SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION …

Public ndash I1-A2

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT SURVEY 2019

DETAILED REPORT

Source Customer Service Commission Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2019 Report developed in conjunction with the NSW Customer Service CommissionerPublic I1-A2

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Chapter Page no Reading Guide

i Executive Summary 3 Overview of the study methodology 2018 results for key performance measures and key findings from the overall data

Priority read15 minutes

ii Key Findings 7

iii Detailed Findings 29 Select by interest area

1 Overall Measures And Topline Analysis 30 Results for the CSI and outcome measures comparing performance year on

year and by jurisdiction 10 minutes

2 Performance Against Customer Satisfaction Attributes 40

Results for specific service attributes across employees process values and goals comparing performance by jurisdiction and results for overall drivers of satisfaction

20 minutes

3 Satisfaction By Contact Method And Digital Insights 52

Results for contact methods used and preferred impact on overall satisfaction and expectations attributes of online service and drivers of digital adoption

20 minutes

4 Public Sector Overall 63 Results for the SA Public Service brand comparing performance over time and by jurisdictions associations with word descriptors 5 minutes

5 Feedback 68 Results for feedback to SA Government Services and complaint handling 10 minutes

iv Appendices

1 Analysis By Service 76 Results for outcome measures attributes and channel usage by service 25 minutes

2 Contact Method Preference By Service 93 Results for contact methods used and preferred impact on overall

satisfaction with online experience by service 15 minutes

3 Jurisdictional Comparison 101 Results for overall customer satisfaction with services by jurisdiction 10 minutes

4 Demographics 104 Results for outcome measures by demographics 15 minutes

5 Cluster Dashboards 114 Results for individual clusters and services 20 minutes

6 Overview and Methodology 171 Research programme background objectives scope and explanation of the Customer Satisfaction index (CSI) 5 minutes

7 Further Technical Information 178 Details of approach to data collection and management 5 minutes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public ndash I1-A2

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Metro74

Regional13

Rural14

Online survey

Other jurisdictions - Consumers

Queensland Victoria New South Wales

United Kingdom

New Zealand

Other jurisdictions - Businesses

United Kingdom

New Zealand

SA ndash Consumers

SA- Businesses

Age Gender Region

Business size Region

49 male51

female18-3429

35-5432

55-6416

98 under 20

staff2

20+ staff

75 Metropolitan

11 Regional

14 Rural

2019 2073 4110 2019 2116

555 537 1261 1003 586

WE SURVEYED ~14300 CONSUMERS AND 4400 BUSINESSES ACROSS 6 JURISDICTIONS VIA THE ANNUAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT SURVEY IN 2019

Respondent Demographics

Note Results are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100

Consumer Business

Satisfaction ExpectationGap

Expectation

Consumer satisfaction has remained stable versus last year Consumer expectations have increased slightly however not a statistically significant change

The SA consumer CSI is at 788 for 2019 and has been statistically stable since 2016

Consumersrsquo perceptions of the SA Public Services lsquobrandrsquo have remained stable in 2019 ranking second after airlines However satisfaction with the SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo remains lower than customersrsquo satisfaction with SA Government services overall

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

SA Public Service 66

Telcorsquos 61

Local Council60

Banks59

Energy54

Fed Govt53

76(2017)

Nine drivers of consumer satisfaction are identified in 2019 Whereas lsquoCommunication and Empathyrsquo was a single driver last year this year lsquoFairness and Empathyrsquo is a unique driver of moderate importance separate to lsquoCommunicationrsquo which is of high importance

Efficiency and effectiveness of employees

Communication

Honesty and integrity of employees

Employee autonomy

Simplicity and efficiency of processes

Transparency

Privacy

Access to information and online services

Moderate

Drivers and relative importance

Performance of SA Government Services against baseline measures Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) results

Drivers of satisfaction

75(2018)

Perceptions of the SA Public Sector lsquobrandrsquo

SA Government Services

(avg satisfaction)

75(2019)

Fairness and Empathy

Moderate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONSUMER SATISFACTION WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICES HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN 2019

Legend Statistically significant increase in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)No significant change in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)Statistically significant decrease in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)

Consumer CSI

Consumer

785784

2016 2017 2018 2019

74(2016)

Employee attributes Goals ProcessesKey

Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services however it is assumed that drivers of satisfaction are relatively consistent across jurisdictions and generally across service industries broadly

Business satisfaction and expectation have remained stable since 2016

The SA business CSI is 780 for 2019 and has been statistically stable since 2016

Business perceptions of the SA Public Services lsquobrandrsquo have remained stable in 2019 ranking between Airlines andTelcos However satisfaction with the SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo remains lower than customersrsquo satisfaction with SA Government services overall

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos62

Banks61

Local Council61

Fed Govt 57

Energy56

71(2017)

Performance of SA Government services against baseline measures Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) results

72(2018)

SA Government services

(avg satisfaction)

73(2019)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS SATISFACTION WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICES HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN 2019

Expectation

(+01)(+01)

Business CSI

Business

754759

2016 2017 2018 2019

Contact Methods Used by Businesses

Inperson

Phone Online Email Mail fax Thirdparties

2018 Business (n=814)2019 Business (n=762)

Similar to last year lsquoIn personrsquo lsquophonersquo and lsquoonlinersquo continue to be the top 3 methods used by businesses to interact with the SA Government

70(2016)

Public ndash I1-A2

ii KEY FINDINGS IN 2019

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS IN 2019

Theme Key Finding EvidenceOverall Measures and Topline Analysis

Average scores for all three headline measures (satisfaction expectation ideal score) have remained stableover last year and seen steady growth since 2016

bull Consumer satisfaction has remained stable at 75 out of 10 and expectation has increased slightly to 78 out of 10

bull The expectation gap is 03 points

Compared to 2016 all headline measures have seen a steady increase in average scores

bull Comparison to ideal service has increased significantly in 2019 by 04 points to 72 out of 10

bull The expectation gap has remained stable versus 2018 at 03 pointsbull The proportion of businesses in the lowest bracket (rated 1-4 out of 10) has been declining

since 2016 across all three performance indicators and continues to do so in 2019

Performance Against Customer Satisfaction Attributes

SA Government Services perform well against Employee attributes which have been identified as important drivers of customer satisfaction

The opportunity lies in improving process efficiencies to reduce the overall time taken by consumers and businesses to complete their task or interaction

bull For consumers SA Government services have an average score of 74 out of 10 across all employee attributes

bull lsquoProcesses are easy to understandrsquo rates higher than other process attributes The opportunity areas lie in making processes more efficient as lsquoGetting things done as quickly as possiblersquo and processes lsquoAre designed to reduce wait timesrsquo are two attributes where SA has the lowest ratings among all jurisdictions

bull lsquoPublic participation in decision makingrsquo is one of the lowest performing attributes across all jurisdictions for consumers However businesses in SA have rated this attribute significantly higher than last year ndash an increase of 04 points to 63 out of 10 vs 2019

Consumer

Business

BusinessConsumer

Theme Key Finding EvidenceSatisfaction by Contact Method and DigitalInsights

Usage and satisfaction with the overall experience of using websites appshas remained stable among consumers Overall satisfaction is highest amongst consumers who use online channels

While smartphones are the most commonly used device to access services online there is an opportunity to improve the smartphone experience of consumers

bull Of all jurisdictions SA has the second highest usage of online methods of contact among consumers behind NSW

bull Users of Online channels have the highest average satisfaction scores compared to all other channels They also rate the SA Government services highest on all process attributes

bull While half of all consumers have used smartphones to access services online satisfaction with the overall experience with using website apps is lowest for smartphone users Tablet users form the smallest proportion but have the highest satisfaction

There is significant improvement in satisfaction with the overall online experience among businesses compared to 2018

While usage of in-person as a contact method is declining it continues to remain important to businesses The opportunity area is to find the right balance between online and face to face contact methods

bull The proportion of businesses choosing to go online increased by 7 points in 2019 and these businesses also saw a 09 point increase in satisfaction which is high at 80 out of 10

bull There was a significant increase in satisfaction with the overall experience of using website app to complete a task ndash an increase of 08 points to 78 out of 10 versus last year

bull While smartphone usage was low compared to desktop and laptop businesses that used smartphones showed highest satisfaction along with desktop users

bull Businesses that used in-person channels had the highest satisfaction alongside online users Businesses using in-person methods also rate SA Government services highest on all process attributes

bull Preference for in-person in SA is the highest of all jurisdictions however usage has seen a steady decline since 2017

Consumer

Business

Theme Key Finding Evidence

Public Sector Overall The SA Public Services lsquobrandrsquo is viewed positively by both consumers and businesses

Experiences with SA Government services outperforms overall SA Public Service perceptions

bull The perception of SA Public Service overall has remained stable and is ahead of all other industries with the exception of airlines for both consumers and businesses

bull In line with other Australian jurisdictions SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo performs better relative to other industries than the Public Service lsquobrandrsquo in NZ and UK

bull Satisfaction with government services is higher than satisfaction with the SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo suggesting factors other than service delivery experiences are impacting brand perception

bull SA Public Service is described more positively than negatively with lsquohelpfulrsquo lsquofriendlyrsquo lsquocapablersquo lsquoknowledgeablersquo and lsquorespectfulrsquo being the top five descriptors by both consumers and businesses

bull In contrast to last year businesses have described SA Public Services more positively this year with an increase in proportion of businesses selecting positive descriptors and decrease in proportion of businesses selecting negative descriptors

Topline by Demographics Consumer satisfaction in regional areas has increased significantly and the expectation gap is almost zero

bull For consumers all three headline measures have seen a significant increase in regional areas

bull Expectation has increased by 04 points to 81 out of 10 and satisfaction has increased by 06 points to 80 out of 10 This indicates that SA Government Services in regional areas are very close to meeting consumers expectations

Consumer Business

Consumer

Feedback Overall the proportion of consumers and businesses giving feedback remains low

Consumers are more likely to give compliments and businesses are more likely to make a complaint

bull 30 of consumers and 39 of businesses gave some form of feedback in 2019bull 39 of all feedback received from consumers was a compliment Compliments are

related to employee interactions for consumers and businesses compliment about the information available to them

bull 42 of all feedback received from businesses was a complaint Compared to other jurisdictions SA received the highest proportion of all feedback as complaints from businesses but had the lowest proportion of poor handling of complaints within Australian jurisdictions

bull Processes are the main source of complaints for both consumers and businesses

A higher proportion of both consumers and businesses found it easier to make complaints this year versus last year

For both consumers and businesses ease of making a complaint does not always translate into a positive complaint handling experience There is an opportunity to streamline the complaints resolution process to ensure the experience is positive for consumers and businesses through the entire process

Good complaint handling is associated with higher than average satisfaction for both consumers and business

bull 51 of consumers found it easy to make a complaint (7-10 out of 10) versus 34 last year

bull 46 of businesses found it easy to make a complaint (7-10 out of 10) versus 37 last year

bull While there was improvement in the ease of making a complaint only 36 of consumers said their complaint had been handled well (7-10 out of 10)

bull Similarly for businesses only 32 said their complaint had been handled well (7-10 out of 10)

bull Consumers who had a good complaint handling experience had a satisfaction score of 80 out of 10 which is higher than the average consumer satisfaction score of 75 out of 10

bull Businesses gave a rating of 7-10 out of 10 for complaint handling had a satisfaction score of 81 out of 10 which is higher than the average business satisfaction score of 73 out of 10

Consumer Business

Please note that customers may have rated different services on Satisfaction and Complaint Handling and the correlation is to be treated as indicative only

KEY FINDING 1 (CONSUMER) Overall Measures and Topline AnalysisAverage scores for all three headline measures (satisfaction expectation ideal score) have remained stable over last year and seen steady growth since 2016

Satisfaction Expectation Gap Expectation

Figure 2 2019 Consumer satisfaction expectation and expectation gap

bull In 2019 consumer satisfaction with SA Government services has been maintained at 75 and consumer expectation has increased slightly to 78

bull The expectation gap is -03

Consumer

-01 -01 +01

+01 -+02

+01 - +01

Expectation Satisfaction Ideal Service

Figure 1 2019 Average scores for headline measures 2016 ndash 2019 - Consumers

KEY FINDING 1 (BUSINESS) Overall Measures and Topline AnalysisCompared to 2016 all headline measures have seen a steady increase in average scores

bull Both satisfaction and expectation of businesses with SA Government have increased by 01 points in 2019 versus last year

bull As with consumers the expectation gap is -03

Business

Figure 3 2019 Average scores for headline measures 2016 ndash 2019 - Business

+01 +01

Figure 4 2018 Business satisfaction expectation and expectation gap

f 10 )

Satisfaction Drivers Average score across respondents (out of 10 on scale of according to a scale from 1 strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree)

Employees1)Honesty amp integrity of employees2)Efficiency and effectiveness of employees3)Communication4) Fairness and Empathy

Average across attributes

Process1)Simplicity and efficiency of processes2)Employee autonomy

This year (YoY change not significant)

Range of historicValues(2016-19)

Legend77

Significant increase

Significant decrease

Last year

76 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7371

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 70

201969

6765 63

Consumer

KEY FINDING 2 (CONSUMER) Performance Against Customer Satisfaction AttributesWith an average score of 74 out of 10 for consumers SA Government Services perform well against employee attributes which havebeen identified as important drivers of customer satisfaction The opportunity area lies in improving process efficiencies to reduce the overall time taken by consumers to complete their task or interaction

Figure 5 Employee and Process attribute scores ndash Consumers

Goals 1)Privacy2)Transparency3)Access to info

Values1)Service Quality2)Accountability

69 68 67

7570 68 67

201973 72 72

73 72 7270

Legend77

Last year

Consumer

KEY FINDING 2 (CONSUMER) Performance Against Customer Satisfaction AttributesFor consumers lsquoPublic participation in decision makingrsquo is one of the lowest performing attributes and this is also the case the attribute scores are compared across all jurisdictions

Figure 6 Goals and Values attribute scores - Consumers

Process1)Simplicity and efficiency of processes2)Responsiveness

71 71 71 71 7070 71

6767 67

75 7573 72 72 72 71 71 71

69 68 68

2019 67 64 64 62

6865 65

Legend77

Last year

Business

Figure 7 Employee and Process attribute scores ndash Businesses

KEY FINDING 2 (BUSINESS) Performance Against Customer Satisfaction AttributesSA Government Services perform well against employee attributes which have been identified as important drivers of business satisfaction The opportunity lies in improving process efficiencies to reduce the overall time taken to complete a task or interaction

Values 1)Service Quality2)Accountability

66 65 6559

7469 68 67

201971 70 70

72 71 71 70

ith in

Legend77

Last year

Business

KEY FINDING 2 (BUSINESS) Performance Against Customer Satisfaction AttributesBusiness perception of lsquoPublic participation in decision makingrsquo has seen a significant increase of 04 points to 63 out of 10 this year

Figure 8 Goals and Values attribute scores - Businesses

KEY FINDING 3 (CONSUMER) Satisfaction by Contact Method and Digital InsightsUsage and satisfaction with the overall experience with using websites apps has remained stable among consumers Overall satisfaction is highest amongst consumers who use online channels

Note ndash Percentages do not add up to 100 due to exclusion of Donrsquot Know from the analysis

bull 26 of consumers used online channels as a method of contact

bull Consumers who used online methods had the highest average overall satisfaction score of 77 out of 10

bull Satisfaction with the overall experience of using online services (via website app) was also high at 79 out of 10

In person Phone Online Email Mail fax Thirdparties

2018 Consumer (n=3307) 2019 Consumer (n=3297)

Figure 9 2018 and 2019 channel usage -Consumers

Consumer

Figure 10 2018 and 2019 overall satisfaction by channel usage - Consumers

73 72 7270

74 7371

Online In person Thirdparties

Phone Mailfax Email

-10) +01

+01+01 +01

Customers were asked ldquoThinking about your experiences interacting with SA services online in the last 12 months to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statementsrdquo

Figure 11 Satisfaction with attributes of online services

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

The content wascurrent and accurate

I achieved the outcomeby using servicesavailable online

I trust my informationwas handled securely

through thewebsiteapp

The format of contentmet my accessrequirements

I was satisfied with theoverall experience ofusing the websiteappto complete the task

The websiteapp wasuseful and allowed me

to do everything Ineeded to do

Content and supportprovided online was

sufficient to answer myquestions

I found the websiteapp simple and it waseasy to find what I was

looking for

Disagree (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Agree (7-10) Average

Axis 2 Average Score

Consumer (n=798)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02NA

KEY FINDING 3 (CONSUMER) Satisfaction by Contact Method and Digital InsightsWhile smartphones are the most used device to access services online there is an opportunity to improve the smartphone experience of consumers

Consumer

50 4640

Smartphone Laptop computer Desktop computer TabletiPad

Consumer (n=843)Business (n=220)

Customers were asked ldquoWhat devices did you use to access the online content Please select all contact methods that applyrdquo

Figure 12 Devices used when dealing with SA Government services online

Figure 13 Satisfaction with online services by device used Customers were asked ldquoHow satisfied were you with the overall experience of using the websiteapp to complete the taskrdquo

79 798080

bull While most consumers (50) used smartphones to access online content their satisfaction levels with their experience was lower (77 out of 10) compared to those who used desktops or laptops to access online content (79 out of 10)

bull Few consumers are using tabletsiPad (17) but those that do have high levels of satisfaction (8 out of 10)

2018 Business (n=814) 2019 Business (n=762)

KEY FINDING 3 (BUSINESS) Satisfaction by Contact Method and Digital InsightsThere is significant improvement in satisfaction with the overall online experience among businesses

Figure 14 2018 and 2019 channel usage -Businessbull There was an increase in the

overall satisfaction score among businesses who used online channels

bull There was a significant increase of 08 points in satisfaction with the overall online experience

bull The proportion of businesses who chose to go online increased by 7 points compared to last year

Business

70 71 7169

73 7372 72 71

In person Online Mailfax Phone Email Thirdparties

2018 Business(n=814) 2019 Business(n=762)

Figure 15 2018 and 2019 overall satisfaction by channel usage - Businesses

-02+01 +01

+03+02

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

I trust myinformation washandled securely

I achieved theoutcome by usingservices available

online

The content wascurrent and

accurate

The format ofcontent met my

accessrequirements

I was satisfied withthe overall

experience ofusing the

websiteapp tocomplete the task

The websiteappwas useful and

allowed me to doeverything I

needed to do

Content andsupport provided

online wassufficient toanswer myquestions

I found thewebsite app

simple and it waseasy to find what I

was looking for

Business (n=210)

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06+09

224 I chose to go

online

I was directedor promotedto go online

There was noother optionavailable

Customers were asked ldquoDid you choose to go online or were you directed to go onlinerdquo

Figure 16 Choice to go online

darr2 darr5

2922 22 22

3224 23

In person Email Phone Online Mailfax Third parties

In person Phone Online Email Mail fax Third parties

Figure 18 2018 and 2019 channel usage - Business

Figure 19 2018 and 2019 most preferred channel - Business

bull While lsquoin personrsquo remains the most used channel for contact there is a continued decline in usage since 2017 (52 in 2017 51 in 2018 47 in 2019) though not statistically significant

bull Despite the year on year declines lsquoin personrsquo continues to be the most preferred channel and there has been a year on year growth in preference since 2017 (27 in 2017 29 in 2018 32 in 2019)

Business

KEY FINDING 3 (BUSINESS) Satisfaction by Contact Method and Digital InsightsWhile usage is declining in-person as a method of contact continues to remain important to businesses The opportunity area is to find the right balance between online and face to face contact methods

61 60 5954 53

7066 62 61 61

Airlines Public Serviceoverall

TelephoneService

Providers

My localcouncil

Banks EnergyRetailers

FederalGovernment

Consumer (n=1649) Business (n=457)

LowestHighest

KEY FINDING 4 Public Sector OverallThe SA public services lsquobrandrsquo is viewed positively by both consumers and businesses however service experience outperforms brand score

Figure 20 Satisfaction with SA Public Service

bull Both consumers and businesses rate SA Public Services higher than most other industries or public service agencies with the exception of Airlines

bull Both consumers and businesses rate satisfaction with SA Government Services as being higher than the satisfaction with the lsquobrandrsquo SA Public Service This suggests factors other than service delivery experiences are impacting brand perception

Consumer Business

10 05 0406 05

7375 00 +01SA Government Services

Average satisfaction

Consumer Business

KEY FINDING 4 Public Sector OverallIn comparison to other jurisdictions as well the SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo is rated higher than most other industries by consumers and businesses

bull In line with other Australian jurisdictions SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo performs better relative to other industries (banks) than Public Service lsquobrandrsquo in NZ and UK

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

NSW Public Service 69

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

QLD Public Service 67

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

VIC Public Service 65

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

UK Public Service 68

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

Figure 21 Comparison of Public service brand perceptions across jurisdictionsCustomers were asked ldquoThinking about all your experiences with each of the following [jurisdiction] industries and public services over the previous 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with them rdquoConsumer

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

KEY FINDING 5 (CONSUMER) Top-Line results by DemographicsConsumer satisfaction in regional areas has increased significantly and the expectation gap is almost zero

Average satisfaction among consumers in regional areas has increased significantly by 06 points to 8 out of 10 The expectation score is 81 making the expectation gap just 008

How would you rate your expectation of the overall quality of service

Thinking about your experiences in the last 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with

each of the following services

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

Low (1-4) Neutral (5-6) High (7-10)

Satisfaction Expectation Ideal service

Please imagine an ideal service How well do you think each service compares to that ideal service

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

Expectation gap (satisfaction ndash expectation)

respondents Avg respondents Avg

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Not close to ideal (1-4)Neutral (5-6)Close to ideal (7-10)

Note Expectation gap scores displayed in graph are subject to rounding

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Dissatisfied (1-4)Neutral (5-6)Satisfied (7-10)

Figure 22 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by region - Consumer

Base Consumers(n=3297)

Consumer

727779

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I made asuggestionfor change

I gave acompliment

Satisfaction Expectation

7668 69 71

7971 74 75

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I made asuggestion for

change

I gave acompliment

KEY FINDING 6 FeedbackOverall the proportion of consumers and businesses giving feedback remains low Consumers are more likely to give compliments and businesses are more likely to make a complaint

Consumer Business

bull Majority of consumers or businesses did not give any form of feedback

bull 39 of consumers who gave feedback gave a compliment

bull Whereas 42 of businesses who gave feedback made a complaint

bull Consumers and businesses who gave a compliment had a higher satisfaction score compared to those who complained or made a suggestion

Figure 23 Feedback typeQuestion ldquoWhen was the last time you provided feedback to a SA Government Agency or Department about their services processes or employeesrdquoQuestion ldquoWhat was the nature of the feedbackrdquo

Figure 24 Satisfaction and expectation of feedback type Consumer (n=858) Business (n=294)

Consumer n=1998

Business n=502

bull I gave a complimentbull I made a suggestion

for changebull I made a complaint

Business (n=194)

Consumer (n=519)

Given feedbackNever given feedback Donrsquot know

Given feedback

Figure 25 Consumer Variation in ease of making a complaint across jurisdictions

KEY FINDING 6 FeedbackA higher proportion of both consumers and businesses found it easier to make complaints this year versus last year

Consumer Business

Customers were asked ldquoHow difficult or easy was it to make your complaintrdquo

2018 2019

Easy (7-10) Neutral (5-6) Difficult (1-4) Average

Axis 2 Average scoreAxis

sesConsumers

bull 51 of consumers found it easy (7-10 out of 10) to make a complaint versus 34 last year

bull There was a significant increase of 08 points in the average score for consumers (61 out of 10 vs 53 out of 10 last year)

Businessesbull 46 of businesses found it easy (7-10 out of 10)

to make a complaint An improvement of 9 points versus last year

bull The average score remained relatively stable at 55 out of 10

Figure 26 Business Variation in ease of making a complaint across jurisdictionsCustomers were asked ldquoHow difficult or easy was it to make your complaintrdquo

2018 2019

KEY FINDING 6 FeedbackThere is an opportunity to streamline the complaints resolution process to ensure the experience is positive for consumers and businesses right from making a complaint all the way up to getting a resolution

Consumer Business

Customers were asked ldquoHow difficult or easy was it to make your complaintrdquoFigure 28 Variation in ease of making a complaint across jurisdictions

Consumer Business

Customers were asked ldquoHow well or poorly was your most recent complaint handledrdquo

Figure 29 Variation in complaints handling across jurisdictions

Consumers Business

Handled poorly (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Handled well (7-10) Average

Axis 2 Average score

For both consumers and businesses ease of making a complaint does not always translate into a positive experience with the complaint handling process

bull While 51 of consumers found it easy (7-10 out of 10) to make a complaint only 36 of consumers said their complaint had been handled well (7-10 out of 10)

bull Similarly while 46 of businesses found it easy to make a complaint (7-10 out of 10) only 32 said their complaint had been handled well (7-10 out of 10)

Consumersbull The overall satisfaction scores for consumers who had a

good complaint handling experience was higher than the average consumer satisfaction score (80 out of 10 vs 75 out of 10)

bull Consumers who had a good complaint handling experience had higher overall satisfaction (80 out of 10) compared to consumers who had a poor experience (53 out of 10)

Businessesbull Businesses who had a good complaint handling

experience had a higher satisfaction score compared to the average satisfaction score (81 out of 10 vs 73 out of 10)

bull As with consumers businesses who had a positive experience had higher overall satisfaction (81 out of 10) compared to those who had a poor experience (63 out of 10)

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Handled Well (7-10) Neutral (5-6) Handled Poorly (1-4) Average Satisfaction

Figure 27 Overall satisfaction with government services by ease of making complaints

KEY FINDING 6 FeedbackGood complaint handling is associated with a higher than average satisfaction with SA Government Services for consumers and businesses

Please note that customers may have rated different services on Satisfaction and Ease of Complaint and the correlation is to be treated as indicative only

Public ndash I1-A2

iii DETAILED FINDINGS

Public ndash I1-A2

1 OVERALL MEASURES TOPLINE ANALYSIS

Outcome Measures Avg responses

ExpectationHow would you rate your expectation of the overall quality of service

SatisfactionThinking about your experiences in the last 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with each of the following services in SA

Ideal servicehellipPlease imagine an ideal service How well do you think each service in SA compares to that ideal service

CONSUMER OVERALL PERFORMANCEConsumer satisfaction with SA Government services has remained stable in 2019

Note Results are subject to rounding

Consumer expectations have remained stable versus last year with an average rating of 79 out of 10

Consumer satisfaction with SA Government services has remained stable at 75 out of 10

Comparison to ideal service has seen no significant change in 2019 and sits at 72 out of 10

Figure 11 2016 2017 2018 and 2019 overall performance - Consumers

Consumer

2016(n=3462)

2017(n=3433)

2018(n=3245)

2019(n=3241)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=3507)

2017(n=3482)

2018(n=3307)

2019(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)

2016(n=3398)

2017(n=3375)

2018(n=3154)

2019(n=3172)

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Close to ideal (7-10)

Legend Statistically significant increase in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)No statistical significant change in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)Statistically significant decrease in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)

For businesses expectations have seen no significant change with an average rating of 76 out of 10

Satisfaction amongst businesses has also remained stable at 73 out of 10

Comparison to the ideal service has seen a statistically significant increase of 04 points to 72 out of 10 This is a result of a 6 point increase in the proportion of businesses rating SA Government services close to ideal (7-10)

The proportion of businesses rating services in the lowest bracket (1-4) continues to decline year on year across all performance indicators

Figure 12 2016 2017 2018 and 2019 overall performance - Businesses

Business

2016(n=817)

2017(n=753)

2018(n=801)

2019(n=758)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=825)

2017(n=769)

2018(n=814)

2019(n=762)

2016(n=797)

2017(n=742)

2018(n=795)

2019(n=732)

BUSINESS OVERALL PERFORMANCEBusiness satisfaction with SA Government services has remained stable in 2019

