4 Survey of Chinese SolicitorsThe Project commissioned a small survey of Chinese or Chinese-dialect speaking solicitors practising in Melbourne. (This was possible because of a generous offer of help from the Secretary to the Victorian Federation of Chinese Associations.) The Law Institute of Victoria provided a list of 19 solicitors who claim expertise in Chinese or a Chinese dialect. Almost all were in general practice. Fourteen interviews were conducted. Because of this small number, results should be treated with caution.

Most of the solicitors claimed some knowledge of the administrative review agencies, but few said that they knew ‘a lot’ about them; most claimed ‘a little’ or ‘not much’ knowledge.

Most had not approached any of the review agencies on behalf of clients during the past year. There had been one approach to the Ombudsman, one to the SSAT, five to the IRT (or possibly its predecessor, the IRP) and five to the AAT. Asked their opinions of the service provided by the review agencies, most respondents had little to offer because of their limited experience. Those who did comment were generally positive about the service provided by the AAT, were uncertain about the Ombudsman’s function, and were critical of the length of time taken by the IRT to reach decisions.

Finally, the solicitors were asked to suggest ways in which access to government services for ethnic Chinese in Australia might be improved. Most responses recommended better dissemination of information.

Even taking into account the small size of the sample, these results do not indicate a strong knowledge or understanding of the administrative review system among a group of people who might be expected to be far better informed. While these solicitors might perhaps be criticised for their ignorance, there seems a clear need for review agencies themselves to take some initiative. Elsewhere in this Report it is suggested that basic marketing techniques can readily be applied to publicising administrative review. Here is a good example of a readily accessible target market.

27

5.5 Welfare Rights Centre: Phone-In on Social Security Matters

On 10 and 11 May 1991 the Welfare Rights Centre in Sydney conducted a phone-in throughout NSW to enable the Department of Social Security’s pensioners and beneficiaries to record their complaints about the service provided.8

The Welfare Rights Centre is a community legal centre which gives free information and help to people about social security matters. The Welfare Rights Centre initiated the phone-in, which was financed from various sources. The Project provided some financial support.

About 1 000 responses were received and these provided 750 substantially completed questionnaires.

There are obvious limitations to statistics obtained from phone-ins; people who are unhappy about the Department are much more likely to phone than satisfied clients. These limitations notwithstanding, here are some of the more relevant results:

8 The Report will shortly be published as SPEAK OUT ON SOCIAL SECURITY-Results of Welfare Rights Centre Phone-in. The address of the Centre is PO Box A236, Sydney South, 2000.

28

67% of callers were born in Australia, 23% were born in non English-speaking countries and 15% use a language other than English at home

57% said that the information given by counter staff was ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ 19% said they had difficulty understanding letters from the Department 54% said the Department’s service is usually ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. The most

commonly-mentioned problems were delays, and wrong information 16% would contact someone outside the Department if they had a DSS

problem.75% would contact DSS

Of those who said they needed an interpreter (10% of callers), 70% said it was generally difficult to get one and 32% felt that the Department’s interpreters were not impartial

31% were unaware that they could challenge a DSS decision. Of those who did know, 28% had found out from a source outside DSS, and 78% also knew about the SSAT

53% said that at some point DSS had made a decision with which they did not agree, but only 18% of these had appealed to the SSAT. Reasons for not appealing were very mixed

Opinions on the SSAT process were: 16%, very good; 34%, good; 6%, satisfactory; 32%, poor; 12%, very poor.

ConclusionsThese results reflect matters more applicable to the Department than to the SSAT. Nevertheless, the phone-in has raised areas of concern which have also been identified through the Project’s research and observations, especially the problems of access to interpreters and the general ignorance about the availability of review.

29

CHAPTER 6COMMUNITY EDUCATION

Chapter 4.3 mentions the three components of the Project’s intervention strategy. This Chapter describes the first of these; a programme of activities designed to inform members of the target communities about the basic concept of administrative review, to help them recognise problems, to tell them their rights when dealing with government agencies and, finally, to encourage them to exercise those rights if they think they have not been treated fairly.

The Chapter is divided into:A rationale which describes some basic marketing concepts and explains how they can be applied to government services.

A description of the intervention activities, emphasising how, in line with marketing principles, they were conceived, applied, evaluated, altered and then re-evaluated.

Conclusions which assess the effectiveness of these activities, especially in the light of the survey results.

Recommendations which suggest how some of these activities might be appropriate for wider application.

6.1 Rationale‘26% of [government] services identified the ‘general public’ as a ‘priority target group’. This was surprising to try to reach everyone is neither prioritising nor targeting. It is also a virtually impossible undertaking to try to reach each member of the community.’9

‘Marketing is the management function that most explicitly links an organization to its external environment - not only to its current and prospective customers, but also to its funding sources and other relevant constituencies.’10

The way government agencies go about publicising their services is a subject which has not received the attention it deserves. Many of the methods used to inform the community about new rules or services or changes to existing ones are inappropriate or inadequate. Many government bodies (including some review agencies) seem unaware of well-established and readily-applicable marketing principles such as: critically examining the efforts of other agencies dividing the potential market into discrete units and designing strategies

appropriate for each trying out different strategies before commencing a wider campaign measuring whether a strategy is having the desired effects, and being

prepared to alter or even abandon it.9 Pauline Clancy, Greg Terrill, and Roslyn King, Government Information Provision: Current Practices and Proposals for Improvement, Department of Property and Services, Victoria, June 1990, p. 16.10 Christopher H Lovelock and Charles B Weinberg, Marketing for Public and Non-profit Managers, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984, p. 12.

30

While this failing is not confined to the multicultural field, it is certainly common there, and its effects are particularly damaging. The Project observed a number of instances in which an agency, feeling a responsibility to inform ethnic communities about some rule or service, has simply composed a brochure, translated it into various languages (sometimes omitting to check the translation for accuracy or cultural sensitivity) and then circulated it to as many addresses as it can obtain from sources like DILGEA, the Office of Multicultural Affairs and state government Ethnic Affairs Commissions.

There is ample evidence of this practice. Migrant Resource Centres and ethnic community organisations across the country are simply flooded with brochures, posters, pamphlets and similar material. Few of these organisations have the resources or even the background knowledge to sort these into useful order. Quite often the material remains in its delivery packages.

It would be surprising to find a successful commercial enterprise relying on so haphazard a method of information dissemination.

To some extent, this may be a expression of public sector culture. Government agencies are not always keen to take risks and try out new ways of doing things. The penalties perceived to attend failure often outweigh the rewards which might follow success. In addition, the fact that most government agencies are the sole providers of their particular product or service does little to encourage an entrepreneurial approach.

The following section of the Report describes how the Project sought to inform members of the two target communities about the theory and practical uses of administrative review. The overall success of these strategies is mainly due to its having applied some basic marketing principles.

Trialing, targeting and measuringThese are some of the key concepts in all publicity and marketing.

Trialing may seem to involve some degree of risk-taking, but this is a dangerously short-sighted view. Failure to experiment with different possible strategies brings a far greater risk, that of proceeding with a programme which is not going to have the desired effect.

Targeting may be thought to discriminate against other members of the public. This is misleading. ‘Rather it is a means for ensuring that messages are communicated to those who need them. It recognises that different strategies need to be used to reach different people, that different groups access information differently, and that some groups have less access to information than others.’11

Measuring is essential. Without it one cannot know whether a strategy can be improved or whether publicity is having the desired effect (or, more seriously perhaps, an undesirable one).

Applying Marketing Principles to Administrative ReviewMarketing of administrative review brings a somewhat vexing problem which does not apply to the same extent in the commercial world, the problem of over-11 Government Information Provision, op. cit., p. 17.

31

selling. Advertisements commonly try to create in the public’s mind an association between the product and some benefit. Often the benefit is intangible or difficult to quantify (‘Our car has more sex appeal’; ‘Our beer tastes better’; ‘Our bank is nicer to its customers’). Alternatively, they may use puffery (‘Whizzo washes whiter’) which everyone understands is not meant to be taken literally.

Those who wish to inform the public about administrative review must be more circumspect. If they use tactics such as these, they run the risk of raising expectations which cannot be guaranteed. Here is an example: as part of its dealings with members of ethnic communities the Project team often had to explain the concept and the role of the Ombudsman. Quite often people would ask (sometimes through an interpreter): ‘Do you mean that the Ombudsman can fix our problems with government?’. There is a real temptation to offer a simple answer to this sort of leading question, but to do so would be to risk misunderstanding and eventual disappointment.

The basic message which the Project sought to present to members of the target communities was this: people in Australia do have a right-even a duty-to question government actions and decisions which affect them personally, and to complain or appeal if they think they have been unfairly treated.

Of course this is a pretty simplistic description of the administrative review system, but in choosing it the Project team was influenced by two important considerations.

First, it is easier to describe the concept of administrative review than to explain the complex integrated network of agencies which make up the review system. (This is a theme which will recur. It obviously applies particularly to people who are less familiar with Australian conditions.)

Second, in trying to attract the public’s attention, the Project was competing with commercial and other interests, many of whom have more exciting products and services to sell and far greater resources to devote to the selling. While idealistic administrators may dream wistfully of a world in which everyone takes a keen interest in government, the fact is that people are unlikely to pay much attention to administrative review unless they have recently felt unhappy about the actions of a government body. The Project team discovered that almost the only people to express real interest in its information were those who had a pressing personal reason to do so; those, for example, with a relative in a refugee camp, those in dispute with the Department of Social Security, or those who had recently received an unusually large phone bill.

There is another point worth noting. In marketing terms, ‘discrete’ groups in which one can measure the effect of different strategies are very useful. By addressing a community through its own dedicated media and in its own language, one can be reasonably sure that only members of that target com-munity will receive the message.

6.2 The Project’s Publicity ActivitiesOne of the Project’s first steps-and one of the most useful-was to set up Working Groups consisting of community workers and others with first hand knowledge

32

and good contacts within the Vietnamese and Turkish communities. In Footscray this consisted of several welfare, community health and child-care workers and a tenants’ adviser who are active in and around Footscray (all of Vietnamese background) and the Coordinator of the Footscray Migrant Resource Centre. After considerable discussion it was agreed that representatives of DSS and DILGEA ought also be invited to join the group.

It is worth summarising this discussion. On the one hand, it was feared that the presence of officials might inhibit the community workers. On the other, the Project was anxious to encourage closer contact between workers and officials, and was reluctant to deny the Group access to the very useful knowledge and experience these people would bring. In the event, the experiment seems to have been a success. The local managers of DSS and DILGEA made invaluable contributions to the Group, and if the workers were inhibited, this didn’t seem to last long.

In Auburn the Project was helped by the fact that, shortly before the Project commenced, Turkish community workers in the Western suburbs of Sydney had set up a Turkish Australian Social Welfare Workers Inter-agency Committee. This included social, health and community development workers and several bilingual officers from State and Commonwealth agencies. This group provided good initial access to the community worker network.

The Working Group which was presently formed consisted of representatives of three local Turkish community organisations12, of the Migrant Services Unit of DSS, of OMA, of DILGEA, and of the Ethnic Communities Council of NSW.

6.2.1 The Vietnamese CommunityThe PressThe Vietnamese community in Footscray is served by about ten Vietnamese language newspapers and magazines which appear on a weekly, daily and irregular basis. Most are based in Sydney and have Melbourne correspondents. None is specific to Footscray.

The first survey (see Chapter 5.1) showed that the Vietnamese community relies a great deal on newspapers for information. This persuaded the Project to conduct a community education campaign about administrative review through the newspapers. The second survey seems to have confirmed the community’s

12 The Australian-Turkish Childcare Co-operative, the Sydney United Youth and Sports Club, and the Turkish Welfare Association.

33

reliance on newspapers, rather than electronic media and other sources of information. This is illustrated in Figure 1.

The Project tried to enlist the help of editors and staff of newspapers. This was not simple. Like the Vietnamese community generally, these people were unfamiliar with the workings of government and therefore had difficulty understanding the Project until they knew what administrative review was.

The newly-formed Working Group then advised that the translations of some early publicly material had not been effective. It was agreed that the Project would be better advised to concentrate on one or two larger newspapers or magazines. TiVi Tuan San, a large-circulation weekly magazine became the focus of the Project’s efforts.

TiVi Tuan San’s main content is television programme listings, news and gossip. It also publishes mainstream news, magazine articles and material which explains life in Australia to new arrivals. It has the further advantage of being retained (for its TV programmes). Its editor was happy to publish (at a discount rate) a regular fortnightly column to be provided by the Project team.

Between August and October 1990 this took the form of a column, Mistakes Made by Government Agencies: You Have a Right to Complain. Each article raised a problem which Vietnamese people in Australia might have with government agencies, and described how it could be resolved. After some time the Working Group advised (rather obliquely) that the column lacked topical interest and appeal; that, in other words, it was dull. The Working Group tried to find a way of making it more appealing.

Vietnamese history and folk-lore tell of Bao Cong, a mandarin who lived during the Han dynasty over 1 000 years ago and was well-known for wisdom and fairness. The Project decided to experiment with an ‘agony column’, for which the team would supply both questions and answers. Called Van Ke Bao Cong (Ask Bao Cong), the column has appeared in this form once a fortnight since December 1990.

Bao Cong (often addressed as Quan (Uncle) by his respectful petitioners) gives advice about specific problems. His tone is avuncular, but not patronising. Most of his columns concerned Commonwealth agencies, but some featured the State Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and other bodies.

Here is a typical item:Dear Bao Cong:My cousin has just arrived from Thailand under the refugee program. He has no money and only his official refugee travel document as proof of identity. We went to Social Security, but the official would not accept his refugee documents as proof of identification for receipt of benefits. He said that Social Security requires three forms of identification, such as a passport, a bank book, or a gas or electricity bill.

My friend is missing out on benefits, but is too scared to go back to Social Security. What should he do?A Refugee’s CousinFootscray

34

35

Dear Refugee’s Cousin:First of all, it is not true that you must always have three identification documents to apply for a benefit. Social Security accepts a range of documents from eligible refugees. The refugee document is acceptable identification, and DSS will make arrangements for other proof of identity, such as a letter from a social worker.

It is possible that the official you saw made a mistake or that you misunderstood him

You or your cousin have every right to ask for the matter to be corrected. There seems to be no legal reason why he cannot apply for benefits.

Your cousin should go back to Social Security-perhaps with a community worker and explain his situation to an official. I am sure that his refugee document will be acceptable, and arrangement will be made for further proofs of identification.

However, if you are not satisfied with the service you get from Social Security, phone or write to the independent Commonwealth Ombudsman, (03) 614 3911, 6th Floor,405 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000.

Bao Cong generally advises people to approach (or reapproach) the appropriate government agency, and this may be reflected in the increased use of administrative review agencies revealed by the Vietnamese surveys. In the first survey, only 8% of people who had problems with government departments said they had used a formal complaint process. A year later this figure had increased to 18%. The second survey also shows that Bao Cong is known by about half the respondents (Appendix 3; Table 4.15).

Van Ke Bao Cong has been a considerable success. A few weeks after the column commenced TiVi Tuan San started receiving genuine letters (mostly from Melbourne, but including some from Sydney and Adelaide) addressed to Bao Cong and asking for advice on all sorts of problems, ranging from Immigration (by far the most frequent issue) to domestic matters. These were answered either in the column or, if they were too complicated or completely outside the Project’s area of interest (and provided the writer could be identified), by letter. This exercise is a good example of the application of basic marketing techniques. Once it had been realised (by simple observation and inquiry) that articles in the press were not having the desired effect, the Project team consulted people closer to the target community and, with their help, developed a more culturally appropriate strategy.

Van Ke Bao Cong has now been handed over to a group of Vietnamese community workers who are developing a network of contacts in Commonwealth and State agencies so that the column can continue. This is very satisfactory, especially since TiVi Tuan San now receives an average of four letters a week seeking help from Bao Kong.

RadioTwo Melbourne radio stations normally carry Vietnamese programmes, 3EA (part of SBS) and 3ZZZ, a community-based station. We were not able to use the latter as its Vietnamese programme had been temporarily suspended.

36

Access to 3EA’s Vietnamese programme was limited by its restricted air time. Given the well-documented problems of this community in Melbourne, it was surprising to find that only three half-hour programmes a week are in Vietnamese. Nevertheless, despite the resulting pressure on the programme (and largely through the enthusiastic cooperation of its co-ordinator), several items were broadcast.

Most important was a series of pre-recorded announcements which sought to present problems and their solutions in an interesting and accessible way. Bao Cong played a leading role.

Here is a typical example (translated into English):Worried person: Uncle Bao Cong-I just got a letter from DSS saying that I owe money because I signed an Assurance of Support for my cousin who is now getting Special Benefit. What will I do?!Bao Cong: My dear boy, you shouldn’t just sign an Assurance of Support and forget about it!Worried person: Do I have to pay the money back?Bao Long: You might. We’ll see-it’ll depend upon the facts of your case. You shouldn’t feel reluctant to speak about something like this with an official at Social Security or the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Why don’t you ask a community worker to help you?Announcer: You have rights with DSS-use them. Lots of Australians do.

The Vietnamese language programme also broadcast several interviews with members of the Working Group and with Project staff (the latter with Vietnamese voiceover).

All these activities were intended to promote recognition of government review agencies and to encourage Vietnamese people to ask community workers for help with problems with government.

Measuring the precise outcome of this is difficult, but the survey results indicate some success. For example, while the second survey showed only a small increase in the number of people who actually went to a migrant association or worker, the number of people who said that they would go to a Migrant Resource Centre or to a Vietnamese community organisation if they had a problem with government nearly doubled (Appendix 3 Table 4.12). This reflects the probability that respondents might not have had an actual need to seek review during this period.

The second survey suggests that radio is an effective way of publicising government services. Figure 2 shows that 43% of respondents knew about the 3EA announcements (Appendix 3, Table 4.15), and given the fact that the programme is broadcast at times which will not suit some potential listeners (Saturday afternoon, Sunday morning, late evening on Thursday), this is a good result. It is similar to knowledge of the Bao Cong column (49%).

37

Figure 2

Phone-insThe Project organised two phone-ins, the first on Telecom services (28 August 1990), and the second on Immigration matters (19 November 1990).

A phone-in cannot be expected to produce the precise results of a properly constructed survey. However, as an experiment in gathering information and informing people, it proved useful.

For both events, Telecom provided four toll-free lines. Rosters of volunteer bilingual community workers were organised. Publicity was arranged through posters, newspaper advertising and radio announcements. Telephones were attended from about 2.00pm to 9.00pm.

The Telecom Phone-InA total of 55 calls was received. Most sought fairly basic information that would be readily accessible to English readers and speakers, but apparently not to Vietnamese. There were enquiries about delays in receiving bills for reverse charge calls from Vietnam, requests for information about the breakdown of phone bills, and queries about costs of calls to Vietnam. One case involving interference with Telecom equipment was resolved. The complainant had not previously been able to convince Telecom that her equipment was being used illegally.

Many of the community workers did not know how to use the phone book as a resource about Telecom services. They were also pleased to find that the Telecom staff present included a Vietnamese speaker who could explain Telecom procedures in Vietnamese.

38

Telecom was supportive of this operation. It met the cost of the telephones (installation, rental and call charges) and its staff were generally very helpful during the event. A representative of the Ombudsman’s office attended.

The Immigration Phone-In

39

The Immigration Phone-InApproximately 180 inquiries (from 160 calls) were received. Many callers were unable to get through and others complained that they had to wait a long time.

Strictly speaking, the majority of calls did not raise matters of review. Rather they sought the most basic information concerning immigration policies and procedures, mostly in the area of Family Migration. It was suggested that this might put the exercise out of the proper jurisdiction of the Council and, by extension, of the Project. The experience of the Project does not support this viewpoint. If people do not know about the most basic functions of government agencies, they are unlikely to make effective use of their review rights.

This point is developed in Chapter 8.

The process of arranging and conducting these phone-ins provided a useful model of ways in which community workers and government officials can be encouraged to cooperate more effectively. As a result of these events, community workers gained practical knowledge and confidence in dealing with government officials. Officials, for their part, had an opportunity to experience at first hand the sorts of problems which beset that community.

It is hard to quantify the effect of this experiment in terms of either customer satisfaction or agency-worker cooperation. However, it is clear that there is a demonstrable lack of information in the Vietnamese community. It is equally clear that community workers provide an important way for agencies to disseminate information.

Public MeetingsMany people (including government officials and members of the Vietnamese Working Group) were inclined to doubt whether public meetings would be an effective method of making contact with the Vietnamese community. Vietnamese people, it was claimed, would be reluctant to air problems in public and DILGEA officers predicted that no-one would be interested in coming to such a meeting unless they themselves had problems to raise. The Department was very reluctant to discuss individual cases publicly and in the absence of relevant records. Nevertheless, in view of the big response to the Immigration phone-in described above, it was agreed that a public meeting might be, at the very least, a useful experiment. The event took place on the 11 December 1990 in the Collingwood Town Hall (no suitable venue was available in the Footscray area).

40

Vietnamese community public meeting on Immigration

Publicity (which referred to the recent phone-in) was arranged in the press, on radio and through posters and handbills. Speakers included the President of the Administrative Review Council, the State Director of DILGEA, a representative of the Migration Internal Review Office and the Senior Member for Victoria of the Immigration Review Tribunal.

About 120 Vietnamese people attended and many asked questions, some in writing (this was encouraged, as a means of preserving anonymity and to give some control over the matters raised). As expected, many of these questions raised individual problems, but this presented no great difficulty. Indeed, it served to focus attention on issues of greatest concern.

The second survey shows that 35.5% of Vietnamese respondents knew about the phone-ins and the public meeting (Appendix 3, Table 4.15). This is a better response than expected from actual attendance at the meeting. It suggests that public meetings may be a more effective means of publicity than had previously been thought. But these events are quite costly, tend to take a lot of time and effort to arrange and probably require the attendance of senior officers. In addition, their success depends on somewhat unpredictable factors such as the weather or conflicting attractions. There is also the possibility of untoward incidents taking place beyond the organisers’ control.

It seems reasonable to conclude that while public meetings have considerable potential for publicising specific matters, they are unlikely to be as cost-effective as most of the other strategies described in this Report.

Handbills, Posters and LeafletsDespite criticism elsewhere in this Report of brochures and similar media, the Council believes that these can be quite effective for general publicity and information, and especially to publicise special events. They are likely to be most effective if used as part of a more extensive publicity campaign.

Religious OrganisationsA religious organisation was able to publicise forthcoming events through the pulpit and parish magazine. This church serves many people in the Footscray

41

area. The Project was fortunate that one of the Working Group was employed as a welfare worker in that church community.

Links like this were useful as they gave the Project’s activities added legitimacy.

42

43

6.2.2 The Turkish CommunityThe pressTo attract the attention of people actually facing problems with government, the Project decided to write a regular Column in a weekly Auburn-based Turkish language newspaper, Yeni V tan (this is the most regular of the four Turkish language newspapers papers published in the Auburn area). The editor gener-ously offered space free of charge.

The column, entitled Siz Ve Hukumet (You and the Government), commenced in June 1990 and ran weekly until the end of October. Each episode presented a short case history of a Turkish person’s problem with a government department and its resolution via administrative review.

Very little feedback was received about this column, and the Project team suspected that it was not having much impact. On the advice of the Turkish Working Group it was replaced by an ‘agony column’ in which fictitious Turkish people (“Worried”, Auburn’) wrote to Marco Pasha about problems with government agencies. Marco Pasha is an historical figure familiar to Turkish people. He was an official in the Ottoman administration during the late 19th-early 20th centuries. It is said that people would go to him with their problems and that Marco Pasha would listen sympathetically, but do nothing more. People who complain are nowadays told, ironically: ‘Try complaining to Marco Pasha’. Of course it was emphasised that this Marco Pasha was not to be regarded as ineffective!

In his column, Marco Pasha would advise petitioners to seek administrative review in the appropriate place. Petitioners always replied describing the outcome of their complaint and thanking Marco Pasha for his advice. While remaining true to case histories (obtained from the Ombudsman’s office, the SSAT, the IRT, HR&EOC and others, including several non-Commonwealth agencies) the Project tried to make these letters as interesting or dramatic as possible. This called for considerable skill on the part of the Turkish translator who had to reproduce Marco Pasha’s somewhat patrician style as well as the more pedestrian tone of his petitioners.

The column had an immediate effect. Members of the Turkish community are accustomed to using the newspaper office as a source of information and many people called at theYeni Vatan office asking for more information about the Ombudsman, the HR&EOC or the IRT.

Within a few weeks the newspaper began receiving real letters to Marco Pasha. Some were about problems with government agencies and some were clearly out of jurisdiction. Where the author could be identified letters were answered privately. Several were published in the column.

Here is an example:

Dear Marco Pasha.Last August I lodged my tax return. In early November I was still waiting for my cheque, so I rang up the Tax Office in Parramatta. I was told I should receive it soon.

44

Nothing happened. I tried again at the end of December. This time I was told that my cheque had been sent out a week ago and that I should have it by now. They said to wait another week before I rang again.

A week later, still no cheque so I rang again. I got the same response: ‘Wait another week!’ Marco Pasha, I am sick of waiting. It is 6 months now since I lodged my tax return. What can I do?

‘Anxious’Granville.

Dear Anxious,You can complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who has power to investigate Taxation matters. His number is 2647188.Marco Pasha.

Dear Marco Pasha,I finally got my cheque from Taxation. I rang the Ombudsman’s office and they took down the details over the phone. They asked me what address I put on the taxation form.

Then they rang the Taxation Office. The Tax people said my cheque had been sent out weeks ago. The man from the Ombudsman office asked them what address they sent it to. The answer: to the address I had on last year’s tax return. They sent it to my old address.

So the Tax Office cancelled the cheque and sent a new one to the right address. I have it in my hand right now and I am going to bank it just as soon as I post this letter to you, thanking you for your advice about complaining to the Ombudsman.

‘No longer anxious’

Just over half the respondents to the second survey knew about the Marco Pasha column (Appendix 3, Table 3.17). Knowledge increased with age: of those in the 50-59 age group 81% answered affirmatively.

All four Turkish language newspapers circulated in and around Auburn published press releases and occasional articles about the Project. One of the Project’s first activities in the community (and one which made a considerable impression) was a visit in June 1990 by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the President of the Administrative Review Council, and the Senior Member for NSW of the SSAT. Press statements announced that the visit was to take place (accompanied by feature articles describing what the Ombudsman was) and were followed up by articles describing the event and reiterating the ways in which the Ombudsman could help people.

The Project also submitted articles about the results of the surveys, describing (both before and after) public meetings dealing with Immigration, Social Security and Taxation matters, and the training sessions conducted for community workers. The Project took advantage of any opportunity to give examples of administrative review and to emphasis people’s right to complain or appeal.

All the Turkish language newspapers provided their services free of any charge to the Project.

45

In both surveys respondents were asked if they had ever read anything in a newspaper or leaflet about their right to complain or appeal about government decisions. Responses show that people were twice as likely to have read about it in a newspaper than in a leaflet. (Appendix 3, Table 3.16.)

This is consistent with information collected by GIA workers (see below), which indicates the importance to the community of their Turkish language newspapers in providing essential information.

RadioSydney’s Turkish programme on 2EA (5135) goes to air daily for 45 minutes, and has an extra hour on Fridays. The programme manager was extremely supportive of the Project, was receptive to innovative ideas and often made valuable suggestions. The Project Leader was interviewed on the programme in April 1990, and took part in a talkback session in May. The latter received a big response. Eight calls were received during the programme, and a further twenty-five immediately after. It was clear from the calls that many people did not know that they could challenge the actions of government agencies. This confirmed several things: the value to the Project of using the radio, the need in the community for information about administrative review, and the Project’s initial belief in the value of innovative approaches to making this knowledge available. The Project also organised radio interviews with the Senior Member for NSW of the IRT, with the Senior Assistant Ombudsman in Sydney, and with a representative of the Migrant Services Unit of DSS. In all of these, an emphasis on practical examples was encouraged. Towards the end of the Project, three Turkish Community workers (members of the Turkish Working Group) were interviewed together on 2EA. They talked about their involvement in the Project and offered an assessment of its value to them as community workers and to the Turkish community generally. The great advantage of this interview was that it did not have to be translated and so would have been more attractive to listeners.

Recording the ‘soapie’

46

47

The radio ‘soapie’The Project’s main activity on 2EA was a radio serial (a ‘soapie’, actually), which featured a ‘typical’ Turkish family living in Sydney and its problems with government. A well-known and extremely talented Turkish-born playwright was commissioned to write a script based on scenarios provided by the Project staff. The programme was called Ozturk Ailesi (The Ozturk Family). Within a romantic and amusing storyline, the family and friends experience lots of problems with government agencies and turn to the Ombudsman and to administrative review agencies for solutions. They are mostly, but not always, successful. The series had a regular weekly timeslot for ten episodes.

A remarkable 72% of respondents to the second survey said they knew about Ozturk Ailesi (see Figure 3). This compares favourably with the 54% who knew of the agency column in the Yeni Vatan and the 59% who knew about the public meetings.

Knowledge of the serial increased with the age of respondents: 95% (!) of those aged 50-59 knew about it, but only 56% of those aged 18-29. This probably reflects occupational and lifestyle differences: older people are less likely to be employed and rely more heavily on radio for news and entertainment.

Public meetingsAlthough some members of the Turkish Working Group (like their Vietnamese counterparts) doubted whether public meetings were likely to be an effective means of communicating the Project’s message, it was agreed that they would be a useful experiment. In fact, with both communities the Project had another, less obvious, intention. Besides informing those members of the community who attended or heard about them, these meetings might, it was felt, encourage government officials to find out more about the problems and concerns of this community (and later on, perhaps, other communities). As discussed in Chapter 8, this aim seems to have had some success.

48

Turkish community public meeting on Social Security matters

Between June and November 1990 four public meetings were held. They dealt with the Ombudsman, Taxation, Immigration, and Social Security matters. They were well publicised and reasonably well-attended, but are difficult to evaluate. While community workers reported an increase in enquiries immediately after each meeting, some of which resulted in appeals or complaints, the overall numbers are small.

On the other hand, the second survey indicates a high rate of knowledge about the meetings. Figure 3 above indicates that over half the respondents (59%) knew about them. This is slightly higher than knowledge of the newspaper column (54%), although considerably lower than the figure for the radio ‘soapie’ (72%). What the survey cannot tell is how effective the public meetings were in getting across the basic message.

The Video AdvertisementIn July 1990 the Turkish Working Group commissioned one of its members to make a video advertisement for distribution through Turkish video rental shops in Auburn. The 90 second video was produced quickly and cheaply. Two shops agreed to insert it, at modest cost, into all their rental videos during a three month period. The script, written by Project staff (and translated into Turkish, of course), was as follows:

Title VoiceSiz Ve Hukumet (You and the Siz Ve HukumetGovernment)Pile of pamphlets (SSAT, Ombudsman, Do you know what to do if you haveAAT, etc). problems with a government department?Phone bill for $799.99 (zoom to figure). Suppose your telephone bill is much

higher than you expected.DSS form. Or the Department of Social Security tells

49

you that your benefit will be reduced orcancelled.

Cheque from the Tax Office with big Or your income tax return is delayed, andquestion mark across it. the Tax Office can’t tell you why.Commonwealth Ombudsman All Australians have a right to complainSocial Security Appeals Tribunal or appeal against government decisions ifImmigration Review Tribunal they think they have not been treatedAdministrative Appeals Tribunal fairly.

If you think you have a problem with agovernment department, ask a Turkishcommunity worker for help and advice.

You have a right to complain (AustralianRemember you have a right to complain.flag in background).

The accompanying graphics also included a shot of the SSAT in session and the names and telephone numbers of local Turkish community organisations from which help and advice could be obtained.

This video advertisement was very successful. Forty seven percent of respondents to the second Turkish Survey knew about it (see Fig. 4, above). This is a very good result, especially since the video was circulated by only two of the four local Turkish video shops, and also because one might have expected the radio and newspaper to have reached a wider audience.

Knowledge of the video was fairly consistent across age groups, although people in the 40-49 years age group were more likely to know about it than people in the youngest age group (18-29).

In November 1990 the Turkish Working Group arranged for three of its members, who are community workers, to collect information from all new clients who reported difficulties with government agencies.

50

Data was collected over five months on sources of information about the right to complain, the nature of the problem, the resolution of the problem (especially referral to an administrative review agency) and language barriers.

The results confirm the effectiveness of the video advertisement. Over half of one community worker’s new clients (Jan-April 1991) were directed to her through this medium.

While the success of the video advertisement was rather a surprise, it is consistent with the Project’s basic rationale: to focus information around practical problems and to capture people’s attention by using innovative advertising methods. The basic message was this: help is available, here’s where it can be obtained.

BrochuresIt was precisely this rationale which persuaded the Project team not to produce brochures about administrative review in Turkish and Vietnamese. People simply don’t want or need to know the details of how to appeal or complain to the Ombudsman until they actually have a problem. When they do, they are much more likely to seek out a person for help than to reach for one of the hundreds of brochures that line the offices of government and community organisations. This is all the more so if they don’t speak English well. In both surveys, respondents were asked where (if anywhere) they had read about their right to complain or appeal against government decisions. In the second Turkish survey, only 27% said they had obtained this information via a leaflet, compared with 57% who said they had read about it in a newspaper and 81% who said they had heard about it on the radio (Appendix 3, Table 3.16). Results for the first survey are similar.

The Council does not suggest that information about government services should not be made available in languages other than English. Rather, it warns against the idea that producing, translating and distributing brochures is itself sufficient to overcome barriers to effective access.

The MosqueThe President of the NSW Auburn Turkish Islamic Cultural Centre (the Mosque) supported the Project. At the first meeting he asked for a leaflet which explained what the Project was doing. This was produced for him by Project staff and was distributed from the Mosque. The President was also very helpful in making announcements about forthcoming events, particularly public meetings.

6.3 CONCLUSIONSFirst, some general conclusions are offered, then some more specific views on the effectiveness of different forms of media.

1. Government service-providers (including review agencies) are not doing enough to make their services known and accessible to some sections of the community. This point is developed in Chapter 8. Existing publicity is largely aimless, unimaginative, uncoordinated and ill-informed. All these shortcomings could be overcome by applying some basic techniques from the field of marketing.

51

2. It is generally easier to publicise the basic concept of administrative review than to try to explain the role and function of the different review agencies. This applies beyond the Commonwealth jurisdiction. In marketing terms the Commonwealth Ombudsman is ‘selling’ a service which is, in essence, very similar to those of his State counterparts, the HR&EOC, various Equal Opportunity Commissions, Consumer Affairs organisations and so on. There is much to be gained from better coordination between these bodies.

3. Publicity for administrative review cannot be completely separated from the primary service providers. An individual who doesn’t know his or her basic rights with, say, Telecom or DSS is unlikely to have effective access to review.

52

The Media: Effective strategiesNewspapers and magazinesIn both communities a newspaper column which was developed using relevant marketing techniques (trialing, targeting and evaluating) had considerable impact. In each instance the Project abandoned a conservative approach in favour of more imaginative tactics once it realised that the former was not having the intended effect.

In both cases the message it sought to convey was basically simple: a person need not remain silent if he or she feels that a government agency has made a mistake or is not acting fairly.

Within this framework the Project tried to target people who had current or recent problems with government. Each ‘complaint’ to Marco Pasha or to Bao Cong presented typical and common cases: Immigration problems, Social Security complaints, problems with Telecom, delays in Taxation refunds and so on. The Project sought to inform by practical example rather than by theory.

RadioThe Turkish ‘soapie’ was a notable success because, like the newspaper columns, it was innovative and applied marketing techniques. It targeted those who had current problems with government decisions. It sought to capture people’s attention by combining humour and human interest and, in this way, to plant the idea of the right to review more generally in the community.

The second survey suggests that the radio announcements for the Vietnamese community seem to have been less effective (though certainly not ineffective). This may be because they were not so specifically targeted and lacked the appeal of a soap drama. On the other hand, it may simply reflect the fact that radio time was more limited.

VideoThe impact of this is assessed above. Its success seems due to its providing specific information in a very direct way, and in telling people who have problems where to go for help.

Less effective strategiesPublic meetingsThe effectiveness of public meetings is not clear. While the second survey shows that a lot of people knew about the meetings, anecdotal evidence and reports from community workers suggest that these have limited appeal and that any increase in awareness may be short-lived.

Phone-insThese were organised only for the Vietnamese community. The Turkish Working Group did not believe they would attract a large response from their community. Like public meetings, these are difficult to organise and to evaluate. On the other hand, they seem to be a useful mechanism for targeting a specific problem, such as immigration, and obviously helped the people who called. In addition, they did a lot to bring officials and community workers together. This gave the former first hand exposure to the sorts of problems

53

affecting members of ethnic communities, and encouraged the latter to set up effective networks of contacts.

A vital pointThe importance of using trained and qualified translators and interpreters cannot be overstated. This is discussed throughout Chapter 8 and in Chapter 5.2, but one vital point can be made now. Translations must be checked with other qualified translators and with the relevant ethnic community to ensure that the translation is accurate and comprehensible. There are dozens of hair-raising stories describing gaffes caused by translators’ errors. Here is a nice example: an unnamed government agency produced a form which included the instruction: ‘Place a cross in every square’. The Italian translation read: ‘Place a crucifix in every piazza’.

6.4 Recommendations1. Commonwealth service-providers (including administrative review

agencies) ought publicise their services more effectively, especially to those sections of the community-including members of ethnic communities-in which a special need can be shown to exist.

2. Government agencies should become familiar with and apply the basic principles of marketing, especially market segmentation, targeting and measuring.

3. Agencies should design their publicity activities imaginatively. They should try out strategies on a limited scale before implementing them more widely. They should assess (if possible by empirical measurement) the effectiveness of strategies and be prepared to amend or even abandon activities which are not meeting agreed objectives. They should ensure that members and staff are involved in the planning of publicity activities, and are aware of and committed to goals.

4. Agencies’ publicity should not be so complex as to overwhelm or deter a potential client-especially one with limited experience of Australian conditions or one who has little understanding of government processes. The basic message: ‘One has a right to question government actions and decisions’ is always to be preferred to publicity which seeks to describe the jurisdictional boundaries and other quite subtle differences between the various agencies.

5. All forms of publicity (press, radio, TV, posters, handbills, public meetings, etc.) can be effective, but none is invariably appropriate for all target groups or for all purposes. Agencies should consider this when planning publicity. In particular, they should seek advice from knowledgeable individuals and organisations within target communities.

6. When publicity material (or indeed anything else) is translated, agencies should make reliable arrangements for checking translations for accuracy and cultural appropriateness.

54

CHAPTER 7TRAINING COMMUNITY WORKERS

The second part of the Project’s strategy sought to reach those people and organisations to whom members of ethnic communities commonly turn for help and advice. This Chapter describes the Project’s activities with these community workers. Like Chapter 6 it is divided into:A rationale which describes the role of these workers and the support they receive from government agenciesA description of the Project’s activities Conclusions which evaluate the effectiveness of these activitiesRecommendations which suggest ways whereby workers might be encouraged and helped to be more effective in dealing on behalf of clients with government agencies.

7.1 RationaleThe previous Chapter concluded that there is little point in trying to explain the detailed workings of the administrative review system to the general population. Members of ethnic communities rely very much on their own networks-formal and informal-to help them deal with unfamiliar aspects of life in Australia. These networks consist of people such as welfare and community development workers, officials of clubs, operators of local businesses, solicitors, pharmacists, doctors and religious leaders and so on.

Some of these people are easy to identify. The staff of Migrant Resource Centres and Grant-in-Aid workers who are employed by ethnic organisations are usually assumed to have some understanding of government processes and are also likely to be broadly supportive of schemes which, like this one, are obviously intended to benefit the community.

There are obvious benefits in bringing together community workers and officials from the government agencies with whom they should be dealing. The community workers can learn about the agencies and develop useful networks, and officials who observe needs and problems at first hand should be encouraged to improve their services and make them better known and more accessible. In all the Project’s dealings with workers and agencies, the team was mindful that its presence was temporary, and it tried to ensure that the contacts fostered would not cease when the Project did. It is too early to be confident that this will happen, though, as explained in this Chapter, the indications are promising.

Ethnic Community WorkersIt is appropriate here to describe the difficult conditions under which many community workers operate. Pressure comes from their clients (‘Why can’t you help me get my brother into Australia?’); from their employers (‘Why are you spending time at meetings instead of with your clients?’); and from government agencies (‘You should attend this series of training courses.’). Not surprisingly, many workers burn out after a short time and this creates further pressures on those who remain.

55

The Council believes that government agencies should do more to recognise the remarkable quality and the dedication of these workers, and the extent to which they act as intermediaries between agencies and ethnic communities. One obvious way in which this might be done is by providing appropriate training; another is by supporting the existing networks through which workers can give one another information and support.

Grant-in-Aid workers and Migrant Resource CentresMost community workers who are active in the ethnic communities are employed under the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) scheme. Others such as health workers and child-care workers are employed under various Commonwealth, State or Local Government programmes. As a group, these workers are remarkable for their commitment, dedication and willingness to work for little reward, often under difficult conditions. The comments below relate specifically to those funded through Commonwealth resources.

The Grant-in-Aid scheme is funded by DILGEA as part of its Settlement Programme. The Department gives grants to community organisations towards the cost of employing social and welfare workers. Following recent changes to government policy, the Department is encouraging these workers to spend less time on individual casework and more on broader community development activities.

There seem to be two main reasons for this. First, since some government agencies have themselves appointed bilingual staff, it may be thought that there is less need for clients to be represented by intermediaries. Second, if the ‘user pays’ principle is to apply, DILGEA should not have to pay for work carried out on behalf of other government agencies such as DSS and state welfare departments.

Irrespective of this sort of justification, this policy will place further pressure on GIA workers. They will still be approached by distressed clients, and their management committees will still expect them to take up individual cases. If they are being urged by DILGEA to concentrate on other activities, it seems inevitable that their morale-already low - will decline further.

These problems are exacerbated by the inadequacy of the training and support GIA workers now seem to receive from DILGEA. When contact was first made with GIA workers in the two target communities, it was found that they knew very little about the broad workings of government and, in several cases, literally nothing about the administrative review system. This was despite the fact that they had regular contact with DILGEA officers (referred to as ‘consultants’) who were supposed to provide support and see to their training needs.

The Council understands that this is a sensitive matter and that the funds DILGEA allocates for this programme are limited. Nevertheless, it believes that training for workers could, without great difficulty, be better tailored for individual needs and made more appropriate for the sorts of demands the workers are likely to face in the field. The comments of workers themselves (see the following section) are instructive.

56

Survey of GIA WorkersLate in 1990 the Project was able to gain a wider and more precise understanding of this problem from the results of two surveys of Grant-in-Aid workers. One was conducted by the Project and surveyed thirty GIA workers in the western and north-western suburbs of Melbourne. The other was conducted by the Law School of the University of NSW with input from the Project. It surveyed 70 community workers (three-quarters of whom were GIAs) across the Sydney area.

In both Melbourne and Sydney the questionnaires were administered in face to face interviews. The questionnaires used in each were similar, but small differences prevent exact comparisons.

The samplesIn the Melbourne survey, over half the respondents were working in either Vietnamese or Spanish-speaking communities. Men outnumbered women by a ratio of two to one. Two-thirds of the respondents were aged between 20 and 40 and one-third between 40 and50 years. Most were born overseas. Three-quarters of the sample were relatively new to their job as a GIA worker, having been in the position three years or less; in fact, a third of the workers had been in the job less than a year. The great majority (74%) had a social work degree. Respondents were not asked whether the qualification was recognised in Australia.

The Sydney sample was rather different, possibly because it included a wider variety of community workers, such as MAPS and PEAPS workers. In this sample, women outnumbered men by a ratio of three to one. The age distribution was similar to the Melbourne sample and, like the Melbourne community workers, the great majority were born overseas. Like their Melbourne counter-parts, the community workers were well-qualified, with 66% having a university education. Most of the Sydney community workers had worked in the community welfare area for many years, and in this respect were more experienced than the Melbourne workers.

Knowledge of Administrative ReviewWhile most respondents could identify review agencies, few knew much about them. In both samples, the majority had heard of the Ombudsman, the SSAT, AAT and IRT. Very few had heard of the SART.

When asked how much they actually knew about the agencies, two-thirds of the Melbourne respondents claimed to know ‘a lot’ about the SSAT and the IRT, but only one-third knew ‘a lot’ about the AAT and the Ombudsman. It should be noted that this question did not distinguish between the Commonwealth and State Ombudsman or even the Banking Ombudsman who had received substantial publicity at the time of the survey. There are indications that the AAT was confused with other agencies.

In Sydney, the majority of respondents had heard of the SSAT, the IRT, the AAT and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Only 20% had heard of the SART. However, the report on the Sydney survey warned that these responses might not be altogether reliable. It noted that:

When one looks at the results of the survey as a whole it appears that the majority of the community workers have a sound knowledge of the administrative review process. However, when one looks at some of the incorrect answers given and the number of ‘don’t knows’ (and missing

57

responses) it becomes clear that many individuals do not. Further, many of the ‘correct’ responses to questions asked were not delivered with confidence. That is, they appeared to be unsure of the answer and so it would be likely than in practice, they would not have acted upon that knowledge.

Use of agenciesIt appears that the community workers use the administrative review agencies infrequently. In Melbourne, the respondents were asked how often they had approached a review agency in the previous year on behalf of a client. One-third had not approached any review agency. Another third had approached the AAT or the Ombudsman, while two-thirds had approached the SSAT or the IRT. These findings are consistent with the GIA workers’ relatively better knowledge of the SSAT and the IRT, discussed above.

The Sydney community workers were also more likely to have approached the SSAT and the IRT: just over half of the workers had dealt with these agencies on a client’s behalf in the previous year. By comparison, less than a third of the workers had dealt with the AAT or the Ombudsman in the same period.

Hypothetical situationsRespondents in Melbourne were asked a series of hypothetical questions designed to test their knowledge and understanding of administrative review.

The first described a typical and fairly simple problem with DSS. Eighty per cent knew they could appeal to the SSAT, but only 10% seemed to know that it was possible to proceed, if unsuccessful, to the AAT. None mentioned the Ombudsman as a possible source of assistance.

A second question raised the common problem of a disputed telephone bill. Only six out of thirty Melbourne respondents knew that the Ombudsman could help.