Consumersbull 75 of consumers indicate that they are

satisfied with the SA Government services they have had direct dealings in the last 12 months

bull 79 of consumers indicate that they have high expectations of SA Government services

Businessesbull 72 say they are satisfied - this is a 2

points increase in comparison to last year (70 in 2018) This increase has come from a 2 point decrease in dissatisfied businesses (1-4 out of 10)

bull 75 of businesses indicate that they have high expectations of SA Government services

The above satisfaction scores across consumer and business suggest positive perceptions of recent experiences with SA Government services

The above expectation scores across consumer and business suggest they may have had positive previous experiences (prior to the last 12 months)

bull What Overall expectation is a measure of the quality of services customers expect to receive from a service

bull How Customers were asked ldquoThinking about the following service in SA how would you rate your expectation of the overall quality of servicerdquo

Expectation

respondents Avg

Business(n=758)

Consumer(n=3241)

Low (1-4)Med (5-6)High (7-10)

Responses were recorded according to a scale from 1 (very low) to 10 (very high)

bull What Overall satisfaction is a measure of the perceived performance of a service as stated by customers

bull How Customers were asked ldquoThinking about your experiences in the last 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with the following service in SArdquo

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Responses were recorded according to a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied)

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Sig Sig

Figure 13 Figure 14

Comparison of current SA performance to expectations

Consumer Business

PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES COMPARED TO EXPECTATIONSResults against the measures of satisfaction and expectation indicate positive perceptions of SA Government services

Consumersbull 69 of consumers rated SA

Government services as performing close to their ideal service (7-10 out of 10)

bull The average score has remained stable versus last year

Businessesbull 69 of businesses rated SA

bull There has been a significant increase of 04 in the average score for lsquoideal servicersquo (72 out of 10) versus last year

bull What Comparison to an ideal service is a measure of how much the customers feel that the service is close to the best it can be

bull How Customers were asked ldquoNow forgetting for a moment the specific service please imagine an ideal service How well do you think the service in SA compares with that ideal servicerdquo

Business(n=732)

Consumer(n=3172)

Comparison to ideal

respondents Avg

Responses were recorded according to a scale from 1 (not very close to ideal) to 10 (very close to ideal)

Comparison of current SA performance to perceptions of an ideal service

Figure 15 Figure 16

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Consumer Business

PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES COMPARED TO IDEAL69 of both consumers and businesses rate SA Government services as performing close to their ideal service

Note Average satisfaction expectation comparison to ideal service and expectation gap scores are subject to rounding

bull Compared to 2018 satisfaction and expectations have remained stable across jurisdictions with the exceptions of NSW and UK

bull Compared to 2018 SA has improved its ranking by 1 spot when it comes to expectation but has retained its rankings for satisfaction and ideal service

bull NSW has seen a statistically significant increase of 02 points in its satisfaction scores to 78 However the expectation score has also increased statistically significantly to 81 ndashkeeping the gap between expectation and satisfaction unchanged

bull UK has seen a statistically significant decrease of 02 points in expectations to 78

Figure 17 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service across jurisdictions - Consumer

Consumer

Outcomemeasures Avg respondents

Ideal service

hellipPlease imagine an idealservice How well do you think each service in SA compares to that ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)76

Not close toideal (1-4)Neutral (5-6)

Close to ideal(7-10)

COMPARISON OF SA CONSUMERSrsquo PERCEPTIONS TO OTHER JURISDICTIONSRatings for SA Government services have remained stable versus last year NSW has seen a significant increase and UK has seena significant decrease in satisfaction

bull Compared to 2018 all jurisdictions with the exception of QLD and VIC have remained stable in regards to expectations and satisfaction

bull Satisfaction and Expectation scores for SA Government services have remained stable Whereas the ideal service score for SA has seen a significant increase of 04 points to 72

bull After statistically significant declines last year QLD has bounced back showing statistically significant gains across all three performance indicators with satisfaction showing a 05 points increase This has pushed QLD up in the rankings for all three performance indicators

bull VIC has seen decreases across all three performance indicators pushing their ranking down compared to last year

Figure 18 Satisfaction expectation and ideal across jurisdictions - Business

Business

Satisfaction

Thinking about your experiences in the last 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with each of the following services in SA

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Not close toideal (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

COMPARISON OF SA BUSINESSESrsquo PERCEPTIONS TO OTHER JURISDICTIONSRatings for SA have remained stable across all measures QLD has see significant increases and VIC has seen significant declinesin satisfaction

-04 -02 00

2019 2018

Figure 110 2018 and 2019 expectation gap -Businesses

Consumersbull In SA the gap to expectation

remained relatively stable showing a small increase of 004 points versus last year

bull UK has seen an decrease in gap of 013 points

bull VIC has seen a decrease in gap of 007 points

Businessesbull Except QLD all jurisdictions show

an increase in the gap between satisfaction and expectation

bull The gap to expectation in SA has remained relatively stable versus last year increasing only by 003 points

Figure 19 2018 and 2019 expectation gap -Consumers

Consumer Business

-06 -04 -02 00

2019 2018

GAP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATION FOR CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSESIn SA the gap to expectation for both consumers and businesses has seen a slight increase this year

-1 -05 0 05Avg

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1

Services with the highest expectation gap

Services with the lowest expectation gap

Note Very small number of responses (nlt=30)All service comparisons will be shown in greater detail in the detailed chapters of this report For further service comparisons see Chapter 9

State Emergency Services (n=45)

Ambulance Services (n=24)

Figure 111 Satisfaction expectation gap - Consumer

Figure 112 Satisfaction expectation gap - Business

Child Welfare Services(n=51)

Courts(n=89)

Prisons(n=21)

Disability Services(n=33)Agricultural

Advice and Funding Services(n=10)

Public Housing (n=16)

Consumersbull There are no services that have a positive

expectation gap State Emergency Services have a zero point gap

bull Prisons have the highest negative expectation gap of -13 points followed by Courts and Child Welfare Services and Major Roads at -07 points

Businessesbull Of those with statistically reliable sample sizes

Disability Services have the highest negative expectation of -05 points

Consumer Business

GAP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATION BY SERVICEAcross most services both consumers and businesses have a negative gap to expectation (expectation is higher than satisfaction)

-07Major Roads(n=81)

Consumer Business

Service(n= for consumers n= for business)

Reach1 Average satisfaction (out of 10)

Average expectation score (out of 10) Gap to expectation

Consumer Business Consumer Business Consumer Business Consumer BusinessFire Brigades (n=24 n=15) 1 2 91 91 93 91 -02 00

State Emergency Serv (n=47 n=13) 3 3 90 87 91 87 00 00

Ambulance Serv (n=208 n=24) 17 7 87 91 90 90 -03 01

Art Galleries and Museums (n=121 n=13) 13 3 87 82 88 84 -02 -02Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=580 n=135) 56 43 80 71 82 75 -01 -04

Public Schools (n=228 n=51) 19 14 76 66 79 70 -03 -05

Water Supply (n=240 n=67) 24 23 76 74 78 77 -02 -03

Police (n=217 n=35) 21 9 75 80 78 81 -03 -01

Public Hospitals (n=412 n=76) 41 18 74 69 77 72 -03 -03

Public Transport (n=390 n=47) 38 13 74 72 76 76 -02 -03

Consumer Affairs (n=38 n=27) 4 8 73 75 77 77 -04 -02

Documentation Serv (n=42 n=17) 4 5 73 80 76 83 -03 -03Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=38 n=19) 3 4 73 74 75 78 -03 -04

Business Advisory Serv (n=17 n=35) 1 11 73 72 73 75 -01 -03

Serv for Older People (n=114 n=28) 9 7 73 71 77 75 -04 -04

TAFE Serv (n=126 n=36) 11 9 70 67 72 68 -03 -01Agricultural Advice and Funding Serv (n=13 n=10) 1 2 68 61 70 74 -02 -13

Disability Serv (n=100 n=34) 9 10 66 74 70 79 -03 -05

Major Roads (n=86 n=11) 8 3 65 74 71 75 -07 -01

Public Housing (n=87 n=16) 9 5 63 55 67 70 -04 -15

Courts (n=94 n=19) 6 4 63 74 70 79 -07 -05

Prison (n=23 n=14) 2 2 54 79 67 83 -13 -03

Child Welfare Serv (n=52 n=20) 3 3 45 70 52 75 -07 -05

Figure 113 Summary of variation in key performance measures across services

Interpret with caution Very small number of responses (nlt=30) 1 of customers who have interacted with this service in the last 12 months | Top bottom six in each category compared to other services

SUMMARY OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE BY SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATIONIn terms of average satisfaction score Fire Brigades State Emergency Services Ambulance Services and Art Galleries and Museums are the top rating services

Public ndash I1-A2

2 PERFORMANCE AGAINST CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ATTRIBUTES

Satisfaction Drivers Average score across respondents (out of 10 according to a scale from 1 strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree)

Employees for SA1) Honesty and integrity of

employees2) Efficiency and effectiveness of

employees3) Communication

Employees across jurisdictions1) Honesty and integrity of

77 76 7675 74 74 74 74 73

7070 69

78 7877

76 76 76 76 7575

NZ (n=2815) UK (n=2897) SA (n=2727) VIC (n=2991) QLD (n=2844) NSW (n=5686)

Average 7410

Figure 21 Consumer perceptions of employee related attributes

Top 3 performing attributes include

bull lsquoAre honestrsquo (77 out of 10)bull lsquoDeliver high safety standardsrsquo (76 out

of 10) bull lsquoProvide services without biasrsquo (76 out if

Bottom 3 lowest performing attributes include

bull lsquoGet things done as quickly as possiblersquo (69 out of 10)

bull lsquoSee things from my perspectiversquo (70 out of 10)

bull lsquoAre held accountablersquo (70 out of 10)

When compared with other jurisdictions

bull SA along with the UK was the lowest performing jurisdiction (74 out of 10) on average However the gap between highest and lowest performing jurisdictions is very small

Base(n)=2704

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 69

556065707580

Consumer

+01 +01 - - - - - - --

+01 -01

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEESThere were no statistically significant changes in perceptions of employees versus 2018

Legend Statistically significant increase in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)No significant change in avg from 2018(at 99 level of Confidence)Statistically significant decrease in avg from 2018 (at 99 level of Confidence)

Satisfaction Drivers Average score across respondents (according to a scale from 1 strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree)

Process for SA1) Simplicity and efficiency of

processes2) Employee autonomy

Process across jurisdictions1) Simplicity and efficiency of

65 6563

Processes areeasy to

understand

Employees areempowered tomake decisions

I can get to theright person the

first time

Service feelsseamless even if I

have to usemultiple contact

methods

Are designed toreduce wait timesAverage 66

Processes areeasy to understand

first time

methods

Are designed toreduce wait times

bull lsquoProcesses are easy to understandrsquo is the best performing attribute with a score of 7 out of 10 However as with previous years execution of these processes (empowered employees getting to the right person the first time seamless service and wait times) continue to have lower scores ranging from 68 to 63 out of 10 This pattern is observed across all jurisdictions

bull SA is behind other jurisdictions for all process attributes

bull Across all jurisdictions process attributes have the lowest average scores of all attribute categories (Values Goals and Employees) ndashsimplifying and bringing efficiencies to processes remains a challenge for all jurisdictions

Figure 22 Consumer perceptions of process related attributes

Base(n)=2668

Consumer

+01+01

-01 - -

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF PROCESSESThere have been no statistically significant changes to any of the process attribute scores in comparison to last year

Goals for SA1) Privacy2) Transparency3) Access

Goals across jurisdictions1) Privacy2) Transparency3) Access

7570 68 67

Safeguard privacyand confidentiality

Is making it easierto access

information abouttheir services

Is making best useof online services

to improveconvenience and

efficiency forcustomers

Demonstrateopenness andtransparency indecision-making

Encourage publicparticipation in

decision-makingAverage 68

decision-making

bull lsquoSafeguard privacy and confidentialityrsquo is the highest rated goal attribute

bull In comparison to other jurisdictions SA continues to lag on all goal attributes

bull lsquoEncourage public participation in decision makingrsquo is the attribute that sees the lowest scores across all jurisdictions It is also the attribute with the widest gap between the top performing and lowest performing jurisdictions (VIC and SA) with a gap of 04 points

Figure 23 Consumer perceptions of goals related attributes

Base(n)=2561

Consumer

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF GOALSConsumer perceptions of SA Government services against goal related attributes have remained statistically stable versus last year

+01- - -01

Values for SA1) Service Quality2) Accountability

Values across jurisdictions1) Service Quality2) Accountability

Average 7210

73 72 72 70

Operates with integrity Provides good service Is a body I can trust Is accountable for itsservices

7372 72

bull Consumers rate SA Governmentservices high (above 7 out of 10)across all value attributes

bull At an overall level SA is behind all other jurisdictions with the lowest average score across all value attributes

Figure 24 Consumer perceptions of values related attributes

Base(n)=2916

Consumer

- - --

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF VALUESThere have been no statistically significant changes to the ratings of value attributes versus last year

employees3) CommunicationAverage across attributes

75 75 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 69 68 68

7372 73

68 6968

77 7775

75 75 74 74

7170 71

Average 7110

bull The attribute lsquoAre honestrsquo is the top ranking attribute this year

bull Other top attributes are lsquodeliver high safety standardsrsquo and lsquoprovide services without biasrsquo

Bottom 3 lowest performing attributes are

Across jurisdictions VIC has the lowest average ratings for employee perceptions

QLD has the highest average rating in 2019 after being in the last spot in 2018

Figure 25 Business perceptions of employee related attributes

Base(n)=724

Business

BUSINESS PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEESThere have been no statistically significant changes to the ratings of employee attributes versus last year

+02 +01 +02 +01 +01 +01 +01 +01 - +02

+01 +01

68 66 65 6561

methods

first time

Average 6510

68 6767 67

methods

first time

NZ (n=731) UK (N=1324) SA (n=661) VIC (n=711) QLD (n=745) NSW (n=1614)

bull Average rating for process attributes are the lowest in comparison to other attributes (employees ndash 71 goals ndash 68 values ndash 71)

bull Among all jurisdictions QLD has the highest average rating of 68 out of 10

bull SA ranks lowest among all jurisdictions for the statement lsquoAredesigned to reduce wait timesrsquo

Figure 26 Business perceptions of process related attributes

Base(n)= 712

Business

BUSINESS PERCEPTION OF PROCESSESAll the processes related attributes have remained stable from 2018 to 2019

+01+01

+01+01-01

7469 68 67

6866 66

decision-making

bull Compared to 2018 lsquoEncourage public participation in decision makingrsquo has seen a statisticallysignificant increase of 04 points to 61 out of 10 However this continues to be the lowest rated goal related attribute

bull Across jurisdictions QLD has the highest average rating of 69

bull The largest gap between jurisdictions is seen for lsquoSafeguard privacy and confidentialityrsquo with NZ having the highest rating of 77 out of 10 and VIC having the lowest rating of 71 out of 10

Figure 27 Business perceptions of goals related attributes

Base(n)= 695

Business

BUSINESS PERCEPTION OF GOALSMost goal related attributes with the exception of lsquoEncourage public participation in decision-makingrsquo have remained stable versus last year

+03 -03 +03 +02

Average 7110

74 74 74

71 71 71

72 71 71 70

bull lsquoIntegrityrsquo is the top rated value attribute with a rating of 72 out of 10

bull While lsquoaccountabilityrsquo is the least rated attribute there has been a 02 point increase (statistically insignificant) versus 2018

bull Across jurisdictions VIC has slipped to the lowest ranking after being the top performing Australian jurisdiction last year and NZ has the highest average rating of 73 out of 10 making it the top performingjurisdiction in 2019

bull The gap between the top performing jurisdiction and lowest performer have narrowed in comparison to last year indicating an improvement in performance across jurisdictions

Figure 28 Business perceptions of values related attributes

Base(n)= 758

Business

BUSINESS PERCEPTION OF VALUESValue related attributes continue to be statistically stable in 2019

+01 +01 +01 +02

Employee attributes Goals Processes Values

1Note Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services however it is assumed that drivers of satisfaction are relatively consistent across jurisdictions and generally across service industries broadly

bull Safeguard privacy and confidentiality

bull Provide good value servicesbull Are honestbull Are reliablebull Deliver high safety standards

bull Are consistentbull Explain intended actions clearlybull Communicate wellbull Engender confidence in their

knowledge

Communication of employees

bull Are held accountablebull Get things done as quickly as

possible

Efficiency and Effectiveness of employeesHonesty and integrity of employees

Employee autonomySimplicity and efficiency of processes

bull Processes are easy to understandbull Service feels seamless across channelsbull Processes are designed to reduce wait timesbull I can get to the right person the first time

bull Employees are empowered to make decisions

Accountability and Service Quality

bull Is a body that I can trustbull Operates with integritybull Provides good value servicesbull Is accountable for its services

Access to Information and Online services PrivacyTransparency

bull Demonstrate openness and transparency in decision making

bull Encourage public participation in decision making

bull Is making it easier to access information about their service

bull Is making best use of online services to improve efficiency for customers

bull See things from my perspective

bull Provide services without bias

Fairness and Empathy of employees

Consumer

GROUPINGS OF DRIVERS OF CUSTOMER SATIFACTION1

The groupings of drivers have changed from 2018 - lsquoFairness and Empathyrsquo is now a key standalone driver of consumer satisfaction differentiated from Communication which continues to be a key driver of consumer satisfaction

When looking at the relative importance of satisfaction drivers in NSW Employee related attributes are seen to have the highest relative importance as drivers of satisfaction with lsquoHonesty and Integrityrsquo being the most important driverRelating this to the areas of improvement for the SA Governmentbull Honesty and Integrity is a strength that the SA

Government services can build on to improve consumer satisfaction

bull Access to information and online services as well as efficiency and effectiveness of employees are primary opportunities to drive higher consumer satisfaction

Note Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services however it is assumed that drivers of satisfaction are relatively consistent across jurisdictions and generally across service industries broadly

Average score across attributes (SA)(out of 10)

Median across all attributes

1Note Analysis displayed is based on NSW customer data however similar results are observed for businesses Calculation is based on the relativity of parameters in the statistical analysis of drivers against satisfaction

Strengths to lsquobuild onrsquo

Median across drivers

Primary opportunities

Secondary opportunities

Transparency

Privacy

Employee autonomy

Employee attributes Goals Processes

Figure 211 Importance (NSW) versus performance (SA) against each of the drivers of satisfaction

Monitor

Communication

Consumer

Efficiency and effectiveness

Honesty and integrity

PRIORITISATION OF DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION1

Build on the honesty and integrity of employees and focus on improving their efficiency and effectiveness to drive higher satisfaction In addition focus on improving access to information and online services

Public ndash I1-A2

3 SATISFACTION BY CONTACT METHOD AND DIGITAL INSIGHTS

Inperson

Figure 34 2018 and 2019 most preferred channel ndash Business

2922 22 22

3224 23

In person Email Phone Online Mailfax Thirdparties

Businessesbull While lsquoin personrsquo remains the most

used channel for contact there is a continued decline in usage since 2017 (52 in 2017 51 in 2018 47 in 2019) though not statistically significant

Inperson

22 2112

3324 21

Inperson

Phone Online Email Mailfax Thirdparties

Figure 31 2018 and 2019 channel usage - Consumer

Figure 32 2018 and 2019 most preferred channel - Consumer

Consumersbull lsquoIn personrsquo continues to be the most used

channel for contact as well as the most preferred channel Usage has remained consistent versus last year

bull Phone usage by consumers continues to see a year on year uptick though statistically insignificant (31 in 2017 33 in 2018 and 34 in 2019)

bull Relative preferences for the channels have remained unchanged versus last year

Consumer Business

CONTACT METHODS USED AND PREFERREDlsquoIn-personrsquo continues to be the most used and preferred method of contact for both consumers and businesses

In person face toface

Telephone Online Email Mail posted letterfax

Third parties

NSW (n=1801) VIC (n=790) QLD (n=832)

UK (n=1420) NZ (n=868) SA (n=762)

Customers were asked ldquoWhich of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with the following services in [Jurisdiction] in the last 12 monthsrdquo

Figure 35 Contact method used to interact with government services across jurisdictions

23 2116

Third parties

NSW (n=6771) VIC (n=3458) QLD (n=3346)UK (n=3310) NZ (n=3550) SA (n=3297)

Consumer

Business

Consumersbull Face to face is the most used channel

by consumers to access government services in all jurisdictions

bull NSW leads the way when it comes to the use of online channels

Businessesbull Face to face is the most used channel by

businesses to access government services in all jurisdictions

bull NSW leads in the adoption of online as a contact method followed by SA

bull Business usage of telephones and emails as a contact method is higher than that for consumers across all jurisdictions

Consumer Business

CONTACT METHODS USED AND PREFERREDlsquoIn-personrsquo is the most used contact method across all jurisdictions for both consumers and businesses SA is second to NSW in the usage of online as the method of contact for both consumers and businesses

Email Telephone Online Mail posted letterfax

Third parties

21 20 20

21 21 20

Third parties

CONTACT METHODS PREFERRED ACROSS JURISDICTIONSlsquoIn-personrsquo continues to be the most preferred channel across all jurisdictions for both consumers and businesses

Customers were asked ldquoGenerally which contact method do you most prefer when dealing directly with each of the following services inhelliprdquo

Figure 36 Contact method preferred to interact with government services across jurisdictions

Consumer

Business

Consumersbull Face to face is the preferred method of

contact for consumers to access government services in all jurisdictions

bull The pattern of preference is consistent with that of reported channel usage

Businessesbull Businesses prefer a variety of contact

methods to access government servicesbull Of all jurisdictions SA businesses have

the highest preference for face to face interactions

Consumer Business

70 71 71 69 68

73 73 72 72 7167

In person Online Mailfax Phone Email Third parties2018 Business(n=814) 2019 Business(n=762)

76 7573 72 72

77 75 74 73 71 70

Online In person Third parties Phone Mailfax Email2018 Consumer (n=3307) 2019 Consumer (n=3297)

VARIATION IN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY CONTACT METHODWhile lsquoin-personrsquo is the most used and most preferred method of contact satisfaction of consumers with SA Government services is higher for those who use Online channels For businesses satisfaction is high for both in-person and online channel users

Customers were asked ldquoWhich of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with the following servicesrdquo

Figure 37 Variation in overall satisfaction by contact method

+01+01

+02+01

Consumersbull Satisfaction ratings are high (7+ out

of 10) across all contact channelsbull Consumers who have used online

channels to contact have the highest satisfaction rating and this has remained relatively stable from last year

Businessesbull Satisfaction amongst businesses

using different channels have remained relatively stable compared to last year

bull Businesses who have used face to face or online methods of contact have the highest satisfaction rating

Consumer Business

75 75 75

76 7675 75

Online In person face to face Third parties such asAustralia Post

Telephone Mail posted letter fax Email

NSW (n=6771) VIC (n=3458) QLD (n=3346) UK (n=3310) NZ (n=3550) SA (n=3297)

7271 71

73 73 73

73 7372 72 71

Online Mail posted letter fax Telephone Email Third parties such asAustralia Post

Figure 38 Overall satisfaction with government services by contact method(s) used across jurisdictions

Consumer

Business

Consumersbull Across jurisdictions

consumers who use online channels have the highest satisfaction with their respective government services

bull Consumers in NZ using online channels show the highest satisfaction of all jurisdictions

Businessesbull In all jurisdictions except

NZ businesses that use face to face have the highest satisfaction with their respective government services In NZ online users have the highest satisfaction

bull SA businesses who use third party channels show the lowest satisfaction in comparison to businesses that use other channels

Consumer Business

VARIATION IN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY CONTACT METHOD ACROSS JURISDICTIONSConsumers who use online and businesses who use face to face have higher satisfaction with government services across jurisdiction

63 6360

63 6261

59 59 58

67 66 6564

69 6865 65

Processes are easy tounderstand

Employees are empoweredto make decisions

Service feels seamlesseven if I have to

communicate acrossdifferent channels (ieonline phone email)

I can get to the right personthe first time

Are designed to reducewait times

In person face to face (n=1418) Mail posted letter fax (n=229)

Telephone (landline mobile calls text message) (n=883) Email (n=419)

Online (n=591) Third parties such as Australia Post (n=117)

6865 66 66

66 66 66 66

6462 62 62

65 6562 61

6865 63 63

69 6972

communicate acrossdifferent channels

Figure 310 Perceptions of processes by channel(s) used - Business

Figure 39 Perceptions of processes by channel(s) used - Consumers

Consumersbull Consumers who have used in-person channels give

the highest scores for lsquoprocesses are easy to understandrsquo lsquoemployees are empowered to make decisionsrsquo and lsquoI can get to the right person the first timersquo

bull Consumers who have used online channels gave the highest ratings to lsquoService feels seamlessrsquo and lsquoare designed to reduce wait timesrsquo

bull Consumers who have used email rate the SA Government service lowest across all process attributes

Businessesbull Businesses who have used third party channels have

given the highest ratings for all process attributesbull Businesses that used mail posted letter or fax as

their method of contact rated the SA Government lowest on processes lsquoare designed to reduce wait timesrsquo attribute

bull Businesses that used telephone gave the lowest ratings to the attributes of lsquoprocesses are easy to understandrsquo lsquoservice feels seamlessrsquo and lsquoemployees are empowered to make decisionsrsquo

bull Business that used email gave the lowest rating to lsquoI can get to the right person the first timersquo

Consumer Business

PERCEPTIONS OF PROCESSES BY CONTACT METHODConsumers and businesses have different perceptions of processes based on the channels they have used

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

I trust myinformation was

handledsecurely

I achieved theoutcome by

using servicesavailable online

The contentwas current

and accurate

accessrequirements

I was satisfiedwith the overallexperience of

using thewebsiteapp tocomplete the

Thewebsiteapp

was useful andallowed me todo everything Ineeded to do

Content andsupport

provided onlinewas sufficientto answer my

questions

I found thewebsite appsimple and itwas easy to

find what I waslooking for

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

and accurate

I trust myinformation

was handledsecurely

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

Consumer (n=798)

Business (n=210)

Axis 2 Average ScoreAxis

Consumersbull Consumers had an average rating of 79

out of 10 when asked about their satisfaction with the overall experience of using the website app to complete the task This rating has stayed stable since 2017

bull Consumers showed the highest levels of agreement with statements pertaining to accuracy of content achieving desired outcomes by using online services and trusting that their information was handled securely

Businessesbull There has been a significant increase in

the average rating across all attributes of online service except content accuracy ndash this has remained stable

bull The rating on satisfaction with the overall experience has gone up significantly by 08 points to 78

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06

Consumer Business

SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SERVICES OVERALLConsumer satisfaction with overall experience of using online services has remained stable while business satisfaction has increased significantly from 2018 to 2019

Businessesbull Businesses had similar motivations as

consumers for not using online as a channel to access services ndash lack of availability of services online as well as inability to find what they were looking for

Customers were asked ldquoYou mentioned that you did not go online to access the service in the last 12 months Please select all statements that apply in relation to these service(s) in SA I did not complete this interaction online becausehelliprdquo

Figure 312 Reasons for not going online I did not go online hellip

Consumer (n=2401)

Business (n=762)

37 16 12 7 7 6 5 5 3

The servicewasnt

possible to beundertaken

online

The servicewas notavailable

online

I was not ableto find what Iwas looking

There was noonline supportto answer any

questions Imay havesuch aswebchat

I didnt haveaccess to acomputer or

an onlinedevice

The format ofcontent on the

website didnot meet my

accessrequirements

I was not sureif my

informationwould remainconfidential

No incentivewas provided

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

current andoraccurate

Consumersbull The main reason for consumers not using

online channels to access services was that the services were not available or couldnrsquot be undertaken online

bull The other big factor was that consumers were unable to find what they were looking for

bull Uncertainty around confidentiality of information was not seen as a big deterrent in accessing services online

Consumer Business

37 17 11 8 8 7 7 6 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirement

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

ADOPTING ONLINE METHODS TO INTERACT WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICESA main reason for consumers and businesses not using online channels to access services is a lack of online service availability