A question about a taxation problem elicited a similar response: only 8 of the workers knew that they could approach the Ombudsman for assistance.

A hypothetical Immigration problem revealed that most of the community workers knew about the two-tiered review system. However, the fact that five GIA workers did not appear to know about either MIRO or the IRT is disturbing given the responsibilities of these workers to advise and act as advocates for their communities.

The Sydney survey contained some very detailed questions about administrative review procedures. Predictably, most of the respondents were unable to identify with precision and accuracy the steps required to obtain administrative or Ombudsman review.

Support by DILGEAResults here are hard to reconcile. Although two-thirds of Melbourne respondents said they had contact with their consultants once a month, the remaining one-third said they had little contact, or that they got in touch with the consultant only when they had a problem.

Some respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with training offered by DILGEA. They wanted courses aimed at different skill levels, and spoke of a

58

need for practical, rather than theoretical training, and the difficulties of attending courses in view of their heavy workloads.

Information provided by administrative review agenciesWorkers were not much impressed by the quality of information they received from administrative review agencies. Rather than pamphlets and leaflets, respondents wanted more two-way communication-seminars, workshops, information sessions and the like. Many felt that their experience could be of great use to review agencies, and regretted that they were seldom consulted.

GIA networksMost of those surveyed said they had little contact with the GIA network. The main reason was that heavy workloads made it hard to attend meetings.

59

ConclusionThe surveys have demonstrated a low level of knowledge and use of administrative review among GIA workers. The Council understands that DILGEA is at present reviewing the GIA scheme. Council recommends that DILGEA continue consulting with representatives of the GIA workers. As a first step, the Department should encourage and support the formation (or resuscitation) of GIA networks across the country. As stated above, these are an invaluable resource. Their knowledge of and commitment to their communities, and the fact that they generally have the confidence of leaders and others give them a unique perspective from which to observe and understand problems and recommend solutions.

The training provided by DILGEA for GIA workers is, on the Project’s observation and according to the workers’ own assessment, insufficient or inappropriate to their different needs. The Council recommends that DILGEA review the content and delivery of the training and support it provides for GIA workers, and that it consult with GIA workers in this review.

7.2 The Project’s ActivitiesCommunity workers in and around Footscray and Auburn played a large part in the success of the Project. They formed the core of the training sessions (described below) and were invaluable members of the two Working Groups. Their commitment to the Project never faltered, despite the extra demands it made to their already large workloads.

These workers have the potential to be a very effective bridge between the communities they serve and review agencies.

7.2.1 Vietnamese WorkersTraining sessionsTraining sessions were organised in the two areas in which interest and need were demonstrably greatest, Social Security and Immigration. The following points, which applied late in 1990, demonstrate this need: the Area Review Officer at DSS, Footscray estimated that although about

20% of the Department’s clients in the area were of Vietnamese origin, only about 5% of cases which came to him involved Vietnamese people

the SSAT in Victoria had received a number of appeals from Vietnamese in the Springvale area (where there are extremely good support agencies), but, it thought, none at all from Footscray

the IRT in Victoria had received no applications from Vietnamese people.

Initially the Project staff hoped to conduct training sessions covering other areas, but this proved too difficult, mainly because the workers were already under great pressure and unwilling to commit themselves to any but the most pressing topics.

It was agreed that the sessions should be open to Vietnamese workers from all over Melbourne.

Both training sessions were attended by twenty or thirty community workers and took place over two mornings. They were conducted by representatives of

60

the Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau and were designed to cover both theoretical and practical aspects of Immigration and Social Security policy and review procedures. Participants included the President and Members of the ARC, senior officers from the respective Departments and representatives of the internal and external review structures: MIRO, the IRT, the SSAT and the Ombudsman.

Active participation was encouraged. A highlight was a mock hearing conducted by a Senior Member of the SSAT in which Departmental officers and several community workers played typical parts.

Following these sessions, the Project arranged a series of visits by community workers to the SSAT where workers were able to observe actual hearings. This process was intended to provide practical experience and to encourage workers to approach agencies.

Participant ObservationIn late 1990 and early 1991 Project staff spent several days observing the activities of the Vietnamese Community Association’s two centres in Footscray.

They came away with two strong impressions. First, the community workers had difficulty in recognising cases which were appropriate for referral to a review agency. There seemed to be problems in applying recently-acquired theoretical knowledge to the individual cases with which they were dealing. Second, it seemed that assistance was being sought for the most basic tasks such as completing forms, explaining gas, electricity and phone bills and so on.

In addition, many of those seeking this help seemed to be reasonably competent in English.

It would be dangerous to base firm conclusions on these brief and tenuous observations, but they do tend to confirm other impressions. Vietnamese people are strongly disinclined to deal with government officials, even perhaps those of Vietnamese origin. Overcoming this reluctance will be a difficult and slow process. In the meantime, there is a clear need for ethnic communities to have access to bilingual community workers who are themselves adequately informed and equipped to deal with problems with government agencies.

7.2.2 Turkish WorkersTraining sessions were designed around and for members of the Turkish Australian Social Welfare Workers Inter-agency (see Chapter 6.2). Initially others, such as community leaders and media representatives, were invited to the sessions but, because of language difficulties and work commitments, few attended. A core group of community workers came to all of the sessions which were organised. It included the three local Grant-in-Aid workers who became more and more important to the success of the Project.

Between June and December 1990, training sessions were devoted to Telecom, the Commonwealth Employment Service, DSS, DILGEA, the Ombudsman (Commonwealth and State) and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

61

The sessions were conducted by professional adult educators. In all cases representatives of the primary decision-making agency and the review body attended. This ensured that the information conveyed was accurate and relevant and, just as important, encouraged the workers to feel more confident about approaching the agencies later.

Two of the sessions (on Social Security and Immigration Appeals) were followed by visits by the GIA workers to the relevant review agencies in the city. There they were able to observe actual hearings, meet members of the Tribunals and thus gain further familiarity and confidence.

Turkish community workers meet Professor Leroy Certoma, Senior Member of the Immigration Review Tribunal in Sydney. (Professor Certoma is 4th from the right)

7.2.3 ResultsThe long-term effectiveness of the training is hard to assess, but the general increase in knowledge and use of administrative review, as shown in Chapter 5.1, is clear. The ten month period of the Project’s activities saw a dramatic increase, particularly within the Turkish community, in awareness of review agencies and of the right to appeal or complain against government decisions.

At least part of this improvement can be attributed to the increased knowledge and confidence of the community workers in recognising problems which can be resolved by appeal or complaint. Figure 1 indicates that both Turkish and Vietnamese community members are now more likely to use formal review processes if they have a problem with government. The experience of this

62

Project suggest that they are likely to do so via a bilingual community worker. The same Figure shows that there has also been an increase, although not so large, in the number of people who contacted a migrant association for help with a problem with government.

Another encouraging piece of evidence is the increase in the number of Vietnamese who have appealed to the IRT in Victoria-from none in 1990 to 10% of all appellants since the start of 1991. (Although this may, to some extent, also be due to the normal flow of applications to this fairly new review agency). Certainly the Vietnamese community workers who were involved with the Project are now much more practised in dealing with government agencies. They are taking initiatives, such as establishing a working party (which will include representatives of several government bodies) to take over the Van Ke Bao Cong advice column described in Chapter 6.2.1.

The Turkish community workers who worked with the Project have also displayed increased ability and confidence in dealing with government, particularly administrative review agencies. When the Project team first encountered these community workers, they were somewhat mistrustful of the Project, knew very little about administrative review and seldom, if ever, referred any clients to review agencies. Some had heard of the Ombudsman but didn’t know what he did or what sorts of complaints one could make to him.

When the work of the Project effectively ceased in early 1991, the same group of community workers knew a lot about administrative review, were effectively using their new network of contacts in government agencies and were referring their clients to the review agencies, particularly the SSAT and the Ombudsman. Chapter 8.6 describes the very large increase in complaints to the Ombudsman from members of the Turkish community following a training session in which a representative of the Ombudsman’s office took an active role.

7.3 ConclusionsThe results of the Project make it clear that the most effective way for review agencies to make themselves accessible to members of ethnic communities is through community workers. These people are almost always bilingual, are remarkably committed to improving the conditions of their community and, most important, have the confidence of their clients.

The basic aim of all training activities was to link theory to practice and to encourage the establishment of a network of contacts. Like many ethnic groups, the Turkish and Vietnamese communities tend to rely very much on personal networks for information. The Project team’s observations suggest strongly that the personal networks these workers built up during the Project are now being put to good use. However the workers will need continued support to maintain and develop these networks.

Properly trained and encouraged these workers could act as agents for review bodies, spotting cases suitable for referral, acting as a point of contact between the review agency and the client and generally spreading the message of administrative review through their communities.

There is a precedent for this sort of arrangement. The South Australian Ombudsman has appointed a part-time Aboriginal Liaison Officer, a person

63

whose other duties (with a State Government agency) take him to various Aboriginal communities in the state, and bring to his attention cases which might be referred to the Ombudsman. In addition, Aboriginal and Vietnamese Police Community Liaison Officers are being recruited and trained in some states and territories.

This might also be particularly appropriate for rural communities.

But before this can happen the problems affecting the community workers need to be tackled. The fact that most of these people are funded through DILGEA does not mean that DILGEA should be expected to take entire responsibility for doing so. The next Chapter recommends an expanded role for the review agencies, and particularly the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which may lead to more effective use being made of what is now a badly misused and overstressed resource.

As a concept, administrative review is not particularly complicated. The aspects of the system which are hardest to explain to people unfamiliar with the principles of government are the various rules and provisos which arise because of jurisdictional barriers. This Report has noted the mass of printed material which is made available to community workers and organisations. Much of this is wasted. It is often poorly presented (and translated) and, more often than not, is composed without consultation with its intended targets. In addition, the sheer volume of the material produced is itself a disincentive. Workers have no way of knowing which material must be read, as opposed to should, or even might be read. The Project’s experience is that much of the material is simply ignored.

The Council believes that there is a need for a simple guide to administrative review written from the point of view of the potential client, rather than of the agencies.

7.4 Recommendations1. Administrative review agencies (and other government agencies) should

develop closer links with ethnic community workers. This should include training and familiarisation sessions and the encouragement of community workers to approach agencies for help and advice.

2. DILGEA should review the content and delivery of the training and support it provides for Grant-in-Aid workers. Community workers should be consulted.

3. Networks of Grant-in-Aid workers ought be encouraged, if necessary by providing organisational advice and facilities. Workers should be consulted as to the most appropriate ways of achieving this.

4. A user-friendly guide to the administrative review system ought be prepared and circulated. It should cover all aspects of the system and, to a large extent, replace the mass of individual brochures, pamphlets, posters, leaflets and other material which is now in circulation. The Council will pursue this as part of its continuing interest in access to review. (The final Chapter of this Report notes the potential for this to be developed through computer technology.)

64

65

CHAPTER 8GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

This Chapter is based on the third part of the Project’s intervention strategy; encouraging Commonwealth bodies to be more accessible to members of ethnic communities and more aware of the problems which affect them.

This Chapter assesses the performance of several Commonwealth agencies-primary service-providers as well as review agencies. Comments are based on the close contacts established with agencies and on their involvement in the Project’s activities.

A note on Language Services is included. Recommendations are made in respect of each agency.

The Chapter concludes with some general conclusions and recommendations.

1-THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AGENCIES:8.1 The Administrative Appeals TribunalThe Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an independent body which has power to review certain decisions made by Commonwealth government Ministers, statutory authorities, government officials and some other tribunals, such as the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

It is well-placed to identify and make itself accessible to potential appellants, as most of these have already received an unfavourable decision from the SSAT, the Australian Taxation Office, the Commission for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees (Comcare) or the Australian Customs Service. In all but the Social Security jurisdiction, applicants are usually legally represented.

Access and Equity activitiesThe AAT is now developing an access and equity plan. Activities include the collection of basic ethnicity data about appellants, and the conduct of two surveys of actual and potential appellants. The Project staff acted as consultants in the development of these activities.

A survey of AAT appellants was trialed in February-March 1991 and is now being reviewed. The survey was intended to provide information about the process of appeal, including sources of information and assistance, problems encountered at the Tribunal, use of interpreters, and appellants’ opinions of the appeal process. It also sought to collect basic ethnicity data, such as language spoken and country of birth. Unfortunately, problems have arisen in the administration of this survey and at this stage there are no useful results to report.

The Project also helped conduct a survey as to why some potential appellants do not proceed to the AAT. This commenced in mid-March 1991 and is still being conducted. Approximately 300 people whose appeals to the SSAT were unsuccessful, but who did not proceed to the AAT within the required time, will

66

be interviewed by telephone and asked a series of questions related to their experiences at the SSAT and their reasons for not appealing further.

Preliminary results of the survey suggest that the main reason why unsuccessful SSAT applicants do not proceed to the AAT is that they are fed up with arguing with government and/or they don’t expect to succeed at the AAT. Only a few respondents said they didn’t know they could appeal to the AAT.

The fact that so many respondents identified the AAT with ‘government’ suggests that it should improve its information dissemination to potential applicants from non English-speaking communities and, particularly, to emphasise its independence from departments and the primary decision-making process.

The AAT makes no provision for interpreters as of right, although it will arrange for an interpreter where the need is identified (usually at a Preliminary Conference).

It does not publish any information in languages other than English and has not in the past collected demographic data about its clients. However, questions on ethnicity (using OMA guidelines) are soon to be included on the AAT application form.

Another recent initiative is training in cross-cultural communication for Members and staff. A Project is also underway to brief ethnic community workers about the AAT.

Survey resultsThe Project’s second survey of the Turkish and Vietnamese communities showed that knowledge of the AAT increased substantially over the period of the Project’s intervention. (From 8% to 45% of Turkish respondents and from 13% to 23% of Vietnamese respondents (Appendix 3, Tables 3.8 and 4.8)). However, overall there was less knowledge of the AAT than of other administrative review agencies.

Consultations with ethnic communities around Australia, conducted by OMA Group Facilitators (see Chapter 5.2) revealed widespread ignorance of the existence or function of the AAT. Participants expressed great interest in the Tribunal and wanted information about it. They were disappointed that there were no brochures available in community languages.

Recommendations1. The AAT should ask appellants at the application stage whether they

require an interpreter for their Hearing. The AAT should take responsibility for providing qualified interpreters.

2. The AAT should develop a community education programme which will inform ethnic communities (and particularly community workers) about its role and functions. Some of the strategies used by this Project might be worth investigating.

3. The AAT should critically examine the letters and other written forms through which its main ‘feeder’ agencies inform people of their appeal rights. Most of them could be greatly improved. This is discussed later in this Chapter.

67

4. The AAT should consider cooperating with other review agencies in publicity work.

68

8.2 The Social Security Appeals TribunalThe Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) can affirm, set aside or vary decisions of the Department of Social Security. It is independent of the Department. SSAT decisions are subject to further appeal to the AAT.

Access and Equity activitiesThe SSAT has developed sound practices to make itself accessible to potential clients, including those from non English-speaking background. For example, it makes budgetary provision for interpreters. Clients are asked when they make application whether they want an interpreter at the Hearing; if they do, an interpreter is provided. The SSAT will also pay the cost of fares to the Tribunal for clients who claim hardship. In simple cases, appellants do not have to attend in person if travel imposes difficulties; in these cases, hearings can be conducted by telephone. Between 20% and 25% of cases are heard in this way.

Hearings are informal and clients are encouraged to put their case to the Tribunal. Preliminary results of the survey now being conducted on behalf of the AAT (see above) suggest considerable client satisfaction with the SSAT. Notwithstanding the fact that their appeals were unsuccessful, respondents seemed to feel that they had been given a ‘fair go’. The Department of Social Security, on the other hand, seems to be less well-regarded and many people are still resentful about their experiences there.

So far the SSAT has not tried to collect demographic information (including ethnicity data) on its clients, but the Council understands that this will be done once the Tribunal’s computer system has been improved. It will be difficult to target and measure information strategies effectively until this is done.

In the meantime, the SSAT produces and distributes brochures and posters in ten community languages, and is developing a video. This material is targeted broadly at ethnic communities throughout Australia. Evidence from the surveys and the Project team’s observations suggest that these forms of advertising are unlikely to be very effective unless they are more focussed and more innovative (see Chapter 6).

Involvement with the ProjectThe SSAT was very supportive of the Project and cooperated in many of its activities. This included: attending and speaking at two public meetings organised to inform the

Turkish community about appeal rights participating actively in training sessions for Vietnamese and Turkish

community workers organising visits to the Tribunal for community workers and allowing them to

sit in on hearings inviting the Project Leader to address a meeting of Tribunal Members in

NSW contributing to the planning and administration of the AAT survey of

unsuccessful applicants taking part in an interview on the 2EA Turkish language radio programme taking active steps in Melbourne to liaise with the Vietnamese community

workers’ network generally providing information and advice to the Project.

69

70

Survey ResultsThe second survey of the Turkish and Vietnamese communities shows that knowledge of the SSAT increased significantly over the period of the Project’s intervention. (From 32% to 55% of Turkish respondents and from 25% to 46% of Vietnamese respondents (Appendix 3, Tables 3.8 and 4.8)). The Project’s consultations with ethnic communities (see Chapter 5.2) revealed that the SSAT was better known than all other review agencies, with the possible exception of the IRT. While these results are encouraging, the fact remains that most people from ethnic communities do not know about the SSAT. Very few people involved in the consultations had ever made an appeal, despite the fact that many of them were social security recipients.

Recommendations1. The SSAT should routinely collect ethnicity data on its clients. This

should be done at the application stage to ensure uniformity and to facilitate data analysis.

2. The SSAT should target ethnic groups more selectively in its publicity, giving priority to those identified as having greater access problems. It should continue to publish brochures in community languages but should also consider more innovative ways of disseminating information to target ethnic communities. It should consider cooperating with other review agencies in promotional activities.

8.3. The Immigration Review TribunalThe Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT) is an independent body which conducts a final merits review of certain immigration decisions. All its cases arise following an unfavourable decision by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, and most have also been reviewed in the Department by the Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO).

Access and Equity ActivitiesThe IRT is particularly attentive to access issues. It provides interpreters as of right and is producing its information brochure in 15 community languages. Like the SSAT, it tries to make hearings informal and non-threatening, and does what it can to simplify an essentially complex area of law and regulation.

With the help of DILGEA, the IRT is now compiling statistics on refusal rates for particular ethnic groups. This will enable it to identify those groups with greatest need for access and to develop an education programme aimed specifically at them.

Involvement with the ProjectIn both Melbourne and Sydney, members and staff of the Tribunal were invariably supportive of and helpful to the Project. Senior Members addressed public meetings for the Vietnamese and Turkish communities; in Sydney, the Senior Member invited a group of Turkish community workers to the Tribunal to observe its workings at first hand. He also participated in an interview on Radio 2EA’s Turkish language programme. This interview was later broadcast by most other 2EA language programmes.

Survey resultsThe second survey showed that over half of the Vietnamese and Turkish respondents knew about the IRT. (The IRT was not included in the first survey.

71

It had only very recently been established and it was felt that no useful results would be obtained.) This awareness level is very similar to the results for the SSAT and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations1. The IRT should continue to publish brochures in community languages,

but should also consider more innovative ways of disseminating information to target-ethnic communities.

2. The IRT should be encouraged to develop its targeted community education programme. It should consider cooperating with other review agencies in its publicity activities.

8.4 The Student Assistance Review TribunalThe Student Assistance Review Tribunal (SART) provides a second tier of review to persons who have applied for or who are in receipt of student assistance (AUSTUDY) and who are dissatisfied with a decision made by the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). An appeal may not be lodged with SART until internal review has been obtained.

Very few people know of the SART’s existence. In the surveys of Grant-in-Aid workers (see Chapter 7.1), only 10% and 20% respectively of Melbourne and Sydney respondents claimed to have heard of it. Only a handful of the 224 members of ethnic communities who took part in the Project’s consultations had ever heard of the SART (see Chapter 5.2).

Given this widespread ignorance, it is not surprising there is very low use of the SART. Statistics supplied to the Council by the Department show that, of 343,099 applications for student education allowances (mostly AUSTUDY) processed in 1989, only 189 (or 0.0055%) were the subject of appeals to SART.

This ignorance is readily explained. SART does virtually nothing to publicise itself. It is not listed in the telephone book. The only people who are routinely told about it are students whose appeals against decisions of DEET are rejected after internal review.

In October 1987 the Council recommended to the Attorney-General that notification of a SART decision should contain advice about further appeal rights to the AAT. This recommendation was accepted and has been implemented by DEET.

However, other access problems identified by the Council have not been addressed. These include the effects of delay, deterrence through internal review, problems in making contact with the SART, failure to keep internal review statistics, and scepticism within the community about the usefulness of the system.

Contact with the ProjectProject staff contacted SART early in the Project, only to be told that SART had no guidelines on access; and that besides, since all potential appellants are senior secondary or tertiary students, they may be assumed to have adequate

72

English skills. Cultural problems like those described in Chapter 4 had evidently not been considered at all.

The Project’s experiences in the Turkish and Vietnamese communities suggest that these assumptions are wrong. It is simply not true that all students in receipt of student assistance have an adequate knowledge of English. Project staff were personally involved in the case of a student born in Turkey who had a problem with AUSTUDY. He was in his last year at high school but his English was not adequate to enable him to complete the application form. His problem arose because someone else had completed it wrongly.

Other anecdotal evidence collected in the course of the Project confirms that many people from non English-speaking backgrounds who may be assumed to speak English actually have insufficient skill or confidence to communicate effectively with government officials.

Recommendations:1. The extraordinarily low levels of knowledge and use of SART must be

addressed by DEET. The Council recommends that the SART undertake a community education campaign, using the kind of strategies described in this Report.

2. SART should routinely collect ethnicity data on clients, using OMA guidelines.3. The recently-announced review of AUSTUDY should examine the question

of access to review.

8.5 The Veterans’ Review BoardProblems of access to the Veterans Review Board for people from non English-speaking backgrounds were not considered by the Project. Very few actual or potential clients of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs are from non English-speaking backgrounds.

8.6 The Commonwealth OmbudsmanSeveral commentators have noted the impact made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman since his office was created in 1976. Goldring and Thynne13 may be typical:

Of all the review mechanisms, the Ombudsman is the one who has been at the cutting edge, and has turned out to be the most far-reaching and effective. Because access to the Ombudsman is free and informal, members of the community can and do readily refer problems to his office, often achieving the desired results. His functions are limited to investigation and suggestion, and there have been a number of cases where his recommendations have been resisted by the government, usually on financial grounds. But in many cases he has been able to provide an appropriate remedy for alleged maladministration. His biggest problem appears to be a lack of resources to deal with an increasing stream of complaints. (Annual Reports, 1977 onwards). However, his office has devised a number of mechanisms for the efficient handling of routine complaints, usually through the designation of liaison or contact officers in particular departments and agencies . . .

13 John Goldring and Ian Thynne, Administrative Review, Public Morality and the Integration of Administrative and Legal Cultures, MacMillan, Melbourne, 1990, p. 153.

73

There have been criticisms of the Ombudsman’s office, usually on the grounds that it is cumbersome, slow, unresponsive and itself bureaucratic . . . However, these criticisms, while not to be dismissed, have usually focused on particular cases, and have not taken account of the Ombudsman’s successes, nor of the impact which the availability of this kind of review has had on administrative processes and procedures. Notwithstanding these remarks, there is one important area in which the Ombudsman has been less active and his office’s achievements less successful. Public awareness of the office, especially among disadvantaged groups, is low.

74

Public awarenessThe first survey demonstrated profound ignorance of the Ombudsman. Only 11% of Vietnamese and 23% of Turkish respondents had heard of the office (Appendix 3; Tables 3.8 and 4.8). Anecdotal evidence and participant observation by Project staff confirm this. Some community workers knew of the existence of the Office but had no idea of what it did or of how to approach it. This changed over time as a result of the Project’s information campaign. (Awareness increased from 23% to 52% of Turkish respondents, and from 11% to 35% of Vietnamese respondents. (Appendix 3, Tables 3.8 and 4.8)).

The consultations with ethnic communities across Australia confirm that few people know about the Ombudsman (see Chapter 5.2). While the name itself is often recognised, people generally have only the vaguest idea of his function. Some participants thought that the Ombudsman deals with ‘big’ and ‘complex’ matters. No-one knew, for example, that one could complain about a matter as mundane as the telephone bill.

Access and Equity activitiesThe Ombudsman has a very sound Access and Equity plan, which includes consultation with community and ethnic groups, liaison with relevant agencies and promotion of the Office through ethnic media, participating in seminars and so on. However the plan has not been implemented.

As early as 1978, the Galbally Report recommended that the Ombudsman ‘ensure that multilingual information about his role is widely available to migrants and ethnic communities’14. In 1982 a further report noted that although leaflets had been produced in community languages, they were ‘unsatisfactory in their advice’15. The Ombudsman’s latest range of leaflets is published only in English, though some copies of the old (unsatisfactory) versions are still available.

In the past the Ombudsman has attributed this to a lack of resources. The poor resourcing of the Ombudsman’s office is a matter of record and the Council strongly supports additional financing, particularly for promotional activities and for the provision of interpreters (see below).

The Project’s intervention strategies in the Vietnamese and Turkish communities demonstrate the effectiveness of community outreach programmes. The training sessions for community workers were probably the most effective means by which communities were informed about the Ombudsman. They were neither difficult nor particularly expensive to organise, but were undoubtedly effective in bringing community workers into direct contact with representatives of government agencies.

For example, early in December 1990 a representative of the Ombudsman’s Sydney office attended and took a very active part in a training session for Turkish community workers. This officer told Project team that, as far as he knew, no-one from the Turkish community in Sydney had ever lodged a complaint. A few months later he advised that no fewer than sixteen complaints

14 F Galbally (Chairman), Migrant Services and Programs: Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and services for Migrants, Canberra, AGPS, 1978.15 The Australian of Multicultural Affairs, Evaluation of Post-Arrival Programs and Services, Melbourne, AIMA, 1982, pp. 282-3.

75

had recently been received from Turkish people. Contacts in the community reported that most of these had been referred to the Ombudsman’s office by the three Grant-in-Aid workers with whom the Project had been working very closely(see Chapter 7).

On the other hand, there seems to have been far less reaction from the Footscray Vietnamese community. To some extent, this may be because the Project had better access to the Turkish media than the Vietnamese. It is also likely that this reflects the fact that the Vietnamese community in Australia is more culturally alienated from Australian institutions and especially that it is extremely apprehensive about dealing with government officials.

The Project’s experience suggests a number of ways in which the Ombudsman might be able to set up effective outreach activities at reasonably modest cost. Employing agents within specific target groups (as has been done by the South Australian Ombudsman-see Chapter 7.3) seems to promise mutual benefits. The agents (who would probably be community workers or something similar) would be better equipped to assist their clients, and the Ombudsman would have ready access to ethnic communities.

Other outreach activities should include meetings and training sessions with ethnic community workers.

Use of interpretersNo provision for interpreters is included in the Ombudsman’s budget. Complainants who wish to speak directly to his officers and who do not speak English well enough, must provide their own interpreters or use the Telephone Interpreter Service. This is seen by community workers as a significant barrier to access.

The Council strongly recommend that the Ombudsman’s resources be increased to include the provision of interpreters. These costs ought not be particularly large. The SSAT in NSW, for example, which uses interpreters very extensively, expects to spend $40,000 on interpreters in 1990-91. It is unlikely that the Ombudsman’s Office would need as much as this.

Cooperation with the ProjectThe Ombudsman’s Office took part in several of the Project’s activities. The then Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor Pearce, was the key

speaker at a public meeting for the Turkish community in Auburn. The Senior Assistant Ombudsman in Sydney was interviewed for the Turkish

language programme on Radio 2EA. The Senior Assistant Ombudsman in Melbourne attended a meeting of the

Vietnamese Working Group. In both Sydney and Melbourne, representatives of the Ombudsman’s office

attended training sessions for community workers. In Melbourne, a representative of the office attended the Telecom phone-in

(see Chapter 6.2.1).

76

The effectiveness of these activities is reflected in the results of the second survey which demonstrate a significant increase in knowledge of the Ombudsman in both target communities.

77

Enhanced role for the OmbudsmanFavourable public perceptionsAs noted elsewhere in this Report, many people who do not have a detailed understanding of what the Ombudsman actually does, seem nevertheless to be familiar with the title and may also have some idea - albeit quite vague - of his general role. This may to some extent be due to recent publicity concerning the appointment of a Banking Industry Ombudsman and proposals for ombudsmen in other fields, such as insurance, telecommunications and broadcasting. Whatever the cause, this wide (if imprecise) awareness seems to be accompanied by a general approval of the Ombudsman, and despite the criticisms and problems described in this Report, there seems general agreement within the community that the Ombudsman is a good thing. This is an excellent basis on which to develop better public awareness, understanding and confidence.

Chapter 6 of this Report describes various activities by which understanding of administrative review was increased within the two target communities. Some of these were unorthodox, but most worked. The Ombudsman’s Office should explore imaginative publicity strategies the better to exploit and develop his generally favourable image. Here are a few ideas which might be worth considering: a regular (say, weekly) talkback on radio. This would need to include other

agencies; State Ombudsmen, Consumer Affairs Bureaux, Equal Opportunity Commissioners and so on-perhaps in turn

a regular column in a newspaper (perhaps in a style similar to Van Ke Bao Cong orMarco Pasha). This need not be in one of the major papers; the suburban and regional press might be just as suitable, and more accessible

exploring different sources of funding for publicity. Some organisations might be happy to be seen to support an obviously worthy cause

liaising with telephone information services, such as Countrylink and Lifeline.

Central reference agencyThe Ombudsman already provides an extensive referral service, but this is not widely known. Many of the 20,000 or so approaches to his office every year come from people who are dissatisfied with their dealings with government (and sometimes with other organisations and individuals), but who do not know where to turn for help. The need for such a referral agency is clear. The Ombudsman is ideally placed (given sufficient resources) to carry out this role. The Council believes that the Ombudsman should publicise his preparedness to provide information and advice to people who are dissatisfied over their dealings with government, but do not know how or where to appeal or complain.

The Council does not suggest that people should not be encouraged to resolve difficulties themselves, or that other agencies should not carry out their own publicity activities. It simply thinks that the Ombudsman’s Office should be more accessible to people who have a problem, but don’t know where to go.

Coordinating agencyIn the past, review agencies have been solely responsible for publicising their own activities. On the evidence presented in this Report, this has not been

78

particularly successful and the Council believes that a more coordinated approach might be more effective. Elsewhere (Chapter 6, passim) the Report points out that it is easier to describe the basic concept of administrative review than to explain the role and function of its various agencies.

In consultation with the other review agencies, the Ombudsman ought to take a leading and coordinating role in the promotion of administrative review, especially towards specific communities whose need can be demonstrated. Once again, this does not remove the responsibility of review agencies (and departments) to carry out their own publicity and access and equity activities. The coordinating role proposed for the Ombudsman is essentially an additional function. It should also make individual publicity campaigns more effective.

The Ombudsman is well placed to carry out these functions because of several unique features including: his wide jurisdiction his freedom to decide his own procedures the basic simplicity of his role. (Most cultures seem to have a comparable

figure such as Marco Pasha, Bao Cong or even King Solomon.) his generally favourable image within the community.

The Council intends to cooperate with the Ombudsman (who is an ex officio Member of the Council) in the coordinating role described above.

Funding needsIn its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration’s inquiry into the Ombudsman, the Council noted that ‘increased resources will be required if the Ombudsman is to provide a central reference service and promote the concept of administrative review’.

RecommendationsThe Ombudsman’s Office should:1. Identify parts of the community where the need for his services is

greatest. It should carry out a properly planned, targeted and measured (and imaginative) publicity campaign aimed at these people

2. Advertise its preparedness to act as a central reference agency for people who have problems with government agencies

3. Take a leading and coordinating role in the publicising of the general concept of administrative review, particularly the basic message that one can com plain or appeal

4. coordinate review agencies’ publicity activities5. provide interpreting and translating services in order to improve access

for members of ethnic communities6. receive additional resources to enable it to implement the above recommendations.

2-PRIMARY SERVICE PROVIDERS:8.7 IntroductionAt first the Project intended to concentrate entirely on administrative review agencies rather than primary service-providers, but as its strategies developed,

79

this aim changed. The Project team realised that many people in the target communities knew so little about how government agencies operate, and how individuals are supposed to deal with them, that the concept of review had little or no meaning for them.

Here is an example. Chapter 6.2 describes a phone-in organised for the Vietnamese community on Immigration matters. The response greatly exceeded expectations. For a period of about seven hours, four phone lines were constantly engaged. Some people complained that they had tried all day to make contact, and there were reports of many others who simply gave up. Clearly there was a considerable demand for information.

But callers were not seeking review of earlier decisions or complaining about poor treatment. They wanted the most basic information and advice: how can I sponsor my parents to come to Australia? How long does the Department take to process applications? Am I bound by an Assurance of Support? It seemed to the Project team, and to the departmental officials who attended the phone-in, that most of these people had no immediate need for administrative review. Some of the officials suggested that this placed them outside the legitimate interest of the Project.

This view seems to imply that administrative review is, and should be, entirely separate from the process of primary decision-making; in other words, that there is no need to tell people about their appeal rights until they have received an unfavourable decision. The Council takes a different view. People who do not know their rights (or even that they have rights) will always be vulnerable to bad decisions and unfair treatment. People are more likely to deal confidently and effectively with the first tier of decision-making if they know about the safety-net.

As a general rule, it seems undesirable for a primary decision-maker to be in a position to decide at what stage its clients will be informed about their review rights. Departments do not always know best, nor are their officers always motivated solely by feelings of altruism.

To ignore the need for an assertive administrative review presence in primary decision-making would have been to define the Project’s and the Council’s role too narrowly.

Accordingly, the Project established close liaison with several Commonwealth service providers which are especially important to ethnic communities. It examined these agencies’ access and equity strategies and the continuing barriers to access. It was particularly interested in the way they inform clients of their review rights.

8.8 Informing People of their Right to ReviewNotification of decisionIn its Report to the Attorney-General, Access to Administrative Review (op. cit.), the Council recommended that legislation be enacted requiring notification of decisions and review rights. It is expected that this will be included in the Law and Justice Amendment Bill which is expected to be introduced later in 1991.

80

The Council also recommended that a Code of Practice be endorsed and it is expected that this will also occur later this year. The Code is designed to ensure that people are advised of their rights in relation to reviewable decisions made by Commonwealth government agencies.

Other recommendations include the requirement that notification be in writing and in plain English, and that potential applicants be informed of the means to have the notice translated into another language. The notice should provide full and proper information about review rights, including the name and location of the relevant review body, its powers, its relationship to the decision-making authority, how to apply for review and any time limits that apply.

The Project examined several of the standard letters by which some government agencies inform people of an adverse decision of their right of appeal that decision. Sample letters were obtained from DILGEA, the Australian Taxation Office, DSS and the Australian Customs Service.

TelecomTelecom has no standard procedure by which customers are informed by letter that they may complain to the Ombudsman if they are unhappy with a decision (for example, about an allegedly excessive phone bill). This is unsatisfactory. The Council recommends that Telecom inform clients who are disputing decisions that they have the right to complain to the Ombudsman if they remain unsatisfied with Telecom’s resolution of the dispute. This advice should be in writing and should conform with the recommendations set out in the Council’s Report (cited above).

The Council also notes that a recent report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure16 makes a number of recommendations aimed at developing an effective customer complaints handling system within Telecom. These include the dissemination of information to customers on complaints procedures and a requirement that staff inform customers of the internal and external review procedures available.

Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic AffairsThe standard letter to an unsuccessful applicant for immigration to Australia begins by giving broad reasons for the decision and encloses a copy of the Decision Record. It informs the applicant that the decision is reviewable by MIRO, and explains certain relevant procedures and limitations on the right to review. It also gives advice about which documents should accompany an application for review, about time limits and lodgement fees.

The reverse side of the letter contains, among other things, a description the provisions of the Migration Act which provide for a two-system tier of review. The language is formal and in parts legalistic; a very good command of the English language would be required to understand it fully.

There is no information about how to contact MIRO and no telephone numbers or addresses. Instead, the applicant is advised to have his/her sponsor contact DILGEA for ‘details of eligibility and processing requirements for review’. This does not accord with Council recommendations.

16 Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, Telecom’s Handling of Customer Complaints, AGPS, May 1991.

81

The Council recommends that DILGEA revise its notification of decision and review rights to clients, using the guidelines established by the Council.

Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO)The standard letter sent to clients whose appeal to MIRO has been unsuccessful uses reasonably simple English and informs the client quite clearly that s/he ‘may be eligible to have the decision reviewed by the Immigration Review Tribunal. A pamphlet is enclosed for your information.’ The letter goes on to advise the client of the time limits and the need for immediate lodging of an appeal with the IRT.

This letter and pamphlet appear to provide clear and concise information, and satisfy most of the Council’s guidelines, although they do not advise how to have the notice translated into another language. It is recommended that they do so.

Department of Social SecurityWhen an adverse decision is made a letter is sent informing the client of the decision and the reasons for it. It offers a client who disagrees with the decision three courses of action, as follows: If you think my decision is wrong you can contact me on (telephone number

provided) to talk about it. I will check that all the facts have been considered and tell you why the decision was made.

If you still disagree, you can talk to a Review Officer who can: take a fresh look at the case; change the decision if it is wrong; tell you how you can appeal if you still disagree; and tell you about your rights to see your file.

You can also appeal directly to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal who will independently review your case.

The client is then advised about time limits on appeals.

This advice is clear and in admirably plain English, but there is a possible problem. While the letter says: ‘You can also appeal directly to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal’, its presentation suggests that there are three successive stages of review: a DSS officer, then a Review Officer, then the SSAT. It is not immediately clear that the client may appeal directly to the SSAT as soon as he or she receives advice of the adverse decision.

Advocacy groups commonly advise clients to appeal immediately and directly to the SSAT, even if they intend pursuing the other avenues open to them as well. They believe that this better protects an appellant’s rights. On the other hand, DSS is of the view that to encourage clients to appeal directly to the SSAT (without having first used the internal review system) is inefficient and counter-productive; and in particular, that it tends to undermine the internal review process and adds to delays.

The Council recommends that the letter of advice to DSS clients (and other standard information) be altered to reflect clearly the alternatives available under the Act.

82

Social Security Appeals TribunalAlthough the Tribunal is not a primary service provider and is independent of the Department of Social Security, it is convenient to consider in this Section the way it notifies clients of decisions.

The letter sent to unsuccessful appellants comes close to conforming to all the Council’s recommendations. The decision and the reasons on which it is based are set out in a statement attached to the letter. The letter advises clients in plain English of their further right of appeal to the AAT. It provides details of how to apply for review, of the location of the AAT, and the possibility that an appellant may be eligible for legal assistance. A list of addresses and telephone numbers for the Legal Aid Commission and the Attorney-General’s Department is also supplied.

The letter does not, however, outline the relationship of the AAT to either the SSAT or the DSS, nor does it advise clients how to have the notice translated. The Council recommends that the SSAT include this advice in its standard letter.

Australian Taxation OfficeThe Australian Taxation Office gave the Project team a standard notice which it sends to a taxpayer who has lodged an objection to assessment which has been disallowed. This is only one of several methods by which taxpayers can be informed of their appeal rights.

This notice informs the taxpayer of his right under section 187 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to ‘lodge with the Commissioner of Taxation either a request to refer the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review or to the Federal Court where the matter will be treated as an appeal’.

The letter describes time limits, how to lodge the request, fees applicable, the powers of the AAT and its relationship to the ATO. It does not inform the taxpayer how to have the notice translated into another language or provide details of the location of the AAT. The Council recommends that it do so.

Australian Customs ServiceLike the ATO, the Australian Customs Service (ACS) employs several methods of advising clients of decisions and informing them of their appeal rights. These include an information booklet on anti-dumping legislation; a standard letter to clients who have applied for remissions of penalties; and guidelines set out in the ACS Manuals.

Some of the legislation administered by the ACS has an express requirement that persons affected by a decision be advised of their appeal rights. This includes the Freedom of Information Act, many of the Bounty and Subsidy Acts, and the Commercial Tariff Concession Scheme under the Customs Act.

The language used in the standard letter on remission of penalties which advises clients of their review rights is formal and legalistic. For example:

I draw your attention to paragraph 273GA(1)(ka) of the Act which provides that an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of this decision. Should you wish to proceed with an appeal against this decision, the AAT Act 1975 requires that a valid application be lodged at the Tribunal Registry in the capital city of the State

83

or Territory where the goods were entered within twenty-eight days of the date of this letter.

Using plain English, the notice could as easily say that the decision can be appealed to the AAT, that there is a 28 day time limit, and provide the address and telephone number of the AAT. The Council recommends that it so do.

The Council also recommends that the notice inform the client how to have the notice translated, outline the powers of the AAT and its relationship to the ACS, and explain how to apply, including reference to the $300 filing fee.

Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET)Students whose applications for AUSTUDY are unsuccessful are advised of the decision by letter. The letter includes an application form for first tier review: ‘Request for Review by a Senior Officer’. The form was revised in September 1990 and complies with almost all the Council’s recommendations.

Applicants are asked whether they need an interpreter, are informed in clear English about how to apply for review and about the powers of- the Senior Officer and of the SART. They are told they can appeal to the SART if they disagree with the Senior Officer’s decision. They are also told about time limits and sources of help, such as Legal Aid. Applicants are not informed of how to have the notice translated into another language.

The notice which accompanies an adverse decision by the Senior Officer contains similar information. It explains the SART appeal process along similar lines and informs the applicant of his or her right to appeal to the AAT if dissatisfied with a SART decision.

The Council recommends that applicants be advised of the means of having notices about appeals translated into other languages.

8.9 Primary Service Providers and the ProjectIn the early stages of the Project, consultations were held with the primary services providers identified above (DSS, DILGEA, ATO and Telecom) to learn about their access and equity strategies, to discuss and identify barriers to access to review, and to seek cooperation in some of the Project’s activities.

Comments on individual agencies follow.

Department of Social SecurityLanguage ServicesDSS policy is that all Australians have a right to be informed in their own language. This used to mean that all information had to be translated into the major community languages. Some information, mainly in leaflet form, is still published in community languages, but the Department is moving away from this because the information can soon become out of date, because there are inevitable losses and inaccuracies in translation, and because more effective methods of communication are now available; for example, Multilingual Telephone Information.

84

This Project’s experience of the limited effectiveness of brochures confirms the value of this policy.

DSS often advertises in the ethnic press and on SBS radio and television.

It is departmental policy to employ bilingual staff who, if appropriately accredited, receive a Language Availability Proficiency Allowance.

Interpreters are available at all DSS offices, according to the needs of local clientele and the availability of funds. Some interpreters are sessional, others on-call.

In 1989/90, the Department spent over $2.8 million in providing language services to clients.

Migrant Liaison Officer ServiceThe Migrant Services Unit of the DSS provides outreach workers who work as facilitators in ethnic communities. The Migrant Liaison Officers establish links with ethnic communities and pass information to and from the Department.

Cross-cultural communication trainingThis is provided at senior management level as well as for counter-staff. Training staff are employed in all offices. Consultants are employed to train senior management.

The Outreach ProgrammeEach Area Office has an Outreach Programme which responds to requests for talks, information sessions, etc. After important changes to Social Security arrangements (for example, after a Budget) it organises information sessions. The Outreach Programme also targets particular groups. In Sydney, for example, the Area West office recently organised information sessions for two Turkish community organisations.

ConclusionsDSS’s access and equity strategies seem to be comprehensive and effective. In particular, the Council is impressed by the ongoing review of these strategies and the willingness of DSS management to listen and respond to new ideas.

Cooperation with the ProjectDSS was very supportive of the Project in both Sydney and Melbourne. DSS officers were committed to sharing their information and expertise with the Project team and provided much practical help. In Sydney, the Migrant Services Unit, the Area West Office and the Auburn Office provided senior officers to speak at public meetings, participate in training sessions for community workers and take part in radio interviews on the Turkish language programme on Radio 2EA. The Assistant Director of the Migrant Services Unit was an active and valued member of the Working Group which advised the Project.

After consultations with the Project, the Migrant Services Unit produced a Turkish language pamphlet on appeal rights. This concentrated on directing people towards sources of help if they had a problem. It has been distributed throughout NSW and in some other states.

85

In Melbourne, the management of the Footscray office, the local Area Review Office and the Migrant Services Unit all participated in training sessions for Vietnamese community workers. Successive Managers of the Footscray office were active members of the Working Group which advised the Project and generally displayed strong commitment to improving consultative mechanisms with the Vietnamese community.

Knowledge of appeal rights (in particular, the SSAT) increased from 25% to 46% (Vietnamese community) and from 32% to 55% (Turkish community) within the period of the Project (Appendix 3; Table 4.8). The contribution of DSS to the Project is no doubt reflected in these results.

Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic AffairsLanguage ServicesKey information materials are printed in the major demand community languages. Programmes and services are advertised in the ethnic media, targeting client groups in most need.

It is Departmental policy to recruit bilingual or multilingual staff and to pay those appropriately accredited the Language Availability and Performance Allowance.

Interpreters are employed to assist in client interviews, on a roster and/or sessional basis.

86

Cross-cultural communicationTraining in cross-cultural communication is provided for counter-staff but not for management. Access and Equity officers are attached to some Regional Offices.

Cooperation with the ProjectDILGEA officials participated in activities organised by the Project, though sometimes with some misgivings. These seemed to be based on several grounds: that the Project was engaging in activities which were not properly within the Council’s jurisdiction; that any special programme offered to one ethnic group would be demanded by others (the floodgates argument); and that difficulties would be caused if questions about particular cases were asked in public.

Notwithstanding these reservations, DILGEA officers cooperated in many of the Project’s activities, including public meetings in both Sydney and Melbourne, training sessions for community workers, and the phone-in on Immigration matters for the Vietnamese community.

TelecomThe obligation of Commonwealth Government agencies to provide an Access and Equity Plan to the Office of Multicultural Affairs does not apply to Telecom or to other Government Business Enterprises.

Language servicesConsultations with management in NSW revealed that Telecom has no policy of recruiting bilingual staff, although the language skills of staff members are used ‘when the need arises’. Interpreters are not normally engaged.

Information disseminationThe application form for new and existing telephone services has been translated into a number of community languages, although most new customers apply for a telephone service by phone.