I chose to go online I was directed to or was prompted to go online There was no other option available

There wasno otheroption

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted

to goonline

I chose togo online

Strong disagree (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Strongly agree (7-10)

respondents

available

I wasdirected or

promoted togo online

I chose togo online

respondents

Consumer Business

Figure 314 Satisfaction with using websiteapp by choice to go onlineCustomers were asked ldquoHow satisfied were you with the overall experience of using the websiteapp to complete the taskrdquo

n=843 n=220

uarr1 darr2

Consumersbull 77 of consumers who used online methods chose to

go online themselves while 8 said there was no other option available to them

bull Consumers who chose to go online were more satisfied with the overall experience of using the websiteapp to complete the task (81 out of 10 ndash an increase of 03 points versus 2018)

bull There was an increase in satisfaction across all 3 types of online users ndash voluntary (78 in 2018) prompted to (72 in 2018) didnrsquot have any other option (68 in 2018)

Businessesbull Businesses saw a 7 points increase in those choosing

to go online This was due to a 5 point decrease in those saying they had no other choice and 2 point decrease in those saying they were directed to or were prompted to go online

bull Businesses who chose to go online saw a 09 point increase in satisfaction versus last year (8 out of 10 in 2019 vs 71 out of 10 In 2018)

bull Even those who said they had no other option showed higher satisfaction of 62 out of 10 (+07 points vs 2018)

Consumer Business

CUSTOMER CHOICE TO USE ONLINE SERVICES77 of consumers and 74 of businesses chose to go online to access government services and they have the highest satisfaction

50 4640

79 798080

Consumer Business

Consumersbull While most consumers (50) used smartphones

to access online content their satisfaction levels with their experience was lower (77 out of 10) compared to those who used desktops or laptops to access online content (79 out of 10)

Businessesbull Most businesses used laptops (52) or desktops

(53) to access online content Desktop users had a higher overall satisfaction (8 out of 10) compared to laptop users (74 out of 10)

bull In contrast to consumers only 31 of businessesused smartphones to access content online however they had higher levels of satisfaction with the overall experience (8 out of 10)

DEVICE USED BY CUSTOMERS FOR ONLINE SERVICESMost consumers used smartphones but the satisfaction levels of those who used smartphones was lower than users of other channels Fewer businesses used smartphones but those that did showed higher levels of satisfaction

Public ndash I1-A2

4 PUBLIC SERVICE OVERALL

Customers were asked ldquoThinking about all your experiences with each of the following Australian industries and public services over the previous 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with them rdquo

Figure 41 Satisfaction with SA Public Service overall compared to industries

bull Average satisfaction with the SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo is 66 for both consumers and businesses ndashrelatively stable versus last year

bull Both consumers and businesses continue to rate SA Public Service lsquobrandrsquo higher than most other industries and public services except airlines

bull Satisfaction with SA Government services continues to be higher than satisfaction with the lsquobrandrsquo for both consumers and businesses This suggests a continued disconnect between service delivery and lsquobrandrsquo perceptions that are influenced by a range of factors such as media and reputation

Energy Retailers(n=485)

FederalGovernment

(n=465)

My local council(n=477)

Banks (n=486)

Telephone ServProviders(n=477)

SA PublicService overall

(n=484)

Airlines (n=457)

respondents Avg

Business (n=457) respondents Avg

Consumer (n=1649)

7375 00 +01

FederalGovernment

(n=1835)

EnergyRetailers(n=1924)

Banks(n=1934)

(n=1915)

Airlines(n=1649)

Consumer Business

Note scores are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100

PERCEPTIONS OF THE SA PUBLIC SERVICE lsquoBRANDrsquoBoth consumers and businesses rate the SA Public Services lsquobrandrsquo higher than all other industries and public services with the exception of airlines

bull NSW Public Service lsquobrandrsquo has the most positive perception amongst consumers Whereas the Public Service lsquobrandsrsquo in SA is second only to Airlines as with QLD and VIC

bull Businesses also have similar perceptions of the Public Service lsquobrandrsquo across all jurisdictions In Australia the average satisfaction ratings are second to airlines Whereas in UK and NZ airlines and banks have higher average satisfaction ratings

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

PUBLIC SERVICE lsquoBRANDrsquo COMPARISON BY JURISDICTIONAustralian jurisdictions perform better than NZ and UK in perceptions of their public service lsquobrandsrsquo for both consumers andbusinesses relative to other industries

Respondents were asked to select from a list of positive and negative descriptors of SA Public Service bull The top five descriptors of the SA Public Service

overall were all positive and consistent with 2018

bull The most commonly selected negative brand descriptors are lsquoinefficientrsquo lsquoimpersonalrsquo lsquoinflexiblersquo and lsquodifficultrsquo This pattern is similar to 2018

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Accountable

Caring

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

Figure 43 Positive Descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - Consumer

Customers were asked ldquoThinking now about the SA Public Service overall and all of the services and agencies which fall under it which of the following words would you use to describe the SA Public Service rdquo

40Lazy

Controlling

Patronising

Outdated in digitalservices

Complacent

Wasteful

Inflexible

Difficult

Impersonal

Inefficient

Figure 44 Negative Descriptors of the SA Public Service overall -Consumer

Top 5 descriptors

Consumer

CONSUMER DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SA PUBLIC SERVICE lsquoBRANDrsquoThe top 5 descriptors used by consumers to describe SA Public Service are lsquohelpfulrsquo lsquofriendlyrsquo lsquocapablersquo lsquoknowledgeablersquo and lsquorespectfulrsquo

Patronising

Controlling

Complacent

Difficult

Inflexible

Impersonal

Wasteful

Inefficient

bull In contrast to last year businesses have described SA Public services more positively this year

bull All positive attributes have seen an increase in proportion of responses with the exception of lsquoinnovativersquo (-2 points vs last year) and lsquoaccountablersquo (-2 points vs last year)

bull The top 5 descriptors are lsquohelpfulrsquo (+6 points vs last year) lsquofriendlyrsquo (+4 points vs last year) lsquocapablersquo (+9 points vs last year) lsquoknowledgeablersquo (+3 points vs last year) and lsquorespectfulrsquo (+3 points vs last year)

bull Conversely all negative attributes have seen a decrease in proportion of responses compared to last year

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Caring

Accountable

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

Figure 45 Positive descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - business

Businesses were asked ldquoThinking now about the SA Public Service overall and all of the services and agencies which fall under it which of the following words would you use to describe the SA Public Service rdquo

Figure 46 Negative descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - business

Top 5 descriptors

Business

BUSINESS DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SA PUBLIC SERVICE lsquoBRANDrsquoThe top 5 descriptors used by businesses to describe SA Public Service are lsquohelpfulrsquo lsquofriendlyrsquo lsquocapablersquo lsquoknowledgeablersquo andlsquorespectfulrsquo

Public ndash I1-A2

5 FEEDBACK

NATURE OF FEEDBACK AND FEEDBACK CHANNELSProcesses are the most common source of complaints while employees are a more common source of compliments

Consumersbull Processes are the most common source of

complaints Consumers also complain about outcomes of their interactions

bull Compliments mainly relate to interactions with employees

bull Both complaints and compliments are mainly made in person whereas consumers take to emails to make suggestions for change

Businessesbull Complaints and suggestions are mainly made

about processes and outcomes of interactions

bull Compliments most often relate to the information available to businesses

bull As with consumers businesses complain or compliment mostly in-person

bull Businesses also use email to give compliments and emails are the preferred method to make suggestions

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

Informationavailable to

I gave a compliment I made a suggestion for change I made a complaint

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

Figure 51 Nature of feedback by feedback typeQuestion ldquoWhat did your feedback primarily relate to rdquo

Consumer (n = 519) Business (n = 192)

17 1416

4 6 105 4 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

37 41 37

37 29 45

5 19921 11 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

bull Other

bull Via postal letter

bull Via servicersquos website

bull In person face to face or via the phone

bull Via email

Figure 52 Nature of feedback and feedback channelsQuestion ldquoHow did you provide your feedbackrdquo

Consumer Business

2219 18

NSW (n=529) VIC (n=186) QLD (n=184) UK (n=456) SA (n=194) NZ (n=215)

Complaint Suggestion for change Compliment

28 28 29

27 28 28

39 39 39

Figure 53 Overall satisfaction with Government services by contact method(s) used across jurisdictions

Consumer (Base Consumers in each jurisdiction who ever provided feedback)

Business (Base Businesses in each jurisdiction who ever provided feedback)

Consumer Business

JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON OF NATURE OF FEEDBACKOf all jurisdictions SA received the highest proportion of complaints from both consumers and businesses

Consumersbull Compliments form the highest

proportion of all feedback received across all jurisdictions except VIC

bull Across jurisdictions SA and UK received the highest proportion of complaints

bull QLD was the jurisdiction to receive the highest proportion of compliments closely followed by NSW

Businessesbull Unlike consumers complaints and

suggestions form most of the feedback received from businesses

bull SA received the highest proportion of complaints Closely followed by VIC

bull QLD was the jurisdiction where businesses gave the highest proportion of compliments

handled poorly (1-4)2neutral (5-6)Handled well (7-10)

Consumersbull Most consumers who gave feedback

(39) gave a compliment

bull Complaints make up 33 of all feedback This is consistent with last year

bull Of consumers who complained 41 said their complaint was handled poorly However this is an improvement from last year where 54 had said their feedback was handled poorly

Businessesbull In contrast the proportion of feedback

from businesses that were complaints went up to 42 from 27 last year

bull Of this 44 said their feedback was handled poorly ndash up from 38 in the last year

bull I gave a compliment

bull I made a suggestion for change

bull I made a complaint

Consumer (n=519)

Business (n=194)

Figure 5455 Complaint handling of consumers and businessesQuestion ldquoHow well or poorly was your most recent complaint handledFigure 56 Proportion of feedback types for consumers and businessesQuestion ldquoWhat was the nature of your feedbackrdquo

Base n=169 consumers who made a complaint

Base n=83 businesses who made a complaint

Base n=519 consumers and n=194 businesses who ever

provided feedback

Figure 56 Figure 55Figure 54

Consumer Business

COMPLAINT HANDLING EXPERIENCE41 of consumers and 44 of businesses said their complaints had been handled poorly

Consumer

Business

Consumersbull VIC had the highest proportion of positive

ratings from consumers in relation to complaints handling (44 rated 7-10 out of 10) SA was second with 36 of complaints being handled well

bull The average rating was neutral (52 out of 10) ndash an improvement of 08 points compared to last year (44 out of 10) This was second highest behind VIC

Businessesbull The average rating was just below neutral at

49 out of 10 However this is an improvement of 02 points compared to last year (47 out of 10)

bull Of the Australian jurisdictions SA has the lowest proportion of poorly handled complaints and the highest average rating

bull UK has the lowest proportion of poorly handled complaints and the highest average rating of 53 out of 10 of all jurisdictions

39 41 41 46 50 55

17 2325

23 23 17

44 36 34 30 28 28

48 45 43

VIC(n=154)

SA(n=169)

UK(n=196)

NZ(n=138)

QLD(n=140)

NSW(n=314)

35 44 49 45 50 52

24 2415

3418 22

41 32 3621

48 46 45

UK(n=174)

SA(n=83)

QLD(n=72)

VIC(n=69)

NSW(n=184)

NZ(n=76)

Handled well (7-10) Neutral (5-6) Handled poorly (1-4) Average

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (handled very poorly) to 10 (handled very well)

Consumer Business

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE IN COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT ACROSS JURISDICTIONSFor consumers SA had the second highest proportion of complaints being handled well behind VIC For businesses SA had the lowest proportion of poorly handled complaints compared to all jurisdictions

Figure 58 Variation in complaints handling by region

Consumer

Business

bull In metro areas over 40 of both consumers and businesses rated their complaints as being handled poorly (1-4 out of 10)

bull Sample sizes for both consumers and businesses in rural and regional SA are too small to be statistically representative and cannot be evaluated meaningfully

4626 22

37 32 34

Metro(n=139)

Regional(n=14)

Rural(n=16)

Metro(n=67)

Regional(n=4)

Rural(n=12)

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (handled very poorly) to 10 (handled very well)Note interpret with caution when sample size is lower than n =30

Consumer Business

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE IN COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT BY REGION46 of consumers and 45 of businesses in Metro areas say their complaints were handled poorly

Consumer

Business

Consumersbull 51 of consumers who made a complaint said it was

easy to do so (7-10 out of 10) This is an improvement from 34 in 2018

bull The average rating was neutral (61 out of 10) This is an improvement of 08 points compared to last year (53 out of 10 in 2018)

bull VIC had the highest proportion of consumers saying it was easy to make a complaint (56) Whereas NSW was the jurisdiction with the lowest proportion of consumers saying so (47)

Businessesbull 46 of businesses in SA who made a complaint said it

was easy to do so (7-10 out of 10) This is an improvement from 37 in 2018

bull 36 rated it as difficult (1-4 out of 10) ndash this is 2 points higher than last year (34) and makes SA the jurisdiction with the second highest proportion of lsquodifficultrsquo ratings behind QLD

bull Improvement in the proportion of businesses rating the process as lsquoeasyrsquo has pushed the average rating to 55 out of 10 (vs 47 out of 10 last year) However SA continues to be the jurisdiction with the lowest rating as other jurisdictions have also seen an improvement in their average rating

26 28 29 31 31 33

18 21 18 19 23 26

5651 54 50

47 4065 61 61 59 58 56

VIC(n=159)

SA(n=174)

NZ(n=148)

UK(n=199)

NSW(n=333)

QLD(n=150)

21 28 25 31 37 36

30 19 29 24 31 17

4953 46 45 33

4662 61 59 58 55 55

NZ(n=78)

UK(n=176)

VIC(n=70)

NSW(n=188)

QLD(n=74)

SA(n=83)

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 10 (very easy)

Axis 2 Average scoreAxis 2 Average score

Consumer Business

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE IN EASE OF MAKING A COMPLAINT ACROSS JURISDICTIONSIn SA 51 of consumers said it was easy to make a complaint 46 of businesses echoed the sentiment ndash an improvement from 37 last year

Other (n=57)

Agricultural Advice and Fundinghellip

Environment and Wildlifehellip

Business Advisory Services (n=2)

Prisons (n=4)

Fire Brigades (n=4)

Child Welfare Services (n=9)

Courts (n=10)

Art Galleries and Museumshellip

Documentation Services (n=9)

Consumer Affairs (Fair Trading)hellip

TAFE Services (n=23)

Services for Older People (n=20)

Major Roads (n=26)

Disability Services (n=29)

Police (n=27)

Public Schools (n=33)

Water Supply (n=45)

Vehicle Licensing andhellip

Public Transport (n=63)

Public Hospitals (n=81)

Other (n=26)

Art Galleries (n=1)

Prisons (n=2)

Business Adv Serv (n=2)

Environ Protectn (n=5)

Agri Advice and Funding (n=2)

Courts (n=4)

Vehicle Licensing amp Reg (n=8)

Police (n=14)

Serv for Older (n=7)

Major Roads (n=11)

Consumer Affairs (n=12)

Water Supply (n=25)

Consumersbull Similar to last year Public Hospitals Public

Transport and Vehicle Licensing and Registration accounted for 30 of the most recent complaints received

bull Public Hospitals saw an increase of 1 points and Public Transport saw an increase of 2 points versus last year

bull Complaints to Vehicle Licensing declined by 2 points

Businessesbull Water Supply continued to receive the most

complaints and showed an increase of 3 points versus last year

Note that sample sizes are low for these services and while results may not be statistically representative they indicate potential trends to be investigated more robustly

Figure 512 Volume of complaints across servicesCustomers that had made a complaint in the past were asked ldquoWhich SA Government Department or Agency did you most recently complain tordquo

respondents respondentsConsumer Business

Note interpret with caution when sample size is lower than n =30 All businesses results have been provided for indicative purposes only as the sample size for all services is lt30

Data unavailable as nlt10

Consumer Business

VARIATION IN COMPLAINTS ACROSS SA GOVERNMENT SERVICESPublic Hospitals receive the highest proportion of complaints from consumers and Water Supply receive the highest proportion ofcomplaints from businesses

Public ndash I1-A2

The data in this chapter compares the perceptions of SA government services Where sample sizes for segments are low (lt30) data is provided for indicative purposes only

APPENDIX 1ANALYSIS BY SERVICE

Consumer

91 9087 87

8076 76 75 74 74 73 73 73 73 73

70 68 66 65 63 63

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) Average

Figure 1 Variation in consumersrsquo satisfaction across SA Government Services

Customers were asked ldquoThinking about your experiences in the last 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with each of the following services in SArdquo

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo SATISFACTION ACROSS SERVICESAcross SA Government services consumersrsquo satisfaction is highest for Fire Brigades State Emergency Services Ambulance Services and Art Galleries and Museums

Average SA consumer satisfaction ndash 75 (n=3297)

Note Interpret with caution Very small number of responses (nlt=30) 76

Consumer

Figure 2 Variation in customersrsquo expectation across SA Government Services

Customers were asked ldquoThinking about each of the following services in SA how would you rate your expectation of overall quality of servicerdquo

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo EXPECTATION ACROSS SERVICESConsumers have higher expectations of overall service quality from Fire Brigade State Emergency Services Ambulance Services and Art Galleries amp Museums This is consistent with the high satisfaction ratings these services have

93 91 90 88

8279 78 78 77 77 77 76 76 75 73 72 71 70 70 70 67 67

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

rts (n

abilit

Low (1-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-10) Average

Average SA consumer expectation ndash 78 (n=3241)

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo COMPARISON TO AN IDEAL SERVICE ACROSS SERVICESConsumers perceive State Emergency Services Fire Brigades Ambulance Services and Art Galleries and Museums to be performing closest to an ideal service This is consistent with findings relating to satisfaction and expectation

Figure 3 Consumersrsquo comparison to an ideal service across services

Customers are asked ldquoNow forgetting for a moment these specific services please imagine an ideal service How well do you think each service in SA compares with that ideal servicerdquo

9086 85 83

77 76 75 74 73 73 71 69 69 69 67 67 66 6459 59 57

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Very close to ideal (7-10) Average

Average SA consumer ideal ndash 72 (n=3172)

Consumer

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo ldquoEXPECTATION GAPrdquo ACROSS SERVICESAcross all services consumers have a negative ldquoexpectation gaprdquo

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Prisons (n=21)

Courts (n=89)

Major Roads (n=81)

Police (n=216)

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=37)

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=13)

Fire Brigades (n=24)

Water Supply (n=234)

Art Galleries and Museums (n=121)

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=574)

Figure 4 Consumer gap to expectation by servicesThe gap between satisfaction and expectation provides an understanding of how customers perceive their recent experience compares to expectationsThe gap to expectation is calculated individually for each customers as Gap = satisfaction score ndash expectation score

Consumer

Note Interpret with caution Very small number of responses (nlt=30)

91 9187

82 80 80 7975 74 74 74 74 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 67 66

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

tratio

Figure 5 Variation in businessesrsquo satisfaction across SA Government Services

Average SA business satisfaction ndash 73 (n=762)

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo SATISFACTION ACROSS SERVICES

Business

Of the services with sufficient sample size (ngt30) Police Disability Services and Water Supply have above average satisfaction scores

Figure 6 Variation in businessesrsquo expectation across SA Government Services

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo EXPECTATION ACROSS SERVICESOf the services with sufficient (ngt30) sample sizes Police Disability Services Water Supply and Public Transport have above average expectation scores

91 90 8784 83 83 81 79 79 78 77 77 76 75 75 75 75 75 74 72 70 70 68

abilit

rts (n

ildlif

ffairs

tratio

High (7-10) Medium (5-6) Low (1-4) Average

esAxis 2 Average Score

Average SA business expectation ndash76 (n=758)

Business

87 8580 80 78 78

75 73 73 73 71 71 70 70 70 69 69 6966 66 65

ildlif

rts (n

tratio

ffairs

abilit

Figure 7 Businessesrsquo comparison to an ideal service across services

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo COMPARISON TO AN IDEAL SERVICE ACROSS SERVICESOf the services with sufficient (ngt30) sample sizes Police Public Transport and Vehicle Licensing and Registration have above average scores of comparison to ideal service

Average SA business ideal ndash 72 (n=732)

Business

Figure 8 Business gap to expectation by servicesThe gap between satisfaction and expectation provides an understanding of how customers perceive their recent experience compares to expectations The gap to expectation is calculated individually for each customers as Gap = satisfaction score ndash expectation score

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo ldquoEXPECTATION GAPrdquo ACROSS SERVICES

-13-05

-05-05-05

-04-04-04

-03-03-03-03-03-03

-02-02

-01-01-01

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Public Housing (n=16)Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=10)

Disability Services (n=33)Courts (n=19)

Child Welfare Services (n=20)Public Schools (n=51)

Services for Older People (n=28)Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=134)

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=19)Documentation Services (n=17)

Public Transport (n=47)Business Advisory Services (n=35)

Public Hospitals (n=75)Prisons (n=13)

Water Supply (n=67)Consumer Affairs (n=27)

Art Galleries and Museums (n=13)TAFE Services (n=36)

Major Roads (n=11)Police (n=35)

Fire Brigades (n=15)State Emergency Services (n=13)

Business

Majority of services have a negative lsquoexpectation gaprsquo from businesses However the sample sizes are low and observations are only indicative

Average score higherlower compared to overall SA average

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo VIEWS OF EMPLOYEE PERFROMANCE ACROSS SERVICES

Customers are asked ldquoThinking now about its employees to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [a particular government service] in SArdquo

Figure 9 Performance of SA Government Services against each of the employee attributes

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) The average score against each attribute by service is tabulated Note this analysis represents consumer data only

Base Consumers (n=2727)

Note Very small number of responses (nlt=30)

Services

Honesty and Integrity of Employees Efficiency and Effectiveness Communication of Employees Fairness and Empathy of employees

Are honest

Deliver high safety standards

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

Get things done as quickly as

possible

Held Accountable

Explain intended

actions clearlyAre consistent

Engender confidence in

their knowledge

Communicate well

Provide services

without bias

See things from my perspective

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 80 71 80 74 74 82 74 79 74 81 68 68

Ambulance Services 92 92 88 89 90 87 90 89 90 90 92 84Art Galleries and Museums 87 87 87 85 79 81 83 84 84 85 84 81Business Advisory Services 73 72 69 76 70 70 74 73 73 75 69 66Child Welfare Services 53 55 50 47 43 50 53 45 51 55 52 50Consumer Affairs 74 71 71 71 64 67 74 74 73 72 73 66Courts 71 72 64 67 59 60 73 64 72 74 71 60Disability Services 71 67 63 63 56 58 64 61 65 65 68 63Documentation Services 78 77 69 72 62 69 70 71 73 71 76 67Environment and Wildlife Protection 70 71 69 70 65 66 65 76 68 73 69 66Fire Brigades 93 96 95 94 93 90 88 89 93 92 91 85Major Roads 69 64 61 61 52 55 63 67 60 63 70 58Police 75 77 74 74 68 71 74 71 73 73 71 68Prisons 56 78 66 68 59 56 69 65 60 64 64 64Public Hospitals 79 78 78 75 70 73 77 74 77 75 78 71Public Housing 65 64 63 60 57 55 65 62 62 61 62 55Public Schools 76 75 73 72 69 70 73 70 72 73 70 69Public Transport 73 73 72 69 68 68 71 70 70 70 75 67Services for Older People 76 73 74 72 66 68 74 72 72 74 77 72State Emergency Services 92 94 92 93 90 91 90 92 90 90 92 87TAFE Services 73 73 72 68 64 71 69 69 71 70 74 67Vehicle Licensing and Registration 80 78 74 78 73 73 78 77 76 76 79 72Water Supply 74 74 69 71 65 67 71 73 73 72 76 69Overall average 77 76 74 74 69 70 75 73 74 74 76 70

Consumer

Ambulance Services Art Galleries and Museums State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades perform well against employee attributes

Customers are asked ldquoThinking about the values that they uphold to what extent would you agree with each of the following statements when thinking about [a particular government service] in SArdquo

Figure 10 Performance of SA Government Services against values

Services

Accountability and Service quality

Is a body I can trust Operates with integrity Is accountable for its services Provides good values services

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 77 78 75 76

Ambulance Services 91 90 90 89

Art Galleries and Museums 85 85 84 86

Business Advisory Services 72 74 71 74

Child Welfare Services 41 48 46 45

Consumer Affairs 67 68 64 70

Courts 64 66 59 64

Disability Services 61 63 61 59

Documentation Services 71 72 69 70

Environment and Wildlife Protection 65 64 61 64

Fire Brigades 92 92 91 94

Major Roads 58 59 58 58

Police 73 73 70 73

Prisons 55 62 62 61

Public Hospitals 74 75 71 73

Public Housing 58 57 57 58

Public Schools 73 74 72 74

Public Transport 67 69 67 70

Services for Older People 68 71 66 69

State Emergency Services 92 92 90 92

TAFE Services 69 69 68 70

Vehicle Licensing and Registration 75 75 73 74

Water Supply 67 68 64 68

Overall average 72 73 70 72

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo VIEWS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST VALUES ACROSS SERVICESConsumer

Services that have high scores across headline measures (satisfaction expectation and ideal service) also perform well against values related attributes These services are Ambulance Services Art Galleries and Museums State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades

Base Consumers (n=2617)Customers are asked ldquoThinking now about its processes) to what extent do you agree or disagree the followingstatements describes [a particular Government Service] in SArdquo

Figure 11 Performance of SA Government Services against process attributes

Services

Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes Employee autonomy

Processes are easy to understand

Processes are designed to reduce wait times

I can get to the right person the first time

Services feel seamless across channels

Employees are empowered to make decisions

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 61 73 73 67 68

Ambulance Services 86 81 84 83 87

Art Galleries and Museums 79 74 78 76 73

Business Advisory Services 70 67 71 64 72

Child Welfare Services 49 45 43 42 48

Consumer Affairs 71 59 60 62 63

Courts 61 50 58 55 62

Disability Services 55 53 52 52 56

Documentation Services 67 66 68 64 68

Environment and Wildlife Protection 61 60 58 56 60

Fire Brigades 86 87 86 88 83

Major Roads 55 50 50 49 51

Police 70 65 65 65 73

Prisons 53 50 57 57 57

Public Hospitals 67 56 60 63 68

Public Housing 62 50 56 56 54

Public Schools 69 64 66 66 67

Public Transport 70 65 66 66 66

Services for Older People 65 59 61 62 63

State Emergency Services 86 87 85 84 83

TAFE Services 66 62 63 65 66

Vehicle Licensing and Registration 74 65 69 68 69

Water Supply 67 61 63 64 64

Overall Average 70 63 65 65 68

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo VIEWS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST PROCESS ATTRIBUTES ACROSS SERVICES

Consumer

Services that have high scores across headline measures (satisfaction expectation and ideal service) also perform well against process attributes These services are Ambulance Services Art Galleries and Museums State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades

Customers are asked ldquoThinking about the services they provide overall how would rate [a particular government service] in SA on the followingrdquoFigure 12 Performance of SA Government Services against goals

Services

Transparency Access to information Privacy

Demonstrate openness and transparency in decision

making

Encourage public participation in decision

making

Is making it easier to access information about their

services

Is making best use of online services to improve efficiency

for customers

Safeguard privacy and confidentiality

Courts 61 49 64 57 70

Major Roads 56 53 56 58 68

Police 65 58 68 63 76

Prisons 54 49 56 49 64

VARIATION IN CONSUMERSrsquo VIEWS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST GOALS ACROSS SERVICES

Consumer

Services that have high scores across headline measures (satisfaction expectation and ideal service) also perform well against goals attributes These services are Ambulance Services Art Galleries and Museums State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo VIEWS OF EMPLOYEE PERFROMANCE ACROSS SERVICES

Base Businesses (n=657)