Cross-cultural communicationTelecom does not train staff specifically in cross-cultural communication.

Review proceduresAll customer complaints are reviewed internally by Telecom. Telecom customers who complain are not informed as of right, either verbally or in writing, that they may approach the Ombudsman.

Cooperation with the ProjectThe management staff of the Strathfield office in NSW conducted a training session for Turkish community workers. This took the form of inviting the workers to the office, showing them around and explaining how customer complaints are dealt with. The management was readily available for consultation. Telecom officers in Footscray were also very cooperative, particularly in organising the phone-in for the Vietnamese community.

RecommendationTelecom should examine its procedures for handling customer complaints. In particular, it should devise appropriate strategies for

87

informing customers, including those from ethnic communities, that they have a right of complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied with a Telecom decision or action.

Australian Taxation OfficeAccess and Equity strategiesIn Melbourne, the ATO has commenced an access programme called ‘Build a Bridge’ which aims at improving understanding of taxation matters among members of ethnic communities. The first stage of the programme is being aimed at the Vietnamese community and is being conducted in conjunction with the Vietnamese Community Association in Victoria.

In the Parramatta office of ATO, regular information sessions for ethnic community groups (and other groups) are conducted by the Client Services Group. The session conducted for the Turkish community in Auburn is described below. Nationally, the Volunteer Tax Help Programme targets ethnic communities for participation in the programme.

Language servicesThe ATO does not have a developed policy on employing bilingual staff or interpreters/translators. Community workers in the Vietnamese and Turkish communities believe that there is an enormous need for these language services in the ATO.

Information disseminationThe 1990 Taxpack was translated into major community languages. An evaluation of this is now being conducted jointly by the Canberra office of the ATO, the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia, and the Australian Council of Social Services.

Cross-cultural communicationATO does not provide training for staff in cross-cultural communication.

Cooperation with the ProjectThe Parramatta office of the ATO was readily available for consultations and eager to cooperate with the Project. An information session for the Turkish community in Auburn was organised jointly by Project staff and ATO Parramatta (Client Services Group and Taxpayer Assistance Group). This session seems to have had an immediate effect. There were many enquiries to the Parramatta office in the days following the event, mainly through community workers acting on behalf of clients. The Turkish translation of the Taxpack was received with great enthusiasm and extra copies had to be ordered.

ATO seems fairly new to access and equity issues, but is making rapid progress in making itself more accessible to the community in general, and to ethnic communities in particular.

8.10 A Brief Note on Language ServicesThis Report has urged the use of appropriately qualified and skilled translators and interpreters. The maintenance of appropriate standards and registration is no easy task, and as a recent report by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department makes clear, there is a need for better language services

88

throughout the entire legal system.17 These services include the provision of information in readily accessible written and oral form.

However, language services alone will not solve many of the problems which result from cultural differences between a bureaucracy and a client from a different cultural background.

As the Report on languages services shows, many people can speak or understand other languages only at what a linguist might call a different level of abstraction. For example, many migrants can supply in perfect English their name, address, and immediate details. However, if they are asked to describe a complex problem, or give formal evidence, they may get into difficulties. They are not necessarily being evasive, but may be beyond their competence to describe or abstract a situation.

There is no doubt that this often leads to disadvantages and it should be of special concern to review agencies if they are to develop more effective relationships with people of non-English speaking background.

Administrative review agencies should ensure that their members and officers are alert to these problems and to their cultural and linguistic origins. Officers should be encouraged to learn how to retain client confidence until appropriate language services can be arranged.

8.11 General RecommendationsThroughout this Chapter recommendations have been made in respect of each review agency and several primary service-providers. The following recommendations apply particularly to government agencies who have a lot of dealings with the public:

1. Agencies should collect ethnicity data on clients in accordance with the guidelines published by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. This material should be used in planning and in implementing promotional activities.

2. Agencies should ensure that appropriately-qualified and properly-trained translators and

interpreters are routinely available make financial provision for translators and interpreters ensure that translations are both accurate and culturally appropriate.3. Review agencies should develop and implement information campaigns

(both individually and collectively) which are targeted at groups-such as people from non English-speaking background-for whom a special need can be shown. The Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Council will take a leading and coordinating role in this.

4. Review agencies should critically examine the standard ways in which their potential clients are informed of their review rights. The recommendations of The Councils Report Access to Administrative Review (op. cit.) should be used as a guide.

5. Review agencies should be encouraged to work more closely together so as to eliminate duplications and gaps. They should, wherever possible, share resources, facilities and knowledge. This has the potential to offer a better, cheaper and more accessible service for all users.

17 Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, op. cit.

89

6. Members and staff of review bodies (and all officials who deal with the public) ought develop policies and procedures which will make them more accessible to and more aware of the problems facing members of ethnic communities. They should be encouraged to be imaginative in identifying and overcoming problems. They should receive training in cross-cultural communication.

90

The following recommendations apply specifically to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

7. The Ombudsman should provide a central reference point for those who are dissatisfied with a government decision, but who do not know what remedies are available.

8. The Ombudsman should adopt a leading role in the dissemination of information about administrative review, particularly the basic message that ‘you can complain or appeal’.

9. The Ombudsman should coordinate review agencies’ promotional activities. The Council intends to maintain an active interest in this.

10. The Ombudsman should receive additional resources to enable these recommendations to be implemented.

91

PART CCHAPTER 9

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

This Chapter considers two ideas for future developments which seem to have a lot to offer; the one-stop-shop (and the sharing of services and resources so implied), and the application of computer technology to making administrative review more accessible.

9.1 The One-Stop-ShopDuring the planning stages of this Project the Council considered setting up a model one-stop-shop on a trial basis, possibly in Footscray. It was envisaged that it would publicise administrative review, act as an information service for people with problems, and perhaps be an intermediary between review agencies and their non English-speaking clients. But because the Project was always intended to be a temporary one, this plan did not proceed. There were two main reasons. First, it would have taken considerable time and a good deal of money to establish. Second (and more persuasively), to have established a physical presence, spend a year persuading the local community to rely on it and then abandon it at the end of the Project might have been seen as cynical. Despite this, the idea of co-location for administrative review agencies has obvious appeal. Its proponents claim that it encourages a faster, more accessible, more responsive and a cheaper system. The potential benefits certainly include reduction of the duplication and potential for confusion which arise because different agencies have their own dedicated resources, facilities and procedures. The few existing examples seem to support these claims. In three State capitals (Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane) the Commonwealth Ombudsman shares office space and some facilities and services with his state counterpart. This has encouraged closer contact between these offices and has led to a greater pool of knowledge and expertise being available (a considerable benefit in a small office). Sharing resources and services also saves money. In Melbourne, the SSAT and the IRT have recently taken up tenancies on adjoining floors of the same building and early experience suggests that this will bring considerable mutual benefits.

Co-location and shared resources can also make publicity more effective. Members of the public cannot be expected to understand the jurisdictional barriers which separate the Commonwealth and State Ombudsmen and the various other review agencies, and some complainants may be deterred by their ignorance. A publicity programme which concentrated on describing the concept of review and invited enquiries to a central point should be simpler, cheaper and more effective than several uncoordinated programmes. (The previous Chapter describes how the Commonwealth Ombudsman could adopt a central role in a coordinated publicity campaign.)

There are undoubtedly major problems to be overcome before a one-stop-shop can be set up in a capital city, but there seems little doubt that review agencies (and of course their clients) would benefit from more cooperation and mutual support. This is one of the major recommendations in the previous Chapter. In

92

the meantime, it may be useful to consider the application of the one-stop-shop idea to regional centres.

Robin Handley (Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong and Senior Member, SSAT) has considered this. He points out that while smaller cities are even more deprived than the capital cities in terms of access to government services, they are more accustomed to sharing resources:

What is really needed is a General Complaints Office in an accessible, central location where people can go to complain about government decisions. There are now a host of Commonwealth and State administrative review procedures . . . . The only review agency with an office in Wollongong is the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales which has co-operative arrangements with the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

A Government Complaints Office could be established in each major town or city in Australia, funded jointly by Commonwealth and State governments. Such an Office with a high profile, central, accessible, shop front location, could serve as the first point of contact for those with complaints about government decisions, who could then be referred to the appropriate specialist review agency. The role of the Office would be to promote the administrative review system, and provide information and referrals. It would go beyond the concept of a Counsel for Grievances recommended by the Kerr Committee Report on Commonwealth Administrative Law in 1971 (Commonwealth Parliamentary Paper No. 144 of 1971).

To date, our administrative review system has been characterised by a narrow, compartmentalised approach to promotion and access. Each agency has its own specialist field of activity and nobody takes responsibility for promoting the system as a whole. What is needed is a creative lateral approach and government commitment to raising community awareness of administrative review generally. Without this, fair and effective access can never be achieved.18

The Council recommends that consideration be given to establishing, on a trial basis, a Commonwealth Government complaints office in a selected Australian regional centre. It suggests that funding be shared between participating agencies and that relevant State agencies be invited to participate and contribute.

9.2 The Electronic SolutionThis section of the Report considers the potential use of computer technology to train users and advisers in the administrative review system, and so make review more accessible.

There are three ways in which technology could be used: computer-based training, hypertext systems and expert systems. These three systems make a body of knowledge accessible to a user, but in different ways.

Computer-based training is an electronic tutor which provides information in a structured and interactive fashion, like a teacher in a classroom.

18 Robin Handley, ‘Complaining about government decisions’, Legal Service Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1991, pp. 91, 92.

93

Hypertext systems are like electronic books, with sophisticated indexes and cross-references which allow a user to explore the information available.

An expert system is like a human expert which presents the user with a series of questions which progressively refine the problem until a solution or a range of solutions emerges. The user can sometimes also ‘interview’ the expert to explore options and alternatives.

Expert systems are useful for helping people to make decisions in individual cases. Hypertext is most useful as quick reference systems for people who already have a base knowledge of the problem. Computer-based training can provide an introductory overview for people with no prior background in a subject. It also has the advantage of being designed to be used by people who are not computer-literate.

Computer-based training in Administrative ReviewIn Chapter 7.3 the Council recommended the development, publication and circulation of a user-friendly Guide to the Administrative Review System. There is potential for computer-based training to be used for this purpose.

Computer-based training which provided a broad overview of the entire administrative system could enhance the administrative review skills of people who provide advice to the wider community. The training could be carried out in the workplace, and be self-paced.

Key success factors for any training or education package are: it must be on-going. Community based workers typically have a high

turnover rate it must be accessible to community workers; to run on inexpensive personal

computers it must be practical and problem oriented, not theoretical. The Project’s

experience indicates that people relate to concrete example of administrative problems and resolutions

it must be easy to use, interesting and concise. Community workers and organisations are already swamped by information, and few community workers would have the time to work methodically through this material

it must be easy to update as the administrative review systems change.

A complete training and reference package about administrative review in Australia could be developed, comprising: 1-2 hours of computer-based training lessons supporting documentation which would act as workbooks and reference

summaries for people who were using the computer-based training a training plan which provides guidelines for integrating the computer-based

lessons into other forms of training. Such a plan could be used by DILGEA as part of its regular training for GIA workers.

There are, however, some issues which must be taken into account; in particular, the appropriateness of computer-based training for community workers. For example, many workers do not have sufficient access to a computer. Their views will need to be considered.

94

Despite these reservations, there is no doubt that use of computer technology will continue to increase in this field (as well as most others) and new applications will become more relevant.

The Council will investigate the possibility of developing a programme of computer-based training in administrative review.

Expert systemsPamela O’Neil, Principal Member of the Immigration Review Tribunal, has said that:

the development of sophisticated computer-based decision support facilities such as The General [Department of Veterans’ Affairs Decision Support System] and the Social Security Enquiry System show the potential for the use of new technology to aid primary decision makers to reach more correct decisions and to do so in a much more direct and timely way than the measured processes of tribunal review allow.19

There is little doubt that expert systems (such as those mentioned by Ms O’Neil) have a great deal of potential in the delivery of -government services and administrative review. They can provide quick, accurate and detailed information from a variety of sources, and have obvious application at the public counter of an agency, and eventually perhaps in community organisations.

An expert system can be a window into an agency’s decision-making procedures, and this raises sensitive issues, such as control of information and decision making. There may also be problems with privacy legislation, and various requirements for confidentiality.

In addition, some people active in welfare rights have pointed out that an information system developed by a government agency would probably reflect a departmental view of legislation and Court and Tribunal decisions. They have wondered whether, in view of this, it could be counted on to give a fair and reliable guide to a client’s rights. Review agencies may have similar misgivings.

19 Pamela O’Neil, Do Review Bodies Lead to Better Decision Making?, Paper presented to the 1991 Administrative Law Forum, Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration (ACT Division) and Australian Institute of Administrative Law, Canberra, 29-30 April 1991, p. 9.

95

APPENDIX 1FULL LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

This is a complete list of the recommendations contained in the Report.

General Recommendations1. Government officials who deal with members of ethnic communities

should devise and routinely use control techniques to ensure that they are communicating effectively. (Chapter 3, p. 11).

2. Commonwealth service-providers (including administrative review agencies) should publicise their services more effectively, especially to those sections of the community-including ethnic communities-in which special needs exist. (Chapter 6, p. 54).

3. Government agencies should become familiar with and apply the basic principles of marketing, especially market segmentation, targeting and measuring. (Chapter 6, p. 54).

4. Agencies should design their publicity activities imaginatively. They should try out strategies on a limited scale before implementing them more widely. They should assess (if possible by empirical measurement) the effectiveness of strategies and be prepared to amend or even abandon activities which are not meeting agreed objectives. They should ensure that members and staff are involved in the planning of publicity activities, and are aware of and committed to goals. (Chapter 6, p. 54).

5. Agencies’ publicity should not be so complex as to overwhelm or deter a potential client-especially one with limited experience of Australian conditions or one who has little understanding of government processes. The basic message: ‘One has a right to question government actions and decisions’ is always to be preferred to publicity which seeks to describe the jurisdictional boundaries and other quite subtle differences between the various agencies. (Chapter 6, p. 54).

6. All forms of publicity (press, radio, TV, posters, handbills, public-meetings, etc.) can be effective, but none is invariably appropriate for all target groups or for all purposes. Agencies should consider this when planning publicity. In particular, they should seek advice from knowledgeable individuals and organisations within target communities. (Chapter 6, p. 54).

7. Agencies should: ensure that appropriately-qualified and properly-trained translators and

interpreters are routinely available make financial provision for translators and interpreters ensure that translations are both accurate and culturally appropriate.

(Chapter 8, p. 88).8. Administrative review agencies (and other government agencies) should

develop closer links with ethnic community workers. This should include training and familiarisation sessions and encouraging community workers to approach agencies for help and advice. (Chapter 7, p. 65).

9. Agencies should collect ethnicity data on clients in accordance with the guidelines published by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. This material should be used in planning and in implementing promotional activities. (Chapter 8, p. 88).

10. A user-friendly guide to the administrative review system should be prepared and circulated. It should cover all aspects of the system and, to a large extent, replace the mass of individual brochures, pamphlets, posters, leaflets and other material which is now in circulation. The Council will pursue this as part of its continuing interest in access to review. (Chapter 7, p. 65).

11. Review agencies should be encouraged to work more closely together so as to eliminate duplications and gaps. They should, wherever possible, share resources, facilities and knowledge. This has the potential to offer a better, cheaper and more accessible service for all users. (Chapter 8, p. 88).

12. Members and staff of review bodies (and all officials who deal with the public) ought develop policies and procedures which will make them more accessible to and more aware of the problems facing members of ethnic communities. They should be encouraged to be imaginative in identifying and overcoming problems. They should receive training in cross-cultural communication. (Chapter 8, p. 88).

Specific Recommendations13. The Commonwealth Ombudsman should: identify parts of the community where the need for his services is greatest

and carry out a properly planned, targeted and measured (and imaginative) publicity campaign aimed at these people

advertise his preparedness to act as a central reference point for people who have problems with government agencies

take a leading and coordinating role in the publicising of the general concept of administrative review, particularly the basic message that one can complain or appeal

coordinate review agencies’ publicity activities provide interpreting and translating services in order to improve access . for

members of ethnic communities receive additional resources to enable his office to implement the above

recommendations. (Chapter 8, p. 89).14. The Administrative Appeal Tribunal should: ask appellants at the application stage whether they require an interpreter

for their hearing, and take responsibility for providing qualified interpreters develop a community education programme which will inform ethnic

communities (and particularly community workers) about its role and functions

critically examine the letters and other written forms through which its main ‘feeder’ agencies inform people of their appeal rights

consider cooperating with other review agencies in publicity work. (Chapter 8, p. 68).

15. The Immigration Review Tribunal should: continue to publish brochures in community languages, but should also

consider more innovative ways of disseminating information to target ethnic communities

consider cooperating with other review agencies in its publicity activities.(Chapter 8, p. 71).

97

16. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal should: routinely collect ethnicity data on its clients. This should be done at .the

application stage to ensure uniformity and to facilitate data analysis target ethnic groups more selectively in its publicity, giving priority to those

identified as having greater access problems. It should continue to publish brochures in community languages but should also consider more innovative ways of disseminating information to target ethnic communities

ensure that letters to unsuccessful applicants include details of the relationship between the SSAT, DSS and the AAT, as well as advice as to how the information contained can be translated into other languages.

consider cooperating with other review agencies in promotional activities.(Chapter 8, p. 70, 81).

17. The Student Assistance Review Tribunal should: undertake a community education campaign, using the kind of strategies

described in this Report routinely collect ethnicity data on clients, using OMA guidelines. (Chapter 8,

p. 72).18. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs should: review the content and delivery of the training and support it provides for

Grant-in-Aid workers. Community workers should be consulted. encourage and facilitate networks of Grant-in-Aid and other community

workers, if necessary by providing organisational advice and facilities. Workers should be consulted as to the most appropriate ways of achieving this. (Chapter 7, p. 65).

revise its standard letters notifying applicants of adverse decisions using guidelines previously published by the Council. (Chapter 8, p. 80).

19. The Migration Internal Review Office should include in its standard letters advice on the means for getting those letters translated. (Chapter 8, p. 80).

20. The Department of Social Security should amend letters and other material describing review rights so as to indicate the alternative review procedures available under the Act. (Chapter 8, p. 81).

21. Telecom should inform clients who are disputing decisions that they have the right to complain to the Ombudsman if they remain unsatisfied with Telecom’s resolution of the dispute. This advice should be in writing and should conform with the Council’s recommendations. (Chapter 8, p. 86).

22. The Australian Taxation Office should ensure that letters informing taxpayers of adverse decisions contain details of how that information can be translated into other languages. (Chapter 8, p. 82).

23. The Australian Customs Service should ensure that letters advising clients of review rights:

are written in plain English give details of how the information can be translated into other languages describe the role and powers of the AAT, the relationship between that body

and the Customs Service and the procedures for lodging an appeal (including the filing fee). (Chapter 8, p. 82).

24. The Department of Education, Employment and Training should ensure that letters in which applicants for or recipients of AUSTUDY are advised of adverse decisions include details of how the information can be translated. (Chapter 8, p. 83).

25. The recently-announced review of AUSTUDY should examine the question of access to review. (Chapter 8, p. 72).

98

99

APPENDIX 2ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND THANKS

The Project is indebted to many people and organisations, especially those who helped us to make contact with ethnic communities. No-one ever refused us, and many people helped far more than they had to. Whatever difficulties are faced by ethnic communities in Australia they would undoubtedly be more severe were it not for the remarkable dedication and commitment of those who work in the field.

To mention individuals may be invidious, but some contributions deserve particular recognition. We record our grateful thanks to:

Our Turkish Working Group, especially Oya Aytac, Saliha Bektas, Kaya Cakir, Sam Campesi, Unal Dogan, Besir Karasu, Zaga Nagy, Dilek Ozdemir and Mary Shiner.

Our Vietnamese Working Group, especially Nha Tien Do, Sue Hayman, Nick Lawry, Quoc Mai, Anh Thi Ngoc Nguyen, Phong Thaddeus Nguyen, John Patsikateodorou, Vicki Williams and Helene Yong.

Our consultant translators, Mahmut Horasan and Dr Hung Nguyen.

The Office of Multicultural Affairs, in particular, Lee Choon Siauw, Emanuela D’Urso and Sema Varova.

Members and staff of the SSAT and IRT, in particular Professor Leroy Certoma, Michael Clothier, Anne Coghlan, Deirdre Fitzgerald, Regina Fuster, Amanda McDonald, Annette O’Neill and Sophia Panagiotidis.

Merle Mitchell.Stepan Kerkyasharian.MSJ Keys Young, especially John Schwartzkoff and Sue Spooner.

Dr Joy Elley, Lee Gregory, Bridget Hage, Melinda Jones, Arne Kristensen, Sister Mary Luscombe and Sue Nevin-Taylor

Ayse Kernikoglu, Sedat Yilmazok and Alev Yilmazok.

100

J17/91

APPENDIX 3

MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA PROJECT :SURVEYS OF TURKISH AND VIETNAMESE

COMMUNITIES, 1990 AND 1991

Prepared forADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

Prepared by

MSJ Keys Young Planners35 Richards AvenueSurry Hills NSW 2021

Telephone (02) 361 4301

April 1991

101

ContentsPage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 92

2.0 CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY 93

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS - TURKISH RESPONDENTS 943.1 Frequency Tables 943.1.1 Country of Birth and Language Spoken at Home 943.1.2 Period of Residence in Australia 943.1.3 Gender and Age 953.1.4 Level of English 953.1.5 Main Source of Income 963.1.6 Characteristics of Respondents - Summary 963.1.7 Awareness of Various Government Organisations 963.1.8 Problems with Services Provided or Decisions Made 973.1.9 Awareness of Rights to Complain or Appeal 983.1.10Attitudes to and Knowledge About Other Issues 993.1.11Information Sources 101

3.2 Cross-Tabulations by Period of Residence 1033.2.1 Awareness of Various Agencies 1033.2.2 Awareness of Rights to Appeal or Complain 1053.2.3 Responses to Agree/Disagree Statements 105

3.3 Cross-Tabulations by Age 111

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS - VIETNAMESE RESPONDENTS 1124.1 Frequency Tables 1124.1.1 Country of Birth and Language Spoken at Home 1124.1.2 Period of Residence in Australia 1124.1.3 Gender and Age 1134.1.4 Level of English 1134.1.5 Main Source of Income 1144.1.6 Characteristics of Respondents - Summary 1144.1.7 Awareness of Various Government Organisations 1144.1.8 Problems with Services Provided or Decisions Made 1154.1.9 Awareness of Rights to Complain or Appeal 1164.1.10Attitudes to and Knowledge About Other Issues 1174.1.11Information Sources 119

4.2 Cross-Tabulations by Period of Residence 1214.2.1 Awareness of Various Agencies 1214.2.2 Awareness of Rights to Appeal or Complain 1224.2.3 Responses to Agree/Disagree Statements 1244.2.4 Awareness of the Campaign 126

4.3 Cross-Tabulations by Age 127

102

1.0 NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDYBetween May 1990 and April 1991 the Administrative Review Council, as part of its Multicultural Australia Project, carried out an information and education program designed to increase awareness and understanding of appeal rights within the Turkish community in Auburn (Sydney) and the Vietnamese community in Footscray (Melbourne).

In April 1990 the Council commissioned MSJ Keys Young to undertake survey research on levels of awareness in these two communities about rights to appeal against administrative decisions which may adversely affect groups or individuals. The 1990 survey was designed to provide baseline data on levels of awareness and understanding before the information program began. The results of that survey were reported in June 1990.20 Toward the end of the program the Council commissioned MSJ Keys Young to conduct follow-up surveys among the same target groups, to help assess the reach and effectiveness of the campaign. This report discusses the findings of the 1991 survey and, wherever appropriate, compares them with the findings of the 1990 survey.

20 MSJ Keys Young Planners, Multicultural Australia Project - 1990 Survey of Turkish and Vietnamese Communities, June 1990.

103

2.0 Conduct of the SurveyDesign and conduct of the 1991 survey closely followed the approach taken in the 1990 baseline research. In both years two groups of respondents were surveyed - members of the Turkish community in Auburn, New South Wales, and members of the Vietnamese community in Footscray, Victoria. In each year 200 face-to-face interviews were conducted in each location. Although the 1990 and 1991 surveys were carried out in the same areas and among the same target groups, it was not the intention to survey the same individuals in both years. For one thing, participation in the 1990 survey would itself have had an impact on the awareness of those who were surveyed.

2.1 THE SAMPLEIn both years the study involved a random door-knock survey of eligible households within specified Census Collectors’ Districts in Auburn and Footscray. Eligibility criteria remained the same for each survey: people were eligible for interview provided they were aged 18 or over and if:- they were born in Turkey/Vietnam; or- both of their parents were born in Turkey/Vietnam; or- Turkish/Vietnamese was their original or usual language.

Because of the reported high mobility of Vietnamese residents in the Footscray area, an additional eligibility question was asked in 1991, namely whether the person concerned had lived in the area for six months or more.

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRESThe questionnaire used in 1990 was developed in close consultation with officers of the Administrative Review Council, as detailed in the 1990 report. The same questionnaire was used in both communities. The questionnaire was available in English, Turkish and Vietnamese and the interview was conducted in whichever language was most appropriate.

For the 1991 survey several additional questions were included with the purpose of measuring people’s awareness of various aspects of the campaigns conducted in Auburn and Footscray; these additional questions were different for the Turks and the Vietnamese. The translators who had been used throughout the program reviewed the 1991 questionnaires to ensure consistency with the terms used during the program. Copies of the English text or of the 1991 Turkish and Vietnamese questionnaires are included in this report as Appendix A.

2.3 CONDUCT OF THE SURVEYThe conduct of the 1991 survey followed the procedures used in 1990. The questionnaire was administered by experienced, bilingual interviewers. In Footscray all but one of the interviewers who conducted the 1990 survey took part in the 1991 survey also; in Auburn there was little overlap between the 1990 and 1991 interview teams.

104

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS - TURKISH RESPONDENTS3.1 FREQUENCY TABLES

This section of the report sets out details of the Turkish respondents’ answers to the questions asked in both the 1990 and 1991 surveys and also deals with the additional questions asked in 1991.

3.1.1 Country of Birth and Language Spoken at HomeTable 3.1 sets out information on the country of birth of the Turkish respondents. It shows that the great majority of the 200 respondents to each survey were born in Turkey (86% in 1991 and 94% in 1990). Slightly more respondents to the 1991 survey were Australian-born (10% compared with 4% in 1990). Both surveys included small numbers of people born in other countries such as USSR, Germany, England, Japan or Cyprus.

Table 3.1: Country of Birth1990 1991

No % No. %Turkey 187 93.5 117 88.5Australia 8 4.0 20 10.0Other 5 2.5 3 1.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0Table 3.2 shows that both in 1990 and 1991 the great majority of respondents usually spoke Turkish at home (95% in 1990, 97% in 1991).

Table 3.2: Language Usually Spoken at Home1990 1991

No. % No. %Turkish 189 94.5 194 97.0English 10 5.0 6 3.0Not stated 1 0.5 - -Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

3.1.2 Period of Residence In AustraliaTable 3.3 classifies respondents according to the number of years they had lived in Australia at the time of interview. It shows that as a group the 1991 respondents had been in Australia a little longer than the 1990 respondents; for example the percentage of respondents who had been in Australia for more than ten years was 54% in the 1990 survey, 60% in 1991. The figures in the table below are broadly consistent with 1986 Census data for Turkish-born residents in Australia21; the 1991 figures are closer to the Census data than are the 1990 figures.

21 Overseas Born Australians 1988 - A Statistical Review, Australian Bureau of Statistics, CatalogueNo. 4112.0, 1989.

105

Table 3.3: Period of Residence in Australia1990 1991

No. % No. %2 years or less 11 5.5 8 4.03 - 5 years 26 13.0 17 8.56 - 10 years 48 24.0 41 20.511 - 20 years 82 41.0 94 47.0Over 20 years 25 12.5 26 13.0Always lived in Australia 8 4.0 14 7.0Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

3.1.3 Gender and AgeTable 3.4 shows that in the 1990 survey males slightly outnumbered females, while in 1991 the situation was reversed.

Table 3.4: Gender1990 1991

No. % No. %Male 105 52.5 87 43.5Female 95 47.5 113 56.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Information on the age of the respondents is presented in Table 3.5. In 1990 those surveyed fell fairly evenly across the five age categories in the table, with the largest single group of respondents being those in the 30-39 age group (27% of the sample). In 1991 the respondents as a group were somewhat younger, with 87% aged under 50 compared with 70% under 50 in 1990. In both surveys there were relatively few people aged 60 or over (21 respondents in 1990, five in 1991).

Table 3.5: Age1990 1991

No. % No. %18 - 29 years 41 20.5 68 34.030 -39 years 53 26.5 50 25.040 - 49 years 45 22.5 56 28.050 - 59 years 40 20.0 21 10.560 years or over 21 10.5 5 2.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

3.1.4 Level of EnglishThe respondents were asked to say how well they spoke English, in terms of the tour categories set out in Table 3.6. While the number who could not speak English at all was the same (5.5%) in 1990 and 1991, the 1991 respondents tended overall to report a somewhat higher level of spoken English than the 1990 respondents. In 1991 46% (91 respondents) indicated that they spoke English “very well” or “fairly well”, compared with 37% in 1990.

106

Table 3.6: Level of Spoken English1990 1991

No. % No. %Not at all 11 5.5 11 5.5A little 115 57.5 98 49.0Fairly well 51 25.5 52 26.0Very well 23 11.5 39 19.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

3.1.5 Main Source of IncomeRespondents were next asked what their main source of income was at the time of interview; three broad categories were specified - “job”, “government pension” or “other/none”.Table 3.7 shows that among the 1991 respondents 117 people (59%) had a job, compared with 70 people (35%) in 1990. Fewer people in the 1991 survey were dependent on a government pension (35% as against 43% in 1990), and fewer reported either no income or some other source of income (6% as against 23% in 1990).

Table 3.7: Main Source of Income1990 1991

No. % No. %Job 70 35.0 117 58.5Government pension 85 42.5 70 35.0Other/none 45 22.5 12 6.0Not stated - - 1 0.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

3.1.6 Characteristics of Respondents - SummaryIn both the 1990 and the 1991 surveys around 90% of the Turkish respondents were Turkish-born, and almost all reported that they usually spoke Turkish at home. Compared with the 1990 respondents, however, the 1991 respondents were a little younger, had been in Australia somewhat longer, and reported somewhat higher levels of spoken English. In 1990 slightly more males than females were interviewed, whereas in 1991 females were in the majority. More of the 1991 respondents identified a job as their main income source, while fewer reported no income.

3.1.7 Awareness of Various Government OrganisationsIn both surveys the respondents were asked a series of questions about their awareness of and experience with various government bodies. Table 3.8 lists a series of government agencies and sets out information on whether or not the respondents had heard of each agency.

The table shows that, in general, the number of respondents who were aware of these various government organisations was higher in 1991 than in 1990. Awareness of the Ombudsman, for example, rose from 23% (45 people) in 1990 to 52% (103 people) in 1991. Awareness of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal rose from 8% and 32% respectively (1990) to 45% and 55% respectively (1991). Almost all the respondents in both 1990 and 1991 were aware of the Department of Social Security and the Immigration Department. Awareness of Telecom was 88% in the 1990 survey, 98% in 1991. Awareness of the Immigration Review Tribunal was measured in

107

the 1991 survey only: 106 respondents (53%) stated that they had heard of the Tribunal.

108

Table 3.8: Whether Heard of Various Government OrganisationsYes No

1990 1991 1990 1991No. % No. % No. % No. %

Department ofSocial Security 196 98.0 199 99.5 4 2.0 1 0.5Ombudsman 45 22.5 103 51.5 155 77.5 97

48.5ImmigrationDepartment 190 95.0 188 94.0 10 5.0 12 6.0AdministrativeAppeals Tribunal 16 8.0 89 44.5 183 92.0 111

55.5Telecom 176 88.0 196 98.0 24 12.0 4 2.0Social SecurityAppeals Tribunal 63 31.5 110 55.0 137 68.5 90

45.0ImmigrationReview Tribunal - - 106 53.0 - - 94

47.0

3.1.8 Problems with Services Provided or Decisions MadeRespondents were next asked whether they or a member of their family had ever had a problem with a service provided, or a decision made, by four nominated government organisations - Telecom, the Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Immigration Department. Answers for both 1990 and 1991 are summarised in Table 3.9 below.

The table shows that a total of 58 problems were reported by the 1990 respondents, and 53 by the 1991 respondents. Both in 1990 and 1991 the percentage of respondents reporting a problem was highest in relation to the Department of Social Security.

Among the 1990 respondents some 25% - 35% indicated that they could not recall having had a problem with any of these four government organisations. In the 1991 survey, however, only 3%-5% of respondents were unsure or could not recall whether they had had such a problem.

Table 3.9: Whether Experienced Problems with various Government Organisations

Yes No Can’t say,can’t remember

No. % No. % No. %1990

Telecom 11 5.5 136 68.0 53 26.5Australian TaxationOffice 13 6.5 131 65.5 56 28.0Department ofSocial Security 20 10.0 106 53.0 74 37.0ImmigrationDepartment 14 7.0 114 57.0 72 36.0

1991Telecom 14 7.0 179 89.5 7 3.5Australian TaxationOffice 9 4.5 181 90.5 9 4.5*Department of SocialSecurity 16 8.0 175 87.5 8 4.5*

109

ImmigrationDepartment 14 7.0 179 89.5 6 3.0** Not stated.

Those respondents who reported experiencing some problem were then asked what action they had taken about it; Table 3.10 summarises the 1990 and the 1991 responses. As the table shows, the number of respondents who reported doing nothing about a problem which they had experienced was 41% in 1990 but only 17% in 1991. In 1990 only 14% indicated that they had used a formal complaint process of some kind, compared with 32% in 1991. More of the people surveyed in 1991 reported having contacted a migrant association or migrant worker (13% compared with 7% in 1990). Approximately the same number of people in both 1990 and 1991 reported contacting the Department/agency themselves (28% in 1990, 30% in 1991).

Table 3.10: What Action Respondent TookOrganisation

Telecom TaxationOffice

Social Security

Immigration

Dept

Total Responses

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Did nothing 8 73.0 4 31.0 4 20.0 8 60.0 24 41.4Contacted Dept/agency myself 1 9.0 5 38.0 10 50.0 - - 16 27.6Contacted migrant assoc/worker 2 18.0 1 8.0 1 5.0 - - 4 6.9Used formal complaint process - - 2 15.0 2 10.0 4 27.0 8 13.8Sought independent help eg accountant

- - - - - - 1 7.0 1 1.7

Other (eg social worker) - - - - 3 15.0 - - 3 5.2Can’t remember

- - 1 8.0 - - 1 7.0 2 3.4

Total 11 100.0

13 100.0 20 100.0 14 100.0 58 100.0

1991Did nothing 1 7.1 2 22.2 2 12.5 4 28.6 9 17.0Contacted Dept/agency myself 5 35.7 4 44.4 2 12.5 5 35.7 16 30.2Contacted migrant assoc/worker 3 21.4 - - 3 18.8 1 7.1 7 13.2Used formal complaint process 4 28.6 1 11.1 9 56.3 3 21.4 17 32.1Not stated 1 7.1 2 22.2 - - 1 7.1 4 7.5Total 14 100.

09 100.0 16 100.0 14 100.0 53 100.0

110

3.1.9 Awareness of Rights to Complain or AppealAll respondents were asked in 1990 and 1991 whether they thought that people in Australia had any rights to complain about or appeal against actions or decisions taken by these same four government departments. The responses are summarised in Table 3.11.

The table shows that in each case a much greater number of the 1991 respondents believed that they had rights to complain or appeal; between 71% and 83% of respondents replied affirmatively in 1991 compared with 40%-58% of respondents in 1990. Negative responses remained much the same, but far fewer respondents were unsure about these matters in 1991 than in 1990.

Table 3.11: Whether People Have Rights to Complain or AppealYes No Can’t say,

not sureNo. % No. % No. %

1990Telecom 81 40.5 19 9.5 100 50.0Australian Tax Office 80 40.0 23 11.5 97 48.5Dept Social Security 116 58.0 8 4.0 76 38.0Immigration Dept 82 41.0 13 6.5 105 52.5

1991Telecom 166 83.0 17 8.5 17 8.5Australian Tax Office 153 76.5 21 10.5 26 13.0Dept Social Security 147 73.5 21 10.5 32 16.0Immigration Dept 141 70.5 28 14.0 31 15.5

3.1.10 Attitudes to and Knowledge About Other IssuesRespondents were next asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of five statements relating to appeals against government actions or decisions. Table 3.12 summarises the responses for the 1990 and 1991 surveys.

The table shows that in relation to the proposition that If a government organisation makes a mistake, it’s no use trying to do anything about it, 83% of the 1991 respondents disagreed compared with 46% in 1990; only 9% were not sure in 1991, compared with 42% in 1990.

In relation to the proposition that Migrants have the same rights to appeal or complain about decisions by government organisations as people born in Australia, almost 75% of respondents agreed in 1991 compared with 43% in 1990; both the percentage who disagreed and the percentage who were unsure were lower in 1991.

On the proposition that There are officials in the government whose job it is to help people who want to make complaints or appeals about decisions by government organisations, 74% of the 1991 respondents agreed compared with only 20% in 1990. Fewer disagreed and far fewer were unsure in 1991.

The next proposition was that If I were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government organisation, affecting my family, I’d probably complain or appeal. In this case the number of respondents agreeing was 82% in 1991 compared with 63% in 1990. The percentage disagreeing remained the same at 6%, while only 13% were not sure in 1991 compared with 32% in 1990.

111

As to the proposition that Our local Turkish community organisations know how to help us appeal against decisions taken by government organisations, 64% agreed in 1991 compared with 54% in 1990. The percentage disagreeing was slightly higher in 1991 (15% as against 9%), while the percentage unsure declined from 38% to 22%.

In summary, the percentage of respondents giving a correct answer was consistently higher in 1991 than in 1990 - in some cases far higher. The percentage of respondents who were unsure about these propositions was consistently lower in 1991 than in 1990.

112

Table 3.12: Reaction to Statements Relating to Appeals etc.Agree Disagree Not Sure

1990 1991 1990 1991 1990 1991No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

a) If a government organisation makes a mistake, it’s no use trying to do anything about it. 24 12.0 17 8.5 92 46.0 165 82.5 84 42.0 18 9.0

b) Migrants have the same rights to appeal or complain about decisions by government organisations as people born in Australia. 85 42.5 151 75.5 55 27.5 18 9.0 60 30.0 31 15.5

c) There are officials in the government whose job it is to help people who want to make complaints or appeals about decisions be government organisations.

40 20.0 147 73.5 38 19.0 10 5.0 122 61.0 43 21.5d) If I were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government organisation, affecting my family, I’d probably complain or appeal about it.* 126 63.0 164 82.0 11 5.5 11 5.5 63 31.5 25 12.5

e) Our local Turkish community organisations know how to help us appeal against decisions taken by government organisations 108 54.0 128 64.0 17 8.5 29 14.5 75 37.5 43 21.5

*Differences between 1990 and 1991 significant at the 99.5% level (chi-squared test).

100

3.1.11 Information SourcesRespondents were next asked whether anybody had ever talked to them about their rights to complain or appeal; answers to this question are summarised in Table 3.13. It will be seen that 33% answered in the affirmative in 1990, as against 15% in 1991.

Table 3.13: Whether Been Told about Rights to Complain or Appeal1990 1991

No. % No. %Yes 65 32.5 30 15.0No 135 67.5 169 84.5Not stated - - 1 0.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Respondents who answered in the affirmative were asked who had talked to them about these rights; Table 3.14 summarises the information provided. In 1990 the sources of information most often identified were social welfare workers and migrant workers/migrant associations. In 1991 the information sources most frequently mentioned were friends/neighbours/relatives and migrant workers/associations.

Table 3.14: Source of Information About Rights to Complain or Appeal1990 1991

No. % (of 65) No. %(of 30)Friend/neighbour/relative 5 7.7 11 36.7Department/agency 9 13.8 - -Migrant worker/association 11 16.9 10 33.3Social/welfare worker(not specified) 13 20.0 2 6.7Other (eg solicitor, union,teacher, lecturer) 7 10.8 1 3.3Can’t remember 16 24.6 - -Not stated 4 6.2 6 20.0

Next the respondents were asked whether they had heard or read anything in the media or in leaflets etc about their rights to complain or appeal. Responses are summarised in Table 3.15. In both surveys a majority of people answered in the affirmative - 72% in 1990 and 81% in 1991.

Table 3.15: Whether Read or Heard about Rights to Complain or Appeal1990 1991

No. % No. %Yes 144 72.0 161 80.5No 56 28.0 39 19.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Table 3.16 provides details on the particular sources of information identified by the. respondents. Both in 1990 and in 1991 it was the electronic media (radio and television) which were most often referred to. In both surveys newspapers ranked second, followed by leaflets and “other”.

101

102

Table 3.16: Sources of Media etc Information1990 1991

No.* % (of 144) No.* % (of 161)Radio/TV 121 84.0 130 80.7Newspapers 111 77.1 93 57.8Leaflets 59 41.0 43 26.7Other 26 18.1 12 7.5* Multiple choice. Note that the number of multiple responses recorded in 1991 was somewhat less than in 1990; this is the reason that the percentage figures in the various categories are lower in 1991 than in 1990.

Respondents to the 1991 survey were then asked four questions about their knowledge of a campaign conducted throughout 1991 to inform people in the Turkish community about their rights to complain or appeal. Table 3.17 summarises responses to each of the questions.

The first of these questions asked if respondents knew of a radio serial on 2EA called Ozturk Ailesi; 72% indicated that they did know of the serial while 29% did not. Respondents were next asked if they knew of a newspaper column called Marco Pas’ya Soralim in the Yeni Vatan newspaper, 54% knew of the column while 46% did not. A third question asked whether respondents were aware of advertisements called Siz ve Hukumet on some Turkish videos; 47% were aware of these. Finally respondents were asked whether they knew of the public meetings which had been held in the local area on the subject of how to deal with problems with various government departments; 59% indicated that they did know of the meetings.

Table 3.17: Do You Know of? (1991 Only)Yes No

No. % No. %Ozturk Ailesi 143 71.5 57 28.5Yeni Vatan Newspaper 108 54.0 92 46.0Advertisement on Videos 93 46.5 107 53.5Public meetings 118 59.0 82 41.0Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Finally respondents were asked what they would regard as the most useful places to get help or advice if they did want to appeal or complain about a decision by a government organisation; each respondent was invited to nominate up to three sources of assistance. Table 3.18 summarises the results.

Table 3.18: Likely Sources of Help or Advice1990 1991

No.* % (of 200) No. % (of 200)Solicitor 82 41.0 105 52.5Legal Aid 50 25.0 74 37.0Member of Parliament 17 8.5 37 18.5Telephone Interpreter Service 37 18.5 40 20.0Migrant Resource Centre 21 10.5 29 14.5Migrant community Organisation 80 40.0 74 37.0Someone else in theTurkish community 89 44.5 40 20.0Government Department 30 15.0 49 24.5Ombudsman 6 3.0 20 10.0Don’t know 34 17.0 16 8.0* Multiple choice

103

In 1990 the five sources of help most frequently nominated were (in order):

Someone else (ie other than a migrant organisation etc) in the Turkish community (45%)A solicitor (41%)A migrant community organisation (40%)Legal Aid (25%)The Telephone Interpreter Service (19%).

The five sources most frequently nominated in 1991 were (in order):

A solicitor (53%)A migrant community organisation (37%)Legal Aid (37%)The Telephone Interpreter Service (20%)A Member of Parliament (19%).

3.2 CROSS-TABULATIONS BY PERIOD OF RESIDENCEThe responses to the 1990 survey were analysed to examine the relationships among such descriptive variables as age, gender, period of residence in Australia, fluency in spoken English and main source of income22. In the light of this analysis it was decided to examine the influence of period of residence and age on responses to the substantive survey questions about knowledge and attitudes. Similar cross-tabulations involving period of residence and age were carried out on the 1991 data, and relevant information is set out both in this subsection (for period of residence) and in Appendix C (for age).

3.2.1 Awareness of Various AgenciesTables 3.19 and 3.20 provide data in relation to respondents’ awareness of the existence of the Ombudsman and of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal respectively.

The 1990 survey showed that awareness of these bodies tended to increase with period of residence in Australia. What Tables 3.19 and 3.20 demonstrate is that awareness was higher in 1991 for all periods of residence. Therefore, although the 1991 sample had, as a group, lived in Australia a little longer than the 1990 sample, the 1991 survey results show a real increase in awareness that is not explained by any differences in period of residence.

Thus among the newest arrivals (resident in Australia two years or less) 38% were aware of the Ombudsman in 1991 as against only 18% in 1990. Among those who had been in Australia between three and five years, 41% were aware of the Ombudsman in 1991 as against only 12% in 1990; and so on. The same pattern appears in Table 3.20 relating to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal; the percentage of respondents who said that they were aware of the Tribunal was higher in 1991 for all periods of residence in Australia.

22 See 1990 Report, pages 15-18. Selected cross-tabulations incorporating the 1991 data are set out in Appendix B.

104

Table 3.19: Awareness of the Ombudsman X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 2 18.2 3 11.5 8 16.7 19 23.2 7 28.0 6 75.0No 9 81.8 23 88.5 40 83.3 63 76.8 18 72.0 2 25.0Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 3 37.5 7 41.2 20 48.8 52 55.3 13 50.0 8 57.1No 5 62.5 10 58.8 21 51.2 42 44.7 13 50.0 6 42.9Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

Table 3.20: Awareness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 1 9.1 4 15.4 10 20.8 34 41.5 10 40.0 4 50.0No 10 90.9 22 84.6 38 79.2 48 58.5 15 60.0 4 50.0Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 4 50.0 7 41.2 24 58.5 50 53.2 17 65.4 8 57.1No 4 50.0 10 58.5 17 41.5 44 46.8 9 34.6 6 42.9Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

104

3.2.2 Awareness of Rights to Appeal or ComplainSimilar cross-tabulations were also examined in relation to the Turkish respondents’ awareness of rights to complain about or appeal against decisions made by Telecom, the Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Immigration Department. The relevant figures for both 1991 and 1990 are set out in Tables 3.21 to 3.24. Similar trends are evident in responses in both years: while awareness tends to increase with period of residence, awareness of rights has increased substantially in 1991 across all periods of residence categories.