Services

Honesty and Integrity of Employees Efficiency and Effectiveness Empathy and Communication of Employees Fairness

Are honest

Deliver high

safety standards

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

Communicate well

Are consistent

their knowledge

Explain intended actions clearly

possible

Held Accountable

Provide services

without bias

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 59 52 53 56 52 53 54 53 45 53 46 50Ambulance Services 91 92 92 93 90 91 92 93 94 91 87 92Art Galleries and Museums 83 74 88 85 86 78 83 85 69 83 79 79Business Advisory Services 71 73 71 70 70 71 69 71 66 62 66 70Child Welfare Services 71 71 62 54 59 50 62 70 55 56 55 76Consumer Affairs 72 73 65 71 73 66 71 70 61 66 65 71Courts 76 68 63 68 70 74 66 75 63 53 61 73Disability Services 80 77 76 73 73 74 75 70 69 74 66 75Documentation Services 90 80 79 72 79 81 80 79 67 74 75 80Environment and Wildlife Protection 80 77 78 76 77 76 78 78 78 70 68 71Fire Brigades 85 99 89 85 85 99 93 83 96 96 88 99Major Roads 79 79 70 70 70 64 69 55 74 60 73 78Police 78 83 76 76 76 79 80 77 68 77 71 81Prisons 74 76 72 74 77 75 74 74 75 91 73 77Public Hospitals 70 69 68 68 67 67 65 69 64 61 64 70Public Housing 85 78 81 68 82 86 84 79 68 84 76 79Public Schools 70 71 65 65 65 62 66 66 58 66 64 64Public Transport 76 70 70 65 70 71 67 69 76 62 71 68Services for Older People 76 75 73 72 74 69 73 69 70 72 68 72State Emergency Services 83 86 85 83 81 80 80 82 79 82 86 89TAFE Services 69 64 67 66 63 66 59 64 61 64 61 63Vehicle Licensing and Registration 75 75 69 72 72 71 72 74 69 66 67 74Water Supply 66 75 67 69 70 70 74 71 62 66 61 74Overall Average 75 75 71 71 72 71 72 72 68 69 68 73

Business

Due to low sample sizes for most of the services data is to be viewed as indicative only

Services

Courts 72 78 63 71

Police 80 79 78 82

Prisons 69 69 72 71

Overall Average 71 72 70 71

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo VIEWS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST VALUES ACROSS SERVICES

Business

Base Businesses (n=661)Customers are asked ldquoThinking now about its processes to what extent do you agree or disagree the following statements describes [a particular GovernmentService] in SArdquo

Services

Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes Responsiveness

Employees are empowered to make

decisions

Courts 58 46 55 54 74

Major Roads 59 69 73 64 78

Police 69 64 69 63 76

Prisons 72 70 72 62 71

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo VIEWS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST PROCESS ATTRIBUTES ACROSS SERVICES

Business

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 59 44 69 63 83

Major Roads 59 69 74 78 74

Police 66 70 77 70 81

Prisons 71 55 54 55 74

VARIATION IN BUSINESSESrsquo VIEWS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST GOALS ACROSS SERVICES

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

The data in this chapter is for informative purposes to compare the perceptions of SA government services Where sample sizes for segments are low (lt30) data is provided for indicative purposes only

APPENDIX 2CONTACT METHOD PREFERENCE BY SERVICE

CONTACT METHODS PREFERRED TO INTERACT WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICESConsumers have different contact preferences for different types of services Agricultural Advice and Funding Services Vehicle Licensing andRegistration Documentation Services Major Roads and Public Transport and Water Supply are the top 6 services where online is the preferredcontact method Agricultural Advice and Funding Services Major Roads and Consumer Affairs have see the biggest growth in online preferenceversus last year

Consumer

Figure 13 Breakdown of most preferred contact methods across services

Note Each respondent could select any number of contact methodsBase 2019 Consumers (n=3170) 2018 Consumers (n=3152)

Note Interpret with caution Very small number of responses (nlt=30) Legend top 5 services for each contact method

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 37 46 14 17 0 0Vehicle Licensing and Registration 47 43 27 27 7 8Documentation Services 40 38 26 17 14 10Major Roads 21 29 29 19 20 19Public Transport 31 27 42 35 12 17Water Supply 20 27 9 4 46 37Consumer Affairs 15 26 7 13 44 26Business Advisory Services 21 22 27 21 31 15Environment and Wildlife Protection 37 21 8 27 19 19TAFE Services 18 20 29 21 16 17Art Galleries and Museums 17 18 44 60 12 6Child Welfare Services 13 14 37 19 28 43Ambulance Services 10 13 25 23 53 45Prisons 6 11 37 40 54 27Courts 8 11 52 44 19 23Services for Older People 13 11 33 28 40 46Police 6 10 53 47 25 30Public Schools 8 9 47 42 18 20Disability Services 5 9 39 32 37 37Fire Brigades 8 8 73 44 19 29Public Housing 11 7 27 39 44 39State Emergency Services 23 6 16 31 34 39Public Hospitals 5 6 58 53 23 29

ServicesOnline

In person face-to-face

Telephone (landline or mobile phone calls text message)

+9 pts

+8 pts

+11 pts

Note Each respondent could select one preferred contact method

CONTACT METHODS PREFERRED TO USE TO INTERACT WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Figure 14 Breakdown of most commonly preferred contact methods across services

Base 2019 Business (n=743) 2018 Business (n=795)

Preference for online has decreased for those who interacted with Vehicle Licensing and Registration with an increase inpreference for face to face Public Transport has also seen a decline in preference for online with preference moving to face toface as well as telephone

Business

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019Documentation Services 41 52 0 23 7 0Major Roads 18 49 36 48 1 1Vehicle Licensing and Registration 52 33 20 36 4 9Consumer Affairs 13 30 13 6 46 23Public Transport 54 24 23 29 9 18Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 19 21 47 1 0 30Water Supply 22 20 14 3 37 27Services for Older People 10 20 23 24 30 34Business Advisory Services 29 19 15 19 23 26Disability Services 20 13 12 28 38 34Environment and Wildlife Protection 12 12 11 13 11 9Ambulance Services 14 12 41 13 44 50Police 6 7 50 56 34 29TAFE Services 4 6 31 23 41 18Public Schools 0 4 49 45 22 26Public Hospitals 5 3 53 54 11 21Fire Brigades 0 0 2 2 23 78Art Galleries and Museums 29 0 29 17 0 41State Emergency Services 0 0 0 58 79 14Child Welfare Services 12 0 33 24 33 38Courts 10 0 40 61 10 9Public Housing 18 0 34 83 14 15Prisons 0 0 27 34 46 34

ServicesOnline In person face-to-face Telephone (landline or mobile phone calls

text message)

Legend top 5 services for each contact method

-30 pts

Water Supply Courts Public Schools (services with sufficient sample size) are services that have seen the highest growth in usage of online channels

CONTACT METHODS USED TO INTERACT WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Consumer

Figure 319 Breakdown of most common contact methods across services

Note interpret with caution when sample size is lower than n =30

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019Business Advisory Services 22 60 24 60 34 50Documentation Services 54 58 44 51 16 31Vehicle Licensing and Registration 50 51 46 49 13 14TAFE Services 45 50 59 54 48 43Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 47 48 27 33 44 52Consumer Affairs 31 34 15 25 73 63Water Supply 28 34 10 4 55 51Services for Older People 24 28 52 56 65 67Disability Services 36 27 62 47 62 73Courts 10 26 79 80 27 44Public Transport 26 26 62 57 12 15Public Schools 16 25 80 80 47 44Major Roads 19 21 30 30 26 23Prisons 12 20 78 59 53 41Art Galleries and Museums 14 18 75 77 7 8Environment and Wildlife Protection 25 18 43 60 32 28Child Welfare Services 10 14 60 57 51 64State Emergency Services 15 14 27 62 60 46Public Housing 9 12 64 62 56 66Police 10 6 68 80 40 39Ambulance Services 10 6 50 49 50 51Public Hospitals 4 4 85 88 29 32Fire Brigades 8 3 81 74 24 19

ServicesOnline In person face-to-face Telephone (landline or mobile phone

calls text message)

CONTACT METHODS USED TO INTERACT WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICESVehicle Licensing and Registration has seen a decline in the use of Online methods of contact Other top services have sample sizes of less than 30 and are not statistically reliable

Business

Note Each respondent could select any number of contact methodsBase 2019 Business (n=762) 2018 Business (n=814)

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019Documentation Services 74 65 23 23 1 1Environment and Wildlife Protection 40 54 54 54 71 71Consumer Affairs 73 50 6 6 39 39Vehicle Licensing and Registration 58 47 43 43 23 23Services for Older People 37 44 59 59 65 65Business Advisory Services 49 43 36 36 45 45Public Housing 35 42 57 57 16 16Public Transport 35 42 34 34 42 42TAFE Services 33 34 47 47 30 30Water Supply 32 29 11 11 47 47Courts 18 28 74 74 57 57Disability Services 59 26 54 54 61 61Child Welfare Services 55 26 50 50 62 62Ambulance Services 14 21 36 36 45 45Art Galleries and Museums 30 17 75 75 57 57Prisons 26 17 83 83 50 50Public Schools 29 7 62 62 42 42Police 6 7 85 85 41 41Public Hospitals 9 6 72 72 31 31Major Roads 30 2 45 45 5 5State Emergency Services 0 0 58 58 45 45Agricultural Advice and Funding Services 0 0 30 30 71 71Fire Brigades 0 0 23 23 97 97

calls text message)

Figure 15 Most common contact methods used and preferred by 2019 consumers and businesses across services

Base Consumers (n=3170) Business (n=743)

ServicesConsumer Business

Most used channel(s) Preferred channel Most used channel(s) Preferred channel

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services Email Telephone Online Email Telephone EmailAmbulance Services In person Telephone Telephone Telephone TelephoneArt Galleries and Museums In person In person In person TelephoneBusiness Advisory Services Email Email Email EmailChild Welfare Services In person Telephone Telephone Telephone TelephoneConsumer Affairs Email Telephone Email Online EmailCourts In person In person In person In personDisability Services Telephone Telephone Telephone TelephoneDocumentation Services In person Online Online Online OnlineEnvironment and Wildlife Protection In person In person Email Telephone EmailFire Brigades In person In person Telephone TelephoneMajor Roads In person Online In person Mail OnlinePolice In person In person In person In personPrisons In person In person In person TelephonePublic Housing In person Telephone Telephone In person In personPublic Hospitals In person In person In person In personPublic Schools In person In person In person In personPublic Transport In person In person Online Telephone In personServices for Older People Telephone Telephone In person Telephone TelephoneState Emergency Services In person Telephone In person In personTAFE Services In person Email Email Email EmailVehicle Licensing and Registration In person Online Online In person Online In personWater Supply Telephone Telephone Telephone Email

For many services the most frequently used channel for interacting with that service is also the most preferred channelCONTACT METHODS USED AND PREFERRED TO INTERACT WITH SA GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Consumer Business

CONSUMER SATISFACTION OF ONLINE ATTRIBUTES ACROSS SERVICESOf the services with sufficient sample size Vehicle Licensing and Registration had the highest average satisfaction score with the overall experience of using the website or app

Figure 318 Performance of SA government Services against each of the online attributes

ServicesConsumer

The content was current and accurate

I trust my information was handled securely

The format of content met my access requirements

Useful and allowed me to do everything I needed to do

Content and support was sufficient to answer my questions

Easy to find what I was looking for

I was satisfied with the overall experience of using the website app

I achieved the outcome by using the services available online

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=6) 73 79 73 69 70 65 67 77

Ambulance Services (n=10) 78 81 73 75 74 75 78 82Art Galleries and Museums (n=21) 86 83 84 83 83 82 84 86

Business Advisory Services (n=9) 69 71 72 73 66 74 75 71

Child Welfare Services (n=8) 72 69 62 63 56 72 61 67

Consumer Affairs (n=8) 82 79 74 73 67 67 76 66Courts (n=17) 81 80 77 73 72 74 71 70Disability Services (n=22) 68 68 64 69 66 68 67 70

Documentation Services (n=23) 77 82 83 72 76 78 77 79Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=7) 84 81 84 80 78 81 85 83

Fire Brigades (n=1) 90 70 70 70 90 90 90 80Major Roads (n=15) 80 74 77 79 73 72 76 77Police (n=12) 69 81 80 72 72 79 71 71Prisons (n=1) 44 85 58 44 48 34 50 30

Public Hospitals (n=15) 65 73 73 66 66 64 62 62

Public Housing (n=9) 66 58 65 62 57 57 59 52Public Schools (n=50) 77 79 78 77 78 78 77 80Public Transport (n=84) 83 83 82 80 82 80 80 84Services for Older People (n=29) 78 78 76 73 75 71 74 73

State Emergency Services (n=3) 89 86 83 91 79 83 83 90

TAFE Services (n=57) 75 79 75 73 74 72 74 75Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=261) 87 84 84 84 83 83 85 87

Water Supply (n=64) 85 82 82 79 80 81 82 84Total 82 81 80 79 79 78 79 81

Customers were asked ldquoThinking about your experience interacting with SA [service] online in the last 12 months to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statementsrdquo on a scale of 1 strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree

Consumer

ServicesBusiness

Ambulance Services (n=4) 60 85 75 85 85 90 80 90

Art Galleries and Museums (n=1) 85 60 70 70 80 70 70 61

Consumer Affairs (n=12) 80 78 79 77 79 72 81 77

Courts (n=7) 94 90 77 77 87 73 84 87Disability Services (n=8) 84 82 91 80 84 80 86 82Documentation Services (n=10) 82 96 75 84 84 73 80 85Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=6) 84 81 80 82 78 76 88 77

Major Roads (n=2) 55 75 70 60 55 50 65 55

Police (n=2) 100 80 99 100 100 90 100 99Prisons (n=3) 98 69 88 70 79 88 68 88Public Hospitals (n=5) 70 60 65 70 60 70 55 79Public Housing (n=5) 70 74 80 77 70 76 70 76

Public Schools (n=6) 74 94 70 84 74 65 69 69

Public Transport (n=12) 78 75 78 78 82 75 80 83Services for Older People (n=8) 74 81 84 79 71 71 82 74State Emergency Services (n=1) 90 80 90 90 100 90 100 90

Business

BUSINESS SATISFACTION OF ONLINE ATTRIBUTES ACROSS SERVICESOf the services with sufficient sample size Vehicle Licensing and Registration had the highest average satisfaction score with the overall experience of using the website or app

Public ndash I1-A2

APPENDIX 3JURISDICATIONAL COMPARISON

Fire Brigades State Emergency Services Art Galleries and Museums and Consumer Affairs in SA have the highest average satisfaction scores across all jurisdictions

CONSUMERSrsquo SATISFACTION BY SERVICES ACROSS JURISDICTIONS

Figure 16 Average Customer satisfaction by service across jurisdictions

Prisons (n=23)

Courts (n=94)

Major Roads (n=86)

Agricultural Advice andFunding Services (n=13)

Services for Older People(n=114)

Business AdvisoryServices (n=17)

Environment and WildlifeProtection (n=38)

Documentation Services(n=42)

Police (n=217)

Vehicle Licensing andRegistration (n=580)

Art Galleries andMuseums (n=121)

Ambulance Services(n=208)

State Emergency Services(n=47)

Total (n=3297)

Child Protection Services(n=106)

Prisons (n=57)

Courts (n=255)

Major Roads (n=157)

Police (n=289)

Car and Boat Registration(n=1438)

Total (n=6771)

Prisons (n=32)

Courts (n=145)

Major Roads (n=111)

Police (n=190)

State EmergencyServices (n=22)

Total (n=3458)

Prisons (n=34)

Courts (n=130)

Major Roads (n=61)

Police (n=203)

Total (n=3346)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Highest satisfaction across jurisdictions

Consumer

BUSINESSESrsquo SATISFACTION BY SERVICES ACROSS JURISDICTIONS

Figure 17 Average customer satisfaction by service across jurisdictions

Business Advisory Services(n=35)

Courts (n=19)

Water Supply (n=67)

Major Roads (n=11)

Prisons (n=14)

Police (n=35)

Art Galleries and Museums(n=13)

Total (n=762)

Courts (n=64)

Water Supply (n=87)

Major Roads (n=72)

Prisons (n=30)

Police (n=88)

Total (n=1801)

Courts (n=35)

Water Supply (n=59)

Major Roads (n=21)

Prisons (n=12)

Police (n=53)

Total (n=790)

Courts (n=36)

Water Supply (n=35)

Major Roads (n=16)

Prisons (n=13)

Police (n=55)

Total (n=832)SA NSW VIC QLD

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

APPENDIX 4 DEMOGRAPHICSThe data in this chapter is for informative purposes to provide a view of various demographic

segments of SA government service users Where sample sizes for segments are low (lt30) data are provided for indicative purposes only and should not be used for action planning or decision making

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash CONSUMERS BY AGEAll three headline measures have remained statistically stable across all age cohorts Younger cohorts (below the age of 44) are less satisfied than older cohorts

65+(n=823)

55-64(n=585)

45-54(n=446)

35-44(n=513)

25-34(n=490)

18-24(n=315)

respondents Avg

Figure 51 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by age ndash Consumer

Consumer

-022-020

-023-029

-037-033

-04 -02 0

65+ (n=838)55-64 (n=605)45-54 (n=454)35-44 (n=526)25-34 (n=497)18-24 (n=321)

+003-001

Change since 2018

65+(n=849)

55-64(n=610)

45-54(n=467)

35-44(n=532)

25-34(n=506)

18-24(n=333)

65+(n=838)

55-64(n=605)

45-54(n=454)

35-44(n=526)

25-34(n=497)

18-24(n=321)

Low(1-4) Neutral (5-6) High (7-10)

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash CONSUMERS BY GENDERAll three headline measures have remained statistically stable across both genders Females show higher satisfaction with SA Government Services than males and they also have a higher expectations

Female(n=1841)

Male(n=1456)

-04 -02 0

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1762)

Male(n=1410)

Figure 52 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by gender - Consumer

+01 +01

Consumer

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash CONSUMERS BY REGIONSatisfaction levels have seen a significant increase amongst consumers in regional areas and they have higher satisfaction than metro and rural areas The expectation gaps is also very small at just 008 points for consumers in regional areas

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash CONSUMERS BY INCOMESatisfaction with SA Government services has remained statistically stable across consumers of all income groups

-035 -015

$150001+ (n=207)

$50001-$150000 (n=1231)

Up to $50000 (n=1301)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=208)

$50001 to$150000(n=1247)

Up to$50000

(n=1321)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=200)

$50001 to$150000(n=1212)

Up to$50000

(n=1277)

Figure 54 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by income - Consumer

+01 +01

$150001 +(n=207)

$50001 to$150000(n=1231)

Up to$50000

(n=1301)

Consumer

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash CONSUMERS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS

+01+01

Thinking about your experiences in the last 12 months how satisfied would you say you are with each of the

following services

-028-043

-097-011

-022-025

-043-031

-028-023

-06 -04 -02 0

Not working (n=176)Other (n=167)

On maternitypaternity leave (n=44)Student (n=173)

Self-employedbusiness owner (n=183)Retired (n=890)

Unemployed (n=210)Full time domestic duties (n=271)

Employed on a casual basis (n=177)Employed part time (n=320)Employed full time (n=630)

respondents Avg respondents Avg respondents Avg

Not working (n=183)

Other (n=175)

On maternitypaternityleave (n=44)

Student (n=178)

Self-employedbusinessowner (n=186)

Retired (n=903)

Unemployed (n=214)

Full time domestic duties(n=276)

Employed on a casualbasis (n=181)

Employed part time(n=321)

Employed full time (n=636)

Figure 55 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by employment status - Consumer

Not working (n=176)

Other (n=167)

On maternitypaternity leave(n=44)

Student (n=173)

Retired (n=890)

Unemployed (n=210)

Employed on a casual basis(n=177)

Employed part time (n=320)

Low (1-4) Neutral (5-6) High(7-10)

Not working (n=170)

Other (n=166)

Student (n=168)

Retired (n=872)

Unemployed (n=206)

All three headline measures have remained statistically stable across all employment cohorts Retirees are more satisfied with SA Government services than consumers in other income groups

Consumer

Mining (n=7)

Financial and insuranceservices (n=27)

Transport postal andwarehousing (n=42)

Agriculture forestry andfishing (n=28)

Information media andtelecommunications (n=17)

Health care and socialassistance (n=120)

Wholesale Trade (n=27)

Manufacturing (n=30)

Electricity gas water andwaste services (n=15)

Professional scientific andtechnical services (n=49)

Public administration andsafety (n=12)

Construction (n=50)

Retail Trade (n=63)

Accommodation and foodservices (n=23)

Education and training(n=60)

Administrative and supportservices (n=23)

Rental hiring and real estateservices (n=16)

Other (n=108)

Arts and recreation services(n=15)

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

Low (1-4)Neutral (5-6)High (7-10)

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash BUSINESSES BY INDUSTRY

Avg respondents Avg

Note Very small number of responses (nlt=30) and therefore significance testing has not been undertaken as statistical validity could not be maintained This data has been included for illustrative purposes only and shouldnrsquot be used to make business or strategic decisions

respondents respondents Avg

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

Dissatisfied (1-4)Neutral (5-6)Satisfied (7-10) Base Business

(n=762)Base Business

(n=732)

Figure 56 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by industry - Business

All three headline measures have remained statistically stable for businesses across all stated industries with sufficient sample size

Business

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash BUSINESSES BY ORGANISATION REVENUESmaller businesses (up to $50000 in revenue) have a higher proportion of dissatisfied customers than larger businesses and they also have a higher expectation gap

respondents Avg

Not specified(n=216)

$500001+(n=160)

$50001 to$500000(n=215)

Up to$50000(n=141)

-045 -025 -005

Not specified (n=226)

$500001+ (n=164)

$50001 to $500000 (n=221)

Up to $50000 (n=147)

Base Business(n=762)

Base Business (n=758)

respondents Avg

Figure 57 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by organisation revenue - Business

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=164)

$50001 to$500000(n=221)

Up to$50000(n=147)

+02 +04

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=165)

$50001 to$500000(n=223)

Up to$50000(n=148)

Business

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash BUSINESSES BY ORGANISATION SIZEOn average organisations with 5 or less employees have the highest average satisfaction as well as expectation and ideal service score Businesses with 20-199 employees decreased in satisfaction

-055 -035 -015

200+ (n=186)

20-199 (n=166)

6-19 (n=161)

5 or less (n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=186)

20-199(n=166)

6-19(n=161)

5 or less(n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=187)

20-199(n=156)

6-19(n=157)

5 or less(n=232)

200+(n=188)

20-199(n=167)

6-19(n=162)

5 or less(n=245)

Figure 58 Satisfaction expectation and ideal by organisation size - Business

Business

Regional businesses have an expectation gap of 05 points Comparison to ideal service has seen a significant increase in average score among metro businesses

-06 -04 -02 0

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=628)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional (n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=71)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=605)

Figure 16 Satisfaction expectation and ideal service by region - Business

-05 -02

TOP-LINE PERFORMANCE ndash BUSINESSES BY REGION

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

APPENDIX 5CLUSTER DASHBOARDS

Consumer Respondent Profile

Gender Age RegionConsumers (n=121)

Consumer InteractionContact method used (NB Can use more than one) Contact method preferred

Summary 2019 results in focus ndash Key Profiling

Region

Business (n=13)

Annual turnover

Business Interaction

Contact method used (NB Can use more than one) Contact method preferred

Business size

Business Respondent Profile

Arts amp LeisureServices Art Galleries and MuseumsReach 13 of consumers and 3 of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Arts and Leisure in the last 12 months

YoY - C YoY - BProfiling

Most common interactions (Not Applicable)

Note Small sample size (nlt30) should be interpreted with caution Significance of differences vs last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed

Face to face MailFax Telephone Email Online Third parties

Under 20 staff96

20+ staff4

Metro55

Regional45

Rural0

5 8 12 181

0 6 15 182

Male50

Female50 Metro

Regional13

Rural130

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

40 4018

Up to $50K $50K-$500K $500K+ Not Specified

76 7479 80 78

7680 79

8481 81

7983 84 84 85 87 87

85 8784 85 85 86

Cluster Arts and LeisureReach 13 of consumers in 2019 and 10 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Art Galleries and Museums in the last 12 months

Employee attributesGoalsProcessesLegend

Driver Performance amp Importance (Year-on-Year) ndash For Consumers

Values

Overall Performance1

Dashboard 1 of 2 Comparison of results year-on-year - ConsumersCon

Satisfaction (out of 10)Sample Expectation (out of 10) Comparison to ideal (out of 10)

2019 - 1212018 - 1292017 - 121

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

drivers of satisfaction

Profiling

Art Galleries and Museums

1Note Average and significance scores are subject to rounding

PrivacySimplicity and efficiency of processesAutonomy Access to infoTransparency Accountability and service qualityCommunication Honesty and integrityEfficiency and

effectivenessFairness and

Empathy

7 91Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)01 0103 -01

5 95Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 87Consumer

respondents

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6)Close to ideal (7-10)

87 85 86

2019 2018 2017

88 85 86

2019 2018 2017

83 82 81

2019 2018 2017

02 -01

Legend77

Last year

Significance of differences vs last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed

84 8684 81

8379 79

83 86 8388

9389 89 91

Cluster Arts and LeisureReach 3 of businesses in 2019 and 3 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Art Galleries and Museums in the last 12 months

Driver Performance amp Importance (Year-on-Year) ndash For Businesses

Values

Dashboard 2 of 2 Comparison of results year-on-year - BusinessesBus

2019 ndash 132018 ndash 142017 ndash 18

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Note Small sample size (nlt30) should be interpreted with cautionSignificance of differences vs last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed

PrivacySimplicity amp efficiency of

processesResponsiveness Access to infoTransparency Accountability and service qualityEfficiency and effectiveness Honesty and integrityEmpathy and CommunicationFairness

99Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)10 -06-05 00

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

82 81 77

2019 2018 2017

84 90 89

2019 2018 2017

80 71 76

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=45)

Annual turnover

Business size

Business Industry Trade Services

Services Agricultural Advice and Funding Services Business Advisory ServicesReach 2 of consumers and 13 of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Business Industry Trade Services in the last 12 months

Most common interactions (Business Advisory Services)

1 Seek information or advice

1 Seek information or advice2 Receive support and training for developing key business

skills andor networks3 Receive funding and or grant support

Under 20

staff99

20+ staff1

Metro76

Regional18

Rural6

5164 55

Male71

Female29 Metro

69Regional10

Rural21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

27 33 2713

7874 71

73 7568 68

74 7479

81 80 8074 71

75 77 78 76

Cluster Business Industry Trade ServicesReach 1 of consumers in 2019 and 01 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Agricultural Advice and Funding Services in the last 12 months

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services

Empathy

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6)04 -03-04 28

21 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 16 67Consumer

respondents

68 71 44

2019 2018 2017

70 74 46

2019 2018 2017

73 69 73

2019 2018 2017

-03 27

Legend77

Last year

Note Small sample size (nlt30) should be interpreted with cautionSignificance of differences vs last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed 118

51 5046

53 53 54 52

5652 54

Cluster Business Industry Trade ServicesReach 2 of businesses in 2019 and 2 of businesses in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Agricultural Advice and Funding Services in the last 12 months

Values

Whole-of-government

71 29Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6)06 -0702 -02

35 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

35 65Business

respondents

61 75 74

2019 2018 2017

74 72 74

2019 2018 2017

71 65 72

2019 2018 2017

-14 01

Legend77

Last year

70 72 7168 70

6569 66

70 7074 73 73 75 73

72 71 72 74 74

Cluster Business Industry Trade ServicesReach 1 of consumers in 2019 and 2 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Business Advisory Services in the last 12 months