For Telecom, for example, the level of awareness about rights to complain ranges in 1991 from 50% for the newest arrivals up to 88% for those resident 11-20 years. By comparison the corresponding percentages in 1990 ranged from only 18% to 51%.

Awareness of rights to complain in relation to the Taxation Office ranges in 1991 from 50%-82% compared with 18%-46% in 1990.

As previously noted (see Table 3.11 above), people’s awareness of the right to complain against decisions made by the Department of Social Security was much higher in the 1991 survey. Affirmative responses classified by period of residence ranged from 50% to 88% in 1991 compared with figures of 27% to 71% in 1990. The same consistent trend is evident in relation to the Department of Immigration. (see Table 3.24).

3.2.3 Responses to Agree/Disagree StatementsTables 3.25 to 3.29 cross-tabulate respondents’ answers to the five agree/disagree statements (see subsection 3.1.10 above) by period of residence in Australia. The results for 1990 and 1991 are briefly summarised below:

If a government organisation makes a mistake, it’s no use trying to do anything about it - Table 3.25. Disagreement with this proposition is consistently higher in 1991, across all periods of residence.

Migrants have the same rights to appeal or complain about decisions by government organisations as people born in Australia - Table 3.26. Agreement with this proposition is consistently higher in 1991, across all periods of residence.

There are officials in the government whose job it is to help people who want to make complaints or appeals about decisions by government organisations - Table 3.27. Agreement is consistently higher in 1991, across all periods of residence.

If I were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government organisation, affecting my family, I’d probably complain or appeal about it - Table 3.28. Agreement is consistently higher in 1991, across all periods of residence.

Our local Turkish community organisations know how to help us appeal against decisions taken be government organisations - Table 3.29. Agreement is consistently higher in 1991, across all periods of residence.

105

Table 3.21: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by Telecom X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 2 18.2 6 23.1 12 25.0 42 51.2 12 48.0 7 87.5No - - 1 3.8 6 12.5 11 13.4 1 4.0 - -Uncertain 9 81.8 19 73.1 30 62.5 29 35.4 12 48.0 1 12.5Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 4 50.0 15 88.2 33 80.5 82 87.2 20 76.9 12 85.7No 1 12.5 - - 2 4.9 8 8.5 4 15.4 2 14.3Uncertain 3 37.5 2 11.8 6 14.6 4 4.3 2 7.7 - -Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

Table 3.22: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by Taxation Office X Period of Residence

Period of Residence<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born Here

Response No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Yes 2 18.2 8 30.8 13 27.1 38 46.3 11 44.0 8 100.0

No - - 2 7.7 7 14.6 12 14.6 2 8.0 - -Uncertain 9 81.8 16 61.5 28 58.3 32 39.0 12 48.0 - -Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 4 50.0 14 82.4 31 75.6 74 78.7 20 76.9 10 71.4No 1 12.5 - - 2 4.9 12 12.8 3 11.5 3 21.4Uncertain 3 37.5 3 17.6 8 19.5 8 8.5 3 11.5 1 7.1Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

106

0

107

Table 3.23: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by the Department of Social Security X Period of Residence

Period of Residence<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born Here

Response No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Yes 3 27.3 9 34.6 23 47.9 58 70.7 16 64.0 7 87.5No - - 2 7.7 2 4.2 3 3.7 - - 1 12.5Uncertain 8 72.7 15 57.7 23 47.9 21 25.6 9 36.0 - -Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 4 50.0 15 88.2 30 73.2 67 71.3 22 84.6 9 64..3No 1 12.5 - - 3 7.3 13 13.8 2 7.7 2 14.3Uncertain 3 37.5 2 11.8 8 19.5 14 14.9 2 7.7 3 21.4Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

Table 3.24: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by Department of Immigration X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 2 18.2 5 19.2 19 33.3 41 50.0 11 44.0 7 87.5No - - 2 7.7 2 4.2 8 9.8 1 4.0 - -Uncertain 9 81.8 19 73.1 30 62.5 33 40.2 13 52.0 1 12.5Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 3 37.5 15 88.2 31 75.6 62 66.0 20 76.9 10 71.4No 2 25.0 - - 3 7.3 17 18.1 4 15.4 2 14.3Uncertain 3 37.5 2 11.8 7 17.1 15 16.0 2 7.7 2 14.3Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

108

109

Table 3.25: Useless to Complain X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes - - 5 19.2 5 10.4 11 13.4 3 12.0 - -No 3 27.3 7 26.9 20 41.7 40 48.8 14 56.0 8 100.

0Uncertain 8 72.7 14 53.8 23 47.9 31 37.8 8 32.0 - -Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 1 12.5 2 11.8 3 7.3 7 7.4 9 11.5 1 7.1No 5 62.5 12 70.6 34 82.9 82 87.2 19 73.1 13 92.9Uncertain 2 25.0 3 17.6 4 9.8 5 5.3 4 15.4 - -Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

Table 3.26: Migrant Right to Appeal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 2 18.2 10 38.5 22 45.8 32 39.0 14 56.0 5 62.5No 2 18.2 9 34.6 12 25.0 26 31.7 6 24.0 - -Uncertain 7 63.6 7 26.9 14 29.2 24 29.3 5 20.0 3 37.5Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 6 75.0 10 58.8 32 78.0 72 76.6 20 76.9 11 78.6No 1 12.5 1 5.9 1 2.4 10 10.6 4 15.4 1 7.1Uncertain 1 12.5 6 35.3 8 19.5 12 12.8 2 7.7 2 14.3Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

110

111

Table 3.27: Existence of Government Officials X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 1 9.1 4 15.4 3 6.3 19 23.2 7 28.0 6 75.0No - - 1 3.8 13 27.1 19 23.2 5 20.0 - -Uncertain 10 90.9 21 80.8 32 66.7 44 53.7 13 52.0 2 25.0Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 6 75.0 12 70.6 30 73.2 69 73.4 21 80.8 9 64.3No 1 12.5 1 5.9 - - 7 7.4 - - 1 7.1Uncertain 1 12.5 4 23.5 11 26.8 18 19.1 5 19.2 4 28.6Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

Table 3.28: Probably Complain or Appeal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 5 45.5 15 57.7 31 64.6 51 62.2 16 64.0 8 100.

0No - - 1 3.8 1 2.1 7 8.5 2 8.0 - -Uncertain 6 54.5 10 38.5 16 33.3 24 29.3 7 28.0 - -Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 6 75.0 16 94.1 30 73.2 80 85.1 21 80.8 11 11No 1 12.5 - - 3 7.3 6 6.4 1 3.8 - -Uncertain 1 12.5 1 5.9 8 19.5 8 8.5 4 15.4 3 21.4Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

112

113

Table 3.29: Local Community Help to Appeal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

<2Yrs 3-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-20Yrs >20Yrs Born HereResponse No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 3 27.3 14 53.8 27 56.3 49 59.8 12 48.0 3 37.5No - - 1 3.8 6 12.5 6 7.3 2 8.0 2 25.0Uncertain 8 72.7 11 42.3 15 31.3 27 32.9 11 44.0 3 37.5Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

Yes 3 37.5 9 52.9 26 63.4 63 67.0 17 65.4 10 71.4No 2 25.0 2 11.8 4 9.8 15 16.0 3 11.5 3 21.4Uncertain 3 37.5 6 35.3 11 26.8 16 17.0 6 23.1 1 7.1Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

114

3.3 Cross-Tabulations by AgeTables C1 to C5 in Appendix C cross-tabulate the Turkish responses to the five Agree/Disagree statements (see Table 3.12) by age group. They clearly show that the increases in awareness of rights as between 1990 and 1991 which is apparent in Table 3.12 cannot be explained by any differences in age profile between the two samples. In all five cases the key differences between 1990 and 1991 responses are consistent across all age groups.

111

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS - VIETNAMESE RESPONDENTS

4.1 FREQUENCY TABLESThis section of the report sets out details of the Vietnamese respondents’ answers to each of the questions asked in both the 1990 and 1991 surveys; it also deals with the additional questions asked in the 1991 survey.

4.1.1 Country of Birth and Language Spoken at HomeTable 4.1 provides information on the country of birth of the Vietnamese respondents. It shows that, for both surveys, the great majority of the 200 respondents had been born in Vietnam (99% in 1990, 97% in 1991). In each case small numbers had been born in other countries such as China, Cambodia and Taiwan. None of the respondents in either year was Australian-born.

Table 4.1: Country of Birth1990 1991

No. % No. %Vietnam 197 98.5 194 97.0Australia - - - -Other 3 1.5 6 3.0Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Table 4.2 shows that both in 1990 and 1991 most respondents stated that Vietnamese was the language they usually spoke at home (89% in 1990, 96% in 1991). Small numbers in both surveys indicated that they usually spoke Cantonese or Mandarin at home.

Table 4.2: Language Usually Spoken at Home1990 1991

no. % No. %Vietnamese 178 89.0 191 95.5English 2 1.0 1 0.5Cantonese/Mandarin 19 9.5 8 4.0Not Stated 1 0.5 - -Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

4.1.2 Period of Residence In AustraliaTable 4.3 classifies respondents according to the number of years they had lived in Australia at the time of interview. The figures for 1990 and for 1991 are quite similar but, overall, the 1991 respondents reported slightly longer periods of residence than those interviewed in 1990 (for example, 39% of the 1990 respondents and 46% of the 1991 respondents had been in Australia more than five years). The figures in the tables below are consistent with 1986 Census data for Vietnamese-born residents in Australia.23

23 Overseas Born Australians 1988 - A Statistical Review, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 4112.0, 1989.

112

Table 4.3: Period of Residence In Australia1990 1991

No. % No. %2 years or less 48 24.0 38 19.03 - 5 years 73 36.5 69 34.56- 10 years 69 34.5 74 37.011 - 20 years 9 4.5 19 9.5Over 20 years 1 0.5 - -Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

4.1.3.Gender and AgeTable 4.4 sets out information on gender for both the 1990 and 1991 respondents. It shows that in each case approximately 60% of those interviewed were male.

Table 4.4: Gender1990 1991

No. % No. %Male 125 62.5 117 58.5Female 75 37.5 79 39.5Not stated - - 4 2.0Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Information on the age of the respondents is presented in Table 4.5. It shows that there was very little difference in age between the two samples. In each case the largest grouping was those aged between 30 and 39 (42% of the 1990 respondents, 39% in 1990).

Table 4.5: Age1990 1991

No. % No. %18 - 29 years 55 27.5 66 33.030 - 39 years 84 42.0 78 39.040 - 49 years 30 15.0 33 16.550 - 59 years 17 8.5 13 6.560 years or over 14 7.0 10 5.0Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

4.1.4.Level of EnglishRespondents were asked how well they spoke English in terms of the tour categories set out in Table 4.6. Overall the 1991 respondents tended to report a somewhat higher level of fluency than those interviewed in 1990; for example the percentage saying that they spoke English ‘fairly well’ was 25% in 1990, 36% in 1991.

113

Table 4.6: Level of Spoken English1990 1991

No. % No. %Not at all 21 10.5 28 14.0A little 124 62.0 94 47.0Fairly well 50 25.0 71 35.5Very well 5 2.5 7 3.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

4.1.5.Main Source of IncomeRespondents were next asked what their main source of income was at the time of interview; three broad categories were specified - ‘job’, ‘government pension’ or ‘other/none’. Table 4.7 shows that the 1990 and 1991 responses were very similar. Of the 1991 respondents some 55% (110 people) specified a job as their main source of income. Some 39% (78 respondents) were dependent on a government pension whilst the remaining 6% (11 people) reported either no income or some other source of income.

Table 4.7: Main Source of Income1990 1991

No. % No. %Job 114 57.0 110 55.0Government pension 70 35.0 78 39.0Other/none 16 8.0 11 5.5Not stated - - 1 0.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

4.1.6 Characteristics of the Respondents - SummaryThe 1991 Vietnamese respondents closely resembled the 1990 respondents in terms of birthplace, language usually spoken at home, gender, age and main source of income. The 1991 respondents as a group tended to report slightly longer periods of residence in Australia and somewhat greater fluency in spoken English.

4.1.7 Awareness of Various Government OrganisationsBoth in 1990 and in 1991 the respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their awareness of and experience with various government bodies. Table 4.8 lists a series of government agencies and provides information on whether or not the respondent had heard of each agency. In the 1991 survey, the Immigration Review Tribunal was included in addition to the six government bodies listed in the previous survey.

114

Table 4.8: Whether Heard of Various Government OrganisationsYes No

1990 1991No. % No. % No. % No. %

Department of Social Security 181 90.5 194 97.0 19 9.5 6 3.0Ombudsman 22 11.0 70 35.0 178 89.0 130 65.0Immigration Department

187 93.5 191 95.5 13 6.5 9 4.5

Administrative Appeals Tribunal 26 13.0 46 23.0 174 87.0 154 77.0Telecom 176 88.0 185 92.5 24 12.0 15 7.5Social Security Appeals Tribunal 49 24.5 91 45.5 151 75.5 109 54.5Immigration Review Tribunal - - 107 53.5 - - 93 46.5

Table 4.8 reveals that while the level of awareness varied considerably from one organisation to another, awareness of all the bodies listed was higher in 1991. The increase was substantial for the three bodies of which people were the least aware. Awareness of the Ombudsman increased from 11% of respondents in 1990 to 35% in 1991; awareness of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal increased from 13% to 23% and awareness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal rose from 25% in 1990 to 46% in 1991. Both surveys showed that a large majority of respondents had heard of the Department of Social Security, the Immigration Department and Telecom. Fifty-four percent (107 people) in 1991 said they had heard of the Immigration Review Tribunal.

4.1.8 Problems with Services Provided or Decisions MadeRespondents were asked whether they or a member of their family and ever had a problem with a service provided, or a decision made, by four nominated government organisations - Telecom, the Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Immigration Department. Answers are summarised in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Whether Experienced Problems with Various Government Organisations

Yes

No Can’t Say, can’t

rememberNo. % No. % No. %

1990Telecom 25 12.5 171 85.5 4 2.0Australian Taxation Office 12 6.0 184 92.0 4 2.0Department of Social Security 29 14.5 165 82.5 6 3.0Immigration Department 26 13.0 170 85.0 4 2.0

1991Telecom 29 14.5 169 84.5 2 1.0Australian Taxation Office 15 7.5 184 92.0 1 0.5Department of Social Security 35 17.5 162 81.0 3 1.5Immigration Department 35 17.5 164 82.0 1 0.5

Table 4.9 shows that the 1991 respondents reported slightly more problems with each organisation than did the 1990 respondents. The total number of

115

problems reported was 92 in 1990, and 114 in 1991. In both years more problems were reported with the Social Security and Immigration Departments than with Telecom or the Taxation Office.

Those respondents who reported experiencing some problem were then asked what action they had taken about 8; Table 4.10 summarises their responses. Results to the 1991 survey show that the most common action taken by respondents in all four cases was to contact the department or agency themselves; this response accounted for 57% of responses overall. The only striking difference between the 1990 and 1991 responses overall was that more of the 1991 respondents said that they has used formal complaints processes (18% in 1991, 8% in 1990). In both years the largest group of respondents was those who said they had approached the relevant agency direct (69% in 1990, 57% in 1991).

Table 4.10: What Action Respondent TookOrganisation

Telecom Taxation Office

Social Security

Immigration Dept

Total Response

sNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Did nothing 4 16.0 1 8.3 2 6.9 3 11.5 10 10.9Contacted Dept/agency myself 19 76.0 6 50.0 21 72.4 17 65.4 63 68.5Contacted migrant assoc/worker - - - - 3 10.3 1 3.9 4 4.3Used formal complaint process - - 1 8.3 3 10.3 3 11.5 7 7.6Sought independent help (eg. accountant)

- - 3 25.0 - - 2 7.7 5 5.4

Other (eg. social worker) 1 4.0 - - - - - - 1 1.1Can’t remember 1 1.4 1 8.3 - - - - 2 2.2Total 25 100.

012 100.

029 100.

026 100.

092 100

.01991

Did nothing 4 13.8 1 6.7 2 5.7 2 5.7 9 7.9Contacted Dept/agency myself 21 72.4 12 80.0 21 60.0 11 31.4 65 57.0Contacted migrant assoc/worker 1 3.4 1 6.7 2 5.7 6 17.1 10 8.8Used formal complaint process 2 6.9 1 6.7 7 20.0 10 28.6 20 17.5Sought independent help (eg. accountant)

- - - - - - 3 8.6 3 2.6

Other (eg. social worker) 1 3.4 - - 1 2.9 2 5.7 4 3.5Can’t remember/ not stated - - - - 2 5.7 1 2.9 3 2.6Total 29 100.

015 100.

035 100.

035 100.

0114 100

.0

4.1.9 Awareness of Rights to Complain or Appeal

116

All respondents were asked whether they thought people in Australia had any rights to complain about, or appeal against, actions or decisions taken by these same four government departments. Responses are summarised in Table 4.11.

117

Table 4.11: Whether People Have Rights to Complain or Appeal

Yes NoCan’t Say, not sure No

responseNo. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Telecom 144 72.0 24 12.0 30 15.0 2 1.0Australian Tax Office

111 55.5 57 28.5 30 15.0 2 1.0

Dept of Social Security

121 60.5 52 26.0 26 13.0 1 0.5

Immigration Dept 111 55.5 60 30.0 28 14.0 1 0.51991

Telecom 162 81.0 10 5.0 27 13.5 1 0.5Australian Tax Office

134 67.0 17 8.5 49 24.5 - -

Dept of Social Security

151 75.5 16 8.0 33 16.5 - -

Immigration Dept 144 72.0 17 8.5 39 19.5 - -

The table shows that awareness of appeal rights was higher in 1991 in all four cases; for example 56% of the 1990 respondents were aware of appeal rights in relation to the Immigration Department, whereas in 1991 72% of respondents were so aware. It was also true that the percentage of respondents denying that appeal rights existed dropped substantially in all four cases: in general the 1991 respondents were more likely to say they were unsure than to answer in the negative.

4.1.10 Attitudes to and Knowledge about other Issues -Respondents were next asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of five statements relating to appeals against government actions or decisions. Responses are summarised in Table 4.12.

The pattern of responses reflected in Table 4.12 varies somewhat among the five propositions. There were two statements (If I were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government organisation, affecting my family, I’d probably complain or appeal about it; and Our local Vietnamese community organisations know how to help us appeal against decisions taken by government organisations) where the number of respondents agreeing was some 10% higher in 1991 than in 1990, white the number disagreeing declined and the number uncertain remained much the same.

In relation to the proportion that If a government organisation makes a mistake, it’s no use trying to do anything about it, the number agreeing fell from 39% in 1990 to only 16% in 1991, while the number disagreeing remained the same (56%) and the number not sure rose from 6% to 28%. In other words, incorrect perceptions were fewer in 1991, but these tended to be replaced by uncertain rather than by correct perceptions. Much the same was true of the two other propositions - Migrants have the same rights to appeal or complain about decisions by government organisations as people born in Australia, and There are officials in the government whose job if is to help people who want to make complaints or appeals about decisions by government organisations.

118

119

Table 4.12: Reaction to Statements Relating to Appeals etcAgree Disagree Not sure

1990 1991 1990 1991 1990 1991No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

a) If a government organisation makes a mistake, it’s no use trying to do anything about it.

77 38.5 32 16.0 111 55.5 112 56.0 12 6.0 56 28.0

b) Migrants have the same rights to appeal or complain about decisions by government organisations as people born in Australia.

127 63.5 134 67.0 55 27.5 14 7.0 18 9.0 52 26.0

c) There are officials in the government whose job it is to help people who want to make complaints or appeals about decisions by government organisations.

117 58.5 113 56.5 27 13.5 7 3.5 56 28.0 80 40.0

d) If I were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government organisation, affecting my family, I’d probably complain or appeal about it.

131 65.5 153 76.5 17 8.5 3 1.5 52 26.0 44 22.0

e) Our local Vietnamese community organisations know how to help us appeal against decisions taken by government organisations.

129 64.5 149 74.5 26 13.0 1 0.5 45 22.5 50 25.0

118

4.1.11 Information SourcesRespondents were asked whether anybody had ever talked to them about their rights to complain or appeal; answers to this question are summarised in Table 4.13. The number of people responding in the affirmative was 83 (42%) in 1990, 105 (53%) in 1991.

Table 4.13: Whether Been Told about Rights to Complain or Appeal1990 1991

No. °/a No. %Yes 83 41.5 105 52.5No 117 58.5 94 47.0Not stated - - 1 0.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Those who answered in the affirmative were asked who had talked to them about these rights. Table 4.14 summarises the information provided. In both surveys it was friends/neighbours/relatives who were most often mentioned (by 48% of respondents in 1990 and by 37% in 1991). Substantially higher percentages of the 1991 respondents, however, said that they had had information from a migrant worker or association or from a social or welfare worker.

Table 4.14: Source of Information About Rights to Complain or Appeal1990 1991

No. % (of 83) No. %( of 105)Friend/neighbour/relative 40 48.2 39 37.1Department/agency 9 10.8 12 11.4Migrant worker/association 16 19.3 28 26.7Social welfare worker (notspecified) 2 2.4 13 12.4Other (eg solicitor, union,teacher, lecturer) 13 15.7 13 12.4Not stated 3 3.6 - -

In the 1991 survey the respondents were next asked three questions about their knowledge of various elements of the information campaign conducted throughout 1990 - 1991. Responses are summarised in Table 4.15. Of the 200 Vietnamese people surveyed, 49% (some 97 respondents) knew of the newspaper column in Van Ke Bao Cong, 43% (86 people) knew of the serial broadcast on 3EA, and 36% (71 respondents) knew of the phone-ins and the public meeting on complaint and appeal rights. (Comparison with Table 3.17 shows that awareness of relevant campaign initiatives was somewhat higher among the Turkish respondents in Auburn than among the Vietnamese in Footscray.)

Table 4.15: Do You Know of? (1991 Only)Yes No Not Sure'

No. % No. % No. %1991

Serial on 3EA 86 43.0 113 56.5 1 0.5Van Ke Bao Cong 97 48.5 103 51.5 - -

119

Phone-ins & PublicMeeting 71 35.5 128 64.0 1 0.5

Next respondents were asked whether they had heard or read anything in the media or in leaflets etc about their rights to complain or appeal. Responses are summarised inTable 4.16. Of those surveyed in 1991, 140 (some 70%) said they had gained information in this manner, while 59 (approximately 30%) had not. In 1990 only 53% of the respondents had reported reading or hearing about complaint or appeal rights.

Table 4.16: Whether Read or Heard about Rights to Complain or Appeal1990 1991

No. % No. %Yes 105 52.5 140 70.0No 95 47.5 59 29.5Not stated - - 1 0.5Total 200 100.0 200 100.0

Those respondents who answered in the affirmative (ie they had heard or read relevant information in the media etc) were then asked what their sources of information were. Both in 1990 and 1991 it was newspapers which were most often referred to - by some 80% of respondents in each case. The electronic media (radio/television) were mentioned by approximately 45% of the respondents in each case, while the percentage referring to leaflets rose from 22% in 1990 to 43% in 1991. In 1991 references to magazines were separately coded because magazines had been used in the course of the campaign. Approximately one-third of the respondents identified magazines as a source of relevant information.