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Business Advisory Services

Empathy

9 21 70Consumer

respondents

18 5 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 88Consumer

respondents

73 71 73

2019 2018 2017

73 60 70

2019 2018 2017

76 63 69

2019 2018 2017

01 -02

Legend77

Last year

69 7066

66 71 7169 70 71 71 70

Cluster Business Industry Trade ServicesReach 11 of businesses in 2019 and 12 of businesses in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Business Advisory Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 352018 ndash 422017 ndash 22

Whole-of-government

1110 79Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6)00 05-02 02

6 21 73Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 19 69Business

respondents

72 73 67

2019 2018 2017

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 66

2019 2018 2017

-02 06

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=44)

Annual turnover

Business size

Consumer Information

Services Consumer Affairs Documentation ServicesReach 8 consumers and 12 businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Consumer Information in the last 12 months

1327 24 30

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2 Metro

Regional5

Rural4

45 46 47

Male60

Female40

Metro80

Regional10

Rural10

21 13 21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6360 62

7366 67

74 74 7372

7471 71 71

6467 68 70

Cluster Customer ServiceReach 4 of consumers in 2019 and 3 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Consumer Affairs in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 382018 - 452017 - 58

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Consumer Affairs

Empathy

13 16 71Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-04 -01-04 03

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 23 63Consumer

respondents

73 78 74

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

-04 04

Legend77

Last year

77 81 78

2019 2018 2017

68 6965

67 6971

71 73 72

6569 68

Cluster Customer ServiceReach 8 of businesses in 2019 and 4 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Consumer Affairs in the last 12 months

Values

Dashboard 2 of 4 Comparison of results year-on-year - ConsumersBus

2019 - 272018 - 122017 ndash25

Whole-of-government

Consumer Affairs

6 22 72Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) -07 02-08 08

5 17 78Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

19 13 69Business

respondents

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

77 85 77

2019 2018 2017

69 77 75

2019 2018 2017

-03 02

Legend77

Last year

68 6864 66 67

76 6769

70 7173

6971 72 70

Cluster Customer ServiceReach 4 of consumers in 2019 and 3 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Documentation Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 422018 - 462017 - 45

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Documentation Services

Empathy

10 16 74Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)03 0201 00

7 17 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 17 70Consumer

respondents

73 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 76 76

2019 2018 2017

74 70 68

2019 2018 2017

-01 01

Legend77

Last year

85 8780

75 7467

79 81 80 79

80 80 82

Cluster Customer ServiceReach 9 of businesses in 2019 and 9 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Documentation Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 172018 - 212017 - 22

Whole-of-government

12 88Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)27 -0620 -05

12 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 76Business

respondents

80 60 67

2019 2018 2017

83 63 68

2019 2018 2017

78 51 57

2019 2018 2017

20 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=87)

Annual turnover

Business size

Education and TrainingServices Public Schools TAFE ServicesReach 27 consumers and 22 businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Education and Training in the last 12 months

Most common interactions (TAFE Services)

1 Participate in course2 Enrol in a course3 Seek Information

1 Seek or request information2 Hiring trainees or apprentices3 Provide a service4 Engaging in registering tendering to be a contractor

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro78Regional

Rural19

43 44 33

Male42

Female58

Metro74

Regional12

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

32 3020 18

6766 66 64

70 69 70 6973

7072 73

7673 72

7572 73 74 74

Cluster Education and TrainingReach 19 of consumers in 2019 and 17 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Schools in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 2282018 - 1982017 - 208

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

616 78Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) 02 0502 00

513 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 18 73Consumer

respondents

76 74 71

2019 2018 2017

79 77 77

2019 2018 2017

73 71 66

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

68 6966

64 6466

66 6461

Cluster Education and TrainingReach 14 of businesses in 2019 and 9 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Schools in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 512018 - 572017 - 52

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

11 33 56Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)01 01-05 07

11 29 60Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 21 58Business

respondents

66 70 64

2019 2018 2017

65 64 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 06

Legend77

Last year

70 75 68

2019 2018 2017

69 69 71 7073 72

68 69 69 70

Cluster Education and TrainingReach 11 of consumers in 2019 and 10 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with TAFE Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 1262018 - 1592017 - 147

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

14 18 67Consumer

respondents

15 13 72Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 18 69Consumer

respondents

70 67 72

2019 2018 2017

72 73 76

2019 2018 2017

69 67 69

2019 2018 2017

03 -05

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

6164 66

6967 66

61 6567

Cluster Education and TrainingReach 9 of businesses in 2019 and 10 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with TAFE Services in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

2019 - 362018 - 512017 - 42

12 23 65Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) 04 -04-02 00

17 18 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 25 63Business

respondents

67 68 68

2019 2018 2017

70 66 70

2019 2018 2017

-01 00

68 71 71

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=70)

Annual turnover

Business size

Family and Community Services

Services Child Welfare Services Disability Services and Public amp Community Housing Reach 17 of consumers and 16 of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Family and Community Services in the last 12 months

Most common interactions (Not Applicable)54

5031 30

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro68

Regional8

Rural24

26 19 8

14 9 2

Male43

Female57 Metro

70Regional

Rural1626

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

38 299

43 4245

5250 50

Cluster Family and Community ServicesReach 3 of consumers in 2019 and 3 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Child Welfare Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 522018 - 622017 - 53

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Child Welfare Services

52 24 25Consumer

respondents

45 13 42Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

46 26 28Consumer

respondents

52 58 57

2019 2018 2017

44 55 47

2019 2018 2017

-10 07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

45 55 48

2019 2018 2017

4551 51 51

55 56 55

7166 65

Cluster Family and Community ServicesReach 3 of businesses in 2019 and 4 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Child Welfare Services in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 202018 - 282017 - 23

48 52Business

respondents

12 14 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 37 49Business

respondents

70 61 51

2019 2018 2017

75 64 55

2019 2018 2017

66 60 44

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

52 52 53

61 6163

Cluster Family and Community ServicesReach 9 of consumers in 2019 and 8 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Disability Services in the last 12 months

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 1002018 - 1262017 - 133

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) 10 -0707 -06

16 19 66Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

22 23 55Consumer

respondents

66 58 65

2019 2018 2017

70 63 69

2019 2018 2017

64 54 61

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

65 66 66

69 7074 75

70 70 72 70

Cluster Family and Community ServicesReach 10 of businesses in 2019 and 8 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Disability Services in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 342018 - 322017 - 34

129 79Business

respondents

111 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 10 69Business

respondents

74 63 73

2019 2018 2017

79 68 74

2019 2018 2017

69 57 69

2019 2018 2017

11 -10

Legend77

Last year

54 56 56

55 5557

62 62 61

57 58 57 58

Cluster Family and Community ServicesReach 9 of consumers in 2019 and 10 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public and Community Housing in the last 12 months

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public and Community Housing

2019 - 872018 - 1362017 - 171

26 17 57Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) -07 00-04 -01

19 23 58Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

33 18 49Consumer

respondents

63 68 70

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

59 66 66

2019 2018 2017

-05 -01

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

71 7275

86 8482

Cluster Family and Community ServicesReach 5 of businesses in 2019 and 2 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public and Community Housing in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 162018 - 222017 - 19

42 1 57Business

respondents

28 1 71Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 1 56Business

respondents

55 76 63

2019 2018 2017

70 80 67

2019 2018 2017

59 71 65

2019 2018 2017

-21 13

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=128)

Annual turnover

Business size

HealthServices Ambulance Services Public Hospitals and Service for Older PeopleReach 49 of consumers and 25 of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Health in the last 12 months

19 18 6

Under 20

staff96

20+ staff4

Metro71Regional

Rural24

Male42

Female58

Metro70Regional

Rural1722 29

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

8784 83 81

90 90 89 90 90 9288 89

92 90 91 90 89

Cluster HealthReach 17 of consumers in 2019 and 16 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Ambulance Services in the last 12 months

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

57 88Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-02 -02-01 -02

35 92Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 9 86Consumer

respondents

87 89 91

2019 2018 2017

90 91 92

2019 2018 2017

85 87 89

2019 2018 2017

-03 -01

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

89 8884 86 88

91 94 93 91 92 90 91 92 93 9292 96

Cluster HealthReach 7 of businesses in 2019 and 4 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Ambulance Services in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

99Business

respondents

11 89Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

91 91 88

2019 2018 2017

90 91 87

2019 2018 2017

87 94 86

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

77 7579 78

7174 75 73

Cluster HealthReach 41 of consumers in 2019 and 39 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Hospitals in the last 12 months

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 20 70Consumer

respondents

7 20 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16 23 61Consumer

respondents

74 74 76

2019 2018 2017

77 77 78

2019 2018 2017

69 69 68

2019 2018 2017

00 -03

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

59 58 58

64 59 6161

70 68 68 6965 64 65

Cluster HealthReach 18 of businesses in 2019 and 13 of businesses in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Hospitals in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 25 65Business

respondents

10 22 68Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 27 56Business

respondents

69 72 66

2019 2018 2017

72 74 69

2019 2018 2017

66 66 63

2019 2018 2017

-03 06

Legend77

Last year

63 61 6259

74 72 72 74 7674 72 73

66 6871

Cluster HealthReach 9 of consumers in 2019 and 10 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Services for Older People in the last 12 months

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Services for Older People

2019 - 1142018 - 1512017 - 179

11 18 71Consumer

respondents

810 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 21 61Consumer

respondents

73 71 75

2019 2018 2017

77 76 79

2019 2018 2017

67 67 68

2019 2018 2017

01 -04

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 68 67

73 74 7572

6872 70 69 69

73 7476

73 7275 73 74 76 76

Cluster HealthReach 7 of businesses in 2019 and 9 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Services for Older People in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 ndash 28 2018 - 382017 - 38

7 20 72Business

respondents

7 27 66Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 27 59Business

respondents

71 66 71

2019 2018 2017

75 74 77

2019 2018 2017

70 61 67

2019 2018 2017

05 -04

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=96)

Annual turnover

Business size

JusticeServices Courts Fire Brigades Police Prisons and State Emergency ServicesReach 27 consumers and 15 businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Justice in the last 12 months

Most common interactions (Courts)

1 Lodge legal documentation (ie Appeals Court Forms)2 Receive legal information or advice3 Participate in a trial as a Prosecutor Defendant Witness

1 Seek information or advice2 Receive funding andor grant support3 Receive support for mediation (eg retail leases) or

legal documentation

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro76

Regional9

Rural15

4011 11 6

2912 10

Male53

Female47 Metro

70Regional

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

25 23 29 23

60 60 59

Cluster JusticeReach 6 of consumers in 2019 and 5 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Courts in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 94 2018 - 1042017 - 93

Courts

23 23 54Consumer

respondents

15 22 63Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

29 23 48Consumer

respondents

63 60 64

2019 2018 2017

70 67 71

2019 2018 2017

59 55 61

2019 2018 2017

03 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6368 68

Cluster JusticeReach 4 of businesses in 2019 and 5 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Courts in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 192018 ndash 292017 - 35

Courts

8 25 66Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 10 72Business

respondents

74 60 60

2019 2018 2017

79 70 74

2019 2018 2017

75 63 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

8386 88 87 86

88 8993 92 93 95 94 96

91 92 9294

Cluster JusticeReach 1 of consumers in 2019 and 1 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Fire Brigades in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 242018 ndash 282017 - 34

Fire Brigades

3 97Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6)-04 0601 06

3 97Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3 97Consumer

respondents

91 91 83

2019 2018 2017

93 92 86

2019 2018 2017

86 90 84

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

9397 98 95

85 8589

9994 94 94 94

Cluster JusticeReach 2 of businesses in 2019 and 2 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Fire Brigades in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 152018 - 182017 - 18

Fire Brigades

1 99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1 99Business

respondents

91 100 76

2019 2018 2017

91 100 78

2019 2018 2017

95 90 74

2019 2018 2017

-08 24

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

65 65 65

73 73 75 74 7477

7073 73 73

Cluster JusticeReach 21 of consumers in 2019 and 18 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Police in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 217 2018 - 176 2017 - 228

Police

14 14 72Consumer

respondents

1110 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 16 72Consumer

respondents

75 77 79

2019 2018 2017

75 72 74

2019 2018 2017

-02 -02

78 82 81

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

77 79 8076

7876 76

80 7982

Cluster JusticeReach 9 of businesses in 2019 and 12 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Police in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 352018 - 562017 - 55

Police

20 79Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6)02 -08-03 -02

20 80Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 85Business

respondents

80 79 83

2019 2018 2017

80 78 86

2019 2018 2017

00 -04

81 83 85

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

57 57 57

Cluster JusticeReach 2 of consumers in 2019 and 1 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Prisons in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 232018 - 272017 - 21

Prisons

31 40 29Consumer

respondents

30 9 61Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 11 46Consumer

respondents

54 36 58

2019 2018 2017

54 35 67

2019 2018 2017

17 -22

67 49 60

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6270 72 74

55 54 55

75 74 75 74 77 74 72 74 7672 69 69 71

Cluster JusticeReach 2 of businesses in 2019 and 10 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Prisons in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 142018 - 142017 - 11

Prisons

18 82Business

respondents

18 82Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

181 81Business

respondents

79 53 65

2019 2018 2017

73 42 52

2019 2018 2017

26 -12

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

83 61 71

2019 2018 2017

83 85 8487 86 88 86

91 90 9092 90 90 92 92 93 94

90 92 92 92

Cluster JusticeReach 3 of consumers in 2019 and 2 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with State Emergency Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 472018 - 432017 - 51

State Emergency Services

11 87Consumer

respondents

5 93Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7 91Consumer

respondents

90 85 88

2019 2018 2017

90 82 87

2019 2018 2017

05 -03

91 86 89

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

80 82 84 84 84 82 85 8289

86 82 7982 80 80 81 83 85 83 86 86

8789 85

Cluster JusticeReach 3 of businesses in 2019 and 3 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with State Emergency Services in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 132018 - 152017 - 14

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

100Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

100Business

respondents

87 87 60

2019 2018 2017

85 86 67

2019 2018 2017

87 82 77

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Region

Business (n=19)

Annual turnover

Business size

Planning and Environment

Services Environment and Wildlife ProtectionReach 3 of consumers and 4 of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Planning and Environment in the last 12 months

71 7054

13 8 9

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro44

Regional46

Rural10

1925 21

Male65

Female35 Metro

63Regional21

Rural1642 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

31 27 2912

6058 56

6966 66 65 65

70 69 70 71

6165 64 64

Cluster Planning and EnvironmentReach 3 of consumers in 2019 and 1 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Environment and Wildlife Protection in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 382018 - 362017 - 38

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Environment and Wildlife Protection

14 15 70Consumer

respondents

23 3 75Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 10 67Consumer

respondents

73 81 75

2019 2018 2017

75 83 81

2019 2018 2017

66 81 71

2019 2018 2017

-08 06

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 66 68 6769 71

78 7876

78 7780 78 76 77

73 73 7571

Cluster Planning and EnvironmentReach 4 of businesses in 2019 and 3 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Environment and Wildlife Protection in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 192018 - 162017 - 12

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

33 67Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 91Business

respondents

74 66 73

2019 2018 2017

78 79 77

2019 2018 2017

78 68 77

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=193)

Annual turnover

Business size

TransportServices Vehicle Licensing amp Registration Major Roads amp Public TransportReach 72 consumers and 51 businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Transport in the last 12 months

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional13

Rural12

412 16

Male52

Female48 Metro

Regional12

Rural1127 31

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

69 69 6865

73 7479

72 73 7378 77 76 76

7478 78

7375 75 74

Cluster TransportReach 56 of consumers in 2019 and 57 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Vehicle Licensing and Registration in the last 12 months

Values

Vehicle Licensing and Registration

510 85Consumer

respondents

9 88Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

813 79Consumer

respondents

80 79 78

2019 2018 2017

82 80 79

2019 2018 2017

77 76 73

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

64 65 6562

70 7174

67 6669

72 7275

6872 73

Cluster TransportReach 43 of businesses in 2019 and 42 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Vehicle Licensing and Registration in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

11 20 70Business

respondents

10 17 72Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 20 66Business

respondents

71 73 77

2019 2018 2017

75 74 78

2019 2018 2017

73 67 73

2019 2018 2017

-02 -04

Legend77

Last year

51 50 49 50

58 5552

61 6164

58 58 59 58

Cluster TransportReach 8 of consumers in 2019 and 7 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Major Roads in the last 12 months

Values

erYoY - C YoY - BProfiling

Major Roads

18 27 55Consumer

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0400 04

14 12 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

25 32 43Consumer

respondents

65 66 63

2019 2018 2017

71 72 67

2019 2018 2017

57 61 60

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

78 7873

6469 70

Cluster TransportReach 3 of businesses in 2019 and 6 of businesses in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Major Roads in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Major Roads

48 50Business

respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-02 09-01 09

47 53Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

47 50Business

respondents

74 79 63

2019 2018 2017

75 76 67

2019 2018 2017

69 72 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 16

Legend77

Last year

66 66 66 65

71 7175

67 68 6871 70 70 70

73 7269

67 6769 70

Cluster TransportReach 38 of consumers in 2019 and 35 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Transport in the last 12 months

Values

Public Transport

7 19 73Consumer

respondents

5 20 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 27 62Consumer

respondents

74 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 75 74

2019 2018 2017

69 69 67

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6466 66 67

7169 68 71

69 7067

Cluster TransportReach 13 of businesses in 2019 and 11 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Transport in the last 12 months

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Transport

514 81Business

respondents

5 14 81Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 15 80Business

respondents

72 72 67

2019 2018 2017

76 73 71

2019 2018 2017

73 73 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Most common interactions

1 Receive water supply or sewage services2 Report and incident3 Seek information

Region

Business (n=67)

Annual turnover

Contact method used (NB Can use more than one) Contact method preferredMost common interactions

1 Seek information or make an enquiry2 Pay for goods or services received3 Request payment for goods services provided

Business size

UtilitiesServices Water SupplyReach 24 of consumers and 23 of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Utilities in the last 12 months

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional15

Rural10

3723 27

Male51

Female49

Metro76

Regional10

Rural1427 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6463 64

6967 65

71 73 73 72 74

6467 68 68

Cluster UtilitiesReach 24 of consumers in 2019 and 24 of consumers in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Water Supply in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 2402018 - 2382017 - 239

Water Supply

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

4 17 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 18 70Consumer

respondents

76 74 74

2019 2018 2017

78 75 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 69

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

62 62 6360

66 6769

Cluster UtilitiesReach 23 of businesses in 2019 and 15 of business in 2018 identify they have had direct dealings with Water Supply in the last 12 months

Values

2019 - 672018 - 532017 - 49

Water Supply

5 24 71Business

respondents

4 18 77Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 24 62Business

respondents

74 69 74

2019 2018 2017

77 70 74

2019 2018 2017

70 66 69

2019 2018 2017

04 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Public ndash I1-A2

APPENDIX 6OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey (CSMS) has been developed to provide a holistic view of customer service including baseline scores for customer satisfaction across government from which to gauge future success of citizen-centric reforms

Provide a holistic understanding of the quality of services delivered

by SA Government (including processes employees goals and

values)

Benchmark SA Government performance against other

jurisdictions

Understanding how SA Government services are

performing overall+ +

Online survey with SA Government services

customers (consumers and businesses)

Key learnings from the 2014 NSW Methodology Pilot

2015 2016 2017 and 2018 implementation

+Baseline measures of

satisfaction and expectations with SA Government services

Baseline measures of perceptions of the quality of

services delivered by SA Government

Comparison of SA performance to other Jurisdictions+

Online survey with customers of the NZ UK NSW VIC and QLD

Governments from which to benchmark SArsquos performance

Project Objectives

Research Inputs

Research Outputs

bull Identical online surveys were undertaken with customers in New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia United Kingdom and New Zealand to enable comparative cross-jurisdiction analysis

bull The survey1 was targeted to achieve a representative sample of the general population in each jurisdiction based on age gender and region (metropolitan regional and rural) and a representative sample of the business community based on location and size (number of employees) Service names were localised to ensure respondents selected appropriately

The sample sizes achieved across each of the sample groups are outlined below

2019 Survey Sample Size (no of respondents)

RESPONDENT PROFILE (1 of 2)

1The CSMS is administered by NSW and sample size is in accordance to reporting requirements

UKJurisdictions Consumer (n=) Business (n=) Total (n=)

New South Wales 4110 1261 5371

Queensland 2019 555 2574

Victoria 2073 537 2610

South Australia 1998 502 2500

United Kingdom 2019 1003 3022

New Zealand 2116 586 2702

bull Customers in this survey are consumers and businesses that have had direct dealings with services provided by the SA government in the last 12 months

bull The survey captures customer feedback on twenty-three different SA government services described in the customerrsquos language Feedback received from customers about each of the individual services has been aggregated to provide a view of the performance of SA government services overall

bull Each respondent to the survey provided feedback about 1 or 2 services As a result the total number of responses received across services is greater than the total number of customers who completed the survey Throughout the report sample sizes have been reported based on the total number of responses (rather than the total number of respondents)

bull The results for services that were most commonly interacted with (eg Public Transport) in the last 12 months were given a greater weighting to scores across government This is to allow for the scores across government to reflect the services in a correct proportion with higher weighting given to those services which customers interact with more frequently

Business Industry and Trade Services

bull Agriculture Advice and Funding Services

bull Business Advisory Services

Justice bull Police bull State Emergency Services bull Prisons bull Courts bull Fire Brigades

Family amp Community Services

bull Public Housing bull Disability Services bull Child Welfare Services

Transportbull Public Transport bull Vehicle Licensing and

Registration bull Major Roads

Consumer Informationbull Consumer Affairs (Fair

Trading) bull Documentation Services

Planning amp Environmentbull Environment and Wildlife

Protection

Education amp Trainingbull Public Schoolsbull TAFE Services

Healthbull Public Hospitalsbull Ambulance Servicesbull Services for Older People

In scope services

Utilitiesbull Water Supply

Arts amp Leisurebull Art Galleries and Museums

Public ndash I1-A2

APPENDIX 7FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The following steps were undertaken during data collection to support achievement of a representative sample of respective populations across jurisdictions

Drafted sampling frame

Programmed and tested survey

Undertook a survey pilot

Daily monitoring of surveys while in field

Drafted sampling frame and set target quotas to ensure responses are representative of the jurisdiction populations based on the following key variables (consistent with the previous year) to achieve representativeness acrossbull Consumer by age gender and region of residence (metropolitan regional and rural)bull Business by business size (estimated based on number of employees) and location (metropolitan regional and rural)

bull A single dynamic survey is programmed in Qualtrics (a survey scripting platform) to optimise responses bull Once the survey has been programed rigorous testing is undertaken to ensure there are no breaks in the survey logicbull A survey usability review is also undertaken by a UX consultant to optimise visuals and ensure accessibility for all usersbull The survey is managed by the online research panel providerbull Each of the survey respondent provides feedback regarding 1 or 2 services bull Logic has been built into the survey which optimally allocates respondents to those services2 for which feedback proves to be most

difficult to solicit in from the 2014 pilot

A survey pilot was undertaken over a 24 hour period and targeted to n=100 respondents tobull Ensure there are no errors in the survey programmingbull Ensure we are yielding quality responses by checking

bull Survey length (ie median survey length is no more than 15 minutes)bull Quality of data entry and recording (eg respondents are providing considered responses questions posed are applicable to

the majority of respondents)bull Check incidence rates to ensure the total number of panel members being targeted is sufficient to achieve the required sample within

the time frames This includes analysis of panel response rates and analysis of screen outs from the survey from which to identify root causes and proposed actions to fill quotas within the time frames

bull Results of the pilot revealed no errors in the survey and was progressed to full launch

bull Once the survey is launched daily monitoring is undertaken while in-field to check progress and inform targeted action with the online panel provider to ensure sufficient representative sample has been achieved (based on quotas) This includes additional targeting of particular groups of customers and hard to reach services based on respondent profiles

bull For the Annual CSMS every attempt is made to reach as much of the sample as possible for services that have lower sample sizes

APPROACH TO IN-FIELD MANAGEMENT

The Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey captured feedback from 1998 consumers which were weighted by age gender and region to be representative of the SA citizen population

Responses to the survey have been weighted to correct for over-representation of particular segments to match known SA resident population totals Responses were each weighted based on the following demographics to approximate the target population

bull Age and gender interlocking based on the population of SA residents (from ABS)

bull Region based on the population of SA residents who live in metropolitan SA Regional SA and Rural SA (from ABS)

bull Aggregate scores across services have also been weighted according to the proportion of respondents who have interacted with this service in the last 12 months in an attempt to weight higher those services which consumers interact with more frequently

Consistent with other 2019 jurisdictional data the data files have been cleaned to removebull Incomplete and duplicate responsesbull Speeders based on time taken (those who completed the survey in

a time which was lower than 50 the median length were removed from the database)

bull Poor quality or junk responses for age or post code entries (ages of greater than 100 years were removed as were junk post code entries that could not be matched to a location within the jurisdiction)

bull Respondents who attempted to enter the survey twiceConsumer surveys from other jurisdictions were cleaned and weighted in the same fashion as the SA data with the relevant population statistics for each jurisdiction

18-24 12 (n=209)

Male 49(n=891)

Metropolitan SA 74(n=1577)

Vehicle Licensing and Registration 19

(n=580)

25-34 17 (n=302)

Female 51 (n=1107)

Regional SA 13(n=203)

Public Hospitals 14

(n=412)

35-44 16(n=310)

Rural SA 14(n=218)

Public Transport 13(n=390)

45-54 17(n=280) Water Supply 8

(n=240)

55-64 16(n=388)

Police 7(n=217)

65+ 23(n=509)

Public Schools 6(n=228)

Ambulance Services 6 (n=208)

Art Galleries 4 (n=121)

TAFE 3 (n=126)

Older People 3 (n=114)Housing 3 (n=87)

Disability 3 (n=100)

Age Gender Region Services

SA consumer survey sample composition and weighting

CONSUMER DATA WEIGHTING AND CLEANING METHODOLOGY

BUSINESS DATA WEIGHTING AND CLEANING METHODOLOGY

The Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey captured feedback from 502 businesses which were weighted by business location and size to be representative of the SA business population

Responses to the survey have been weighted to correct for over-representation of particular segments to match known SA business population totals Responses were each weighted based on the following demographics to approximate the target population

bull Business size based on number of employees (from ABS)bull Location of business based on the population of SA businesses which

are based in metropolitan SA Regional SA and Rural SA (from ABS)

bull Aggregate scores across services have also been weighted according to the proportion of respondents who have interacted with this service in the last 12 months in an attempt to weight higher those services which businesses interact with more frequently

Consistent with the approach to the consumer survey the data files have been cleaned to removebull Incomplete and duplicate responsesbull Speeders based on time taken (those who completed the survey in a

time which was lower than 50 the median length were removed from the database)

bull Respondents who attempted to enter the survey twiceBusiness surveys from other jurisdictions were cleaned and weighted in the same fashion as the SA data with the relevant population statistics for each jurisdiction

Sole proprietor 30(n=82)

(n=135)

2-5 employees 29(n=80)

Public Hospitals 10(n=76)

Rural SA 14(n=52)

Water Supply 10 (n=67)

10-19 employees 20

(n=57)

Public Transport 7 (n=47)

20-199 1 (n=113)

200+ 1 (n=120)

Police 6(n=35)

TAFE 5(n=36)

Disability 5 (n=34)

Ambulance 4(n=24)

Older People 4 (n=28)

(n=32)

Business size (number ofemployees)

Location (region) Services

SA business survey sample composition and weighting

DRIVER OF SATISFACTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Employee attributes

Attributes Customer experience components

Outcome area

Component 4 Fairness and Empathy

Component 1 Honest and Integrity of Employees

Provide good value servicesAre honestAre reliableDeliver high safety standardsAre held accountableGet things done as quickly as possible

Component 2 Efficiency and effectiveness of

employees

Provide services without bias

Driver analysis is used to understand the relative importance of key attributes within each of the outcome areas (employees processes goals and values) in determining overall satisfaction with NSW Government services and in turn with the customer satisfaction indexTo identify the drivers of satisfaction a 2 step methodology was followedStep 1 To identify unique components that impact the customer experience

bull Attributes within each of the outcome areas were analysed separately using a statistical methodology called Principle Components Analysis (PCA)

bull Via PCA analysis attributes were grouped into key customer experience components based on attributes that respondents rate similarly

Step 2 To identify which of the customer experience components have the greatest impact on overall satisfaction with NSW Government services

bull Regression analysis was undertaken using each of the customer experience components with overall satisfaction as the dependent variable

bull Statistically robust components were identified to be significant drivers of satisfaction based on their statistical significance in predicting overall satisfaction with NSW Government services

bull Relative importance of the componentsdrivers in determining overall satisfaction was assessed based on the size of the regression coefficient

ValuesComponent 1 Service

quality and Accountability

Good service

Integrity

Accountability

GoalsComponent 2

Component 1 Attribute 1Attribute 2hellipnAttribute 1Attribute 2hellipn

Process attributes Component 2

Component 1 Attribute 1Attribute 2hellipnAttribute 1

Are consistent

Communicate well

Engender confidence in their knowledgeSee things from my perspective

Component 3 Communication

Figure 29 Customer experience components for consumers 2018

Consumer

Note Average driver performance scores and based on average performance scores for each of the underlying attributes

Figure 29 Impact of drivers of satisfaction on overall satisfaction (based on NSW government services)

Efficiency and effectiveness of

employees

Honesty and Integrity of Employees

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Customer satisfaction

Values

Driver

1Note Calculation is based on the relativity of parameters in the statistical analysis of drivers against satisfaction

Primary outcome measure

Related outcome measures

Relative importance1

Moderate

employeesHonesty and integrity of employees

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Access to information

Privacy

Driver Average performance1

Low (1) High (10)74

Low (1) High (10)70

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)64

Low (1) High (10)66

Low (1) High (10)68

Score is higher than or equal to average across all drivers

Score is lower than average across all drivers

Figure 210 Average performance of SA government servicesagainst each of the drivers (NSW) - Consumers

Communication

IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE OF DRIVERS1 IN DETERMINING OVERALL SATISFACTION

Moderate Accountability and Service quality of

employeesLow (1) High

Consumer

Fairness and empathy of employees

Low (1) High (10)73

Slide Number 1

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Slide Number 3

Slide Number 4

Slide Number 5

Slide Number 6

Slide Number 7

Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19

Slide Number 20

Slide Number 21

Slide Number 22

Slide Number 23

Slide Number 24

Slide Number 25

Slide Number 26

Slide Number 27

Slide Number 28

Slide Number 29

Slide Number 30

Slide Number 31

Slide Number 32

Slide Number 33

Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35

Slide Number 36

Slide Number 37

Slide Number 38

Slide Number 39

Slide Number 40

Slide Number 41

Slide Number 42

Slide Number 43

Slide Number 44

Slide Number 45

Slide Number 46

Slide Number 47

Slide Number 48

Slide Number 49

Slide Number 50

Slide Number 51

Slide Number 52

Slide Number 53

Slide Number 54

Slide Number 55

Slide Number 56

Slide Number 57

Slide Number 58

Slide Number 59

Slide Number 60

Slide Number 61

Slide Number 62

Slide Number 63

Slide Number 64

Slide Number 65

Slide Number 66

Slide Number 67

Slide Number 69

Slide Number 70

Slide Number 71

Slide Number 72

Slide Number 73

Slide Number 74

Slide Number 75

Slide Number 76

Slide Number 77

Slide Number 78

Slide Number 79

Slide Number 80

Slide Number 81

Slide Number 82

Slide Number 83

Slide Number 84

Slide Number 85

Slide Number 86

Slide Number 87

Slide Number 88

Slide Number 89

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99

Slide Number 100

Slide Number 101

Slide Number 102

Slide Number 103

Slide Number 104

Slide Number 105

Slide Number 106

Slide Number 107

Slide Number 108

Slide Number 109

Slide Number 110

Slide Number 111

Slide Number 112

Slide Number 113

Slide Number 114

Slide Number 115

Slide Number 116

Slide Number 117

Slide Number 118

Slide Number 119

Slide Number 120

Slide Number 121

Slide Number 122

Slide Number 123

Slide Number 124

Slide Number 125

Slide Number 126

Slide Number 127

Slide Number 128

Slide Number 129

Slide Number 130

Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

Slide Number 134

Slide Number 135

Slide Number 136

Slide Number 137

Slide Number 138

Slide Number 139

Slide Number 140

Slide Number 141

Slide Number 142

Slide Number 143

Slide Number 144

Slide Number 145

Slide Number 146

Slide Number 147

Slide Number 148

Slide Number 149

Slide Number 150

Slide Number 151

Slide Number 152

Slide Number 153

Slide Number 154

Slide Number 155

Slide Number 156

Slide Number 157

Slide Number 158

Slide Number 159

Slide Number 160

Slide Number 161

Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167

Slide Number 168

Slide Number 169

Slide Number 170

Slide Number 171

Slide Number 172

Slide Number 173

Slide Number 174

Slide Number 175

Slide Number 176

Slide Number 177

Slide Number 179

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Chapter Page no Reading Guide

i Executive Summary 3 Overview of the study methodology 2018 results for key performance measures and key findings from the overall data

Priority read15 minutes

ii Key Findings 7

iii Detailed Findings 29 Select by interest area

1 Overall Measures And Topline Analysis 30 Results for the CSI and outcome measures comparing performance year on

year and by jurisdiction 10 minutes

2 Performance Against Customer Satisfaction Attributes 40

Results for specific service attributes across employees process values and goals comparing performance by jurisdiction and results for overall drivers of satisfaction

20 minutes

3 Satisfaction By Contact Method And Digital Insights 52

Results for contact methods used and preferred impact on overall satisfaction and expectations attributes of online service and drivers of digital adoption

20 minutes

4 Public Sector Overall 63 Results for the SA Public Service brand comparing performance over time and by jurisdictions associations with word descriptors 5 minutes

5 Feedback 68 Results for feedback to SA Government Services and complaint handling 10 minutes

iv Appendices

1 Analysis By Service 76 Results for outcome measures attributes and channel usage by service 25 minutes

2 Contact Method Preference By Service 93 Results for contact methods used and preferred impact on overall

satisfaction with online experience by service 15 minutes

3 Jurisdictional Comparison 101 Results for overall customer satisfaction with services by jurisdiction 10 minutes

4 Demographics 104 Results for outcome measures by demographics 15 minutes

5 Cluster Dashboards 114 Results for individual clusters and services 20 minutes

6 Overview and Methodology 171 Research programme background objectives scope and explanation of the Customer Satisfaction index (CSI) 5 minutes

7 Further Technical Information 178 Details of approach to data collection and management 5 minutes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public ndash I1-A2

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Metro74

Regional13

Rural14

Online survey

United Kingdom

New Zealand

United Kingdom

New Zealand

SA ndash Consumers

SA- Businesses

Age Gender Region

49 male51

female18-3429

35-5432

55-6416

98 under 20

staff2

20+ staff

75 Metropolitan

11 Regional

14 Rural

2019 2073 4110 2019 2116

555 537 1261 1003 586

Consumer Business

Expectation

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local Council60

Banks59

Energy54

Fed Govt53

76(2017)

Communication

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Moderate

75(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

75(2019)

Moderate

Consumer CSI

Consumer

785784

2016 2017 2018 2019

74(2016)

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos62

Banks61

Local Council61

Fed Govt 57

Energy56

71(2017)

72(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

73(2019)

Expectation

(+01)(+01)

Business CSI

Business

754759

2016 2017 2018 2019

Inperson

70(2016)

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

Business

BusinessConsumer

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Consumer

Consumer Business

Consumer

-01 -01 +01

+01 -+02

+01 - +01

Business

+01 +01

f 10 )

Legend77

Last year

76 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7371

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 70

201969

6765 63

Consumer

69 68 67

7570 68 67

201973 72 72

73 72 7270

Legend77

Last year

Consumer

71 71 71 71 7070 71

6767 67

75 7573 72 72 72 71 71 71

69 68 68

2019 67 64 64 62

6865 65

Legend77

Last year

Business

66 65 6559

7469 68 67

201971 70 70

72 71 71 70

ith in

Legend77

Last year

Business

Consumer

73 72 7270

74 7371

Phone Mailfax Email

-10) +01

+01+01 +01

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

looking for

Consumer (n=798)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02NA

Consumer

50 4640

79 798080

Business

70 71 7169

73 7372 72 71

-02+01 +01

+03+02

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

online

accurate

accessrequirements

needed to do

was looking for

Business (n=210)

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06+09

224 I chose to go

online

darr2 darr5

2922 22 22

3224 23

Business

61 60 5954 53

7066 62 61 61

TelephoneService

Providers

My localcouncil

FederalGovernment

LowestHighest

Consumer Business

10 05 0406 05

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

727779

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I gave acompliment

7668 69 71

7971 74 75

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

change

I gave acompliment

Consumer Business

Consumer n=1998

Business n=502

Business (n=194)

Consumer (n=519)

Given feedback

Consumer Business

2018 2019

sesConsumers

2018 2019

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

2016(n=3462)

2017(n=3433)

2018(n=3245)

2019(n=3241)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=3507)

2017(n=3482)

2018(n=3307)

2019(n=3297)

2016(n=3398)

2017(n=3375)

2018(n=3154)

2019(n=3172)

Business

2016(n=817)

2017(n=753)

2018(n=801)

2019(n=758)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=825)

2017(n=769)

2018(n=814)

2019(n=762)

2016(n=797)

2017(n=742)

2018(n=795)

2019(n=732)

Expectation

respondents Avg

Business(n=758)

Consumer(n=3241)

Low (1-4)Med (5-6)High (7-10)

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Sig Sig

Figure 13 Figure 14

Consumer Business

Business(n=732)

Consumer(n=3172)

Comparison to ideal

respondents Avg

Figure 15 Figure 16

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)76

Business

Satisfaction

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Neutral (5-6)

-04 -02 00

2019 2018

Consumer Business

-06 -04 -02 00

2019 2018

-1 -05 0 05Avg

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1

Courts(n=89)

Prisons(n=21)

Consumer Business

Water Supply (n=240 n=67) 24 23 76 74 78 77 -02 -03

Police (n=217 n=35) 21 9 75 80 78 81 -03 -01

Major Roads (n=86 n=11) 8 3 65 74 71 75 -07 -01

Courts (n=94 n=19) 6 4 63 74 70 79 -07 -05

Prison (n=23 n=14) 2 2 54 79 67 83 -13 -03

Public ndash I1-A2

77 76 7675 74 74 74 74 73

7070 69

78 7877

76 76 76 76 7575

Average 7410

Base(n)=2704

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 69

556065707580

Consumer

+01 +01 - - - - - - --

+01 -01

65 6563

understand

first time

methods

first time

methods

Base(n)=2668

Consumer

+01+01

-01 - -

7570 68 67

decision-making

Base(n)=2561

Consumer

+01- - -01

Average 7210

73 72 72 70

7372 72

Base(n)=2916

Consumer

- - --

75 75 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 69 68 68

7372 73

68 6968

77 7775

75 75 74 74

7170 71

Average 7110

Base(n)=724

Business

+02 +01 +02 +01 +01 +01 +01 +01 - +02

+01 +01

68 66 65 6561

methods

first time

Average 6510

68 6767 67

methods

first time

Base(n)= 712

Business

+01+01

+01+01-01

7469 68 67

6866 66

decision-making

Base(n)= 695

Business

+03 -03 +03 +02

Average 7110

74 74 74

71 71 71

72 71 71 70

Base(n)= 758

Business

+01 +01 +01 +02

knowledge

possible

Consumer

Transparency

Privacy

Employee autonomy

Monitor

Communication

Consumer

Public ndash I1-A2

Inperson

2922 22 22

3224 23

Inperson

22 2112

3324 21

Inperson

Consumer Business

Third parties

NSW (n=1801) VIC (n=790) QLD (n=832)

UK (n=1420) NZ (n=868) SA (n=762)

23 2116

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Third parties

21 20 20

21 21 20

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

70 71 71 69 68

73 73 72 72 7167

76 7573 72 72

77 75 74 73 71 70

+01+01

+02+01

Consumer Business

75 75 75

76 7675 75

7271 71

73 73 73

73 7372 72 71

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

63 6360

63 6261

59 59 58

67 66 6564

69 6865 65

6865 66 66

66 66 66 66

6462 62 62

65 6562 61

6865 63 63

69 6972

Consumer Business

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

handledsecurely

and accurate

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

and accurate

was handledsecurely

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

Consumer (n=798)

Business (n=210)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=2401)

Business (n=762)

37 16 12 7 7 6 5 5 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirements

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

Consumer Business

37 17 11 8 8 7 7 6 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirement

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted

to goonline

I chose togo online

respondents

available

I wasdirected or

I chose togo online

respondents

Consumer Business

n=843 n=220

uarr1 darr2

Consumer Business

50 4640

79 798080

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

FederalGovernment

(n=465)

Banks (n=486)

(n=484)

Airlines (n=457)

respondents Avg

Consumer (n=1649)

7375 00 +01

FederalGovernment

(n=1835)

Banks(n=1934)

(n=1915)

Airlines(n=1649)

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Accountable

Caring

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

40Lazy

Controlling

Patronising

Complacent

Wasteful

Inflexible

Difficult

Impersonal

Inefficient

Top 5 descriptors

Consumer

Patronising

Controlling

Complacent

Difficult

Inflexible

Impersonal

Wasteful

Inefficient

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Caring

Accountable

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

Top 5 descriptors

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

5 FEEDBACK

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

17 1416

4 6 105 4 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

37 41 37

37 29 45

5 19921 11 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

bull Other

bull Via email

Consumer Business

2219 18

28 28 29

27 28 28

39 39 39

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=519)

Business (n=194)

provided feedback

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

39 41 41 46 50 55

17 2325

23 23 17

44 36 34 30 28 28

48 45 43

VIC(n=154)

SA(n=169)

UK(n=196)

NZ(n=138)

QLD(n=140)

NSW(n=314)

35 44 49 45 50 52

24 2415

3418 22

41 32 3621

48 46 45

UK(n=174)

SA(n=83)

QLD(n=72)

VIC(n=69)

NSW(n=184)

NZ(n=76)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

4626 22

37 32 34

Metro(n=139)

Regional(n=14)

Rural(n=16)

Metro(n=67)

Regional(n=4)

Rural(n=12)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

26 28 29 31 31 33

18 21 18 19 23 26

5651 54 50

47 4065 61 61 59 58 56

VIC(n=159)

SA(n=174)

NZ(n=148)

UK(n=199)

NSW(n=333)

QLD(n=150)

21 28 25 31 37 36

30 19 29 24 31 17

4953 46 45 33

4662 61 59 58 55 55

NZ(n=78)

UK(n=176)

VIC(n=70)

NSW(n=188)

QLD(n=74)

SA(n=83)

Consumer Business

Other (n=57)

Prisons (n=4)

Fire Brigades (n=4)

Courts (n=10)

Major Roads (n=26)

Police (n=27)

Water Supply (n=45)

Other (n=26)

Art Galleries (n=1)

Prisons (n=2)

Courts (n=4)

Police (n=14)

Major Roads (n=11)

Water Supply (n=25)

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

91 9087 87

8076 76 75 74 74 73 73 73 73 73

70 68 66 65 63 63

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

93 91 90 88

8279 78 78 77 77 77 76 76 75 73 72 71 70 70 70 67 67

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

rts (n

abilit

9086 85 83

77 76 75 74 73 73 71 69 69 69 67 67 66 6459 59 57

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Prisons (n=21)

Courts (n=89)

Major Roads (n=81)

Police (n=216)

Consumer

91 9187

82 80 80 7975 74 74 74 74 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 67 66

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

tratio

Business

91 90 8784 83 83 81 79 79 78 77 77 76 75 75 75 75 75 74 72 70 70 68

abilit

rts (n

ildlif

ffairs

tratio

Business

87 8580 80 78 78

75 73 73 73 71 71 70 70 70 69 69 6966 66 65

ildlif

rts (n

tratio

ffairs

abilit

Business

-13-05

-05-05-05

-04-04-04

-03-03-03-03-03-03

-02-02

-01-01-01

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Business

Services

Are honest

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

possible

Held Accountable

Explain intended

their knowledge

Communicate well

Provide services

without bias

Consumer

Services

Courts 64 66 59 64

Police 73 73 70 73

Prisons 55 62 62 61

Services

Courts 61 50 58 55 62

Major Roads 55 50 50 49 51

Police 70 65 65 65 73

Prisons 53 50 57 57 57

Consumer

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 61 49 64 57 70

Major Roads 56 53 56 58 68

Police 65 58 68 63 76

Prisons 54 49 56 49 64

Consumer

Services

Are honest

Deliver high

safety standards

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

Communicate well

Are consistent

their knowledge

possible

Held Accountable

Provide services

without bias

Business

Services

Courts 72 78 63 71

Police 80 79 78 82

Prisons 69 69 72 71

Business

Services

decisions

Courts 58 46 55 54 74

Major Roads 59 69 73 64 78

Police 69 64 69 63 76

Prisons 72 70 72 62 71

Business

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 59 44 69 63 83

Major Roads 59 69 74 78 74

Police 66 70 77 70 81

Prisons 71 55 54 55 74

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

ServicesOnline

+9 pts

+8 pts

+11 pts

Business

text message)

-30 pts

Consumer

calls text message)

Business

calls text message)

Consumer Business

ServicesConsumer

Consumer

ServicesBusiness

Major Roads (n=2) 55 75 70 60 55 50 65 55

Public Schools (n=6) 74 94 70 84 74 65 69 69

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Prisons (n=23)

Courts (n=94)

Major Roads (n=86)

Police (n=217)

Total (n=3297)

Prisons (n=57)

Courts (n=255)

Major Roads (n=157)

Police (n=289)

Total (n=6771)

Prisons (n=32)

Courts (n=145)

Major Roads (n=111)

Police (n=190)

Total (n=3458)

Prisons (n=34)

Courts (n=130)

Major Roads (n=61)

Police (n=203)

Total (n=3346)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Consumer

Courts (n=19)

Water Supply (n=67)

Major Roads (n=11)

Prisons (n=14)

Police (n=35)

Total (n=762)

Courts (n=64)

Water Supply (n=87)

Major Roads (n=72)

Prisons (n=30)

Police (n=88)

Total (n=1801)

Courts (n=35)

Water Supply (n=59)

Major Roads (n=21)

Prisons (n=12)

Police (n=53)

Total (n=790)

Courts (n=36)

Water Supply (n=35)

Major Roads (n=16)

Prisons (n=13)

Police (n=55)

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

65+(n=823)

55-64(n=585)

45-54(n=446)

35-44(n=513)

25-34(n=490)

18-24(n=315)

respondents Avg

Consumer

-022-020

-023-029

-037-033

-04 -02 0

65+ (n=838)55-64 (n=605)45-54 (n=454)35-44 (n=526)25-34 (n=497)18-24 (n=321)

+003-001

Change since 2018

65+(n=849)

55-64(n=610)

45-54(n=467)

35-44(n=532)

25-34(n=506)

18-24(n=333)

65+(n=838)

55-64(n=605)

45-54(n=454)

35-44(n=526)

25-34(n=497)

18-24(n=321)

Female(n=1841)

Male(n=1456)

-04 -02 0

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1762)

Male(n=1410)

+01 +01

Consumer

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

-035 -015

$150001+ (n=207)

$50001-$150000 (n=1231)

Up to $50000 (n=1301)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=208)

$50001 to$150000(n=1247)

Up to$50000

(n=1321)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=200)

$50001 to$150000(n=1212)

Up to$50000

(n=1277)

+01 +01

$150001 +(n=207)

$50001 to$150000(n=1231)

Up to$50000

(n=1301)

Consumer

+01+01

following services

-028-043

-097-011

-022-025

-043-031

-028-023

-06 -04 -02 0

Not working (n=183)

Other (n=175)

Student (n=178)

Retired (n=903)

Unemployed (n=214)

Not working (n=176)

Other (n=167)

Student (n=173)

Retired (n=890)

Unemployed (n=210)

Not working (n=170)

Other (n=166)

Student (n=168)

Retired (n=872)

Unemployed (n=206)

Consumer

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=50)

Retail Trade (n=63)

Other (n=108)

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

Avg respondents Avg

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

(n=732)

Business

respondents Avg

$500001+(n=160)

$50001 to$500000(n=215)

Up to$50000(n=141)

-045 -025 -005

$500001+ (n=164)

$50001 to $500000 (n=221)

Up to $50000 (n=147)

respondents Avg

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=164)

$50001 to$500000(n=221)

Up to$50000(n=147)

+02 +04

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=165)

$50001 to$500000(n=223)

Up to$50000(n=148)

Business

-055 -035 -015

200+ (n=186)

20-199 (n=166)

6-19 (n=161)

5 or less (n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=186)

20-199(n=166)

6-19(n=161)

5 or less(n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=187)

20-199(n=156)

6-19(n=157)

5 or less(n=232)

200+(n=188)

20-199(n=167)

6-19(n=162)

5 or less(n=245)

Business

-06 -04 -02 0

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=628)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional (n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=71)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=605)

-05 -02

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Region

Business (n=13)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20 staff96

20+ staff4

Metro55

Regional45

Rural0

5 8 12 181

0 6 15 182

Male50

Female50 Metro

Regional13

Rural130

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

40 4018

76 7479 80 78

7680 79

8481 81

7983 84 84 85 87 87

85 8784 85 85 86

Values

2019 - 1212018 - 1292017 - 121

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

7 91Consumer

respondents

5 95Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 87Consumer

respondents

87 85 86

2019 2018 2017

88 85 86

2019 2018 2017

83 82 81

2019 2018 2017

02 -01

Legend77

Last year

84 8684 81

8379 79

83 86 8388

9389 89 91

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

82 81 77

2019 2018 2017

84 90 89

2019 2018 2017

80 71 76

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=45)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff99

20+ staff1

Metro76

Regional18

Rural6

5164 55

Male71

Female29 Metro

69Regional10

Rural21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

27 33 2713

7874 71

73 7568 68

74 7479

81 80 8074 71

75 77 78 76

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

21 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 16 67Consumer

respondents

68 71 44

2019 2018 2017

70 74 46

2019 2018 2017

73 69 73

2019 2018 2017

-03 27

Legend77

Last year

51 5046

53 53 54 52

5652 54

Values

Whole-of-government

71 29Business

respondents

35 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

35 65Business

respondents

61 75 74

2019 2018 2017

74 72 74

2019 2018 2017

71 65 72

2019 2018 2017

-14 01

Legend77

Last year

70 72 7168 70

6569 66

70 7074 73 73 75 73

72 71 72 74 74

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

9 21 70Consumer

respondents

18 5 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 88Consumer

respondents

73 71 73

2019 2018 2017

73 60 70

2019 2018 2017

76 63 69

2019 2018 2017

01 -02

Legend77

Last year

69 7066

66 71 7169 70 71 71 70

Values

2019 - 352018 ndash 422017 ndash 22

Whole-of-government

1110 79Business

respondents

6 21 73Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 19 69Business

respondents

72 73 67

2019 2018 2017

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 66

2019 2018 2017

-02 06

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=44)

Annual turnover

Business size

1327 24 30

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2 Metro

Regional5

Rural4

45 46 47

Male60

Female40

Metro80

Regional10

Rural10

21 13 21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6360 62

7366 67

74 74 7372

7471 71 71

6467 68 70

Values

2019 - 382018 - 452017 - 58

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Consumer Affairs

Empathy

13 16 71Consumer

respondents

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 23 63Consumer

respondents

73 78 74

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

-04 04

Legend77

Last year

77 81 78

2019 2018 2017

68 6965

67 6971

71 73 72

6569 68

Values

2019 - 272018 - 122017 ndash25

Whole-of-government

Consumer Affairs

6 22 72Business

respondents

5 17 78Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

19 13 69Business

respondents

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

77 85 77

2019 2018 2017

69 77 75

2019 2018 2017

-03 02

Legend77

Last year

68 6864 66 67

76 6769

70 7173

6971 72 70

Values

2019 - 422018 - 462017 - 45

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

10 16 74Consumer

respondents

7 17 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 17 70Consumer

respondents

73 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 76 76

2019 2018 2017

74 70 68

2019 2018 2017

-01 01

Legend77

Last year

85 8780

75 7467

79 81 80 79

80 80 82

Values

2019 - 172018 - 212017 - 22

Whole-of-government

12 88Business

respondents

12 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 76Business

respondents

80 60 67

2019 2018 2017

83 63 68

2019 2018 2017

78 51 57

2019 2018 2017

20 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=87)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro78Regional

Rural19

43 44 33

Male42

Female58

Metro74

Regional12

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

32 3020 18

6766 66 64

70 69 70 6973

7072 73

7673 72

7572 73 74 74

Values

2019 - 2282018 - 1982017 - 208

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

616 78Consumer

respondents

513 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 18 73Consumer

respondents

76 74 71

2019 2018 2017

79 77 77

2019 2018 2017

73 71 66

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

68 6966

64 6466

66 6461

Values

2019 - 512018 - 572017 - 52

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

11 33 56Business

respondents

11 29 60Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 21 58Business

respondents

66 70 64

2019 2018 2017

65 64 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 06

Legend77

Last year

70 75 68

2019 2018 2017

69 69 71 7073 72

68 69 69 70

Values

2019 - 1262018 - 1592017 - 147

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

14 18 67Consumer

respondents

15 13 72Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 18 69Consumer

respondents

70 67 72

2019 2018 2017

72 73 76

2019 2018 2017

69 67 69

2019 2018 2017

03 -05

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

6164 66

6967 66

61 6567

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

2019 - 362018 - 512017 - 42

12 23 65Business

respondents

17 18 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 25 63Business

respondents

67 68 68

2019 2018 2017

70 66 70

2019 2018 2017

-01 00

68 71 71

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=70)

Annual turnover

Business size

5031 30

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro68

Regional8

Rural24

26 19 8

14 9 2

Male43

Female57 Metro

70Regional

Rural1626

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

38 299

43 4245

5250 50

Values

2019 - 522018 - 622017 - 53

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

52 24 25Consumer

respondents

45 13 42Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

46 26 28Consumer

respondents

52 58 57

2019 2018 2017

44 55 47

2019 2018 2017

-10 07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

45 55 48

2019 2018 2017

4551 51 51

55 56 55

7166 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 202018 - 282017 - 23

48 52Business

respondents

12 14 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 37 49Business

respondents

70 61 51

2019 2018 2017

75 64 55

2019 2018 2017

66 60 44

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

52 52 53

61 6163

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 1002018 - 1262017 - 133

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

16 19 66Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

22 23 55Consumer

respondents

66 58 65

2019 2018 2017

70 63 69

2019 2018 2017

64 54 61

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

65 66 66

69 7074 75

70 70 72 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 342018 - 322017 - 34

129 79Business

respondents

111 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 10 69Business

respondents

74 63 73

2019 2018 2017

79 68 74

2019 2018 2017

69 57 69

2019 2018 2017

11 -10

Legend77

Last year

54 56 56

55 5557

62 62 61

57 58 57 58

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 872018 - 1362017 - 171

26 17 57Consumer

respondents

19 23 58Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

33 18 49Consumer

respondents

63 68 70

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

59 66 66

2019 2018 2017

-05 -01

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

71 7275

86 8482

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 162018 - 222017 - 19

42 1 57Business

respondents

28 1 71Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 1 56Business

respondents

55 76 63

2019 2018 2017

70 80 67

2019 2018 2017

59 71 65

2019 2018 2017

-21 13

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=128)