Table 4.17: Sources of Media etc Information1990 1991

No.* % (of 105) No.* % (of 140)Radio/TV 48 45.7 62 44.3Newspapers 84 80.0 115 82.1Leaflets 23 21.9 60 42.9Magazines - - 47 33.6Other 17 16.2 6 4.3* Multiple choice

Finally, respondents were asked what they would regard as the most useful places to get help or advice if they did want to appeal or complain about a decision by a government organisation. Each respondent was invited to nominate up to three sources of assistance. Table 4.18 summarises these results.

Table 4.18: Likely Sources of Help or Advice1990 1991

No.* % (of 200) No.* % (of 200)Solicitor 86 43.0 79 39.5Legal Aid 48 24.0 37 18.5Member of Parliament 10 5.0 12 6.0Telephone Interpreter Service 31 15.5 44 22.0Migrant Resource Centre 14 7.0 35 17.5Migrant communityorganisation 77 38.5 130 65.0Someone else in the Vietnamese

120

community 98 49.0 45 22.5Government Department 39 19.5 22 11.0Ombudsman 6 3.0 10 5.0Other 3 1.5 1 0.5Don't know 5 2.5 10 5.0* Multiple choice

The table shows that the sources most often nominated in 1990 were (in order):“Someone else” in the Vietnamese community - ie not a migrant

worker, community organisation etc (49% of respondents)A solicitor (43% of respondents)A migrant community organisation (39%)Legal Aid (24%)A government department (20%).

The pattern of responses in 1991 was somewhat different, with the five sources most often mentioned being:

A migrant community organisation (65% of respondents)A solicitor (40%)“Someone else” in the Vietnamese community (23%)Telephone Interpreter Service (22%)Legal Aid (19%).

4.2 CROSS TABULATIONS BY PERIOD OF RESIDENCEIn the 1990 survey, responses to various questions about the knowledge and attitudes of the Vietnamese respondents were further analysed to examine the relationships among such descriptive variables as age, gender, period of residence, fluency in spoken English and main source of income24. Following analysis of these variables it was decided to examine the influence of period of residence and age on responses to the substantive survey questions about knowledge and attitudes. Similar cross-tabulations involving period of residence were carried out on the 1991 data, and relevant information is set out in this subsection; cross-tabulations by age are discussed in section 4.3, with relevant tables set out in Appendix E.

4.2.1 Awareness of Various AgenciesTables 4.19 and 4.20 provide data in relation to respondents' awareness of the existence of the Ombudsman and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal respectively.

The 1990 results showed that in general terms awareness of both these organisations tended to increase with period of residence. Table 4.19 shows, however, that as between the 1990 and 1991 surveys awareness of the Ombudsman rose in all categories of period of residence; that is, the differences in the 1990 and 1991 responses relating to the Ombudsman are not explained by any differences in period of residence between the two samples. Similarly, Table 4.20 shows that awareness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal tended to rise between 1990 and 1991, regardless of period of residences.25

24 See 1990 Report, pages 47-49. Selected cross-tabulations incorporating the 1991 data are set out in Appendix E.25 Both Table 4.19 and Table 4.20 show negligible change in awareness among the newest arrivals - those who had been in Australia two years or less.

121

122

Table 4.19: Heard of the Ombudsman? X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 1 2.1 6 8.2 11 15.9 4 44.4 - -No 47 97.9 67 91.8 58 84.1 5 55.6 1 100.

0Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.0 9 100.0 1 100.

01991

Yes 1 2.6 22 31.9 34 45.9 13 68.4 - -No 37 97.4 47 68.1 40 54.1 6 31.6 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.0 19 100.0 - -

Table 4.20: Heard of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal? X Period of Residence

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 5 10.4 18 24.7 25 36.2 2 22.2 - -No 43 89.6 55 75.3 44 63.8 7 77.8 1 100.

0Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.0 9 100.0 1 100.

01991

Yes 4 10.5 27 39.1 49 66.2 11 57.9 - -No 34 89.5 42 60.9 25 33.8 8 42.1 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.0 19 100.0 - -

4.2.2 Awareness of Rights to Appeal and ComplainSimilar cross-tabulations were examined in relation to respondent awareness of people’s rights to complain about or appeal against decisions made by Telecom, the Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Immigration Department. The relevant figures are set out in Tables 4.21 to 4.24. Similar trends are evident in each of the four tables: awareness tends to increase with period of residence for all respondents, including the small number who have been resident here for 11-20 years. However, perusal of the tables shows that awareness of rights was consistently higher in 1991 than in 1990, for all four organisations and across all periods of residence.

Table 4.21: Whether people have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by Telecom X Period of Residence

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Yes 23 47.9 56 76.7 57 82.6 7 77.8 1 100.0

No 10 20.8 9 12.3 5 7.2 - - - -

123

Unsure 14 29.2 8 11.0 6 8.7 2 22.2 - -No response 1 2.1 - - 1 1.4 - - - -Total 48 100.0 73 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.0

124

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1991

Yes 20 52.6 56 81.2 67 90.5 19 100.0

- -

No 3 7.9 4 5.8 3 4.1 - - - -Unsure 15 39.5 8 11.6 4 5.4 - - - -No response - - 1 1.4 - - - - - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

Table 4.22: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by Taxation Office X Period of Residence

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Yes 14 29.2 40 54.8 51 73.9 5 55.6 1 100.0

No 20 41.7 23 31.5 12 17.4 2 22.2 - -Unsure 13 27.1 10 13.7 5 7.2 2 22.2 - -No response 1 2.1 - - 1 1.4 - - - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 13 34.2 43 62.3 60 81.1 18 94.7 - -No 6 15.8 7 10.1 4 5.4 - - - -Unsure 19 50.0 19 27.5 10 13.5 1 5.3 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

Table 4.23: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by the Department of Social Security X Period of Residence

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Yes 17 35.4 46 63.0 52 75.4 5 55.6 1 100.0

No 17 35.4 21 28.8 12 17.4 1 11.1 - -Unsure 13 27.1 6 8.2 4 5.8 3 33.3 - -No response 1 2.1 - - 1 1.4 - - - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 17 44.7 52 75.4 64 86.5 18 94.7 - -No 5 13.2 7 10.1 4 5.4 - - - -Unsure 16 42.1 10 14.5 6 8.1 1 5.3 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

125

Table 4.24: Whether People have a Right to Complain Against Decisions Made by the Department of Immigration X Period of Residence

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %1990

Yes 15 31.3 40 54.8 51 73.9 4 44.4 1 100.0

No 24 50.0 25 34.2 10 14.5 1 11.1 - -Unsure 8 16.7 8 11.0 8 11.6 4 44.4 - -No response 1 2.1 - - - - - - - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 20 52.6 47 68.1 60 81.1 17 89.5 - -No 6 15.8 8 11.6 3 4.1 - - - -Unsure 12 31.6 14 20.3 11 14.9 2 10.5 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

4.2.3 Responses to Agree/Disagree StatementsTables 4.25 to 4.29 cross-tabulate respondents’ answers to the five agree/disagree statements (see subsection 4.1.10 above) by period of residence in Australia. The results are briefly discussed below. If a government organisation makes a mistake it’s no use trying to do

anything about it

The pattern in Table 4.25 and the succeeding tables is less straightforward than in those previously discussed. Table 4.25 shows that there were increases in the level of disagreement with this statement among those who had been in Australia six years or more; among those who had been in Australia five years or less, however, the major difference between the 1990 and the 1991 respondents was the larger percentage in 1991 who were unsure.

Table 4.25: Useless to Complain? X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 26 54.2 25 34.2 22 31.9 4 44.4 - -No 17 35.4 43 58.9 46 66.7 4 44.4 1 100.

0Unsure 5 10.4 5 6.8 1 1.4 1 11.1 - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 17 44.7 9 13.0 5 6.8 1 5.3 - -No 9 23.7 36 52.2 51 68.9 16 84.2 - -Unsure 12 31.6 24 34.8 18 24.3 2 10.5 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

Migrants have the same rights to appeal or complain about decisions made by government organisations as people born in Australia

126

Table 4.26 shows that in relation to this statement the number agreeing was higher in 1991 than in 1990 for alt periods of residence of three years or more. Again, however, the newest arrivals showed a different trend, with the number of unsure responses being far larger in 1991 than in 1990.

Table 4.26: Migrant Rights to Appeal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 27 56.3 45 61.6 49 71.0 5 55.6 1 100.

0No 16 33.3 21 28.8 14 20.3 4 44.4 - -Unsure 5 10.4 7 9.6 6 8.7 - - - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 15 39.5 45 65.2 57 77.0 17 89.5 - -No 4 10.5 6 8.7 4 5.4 - - - -Unsure 19 50.0 18 26.1 13 17.6 2 10.5 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

There are officials in the government whose job it is to help people who want to make complaints or appeals about decisions by government organisations.

In this case the pattern varies considerably by the period of residence. Among the newest arrivals (in Australia two years or less) the 1991 responses include relatively more correct (affirmative) answers and also more unsure. Among those resident 3-5 years the number both of correct and of incorrect answers is less in 1991, and the number of uncertain responses higher. Among those resident 6-10 years the 1990 and 1991 responses are very similar, while among those resident 11-20 years the number of incorrect responses declined in 1991 while the number of uncertain responses increases.

Table 4.27: Existence of Government Officials to Help with Appeals X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 18 37.5 46 63.0 46 66.7 6 66.7 1 100.

0No 12 25.0 10 13.7 4 5.8 2 22.2 - -Unsure 18 37.5 17 23.3 19 27.5 1 11.1 - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 17 44.7 33 47.8 50 67.6 13 68.4 - -No 1 2.6 2 2.9 3 4.1 1 5.3 - -Unsure 20 52.6 34 49.3 21 28.4 5 26.3 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

If I were dissatisfied with a decision made by a government organisation, affecting my family, I'd probably complain or appeal about it.

127

The number of respondents agreeing with this statement rose from 1990 to 1991 for all periods of residence of three years or more. Among the newest arrivals (resident two years or less) the percentage agreeing remained approximately the same, while the percentage disagreeing declined to zero and the percentage unsure increased.

128

Table 4.28: Probably Complain or Appeal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 26 54.2 49 67.1 48 69.6 7 77.8 1 100.

0No 8 16.7 5 6.8 4 5.8 1 11.1 - -Unsure 14 29.2 19 26.0 17 24.6 1 11.1 - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 20 52.6 51 73.9 63.2 85.1 19 100.0

- -

No - - 1 1.4 9 2.7 - - - -Unsure 18 47.4 17 24.6 12.2 - - - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

Our local Vietnamese community organisations know how to help us appeal against decisions taken by government organisations.

In this instance the percentage of respondents giving affirmative responses was higher in 1991 for all period of residence categories, while the number of negative responses declined to nil or virtually nil-in all categories.

Table 4.29: Local Community Help to Appeal X Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Yes 28 58.3 48 65.8 45 65.2 7 77.8 1 100.

0No 8 16.7 10 13.7 7 10.1 2 22.2 - -Unsure 12 25.0 15 20.5 7 24.6 - - - -Total 48 100.

073 100.

069 100.

09 100.

01 100

.01991

Yes 25 65.8 53 76.8 54 73.0 17 89.5 - -No - - 1 1.4 - - - - - -Unsure 13 34.2 15 21.7 20 27.0 2 10.5 - -Total 38 100.

069 100.

074 100.

019 100.

0- -

4.2.4 Awareness of the CampaignTables 4.30-4.32 below show that awareness of various elements of the campaign (newspaper column, radio serial etc) tended to rise with period of residence in Australia.

Table 4.30: Know of Serial on 3EA? x Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20No. % No. % No. % No. %

Yes 8 21.1 33 47.8 35 47.3 10 52.6No 30 78.9 36 52.2 39 52.7 8 42.1Not stated - - - - - 1 5.3

129

Total 38 100.0

69 100.0 74 100.0 19 100.0

130

Table 4.31 Know of Van Ke Bao Cong? x Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20No. % No. % No. % No. %

Yes 9 23.7 30 56.5 40 54.1 9 47.4No 29 76.3 39 43.5 34 45.9 10 52.6Total 38 100.

069 100.0 74 100.0 19 100.

0

Table 4.32: Know of Phone-Ins and Public Meeting? x Period of Residence

Period of Residence< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20

No. % No. % No. % No. %Yes 7 18.4 27 39.1 29 39.7 8 42.1No 31 81.6 42 60.9 44 60.3 11 57.9Total 38 100.

069 100.0 74 100.0 19 100.

0

4.3 Cross-Tabulations by AgeTables E1 to E5 in Appendix E do not reveal any consistent pattern by age group in the differences between the 1990 and 1991 responses.

131

Table B1: Period of Residence in Australia x AgePeriod of Residence

Age < 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20 Born HereNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

199018-29 years 6 54.5 8 30.8 2 4.2 12 14.6 6 24.0 7 87.530-39 years 1 9.1 12 46.2 22 45.8 16 19.5 1 4.0 1 12.540-49 years 2 18.2 2 7.7 15 31.3 25 30.5 1 4.0 - -50-59 years - - 2 7.7 9 18.8 24 29.3 5 20.0 - -60+ years or more 2 18.2 2 7.7 - - 5 6.1 12 48.0 - -Total 11 100.0 26 100.0 48 100.0 82 100.0 25 100.0 8 100.

01991

18-29 years 6 75.0 10 58.8 13 31.7 20 21.3 7 26.9 12 85.730-39 years 1 12.5 6 35.3 19 46.3 19 20.2 3 11.5 2 14.340-49 years - - 1 5.9 7 17.1 40 42.6 8 30.8 - -50-59 years 1 12.5 - - - - 14 14.9 6 23.1 - -60+ years or more - - - - 2 4.9 1 1.1 2 7.7 - -Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.

0

Table B2: Age x Main Source of IncomeAge

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and OverNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Job 25 61.0 28 52.8 11 24.4 5 12.5 1 4.8Pension 3 7.3 15 28.3 23 51.1 27 67.5 17 80.9Other/none 13 31.7 10 18.9 11 24.4 8 20.0 3 14.3Total 41 100.0 53 100.0 45 100.0 40 100.0 21 100.0

1991Job 48 70.5 35 70.0 27 48.2 6 28.6 1 20.0Pension 11 16.2 14 28.0 27 48.2 14 66.7 4 80.0Other/none 8 11.8 1 2.0 2 3.6 1 4.8 - -Not stated 1 1.5 - - - - - - - -Total 68 100.0 50 100.0 56 100.0 21 100.0 5 100.0

128

Table C7: Knowledge of Campaign X Age1991

OzTurk Yeni Vatan Video Advertisement Public MeetingYes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No %18-29

yrs38 26.6 30 52.6 29 26.9 39 42.4 27 29.0 41 38.3 33 28.0 35 42.7

30-39 38 26.6 12 21.0 23 21.3 27 29.3 22 23.7 28 26.2 28 23.7 22 26.840-49 43 30.1 13 22.8 36 33.3 20 21.7 31 33.3 25 23.4 38 32.2 18 22.050-59 20 14.0 1 1.8 17 15.7 4 4.3 11 11.8 10 9.3 14 11.9 7 8.560 or over 4 2.8 1 1.8 3 2.8 2 2.2 2 2.2 3 2.8 5 4.2 - -Total 143 100.0 57 100.0 108 100.

092 100.0 93 100.0 107 100.0 118 100.0 82 100.

0

Table C9: Sources of Help or Advice x Period of ResidencePeriod of Residence (years)

< 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 > 20 Born HereNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1990Legal Services 2 9.5 13 26.0 36 34.0 51 27.1 21 34.4 9 45.0Government Dept/organisation, Ombudsman etc 2 9.5 1 2.0 3 2.8 16 8.5 8 13.1 6 30.0Government funded migrant service (TIS, MRC)

4 19.1 7 14.0 13 12.3 24 12.8 9 14.8 1 5.0

Migrant community/associations 8 38.1 20 40.0 43 40.6 75 39.9 21 34.4 2 10.0Other/don’t know 5 23.8 9 18.0 11 10.4 22 11.7 2 3.3 2 10.0Total* 21 100.0 50 100.0 106 100.0 188 100.0 61 100.0 20 100.

0*multiple choice - total number of responses 446

1991Legal Services 7 36.8 15 37.5 38 38.0 84 36.4 22 37.3 13 37.1Government Dept/organisation, Ombudsman etc 4 21.0 4 10.0 13 13.0 34 14.7 8 13.6 6 17.1Government funded migrant service (TIS, MRC)

2 10.5 9 22.5 10 10.0 38 16.5 7 11.9 3 8.6

Migrant community/associations 5 26.3 7 17.5 25 25.0 55 23.8 13 22.0 9 25.7Other/don’t know 1 5.3 5 12.5 14 14.0 20 8.7 9 15.3 4 11.4

129

Total** 19 100.0 40 100.0 100 100.0 231 100.0 59 100.0 35 100.0

** multiple choice - total number of responses 48

130

APPENDIX 4TURKISH COMMUNITY PROFILE

Large scale migration to Australia began just over 20 years ago. The population increased rapidly from the mid-1960s to 1981. Since then the increase has been more gradual. The 1986 Census shows that there were 24,529 Turkish-born persons in Australia.

Just over half of the Turkish population lives in Victoria and just under half in NSW. There are small populations in South Australia and Western Australia. Most Turks live in the capital cities.

Over the two decades of the migration of Turks to Australia, there has been a widening of the age structure and a general ageing of the population. There is a growing number of children born in Australia of Turkish-born parents. Very few people aged over 20 were born in Australia.

Intermarriage of Turks is high compared to most other major ethnic groups in Australia.

The Turkish-born population displays high levels of unemployment and high dependency on Social Security payments. It also displays low levels of educational achievement. Those who are in the workforce characteristically work in low-skill, low-paid jobs.

Significant numbers of the Turkish population in Australia speak little or no English. The ABS 1983 Language Survey found that no group speaks or writes English less than the Turkish-speaking population. The great majority of the Turks speak Turkish at home; only those whose first language is Vietnamese are less likely to speak English at home.

The great majority of Turks are Muslim.

VIETNAMESE COMMUNITY PROFILEBefore 1975 there was a small number of Vietnamese students or wives of ex-servicemen in Australia. Most Vietnamese now living here have arrived as refugees (including boat people) or as part of the Orderly Departure Program. From June 1975 to June 1985, 79,000 Vietnamese arrived in Australia.

According to the 1986 census, there were 83,000 Vietnamese-born people in Australia(2.6% of the population), of whom 3,174 lived in Footscray (6.7% of that municipality. It should be noted that many of the initial intake were ethnic Chinese, though most of these are bilingual in Vietnamese and a Chinese language.

Recent estimates put the Vietnamese population at no fewer than 120,000. There is no doubt that this increase is reflected in population increases in areas of major settlement in Victoria: Footscray, Richmond and Springvale.

130

The Vietnamese are a comparatively young and disadvantaged group. In 1986 their median age was 26.2, in contrast to the median age of 40.7 for other overseas-born people, and27.5 for Australians at large.

They have a high unemployment rate: 24.2% in 1986 in comparison with 7.7% of the rest of the population, and these figures have been high ever since the initial major migrations. In the period 1975-1982, 64% of all arrivals were unskilled workers. A continuing problem for many Vietnamese is the lack of recognition of their qualifications.

The Vietnamese have a lower median school-leaving age than the rest of the population. More recently arrived Vietnamese have received less education than others who arrived here in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Vietnamese in Australia demonstrate little familiarity with English: the surveys conducted for this project show that in 1991 over 60% of the sample spoke only a little or no English at all.

Religious affiliation figures are not reliable, since many Vietnamese have dual affiliations with Cao Dai, a syncretic approach to Buddhism, ancestor worship, and Christianity. In the 1981 census, 18% declared themselves Christians, 29% Buddhist, and 52% other. The Catholic church appears to be strongly organised and influential.

A Note About CultureVietnamese are sensitive about their status as refugees. They have had a history of expansion within Indochina, and being refugees beyond that region is not part of their historical experience.

As one Vietnamese community worker put it, many Vietnamese see themselves as ‘perfect diamonds’ that are not malleable. They may therefore feel a sense of shame and dishonour in their situation as exiles, and this affects their relationships with the community at large.

In the Confucian model of Vietnamese society, everything and everyone had its place, from the farmer to the scholar-bureaucrat. Mutual support was traditionally provided by extended family networks, which tied into the kinship and clan networks found in Vietnam. The tradition of self-help and solving problems within the family can lead to a reluctance to turn to outside help, including government agencies.

The recent war and later flight has caused a vacuum in the social order found in Vietnamese communities abroad. This has led to social problems within the community.

Despite this change, ‘the Vietnamese tend to be quiet, law-abiding, and non-violent. Violence is not their way of life. They do not like to watch violent scenes nor do they like litigation. They only resort to it when all other means have been exhausted outside the court. Litigation has often been discouraged and ridiculed in literature.’26

26 Vuong G Thuy, Getting to Know the Vietnamese and their Culture, Frederick Ungar, NY, 1976, p. 39.

131

Hence their reluctance to make a fuss when there are problems. A century of French colonialism, 30 years of war since 1945, and the present strict system has made many Vietnamese reluctant about most interactions with authority.

132

With this background, it is easy to understand the Vietnamese preference for indirect dispute or conflict resolution which does not lead to loss of face. The Project’s intervention has had to take into account this fear of authority, while at the same time indicating that the Australian administrative review system can be consistent with the Vietnamese preference for harmonious social order and non-adversarial problem resolution.

An excellent recent discussion of the Vietnamese and the law writes that:‘All the settlement studies consistently report that refugees were reluctant to voice criticism; for example, when clothing was too large, food distasteful, language classes too difficult, and housing inappropriate. Their customary behaviour of withdrawal from confrontation, tolerant acceptance of situations, their polite wish to please rather than to offend and their traditional diffidence and respect towards authority all combine to mask both the internal and external difficulties they may be experiencing. Their desire not to appear ungrateful is a further brake on their willingness to express dissatisfaction.’

Furthermore, many newly arrived VietnameseCan absorb very little information. Those refugees who live first in hostels are told some things about the Australian legal system in the few months that they spend there but it is well documented that this is a waste of time. They have other things on their minds. It is not surprising then that refugees will have little concern for their legal rights in the first years of settlement. They are thus easily victimised and exploited as they struggle to make a new life in lowly paid jobs without language, familial, financial or cultural supports.’27

27 Jenny Burley, ‘The Vietnamese and the Law’, Legal Services Bulletin, October 1990, pp. 200-203.Confirmation of these experiences and attitudes is found in the report Consumer Knowledge and Experience Amongst the Vietnamese Speaking Communities in Sydney and Melbourne(July 1990), prepared by Ethnic Communications Pty Ltd for the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Using qualitative data, the report confirms many of the findings of this Project.

133

APPENDIX 5ACRONYMS USED

AAT Administrative Appeals TribunalABS Australian Bureau of StatisticsARC Administrative Review CouncilATO Australian Tax OfficeDEET Department of Education, Employment and TrainingDILGEA Department of Immigration, Local Government, and Ethnic AffairsDSS Department of Social SecurityGIA Grant-in-AidIRT Immigration Review TribunalLIS Legal Interpreting ServiceMAPS Migrant Access Project SchemeMIRO Migration Internal Review OfficeOMA Office of Multicultural AffairsPEAPS Pilot Equity and Access Project SchemeSART Student Assistance Review TribunalSSAT Social Security Appeals TribunalTIS Telephone Interpreter Service

134