Annual turnover

Business size

19 18 6

Under 20

staff96

20+ staff4

Metro71Regional

Rural24

Male42

Female58

Metro70Regional

Rural1722 29

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

8784 83 81

90 90 89 90 90 9288 89

92 90 91 90 89

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

57 88Consumer

respondents

35 92Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 9 86Consumer

respondents

87 89 91

2019 2018 2017

90 91 92

2019 2018 2017

85 87 89

2019 2018 2017

-03 -01

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

89 8884 86 88

91 94 93 91 92 90 91 92 93 9292 96

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

99Business

respondents

11 89Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

91 91 88

2019 2018 2017

90 91 87

2019 2018 2017

87 94 86

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

77 7579 78

7174 75 73

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 20 70Consumer

respondents

7 20 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16 23 61Consumer

respondents

74 74 76

2019 2018 2017

77 77 78

2019 2018 2017

69 69 68

2019 2018 2017

00 -03

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

59 58 58

64 59 6161

70 68 68 6965 64 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 25 65Business

respondents

10 22 68Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 27 56Business

respondents

69 72 66

2019 2018 2017

72 74 69

2019 2018 2017

66 66 63

2019 2018 2017

-03 06

Legend77

Last year

63 61 6259

74 72 72 74 7674 72 73

66 6871

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 1142018 - 1512017 - 179

11 18 71Consumer

respondents

810 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 21 61Consumer

respondents

73 71 75

2019 2018 2017

77 76 79

2019 2018 2017

67 67 68

2019 2018 2017

01 -04

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 68 67

73 74 7572

6872 70 69 69

73 7476

73 7275 73 74 76 76

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 ndash 28 2018 - 382017 - 38

7 20 72Business

respondents

7 27 66Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 27 59Business

respondents

71 66 71

2019 2018 2017

75 74 77

2019 2018 2017

70 61 67

2019 2018 2017

05 -04

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=96)

Annual turnover

Business size

legal documentation

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro76

Regional9

Rural15

4011 11 6

2912 10

Male53

Female47 Metro

70Regional

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

25 23 29 23

60 60 59

Values

2019 - 94 2018 - 1042017 - 93

Courts

23 23 54Consumer

respondents

15 22 63Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

29 23 48Consumer

respondents

63 60 64

2019 2018 2017

70 67 71

2019 2018 2017

59 55 61

2019 2018 2017

03 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6368 68

Values

2019 - 192018 ndash 292017 - 35

Courts

8 25 66Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 10 72Business

respondents

74 60 60

2019 2018 2017

79 70 74

2019 2018 2017

75 63 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

8386 88 87 86

88 8993 92 93 95 94 96

91 92 9294

Values

2019 - 242018 ndash 282017 - 34

Fire Brigades

3 97Consumer

respondents

3 97Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3 97Consumer

respondents

91 91 83

2019 2018 2017

93 92 86

2019 2018 2017

86 90 84

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

9397 98 95

85 8589

9994 94 94 94

Values

2019 - 152018 - 182017 - 18

Fire Brigades

1 99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1 99Business

respondents

91 100 76

2019 2018 2017

91 100 78

2019 2018 2017

95 90 74

2019 2018 2017

-08 24

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

65 65 65

73 73 75 74 7477

7073 73 73

Values

2019 - 217 2018 - 176 2017 - 228

Police

14 14 72Consumer

respondents

1110 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 16 72Consumer

respondents

75 77 79

2019 2018 2017

75 72 74

2019 2018 2017

-02 -02

78 82 81

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

77 79 8076

7876 76

80 7982

Values

2019 - 352018 - 562017 - 55

Police

20 79Business

respondents

20 80Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 85Business

respondents

80 79 83

2019 2018 2017

80 78 86

2019 2018 2017

00 -04

81 83 85

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

57 57 57

Values

2019 - 232018 - 272017 - 21

Prisons

31 40 29Consumer

respondents

30 9 61Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 11 46Consumer

respondents

54 36 58

2019 2018 2017

54 35 67

2019 2018 2017

17 -22

67 49 60

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6270 72 74

55 54 55

75 74 75 74 77 74 72 74 7672 69 69 71

Values

2019 - 142018 - 142017 - 11

Prisons

18 82Business

respondents

18 82Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

181 81Business

respondents

79 53 65

2019 2018 2017

73 42 52

2019 2018 2017

26 -12

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

83 61 71

2019 2018 2017

83 85 8487 86 88 86

91 90 9092 90 90 92 92 93 94

90 92 92 92

Values

2019 - 472018 - 432017 - 51

11 87Consumer

respondents

5 93Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7 91Consumer

respondents

90 85 88

2019 2018 2017

90 82 87

2019 2018 2017

05 -03

91 86 89

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

80 82 84 84 84 82 85 8289

86 82 7982 80 80 81 83 85 83 86 86

8789 85

Values

2019 - 132018 - 152017 - 14

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

100Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

100Business

respondents

87 87 60

2019 2018 2017

85 86 67

2019 2018 2017

87 82 77

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Region

Business (n=19)

Annual turnover

Business size

71 7054

13 8 9

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro44

Regional46

Rural10

1925 21

Male65

Female35 Metro

63Regional21

Rural1642 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

31 27 2912

6058 56

6966 66 65 65

70 69 70 71

6165 64 64

Values

2019 - 382018 - 362017 - 38

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

14 15 70Consumer

respondents

23 3 75Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 10 67Consumer

respondents

73 81 75

2019 2018 2017

75 83 81

2019 2018 2017

66 81 71

2019 2018 2017

-08 06

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 66 68 6769 71

78 7876

78 7780 78 76 77

73 73 7571

Values

2019 - 192018 - 162017 - 12

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

33 67Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 91Business

respondents

74 66 73

2019 2018 2017

78 79 77

2019 2018 2017

78 68 77

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=193)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional13

Rural12

412 16

Male52

Female48 Metro

Regional12

Rural1127 31

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

69 69 6865

73 7479

72 73 7378 77 76 76

7478 78

7375 75 74

Values

510 85Consumer

respondents

9 88Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

813 79Consumer

respondents

80 79 78

2019 2018 2017

82 80 79

2019 2018 2017

77 76 73

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

64 65 6562

70 7174

67 6669

72 7275

6872 73

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

11 20 70Business

respondents

10 17 72Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 20 66Business

respondents

71 73 77

2019 2018 2017

75 74 78

2019 2018 2017

73 67 73

2019 2018 2017

-02 -04

Legend77

Last year

51 50 49 50

58 5552

61 6164

58 58 59 58

Values

Major Roads

18 27 55Consumer

respondents

14 12 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

25 32 43Consumer

respondents

65 66 63

2019 2018 2017

71 72 67

2019 2018 2017

57 61 60

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

78 7873

6469 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Major Roads

48 50Business

respondents

47 53Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

47 50Business

respondents

74 79 63

2019 2018 2017

75 76 67

2019 2018 2017

69 72 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 16

Legend77

Last year

66 66 66 65

71 7175

67 68 6871 70 70 70

73 7269

67 6769 70

Values

Public Transport

7 19 73Consumer

respondents

5 20 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 27 62Consumer

respondents

74 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 75 74

2019 2018 2017

69 69 67

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6466 66 67

7169 68 71

69 7067

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Transport

514 81Business

respondents

5 14 81Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 15 80Business

respondents

72 72 67

2019 2018 2017

76 73 71

2019 2018 2017

73 73 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=67)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional15

Rural10

3723 27

Male51

Female49

Metro76

Regional10

Rural1427 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6463 64

6967 65

71 73 73 72 74

6467 68 68

Values

2019 - 2402018 - 2382017 - 239

Water Supply

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

4 17 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 18 70Consumer

respondents

76 74 74

2019 2018 2017

78 75 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 69

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

62 62 6360

66 6769

Values

2019 - 672018 - 532017 - 49

Water Supply

5 24 71Business

respondents

4 18 77Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 24 62Business

respondents

74 69 74

2019 2018 2017

77 70 74

2019 2018 2017

70 66 69

2019 2018 2017

04 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Public ndash I1-A2

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

values)

jurisdictions

Project Objectives

Research Inputs

Research Outputs

Victoria 2073 537 2610

Protection

In scope services

Public ndash I1-A2

18-24 12 (n=209)

Male 49(n=891)

(n=580)

25-34 17 (n=302)

Female 51 (n=1107)

Public Hospitals 14

(n=412)

35-44 16(n=310)

Rural SA 14(n=218)

(n=240)

55-64 16(n=388)

Police 7(n=217)

65+ 23(n=509)

TAFE 3 (n=126)

(n=135)

Rural SA 14(n=52)

10-19 employees 20

(n=57)

20-199 1 (n=113)

200+ 1 (n=120)

Police 6(n=35)

TAFE 5(n=36)

Disability 5 (n=34)

Ambulance 4(n=24)

(n=32)

Employee attributes

Outcome area

employees

Good service

Integrity

Accountability

GoalsComponent 2

Are consistent

Communicate well

Consumer

employees

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Values

Driver

Moderate

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Low (1) High (10)74

Low (1) High (10)70

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)64

Low (1) High (10)66

Low (1) High (10)68

Communication

Consumer

Low (1) High (10)73

Slide Number 1

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Slide Number 3

Slide Number 4

Slide Number 5

Slide Number 6

Slide Number 7

Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19

Slide Number 20

Slide Number 21

Slide Number 22

Slide Number 23

Slide Number 24

Slide Number 25

Slide Number 26

Slide Number 27

Slide Number 28

Slide Number 29

Slide Number 30

Slide Number 31

Slide Number 32

Slide Number 33

Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35

Slide Number 36

Slide Number 37

Slide Number 38

Slide Number 39

Slide Number 40

Slide Number 41

Slide Number 42

Slide Number 43

Slide Number 44

Slide Number 45

Slide Number 46

Slide Number 47

Slide Number 48

Slide Number 49

Slide Number 50

Slide Number 51

Slide Number 52

Slide Number 53

Slide Number 54

Slide Number 55

Slide Number 56

Slide Number 57

Slide Number 58

Slide Number 59

Slide Number 60

Slide Number 61

Slide Number 62

Slide Number 63

Slide Number 64

Slide Number 65

Slide Number 66

Slide Number 67

Slide Number 69

Slide Number 70

Slide Number 71

Slide Number 72

Slide Number 73

Slide Number 74

Slide Number 75

Slide Number 76

Slide Number 77

Slide Number 78

Slide Number 79

Slide Number 80

Slide Number 81

Slide Number 82

Slide Number 83

Slide Number 84

Slide Number 85

Slide Number 86

Slide Number 87

Slide Number 88

Slide Number 89

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99

Slide Number 100

Slide Number 101

Slide Number 102

Slide Number 103

Slide Number 104

Slide Number 105

Slide Number 106

Slide Number 107

Slide Number 108

Slide Number 109

Slide Number 110

Slide Number 111

Slide Number 112

Slide Number 113

Slide Number 114

Slide Number 115

Slide Number 116

Slide Number 117

Slide Number 118

Slide Number 119

Slide Number 120

Slide Number 121

Slide Number 122

Slide Number 123

Slide Number 124

Slide Number 125

Slide Number 126

Slide Number 127

Slide Number 128

Slide Number 129

Slide Number 130

Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

Slide Number 134

Slide Number 135

Slide Number 136

Slide Number 137

Slide Number 138

Slide Number 139

Slide Number 140

Slide Number 141

Slide Number 142

Slide Number 143

Slide Number 144

Slide Number 145

Slide Number 146

Slide Number 147

Slide Number 148

Slide Number 149

Slide Number 150

Slide Number 151

Slide Number 152

Slide Number 153

Slide Number 154

Slide Number 155

Slide Number 156

Slide Number 157

Slide Number 158

Slide Number 159

Slide Number 160

Slide Number 161

Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167

Slide Number 168

Slide Number 169

Slide Number 170

Slide Number 171

Slide Number 172

Slide Number 173

Slide Number 174

Slide Number 175

Slide Number 176

Slide Number 177

Slide Number 179

Public ndash I1-A2

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Metro74

Regional13

Rural14

Online survey

United Kingdom

New Zealand

United Kingdom

New Zealand

SA ndash Consumers

SA- Businesses

Age Gender Region

49 male51

female18-3429

35-5432

55-6416

98 under 20

staff2

20+ staff

75 Metropolitan

11 Regional

14 Rural

2019 2073 4110 2019 2116

555 537 1261 1003 586

Consumer Business

Expectation

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local Council60

Banks59

Energy54

Fed Govt53

76(2017)

Communication

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Moderate

75(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

75(2019)

Moderate

Consumer CSI

Consumer

785784

2016 2017 2018 2019

74(2016)

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos62

Banks61

Local Council61

Fed Govt 57

Energy56

71(2017)

72(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

73(2019)

Expectation

(+01)(+01)

Business CSI

Business

754759

2016 2017 2018 2019

Inperson

70(2016)

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

Business

BusinessConsumer

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Consumer

Consumer Business

Consumer

-01 -01 +01

+01 -+02

+01 - +01

Business

+01 +01

f 10 )

Legend77

Last year

76 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7371

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 70

201969

6765 63

Consumer

69 68 67

7570 68 67

201973 72 72

73 72 7270

Legend77

Last year

Consumer

71 71 71 71 7070 71

6767 67

75 7573 72 72 72 71 71 71

69 68 68

2019 67 64 64 62

6865 65

Legend77

Last year

Business

66 65 6559

7469 68 67

201971 70 70

72 71 71 70

ith in

Legend77

Last year

Business

Consumer

73 72 7270

74 7371

Phone Mailfax Email

-10) +01

+01+01 +01

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

looking for

Consumer (n=798)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02NA

Consumer

50 4640

79 798080

Business

70 71 7169

73 7372 72 71

-02+01 +01

+03+02

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

online

accurate

accessrequirements

needed to do

was looking for

Business (n=210)

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06+09

224 I chose to go

online

darr2 darr5

2922 22 22

3224 23

Business

61 60 5954 53

7066 62 61 61

TelephoneService

Providers

My localcouncil

FederalGovernment

LowestHighest

Consumer Business

10 05 0406 05

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

727779

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I gave acompliment

7668 69 71

7971 74 75

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

change

I gave acompliment

Consumer Business

Consumer n=1998

Business n=502

Business (n=194)

Consumer (n=519)

Given feedback

Consumer Business

2018 2019

sesConsumers

2018 2019

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

2016(n=3462)

2017(n=3433)

2018(n=3245)

2019(n=3241)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=3507)

2017(n=3482)

2018(n=3307)

2019(n=3297)

2016(n=3398)

2017(n=3375)

2018(n=3154)

2019(n=3172)

Business

2016(n=817)

2017(n=753)

2018(n=801)

2019(n=758)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=825)

2017(n=769)

2018(n=814)

2019(n=762)

2016(n=797)

2017(n=742)

2018(n=795)

2019(n=732)

Expectation

respondents Avg

Business(n=758)

Consumer(n=3241)

Low (1-4)Med (5-6)High (7-10)

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Sig Sig

Figure 13 Figure 14

Consumer Business

Business(n=732)

Consumer(n=3172)

Comparison to ideal

respondents Avg

Figure 15 Figure 16

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)76

Business

Satisfaction

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Neutral (5-6)

-04 -02 00

2019 2018

Consumer Business

-06 -04 -02 00

2019 2018

-1 -05 0 05Avg

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1

Courts(n=89)

Prisons(n=21)

Consumer Business

Water Supply (n=240 n=67) 24 23 76 74 78 77 -02 -03

Police (n=217 n=35) 21 9 75 80 78 81 -03 -01

Major Roads (n=86 n=11) 8 3 65 74 71 75 -07 -01

Courts (n=94 n=19) 6 4 63 74 70 79 -07 -05

Prison (n=23 n=14) 2 2 54 79 67 83 -13 -03

Public ndash I1-A2

77 76 7675 74 74 74 74 73

7070 69

78 7877

76 76 76 76 7575

Average 7410

Base(n)=2704

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 69

556065707580

Consumer

+01 +01 - - - - - - --

+01 -01

65 6563

understand

first time

methods

first time

methods

Base(n)=2668

Consumer

+01+01

-01 - -

7570 68 67

decision-making

Base(n)=2561

Consumer

+01- - -01

Average 7210

73 72 72 70

7372 72

Base(n)=2916

Consumer

- - --

75 75 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 69 68 68

7372 73

68 6968

77 7775

75 75 74 74

7170 71

Average 7110

Base(n)=724

Business

+02 +01 +02 +01 +01 +01 +01 +01 - +02

+01 +01

68 66 65 6561

methods

first time

Average 6510

68 6767 67

methods

first time

Base(n)= 712

Business

+01+01

+01+01-01

7469 68 67

6866 66

decision-making

Base(n)= 695

Business

+03 -03 +03 +02

Average 7110

74 74 74

71 71 71

72 71 71 70

Base(n)= 758

Business

+01 +01 +01 +02

knowledge

possible

Consumer

Transparency

Privacy

Employee autonomy

Monitor

Communication

Consumer

Public ndash I1-A2

Inperson

2922 22 22

3224 23

Inperson

22 2112

3324 21

Inperson

Consumer Business

Third parties

NSW (n=1801) VIC (n=790) QLD (n=832)

UK (n=1420) NZ (n=868) SA (n=762)

23 2116

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Third parties

21 20 20

21 21 20

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

70 71 71 69 68

73 73 72 72 7167

76 7573 72 72

77 75 74 73 71 70

+01+01

+02+01

Consumer Business

75 75 75

76 7675 75

7271 71

73 73 73

73 7372 72 71

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

63 6360

63 6261

59 59 58

67 66 6564

69 6865 65

6865 66 66

66 66 66 66

6462 62 62

65 6562 61

6865 63 63

69 6972

Consumer Business

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

handledsecurely

and accurate

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

and accurate

was handledsecurely

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

Consumer (n=798)

Business (n=210)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=2401)

Business (n=762)

37 16 12 7 7 6 5 5 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirements

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

Consumer Business

37 17 11 8 8 7 7 6 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirement

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted

to goonline

I chose togo online

respondents

available

I wasdirected or

I chose togo online

respondents

Consumer Business

n=843 n=220

uarr1 darr2

Consumer Business

50 4640

79 798080

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

FederalGovernment

(n=465)

Banks (n=486)

(n=484)

Airlines (n=457)

respondents Avg

Consumer (n=1649)

7375 00 +01

FederalGovernment

(n=1835)

Banks(n=1934)

(n=1915)

Airlines(n=1649)

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Accountable

Caring

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

40Lazy

Controlling

Patronising

Complacent

Wasteful

Inflexible

Difficult

Impersonal

Inefficient

Top 5 descriptors

Consumer

Patronising

Controlling

Complacent

Difficult

Inflexible

Impersonal

Wasteful

Inefficient

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Caring

Accountable

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

Top 5 descriptors

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

5 FEEDBACK

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

17 1416

4 6 105 4 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

37 41 37

37 29 45

5 19921 11 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

bull Other

bull Via email

Consumer Business

2219 18

28 28 29

27 28 28

39 39 39

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=519)

Business (n=194)

provided feedback

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

39 41 41 46 50 55

17 2325

23 23 17

44 36 34 30 28 28

48 45 43

VIC(n=154)

SA(n=169)

UK(n=196)

NZ(n=138)

QLD(n=140)

NSW(n=314)

35 44 49 45 50 52

24 2415

3418 22

41 32 3621

48 46 45

UK(n=174)

SA(n=83)

QLD(n=72)

VIC(n=69)

NSW(n=184)

NZ(n=76)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

4626 22

37 32 34

Metro(n=139)

Regional(n=14)

Rural(n=16)

Metro(n=67)

Regional(n=4)

Rural(n=12)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

26 28 29 31 31 33

18 21 18 19 23 26

5651 54 50

47 4065 61 61 59 58 56

VIC(n=159)

SA(n=174)

NZ(n=148)

UK(n=199)

NSW(n=333)

QLD(n=150)

21 28 25 31 37 36

30 19 29 24 31 17

4953 46 45 33

4662 61 59 58 55 55

NZ(n=78)

UK(n=176)

VIC(n=70)

NSW(n=188)

QLD(n=74)

SA(n=83)

Consumer Business

Other (n=57)

Prisons (n=4)

Fire Brigades (n=4)

Courts (n=10)

Major Roads (n=26)

Police (n=27)

Water Supply (n=45)

Other (n=26)

Art Galleries (n=1)

Prisons (n=2)

Courts (n=4)

Police (n=14)

Major Roads (n=11)

Water Supply (n=25)

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

91 9087 87

8076 76 75 74 74 73 73 73 73 73

70 68 66 65 63 63

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

93 91 90 88

8279 78 78 77 77 77 76 76 75 73 72 71 70 70 70 67 67

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

rts (n

abilit

9086 85 83

77 76 75 74 73 73 71 69 69 69 67 67 66 6459 59 57

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Prisons (n=21)

Courts (n=89)

Major Roads (n=81)

Police (n=216)

Consumer

91 9187

82 80 80 7975 74 74 74 74 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 67 66

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

tratio

Business

91 90 8784 83 83 81 79 79 78 77 77 76 75 75 75 75 75 74 72 70 70 68

abilit

rts (n

ildlif

ffairs

tratio

Business

87 8580 80 78 78

75 73 73 73 71 71 70 70 70 69 69 6966 66 65

ildlif

rts (n

tratio

ffairs

abilit

Business

-13-05

-05-05-05

-04-04-04

-03-03-03-03-03-03

-02-02

-01-01-01

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Business

Services

Are honest

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

possible

Held Accountable

Explain intended

their knowledge

Communicate well

Provide services

without bias

Consumer

Services

Courts 64 66 59 64

Police 73 73 70 73

Prisons 55 62 62 61

Services

Courts 61 50 58 55 62

Major Roads 55 50 50 49 51

Police 70 65 65 65 73

Prisons 53 50 57 57 57

Consumer

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 61 49 64 57 70

Major Roads 56 53 56 58 68

Police 65 58 68 63 76

Prisons 54 49 56 49 64

Consumer

Services

Are honest

Deliver high

safety standards

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

Communicate well

Are consistent

their knowledge

possible

Held Accountable

Provide services

without bias

Business

Services

Courts 72 78 63 71

Police 80 79 78 82

Prisons 69 69 72 71

Business

Services

decisions

Courts 58 46 55 54 74

Major Roads 59 69 73 64 78

Police 69 64 69 63 76

Prisons 72 70 72 62 71

Business

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 59 44 69 63 83

Major Roads 59 69 74 78 74

Police 66 70 77 70 81

Prisons 71 55 54 55 74

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

ServicesOnline

+9 pts

+8 pts

+11 pts

Business

text message)

-30 pts

Consumer

calls text message)

Business

calls text message)

Consumer Business

ServicesConsumer

Consumer

ServicesBusiness

Major Roads (n=2) 55 75 70 60 55 50 65 55

Public Schools (n=6) 74 94 70 84 74 65 69 69

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Prisons (n=23)

Courts (n=94)

Major Roads (n=86)

Police (n=217)

Total (n=3297)

Prisons (n=57)

Courts (n=255)

Major Roads (n=157)

Police (n=289)

Total (n=6771)

Prisons (n=32)

Courts (n=145)

Major Roads (n=111)

Police (n=190)

Total (n=3458)

Prisons (n=34)

Courts (n=130)

Major Roads (n=61)

Police (n=203)

Total (n=3346)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Consumer

Courts (n=19)

Water Supply (n=67)

Major Roads (n=11)

Prisons (n=14)

Police (n=35)

Total (n=762)

Courts (n=64)

Water Supply (n=87)

Major Roads (n=72)

Prisons (n=30)

Police (n=88)

Total (n=1801)

Courts (n=35)

Water Supply (n=59)

Major Roads (n=21)

Prisons (n=12)

Police (n=53)

Total (n=790)

Courts (n=36)

Water Supply (n=35)

Major Roads (n=16)

Prisons (n=13)

Police (n=55)

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

65+(n=823)

55-64(n=585)

45-54(n=446)

35-44(n=513)

25-34(n=490)

18-24(n=315)

respondents Avg

Consumer

-022-020

-023-029

-037-033

-04 -02 0

65+ (n=838)55-64 (n=605)45-54 (n=454)35-44 (n=526)25-34 (n=497)18-24 (n=321)

+003-001

Change since 2018

65+(n=849)

55-64(n=610)

45-54(n=467)

35-44(n=532)

25-34(n=506)

18-24(n=333)

65+(n=838)

55-64(n=605)

45-54(n=454)

35-44(n=526)

25-34(n=497)

18-24(n=321)

Female(n=1841)

Male(n=1456)

-04 -02 0

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1762)

Male(n=1410)

+01 +01

Consumer

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

-035 -015

$150001+ (n=207)

$50001-$150000 (n=1231)

Up to $50000 (n=1301)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=208)

$50001 to$150000(n=1247)

Up to$50000

(n=1321)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=200)

$50001 to$150000(n=1212)

Up to$50000

(n=1277)

+01 +01

$150001 +(n=207)

$50001 to$150000(n=1231)

Up to$50000

(n=1301)

Consumer

+01+01

following services

-028-043

-097-011

-022-025

-043-031

-028-023

-06 -04 -02 0

Not working (n=183)

Other (n=175)

Student (n=178)

Retired (n=903)

Unemployed (n=214)

Not working (n=176)

Other (n=167)

Student (n=173)

Retired (n=890)

Unemployed (n=210)

Not working (n=170)

Other (n=166)

Student (n=168)

Retired (n=872)

Unemployed (n=206)

Consumer

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=50)

Retail Trade (n=63)

Other (n=108)

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

Avg respondents Avg

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

(n=732)

Business

respondents Avg

$500001+(n=160)

$50001 to$500000(n=215)

Up to$50000(n=141)

-045 -025 -005

$500001+ (n=164)

$50001 to $500000 (n=221)

Up to $50000 (n=147)

respondents Avg

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=164)

$50001 to$500000(n=221)

Up to$50000(n=147)

+02 +04

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=165)

$50001 to$500000(n=223)

Up to$50000(n=148)

Business

-055 -035 -015

200+ (n=186)

20-199 (n=166)

6-19 (n=161)

5 or less (n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=186)

20-199(n=166)

6-19(n=161)

5 or less(n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=187)

20-199(n=156)

6-19(n=157)

5 or less(n=232)

200+(n=188)

20-199(n=167)

6-19(n=162)

5 or less(n=245)

Business

-06 -04 -02 0

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=628)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional (n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=71)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=605)

-05 -02

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Region

Business (n=13)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20 staff96

20+ staff4

Metro55

Regional45

Rural0

5 8 12 181

0 6 15 182

Male50

Female50 Metro

Regional13

Rural130

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

40 4018

76 7479 80 78

7680 79

8481 81

7983 84 84 85 87 87

85 8784 85 85 86

Values

2019 - 1212018 - 1292017 - 121

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

7 91Consumer

respondents

5 95Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 87Consumer

respondents

87 85 86

2019 2018 2017

88 85 86

2019 2018 2017

83 82 81

2019 2018 2017

02 -01

Legend77

Last year

84 8684 81

8379 79

83 86 8388

9389 89 91

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

82 81 77

2019 2018 2017

84 90 89

2019 2018 2017

80 71 76

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=45)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff99

20+ staff1

Metro76

Regional18

Rural6

5164 55

Male71

Female29 Metro

69Regional10

Rural21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

27 33 2713

7874 71

73 7568 68

74 7479

81 80 8074 71

75 77 78 76

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

21 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 16 67Consumer

respondents

68 71 44

2019 2018 2017

70 74 46

2019 2018 2017

73 69 73

2019 2018 2017

-03 27

Legend77

Last year

51 5046

53 53 54 52

5652 54

Values

Whole-of-government

71 29Business

respondents

35 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

35 65Business

respondents

61 75 74

2019 2018 2017

74 72 74

2019 2018 2017

71 65 72

2019 2018 2017

-14 01

Legend77

Last year

70 72 7168 70

6569 66

70 7074 73 73 75 73

72 71 72 74 74

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

9 21 70Consumer

respondents

18 5 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 88Consumer

respondents

73 71 73

2019 2018 2017

73 60 70

2019 2018 2017

76 63 69

2019 2018 2017

01 -02

Legend77

Last year

69 7066

66 71 7169 70 71 71 70

Values

2019 - 352018 ndash 422017 ndash 22

Whole-of-government

1110 79Business

respondents

6 21 73Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 19 69Business

respondents

72 73 67

2019 2018 2017

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 66

2019 2018 2017

-02 06

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=44)

Annual turnover

Business size

1327 24 30

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2 Metro

Regional5

Rural4

45 46 47

Male60

Female40

Metro80

Regional10

Rural10

21 13 21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6360 62

7366 67

74 74 7372

7471 71 71

6467 68 70

Values

2019 - 382018 - 452017 - 58

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Consumer Affairs

Empathy

13 16 71Consumer

respondents

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 23 63Consumer

respondents

73 78 74

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

-04 04

Legend77

Last year

77 81 78

2019 2018 2017

68 6965

67 6971

71 73 72

6569 68

Values

2019 - 272018 - 122017 ndash25

Whole-of-government

Consumer Affairs

6 22 72Business

respondents

5 17 78Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

19 13 69Business

respondents

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

77 85 77

2019 2018 2017

69 77 75

2019 2018 2017

-03 02

Legend77

Last year

68 6864 66 67

76 6769

70 7173

6971 72 70

Values

2019 - 422018 - 462017 - 45

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

10 16 74Consumer

respondents

7 17 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 17 70Consumer

respondents

73 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 76 76

2019 2018 2017

74 70 68

2019 2018 2017

-01 01

Legend77

Last year

85 8780

75 7467

79 81 80 79

80 80 82

Values

2019 - 172018 - 212017 - 22

Whole-of-government

12 88Business

respondents

12 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 76Business

respondents

80 60 67

2019 2018 2017

83 63 68

2019 2018 2017

78 51 57

2019 2018 2017

20 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=87)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro78Regional

Rural19

43 44 33

Male42

Female58

Metro74

Regional12

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

32 3020 18

6766 66 64

70 69 70 6973

7072 73

7673 72

7572 73 74 74

Values

2019 - 2282018 - 1982017 - 208

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

616 78Consumer

respondents

513 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 18 73Consumer

respondents

76 74 71

2019 2018 2017

79 77 77

2019 2018 2017

73 71 66

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

68 6966

64 6466

66 6461

Values

2019 - 512018 - 572017 - 52

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

11 33 56Business

respondents

11 29 60Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 21 58Business

respondents

66 70 64

2019 2018 2017

65 64 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 06

Legend77

Last year

70 75 68

2019 2018 2017

69 69 71 7073 72

68 69 69 70

Values

2019 - 1262018 - 1592017 - 147

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

14 18 67Consumer

respondents

15 13 72Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 18 69Consumer

respondents

70 67 72

2019 2018 2017

72 73 76

2019 2018 2017

69 67 69

2019 2018 2017

03 -05

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

6164 66

6967 66

61 6567

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

2019 - 362018 - 512017 - 42

12 23 65Business

respondents

17 18 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 25 63Business

respondents

67 68 68

2019 2018 2017

70 66 70

2019 2018 2017

-01 00

68 71 71

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=70)

Annual turnover

Business size

5031 30

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro68

Regional8

Rural24

26 19 8

14 9 2

Male43

Female57 Metro

70Regional

Rural1626

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

38 299

43 4245

5250 50

Values

2019 - 522018 - 622017 - 53

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

52 24 25Consumer

respondents

45 13 42Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

46 26 28Consumer

respondents

52 58 57

2019 2018 2017

44 55 47

2019 2018 2017

-10 07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

45 55 48

2019 2018 2017

4551 51 51

55 56 55

7166 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 202018 - 282017 - 23

48 52Business

respondents

12 14 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 37 49Business

respondents

70 61 51

2019 2018 2017

75 64 55

2019 2018 2017

66 60 44

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

52 52 53

61 6163

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 1002018 - 1262017 - 133

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

16 19 66Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

22 23 55Consumer

respondents

66 58 65

2019 2018 2017

70 63 69

2019 2018 2017

64 54 61

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

65 66 66

69 7074 75

70 70 72 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 342018 - 322017 - 34

129 79Business

respondents

111 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 10 69Business

respondents

74 63 73

2019 2018 2017

79 68 74

2019 2018 2017

69 57 69

2019 2018 2017

11 -10

Legend77

Last year

54 56 56

55 5557

62 62 61

57 58 57 58

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 872018 - 1362017 - 171

26 17 57Consumer

respondents

19 23 58Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

33 18 49Consumer

respondents

63 68 70

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

59 66 66

2019 2018 2017

-05 -01

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

71 7275

86 8482

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 162018 - 222017 - 19

42 1 57Business

respondents

28 1 71Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 1 56Business

respondents

55 76 63

2019 2018 2017

70 80 67

2019 2018 2017

59 71 65

2019 2018 2017

-21 13

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=128)

Annual turnover

Business size

19 18 6

Under 20

staff96

20+ staff4

Metro71Regional

Rural24

Male42

Female58

Metro70Regional

Rural1722 29

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

8784 83 81

90 90 89 90 90 9288 89

92 90 91 90 89

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

57 88Consumer

respondents

35 92Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 9 86Consumer

respondents

87 89 91

2019 2018 2017

90 91 92

2019 2018 2017

85 87 89

2019 2018 2017

-03 -01

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

89 8884 86 88

91 94 93 91 92 90 91 92 93 9292 96

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

99Business

respondents

11 89Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

91 91 88

2019 2018 2017

90 91 87

2019 2018 2017

87 94 86

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

77 7579 78

7174 75 73

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 20 70Consumer

respondents

7 20 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16 23 61Consumer

respondents

74 74 76

2019 2018 2017

77 77 78

2019 2018 2017

69 69 68

2019 2018 2017

00 -03

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

59 58 58

64 59 6161

70 68 68 6965 64 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 25 65Business

respondents

10 22 68Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 27 56Business

respondents

69 72 66

2019 2018 2017

72 74 69

2019 2018 2017

66 66 63

2019 2018 2017

-03 06

Legend77

Last year

63 61 6259

74 72 72 74 7674 72 73

66 6871

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 1142018 - 1512017 - 179

11 18 71Consumer

respondents

810 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 21 61Consumer

respondents

73 71 75

2019 2018 2017

77 76 79

2019 2018 2017

67 67 68

2019 2018 2017

01 -04

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 68 67

73 74 7572

6872 70 69 69

73 7476

73 7275 73 74 76 76

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 ndash 28 2018 - 382017 - 38

7 20 72Business

respondents

7 27 66Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 27 59Business

respondents

71 66 71

2019 2018 2017

75 74 77

2019 2018 2017

70 61 67

2019 2018 2017

05 -04

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=96)

Annual turnover

Business size

legal documentation

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro76

Regional9

Rural15

4011 11 6

2912 10

Male53

Female47 Metro

70Regional

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

25 23 29 23

60 60 59

Values

2019 - 94 2018 - 1042017 - 93

Courts

23 23 54Consumer

respondents

15 22 63Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

29 23 48Consumer

respondents

63 60 64

2019 2018 2017

70 67 71

2019 2018 2017

59 55 61

2019 2018 2017

03 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6368 68

Values

2019 - 192018 ndash 292017 - 35

Courts

8 25 66Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 10 72Business

respondents

74 60 60

2019 2018 2017

79 70 74

2019 2018 2017

75 63 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

8386 88 87 86

88 8993 92 93 95 94 96

91 92 9294

Values

2019 - 242018 ndash 282017 - 34

Fire Brigades

3 97Consumer

respondents

3 97Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3 97Consumer

respondents

91 91 83

2019 2018 2017

93 92 86

2019 2018 2017

86 90 84

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

9397 98 95

85 8589

9994 94 94 94

Values

2019 - 152018 - 182017 - 18

Fire Brigades

1 99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1 99Business

respondents

91 100 76

2019 2018 2017

91 100 78

2019 2018 2017

95 90 74

2019 2018 2017

-08 24

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

65 65 65

73 73 75 74 7477

7073 73 73

Values

2019 - 217 2018 - 176 2017 - 228

Police

14 14 72Consumer

respondents

1110 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 16 72Consumer

respondents

75 77 79

2019 2018 2017

75 72 74

2019 2018 2017

-02 -02

78 82 81

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

77 79 8076

7876 76

80 7982

Values

2019 - 352018 - 562017 - 55

Police

20 79Business

respondents

20 80Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 85Business

respondents

80 79 83

2019 2018 2017

80 78 86

2019 2018 2017

00 -04

81 83 85

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

57 57 57

Values

2019 - 232018 - 272017 - 21

Prisons

31 40 29Consumer

respondents

30 9 61Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 11 46Consumer

respondents

54 36 58

2019 2018 2017

54 35 67

2019 2018 2017

17 -22

67 49 60

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6270 72 74

55 54 55

75 74 75 74 77 74 72 74 7672 69 69 71

Values

2019 - 142018 - 142017 - 11

Prisons

18 82Business

respondents

18 82Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

181 81Business

respondents

79 53 65

2019 2018 2017

73 42 52

2019 2018 2017

26 -12

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

83 61 71

2019 2018 2017

83 85 8487 86 88 86

91 90 9092 90 90 92 92 93 94

90 92 92 92

Values

2019 - 472018 - 432017 - 51

11 87Consumer

respondents

5 93Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7 91Consumer

respondents

90 85 88

2019 2018 2017

90 82 87

2019 2018 2017

05 -03

91 86 89

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

80 82 84 84 84 82 85 8289

86 82 7982 80 80 81 83 85 83 86 86

8789 85

Values

2019 - 132018 - 152017 - 14

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

100Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

100Business

respondents

87 87 60

2019 2018 2017

85 86 67

2019 2018 2017

87 82 77

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Region

Business (n=19)

Annual turnover

Business size

71 7054

13 8 9

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro44

Regional46

Rural10

1925 21

Male65

Female35 Metro

63Regional21

Rural1642 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

31 27 2912

6058 56

6966 66 65 65

70 69 70 71

6165 64 64

Values

2019 - 382018 - 362017 - 38

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

14 15 70Consumer

respondents

23 3 75Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 10 67Consumer

respondents

73 81 75

2019 2018 2017

75 83 81

2019 2018 2017

66 81 71

2019 2018 2017

-08 06

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 66 68 6769 71

78 7876

78 7780 78 76 77

73 73 7571

Values

2019 - 192018 - 162017 - 12

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

33 67Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 91Business

respondents

74 66 73

2019 2018 2017

78 79 77

2019 2018 2017

78 68 77

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=193)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional13

Rural12

412 16

Male52

Female48 Metro

Regional12

Rural1127 31

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

69 69 6865

73 7479

72 73 7378 77 76 76

7478 78

7375 75 74

Values

510 85Consumer

respondents

9 88Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

813 79Consumer

respondents

80 79 78

2019 2018 2017

82 80 79

2019 2018 2017

77 76 73

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

64 65 6562

70 7174

67 6669

72 7275

6872 73

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

11 20 70Business

respondents

10 17 72Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 20 66Business

respondents

71 73 77

2019 2018 2017

75 74 78

2019 2018 2017

73 67 73

2019 2018 2017

-02 -04

Legend77

Last year

51 50 49 50

58 5552

61 6164

58 58 59 58

Values

Major Roads

18 27 55Consumer

respondents

14 12 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

25 32 43Consumer

respondents

65 66 63

2019 2018 2017

71 72 67

2019 2018 2017

57 61 60

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

78 7873

6469 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Major Roads

48 50Business

respondents

47 53Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

47 50Business

respondents

74 79 63

2019 2018 2017

75 76 67

2019 2018 2017

69 72 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 16

Legend77

Last year

66 66 66 65

71 7175

67 68 6871 70 70 70

73 7269

67 6769 70

Values

Public Transport

7 19 73Consumer

respondents

5 20 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 27 62Consumer

respondents

74 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 75 74

2019 2018 2017

69 69 67

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6466 66 67

7169 68 71

69 7067

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Transport

514 81Business

respondents

5 14 81Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 15 80Business

respondents

72 72 67

2019 2018 2017

76 73 71

2019 2018 2017

73 73 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=67)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional15

Rural10

3723 27

Male51

Female49

Metro76

Regional10

Rural1427 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6463 64

6967 65

71 73 73 72 74

6467 68 68

Values

2019 - 2402018 - 2382017 - 239

Water Supply

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

4 17 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 18 70Consumer

respondents

76 74 74

2019 2018 2017

78 75 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 69

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

62 62 6360

66 6769

Values

2019 - 672018 - 532017 - 49

Water Supply

5 24 71Business

respondents

4 18 77Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 24 62Business

respondents

74 69 74

2019 2018 2017

77 70 74

2019 2018 2017

70 66 69

2019 2018 2017

04 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Public ndash I1-A2

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

values)

jurisdictions

Project Objectives

Research Inputs

Research Outputs

Victoria 2073 537 2610

Protection

In scope services

Public ndash I1-A2

18-24 12 (n=209)

Male 49(n=891)

(n=580)

25-34 17 (n=302)

Female 51 (n=1107)

Public Hospitals 14

(n=412)

35-44 16(n=310)

Rural SA 14(n=218)

(n=240)

55-64 16(n=388)

Police 7(n=217)

65+ 23(n=509)

TAFE 3 (n=126)

(n=135)

Rural SA 14(n=52)

10-19 employees 20

(n=57)

20-199 1 (n=113)

200+ 1 (n=120)

Police 6(n=35)

TAFE 5(n=36)

Disability 5 (n=34)

Ambulance 4(n=24)

(n=32)

Employee attributes

Outcome area

employees

Good service

Integrity

Accountability

GoalsComponent 2

Are consistent

Communicate well

Consumer

employees

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Values

Driver

Moderate

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Low (1) High (10)74

Low (1) High (10)70

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)64

Low (1) High (10)66

Low (1) High (10)68

Communication

Consumer

Low (1) High (10)73

Slide Number 1

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Slide Number 3

Slide Number 4

Slide Number 5

Slide Number 6

Slide Number 7

Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19

Slide Number 20

Slide Number 21

Slide Number 22

Slide Number 23

Slide Number 24

Slide Number 25

Slide Number 26

Slide Number 27

Slide Number 28

Slide Number 29

Slide Number 30

Slide Number 31

Slide Number 32

Slide Number 33

Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35

Slide Number 36

Slide Number 37

Slide Number 38

Slide Number 39

Slide Number 40

Slide Number 41

Slide Number 42

Slide Number 43

Slide Number 44

Slide Number 45

Slide Number 46

Slide Number 47

Slide Number 48

Slide Number 49

Slide Number 50

Slide Number 51

Slide Number 52

Slide Number 53

Slide Number 54

Slide Number 55

Slide Number 56

Slide Number 57

Slide Number 58

Slide Number 59

Slide Number 60

Slide Number 61

Slide Number 62

Slide Number 63

Slide Number 64

Slide Number 65

Slide Number 66

Slide Number 67

Slide Number 69

Slide Number 70

Slide Number 71

Slide Number 72

Slide Number 73

Slide Number 74

Slide Number 75

Slide Number 76

Slide Number 77

Slide Number 78

Slide Number 79

Slide Number 80

Slide Number 81

Slide Number 82

Slide Number 83

Slide Number 84

Slide Number 85

Slide Number 86

Slide Number 87

Slide Number 88

Slide Number 89

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99

Slide Number 100

Slide Number 101

Slide Number 102

Slide Number 103

Slide Number 104

Slide Number 105

Slide Number 106

Slide Number 107

Slide Number 108

Slide Number 109

Slide Number 110

Slide Number 111

Slide Number 112

Slide Number 113

Slide Number 114

Slide Number 115

Slide Number 116

Slide Number 117

Slide Number 118

Slide Number 119

Slide Number 120

Slide Number 121

Slide Number 122

Slide Number 123

Slide Number 124

Slide Number 125

Slide Number 126

Slide Number 127

Slide Number 128

Slide Number 129

Slide Number 130

Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

Slide Number 134

Slide Number 135

Slide Number 136

Slide Number 137

Slide Number 138

Slide Number 139

Slide Number 140

Slide Number 141

Slide Number 142

Slide Number 143

Slide Number 144

Slide Number 145

Slide Number 146

Slide Number 147

Slide Number 148

Slide Number 149

Slide Number 150

Slide Number 151

Slide Number 152

Slide Number 153

Slide Number 154

Slide Number 155

Slide Number 156

Slide Number 157

Slide Number 158

Slide Number 159

Slide Number 160

Slide Number 161

Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167

Slide Number 168

Slide Number 169

Slide Number 170

Slide Number 171

Slide Number 172

Slide Number 173

Slide Number 174

Slide Number 175

Slide Number 176

Slide Number 177

Slide Number 179

Metro74

Regional13

Rural14

Online survey

United Kingdom

New Zealand

United Kingdom

New Zealand

SA ndash Consumers

SA- Businesses

Age Gender Region

49 male51

female18-3429

35-5432

55-6416

98 under 20

staff2

20+ staff

75 Metropolitan

11 Regional

14 Rural

2019 2073 4110 2019 2116

555 537 1261 1003 586

Consumer Business

Expectation

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local Council60

Banks59

Energy54

Fed Govt53

76(2017)

Communication

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Moderate

75(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

75(2019)

Moderate

Consumer CSI

Consumer

785784

2016 2017 2018 2019

74(2016)

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos62

Banks61

Local Council61

Fed Govt 57

Energy56

71(2017)

72(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

73(2019)

Expectation

(+01)(+01)

Business CSI

Business

754759

2016 2017 2018 2019

Inperson

70(2016)

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

Business

BusinessConsumer

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Consumer

Consumer Business

Consumer

-01 -01 +01

+01 -+02

+01 - +01

Business

+01 +01

f 10 )

Legend77

Last year

76 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7371

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 70

201969

6765 63

Consumer

69 68 67

7570 68 67

201973 72 72

73 72 7270

Legend77

Last year

Consumer

71 71 71 71 7070 71

6767 67

75 7573 72 72 72 71 71 71

69 68 68

2019 67 64 64 62

6865 65

Legend77

Last year

Business

66 65 6559

7469 68 67

201971 70 70

72 71 71 70

ith in

Legend77

Last year

Business

Consumer

73 72 7270

74 7371

Phone Mailfax Email

-10) +01

+01+01 +01

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

looking for

Consumer (n=798)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02NA

Consumer

50 4640

79 798080

Business

70 71 7169

73 7372 72 71

-02+01 +01

+03+02

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

online

accurate

accessrequirements

needed to do

was looking for

Business (n=210)

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06+09

224 I chose to go

online

darr2 darr5

2922 22 22

3224 23

Business

61 60 5954 53

7066 62 61 61

TelephoneService

Providers

My localcouncil

FederalGovernment

LowestHighest

Consumer Business

10 05 0406 05

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

727779

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I gave acompliment

7668 69 71

7971 74 75

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

change

I gave acompliment

Consumer Business

Consumer n=1998

Business n=502

Business (n=194)

Consumer (n=519)

Given feedback

Consumer Business

2018 2019

sesConsumers

2018 2019

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

2016(n=3462)

2017(n=3433)

2018(n=3245)

2019(n=3241)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=3507)

2017(n=3482)

2018(n=3307)

2019(n=3297)

2016(n=3398)

2017(n=3375)

2018(n=3154)

2019(n=3172)

Business

2016(n=817)

2017(n=753)

2018(n=801)

2019(n=758)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=825)

2017(n=769)

2018(n=814)

2019(n=762)

2016(n=797)

2017(n=742)

2018(n=795)

2019(n=732)

Expectation

respondents Avg

Business(n=758)

Consumer(n=3241)

Low (1-4)Med (5-6)High (7-10)

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Sig Sig

Figure 13 Figure 14

Consumer Business

Business(n=732)

Consumer(n=3172)

Comparison to ideal

respondents Avg

Figure 15 Figure 16

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)76

Business

Satisfaction

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Neutral (5-6)

-04 -02 00

2019 2018

Consumer Business

-06 -04 -02 00

2019 2018

-1 -05 0 05Avg

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1

Courts(n=89)

Prisons(n=21)

Consumer Business

Water Supply (n=240 n=67) 24 23 76 74 78 77 -02 -03

Police (n=217 n=35) 21 9 75 80 78 81 -03 -01

Major Roads (n=86 n=11) 8 3 65 74 71 75 -07 -01

Courts (n=94 n=19) 6 4 63 74 70 79 -07 -05

Prison (n=23 n=14) 2 2 54 79 67 83 -13 -03

Public ndash I1-A2

77 76 7675 74 74 74 74 73

7070 69

78 7877

76 76 76 76 7575

Average 7410

Base(n)=2704

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 69

556065707580

Consumer

+01 +01 - - - - - - --

+01 -01

65 6563

understand

first time

methods

first time

methods

Base(n)=2668

Consumer

+01+01

-01 - -

7570 68 67

decision-making

Base(n)=2561

Consumer

+01- - -01

Average 7210

73 72 72 70

7372 72

Base(n)=2916

Consumer

- - --

75 75 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 69 68 68

7372 73

68 6968

77 7775

75 75 74 74

7170 71

Average 7110

Base(n)=724

Business

+02 +01 +02 +01 +01 +01 +01 +01 - +02

+01 +01

68 66 65 6561

methods

first time

Average 6510

68 6767 67

methods

first time

Base(n)= 712

Business

+01+01

+01+01-01

7469 68 67

6866 66

decision-making

Base(n)= 695

Business

+03 -03 +03 +02

Average 7110

74 74 74

71 71 71

72 71 71 70

Base(n)= 758

Business

+01 +01 +01 +02

knowledge

possible

Consumer

Transparency

Privacy

Employee autonomy

Monitor

Communication

Consumer

Public ndash I1-A2

Inperson

2922 22 22

3224 23

Inperson

22 2112

3324 21

Inperson

Consumer Business

Third parties

NSW (n=1801) VIC (n=790) QLD (n=832)

UK (n=1420) NZ (n=868) SA (n=762)

23 2116

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Third parties

21 20 20

21 21 20

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

70 71 71 69 68

73 73 72 72 7167

76 7573 72 72

77 75 74 73 71 70

+01+01

+02+01

Consumer Business

75 75 75

76 7675 75

7271 71

73 73 73

73 7372 72 71

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

63 6360

63 6261

59 59 58

67 66 6564

69 6865 65

6865 66 66

66 66 66 66

6462 62 62

65 6562 61

6865 63 63

69 6972

Consumer Business

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

handledsecurely

and accurate

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

and accurate

was handledsecurely

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

Consumer (n=798)

Business (n=210)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=2401)

Business (n=762)

37 16 12 7 7 6 5 5 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirements

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

Consumer Business

37 17 11 8 8 7 7 6 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirement

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted

to goonline

I chose togo online

respondents

available

I wasdirected or

I chose togo online

respondents

Consumer Business

n=843 n=220

uarr1 darr2

Consumer Business

50 4640

79 798080

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

FederalGovernment

(n=465)

Banks (n=486)

(n=484)

Airlines (n=457)

respondents Avg

Consumer (n=1649)

7375 00 +01

FederalGovernment

(n=1835)

Banks(n=1934)

(n=1915)

Airlines(n=1649)

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Accountable

Caring

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

40Lazy

Controlling

Patronising

Complacent

Wasteful

Inflexible

Difficult

Impersonal

Inefficient

Top 5 descriptors

Consumer

Patronising

Controlling

Complacent

Difficult

Inflexible

Impersonal

Wasteful

Inefficient

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Caring

Accountable

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

Top 5 descriptors

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

5 FEEDBACK

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

17 1416

4 6 105 4 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

37 41 37

37 29 45

5 19921 11 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

bull Other

bull Via email

Consumer Business

2219 18

28 28 29

27 28 28

39 39 39

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=519)

Business (n=194)

provided feedback

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

39 41 41 46 50 55

17 2325

23 23 17

44 36 34 30 28 28

48 45 43

VIC(n=154)

SA(n=169)

UK(n=196)

NZ(n=138)

QLD(n=140)

NSW(n=314)

35 44 49 45 50 52

24 2415

3418 22

41 32 3621

48 46 45

UK(n=174)

SA(n=83)

QLD(n=72)

VIC(n=69)

NSW(n=184)

NZ(n=76)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

4626 22

37 32 34

Metro(n=139)

Regional(n=14)

Rural(n=16)

Metro(n=67)

Regional(n=4)

Rural(n=12)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

26 28 29 31 31 33

18 21 18 19 23 26

5651 54 50

47 4065 61 61 59 58 56

VIC(n=159)

SA(n=174)

NZ(n=148)

UK(n=199)

NSW(n=333)

QLD(n=150)

21 28 25 31 37 36

30 19 29 24 31 17

4953 46 45 33

4662 61 59 58 55 55

NZ(n=78)

UK(n=176)

VIC(n=70)

NSW(n=188)

QLD(n=74)

SA(n=83)

Consumer Business

Other (n=57)

Prisons (n=4)

Fire Brigades (n=4)

Courts (n=10)

Major Roads (n=26)

Police (n=27)

Water Supply (n=45)

Other (n=26)

Art Galleries (n=1)

Prisons (n=2)

Courts (n=4)

Police (n=14)

Major Roads (n=11)

Water Supply (n=25)

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

91 9087 87

8076 76 75 74 74 73 73 73 73 73

70 68 66 65 63 63

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

93 91 90 88

8279 78 78 77 77 77 76 76 75 73 72 71 70 70 70 67 67

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

rts (n

abilit

9086 85 83

77 76 75 74 73 73 71 69 69 69 67 67 66 6459 59 57

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Prisons (n=21)

Courts (n=89)

Major Roads (n=81)

Police (n=216)

Consumer

91 9187

82 80 80 7975 74 74 74 74 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 67 66

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

tratio

Business

91 90 8784 83 83 81 79 79 78 77 77 76 75 75 75 75 75 74 72 70 70 68

abilit

rts (n

ildlif

ffairs

tratio

Business

87 8580 80 78 78

75 73 73 73 71 71 70 70 70 69 69 6966 66 65

ildlif

rts (n

tratio

ffairs

abilit

Business

-13-05

-05-05-05

-04-04-04

-03-03-03-03-03-03

-02-02

-01-01-01

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Business

Services

Are honest

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

possible

Held Accountable

Explain intended

their knowledge

Communicate well

Provide services

without bias

Consumer

Services

Courts 64 66 59 64

Police 73 73 70 73

Prisons 55 62 62 61

Services

Courts 61 50 58 55 62

Major Roads 55 50 50 49 51

Police 70 65 65 65 73

Prisons 53 50 57 57 57

Consumer

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 61 49 64 57 70

Major Roads 56 53 56 58 68

Police 65 58 68 63 76

Prisons 54 49 56 49 64

Consumer

Services

Are honest

Deliver high

safety standards

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

Communicate well

Are consistent

their knowledge

possible

Held Accountable

Provide services

without bias

Business

Services

Courts 72 78 63 71

Police 80 79 78 82

Prisons 69 69 72 71

Business

Services

decisions

Courts 58 46 55 54 74

Major Roads 59 69 73 64 78

Police 69 64 69 63 76

Prisons 72 70 72 62 71

Business

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 59 44 69 63 83

Major Roads 59 69 74 78 74

Police 66 70 77 70 81

Prisons 71 55 54 55 74

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

ServicesOnline

+9 pts

+8 pts

+11 pts

Business

text message)

-30 pts

Consumer

calls text message)

Business

calls text message)

Consumer Business

ServicesConsumer

Consumer

ServicesBusiness

Major Roads (n=2) 55 75 70 60 55 50 65 55

Public Schools (n=6) 74 94 70 84 74 65 69 69

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Prisons (n=23)

Courts (n=94)

Major Roads (n=86)

Police (n=217)

Total (n=3297)

Prisons (n=57)

Courts (n=255)

Major Roads (n=157)

Police (n=289)

Total (n=6771)

Prisons (n=32)

Courts (n=145)

Major Roads (n=111)

Police (n=190)

Total (n=3458)

Prisons (n=34)

Courts (n=130)

Major Roads (n=61)

Police (n=203)

Total (n=3346)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Consumer

Courts (n=19)

Water Supply (n=67)

Major Roads (n=11)

Prisons (n=14)

Police (n=35)

Total (n=762)

Courts (n=64)

Water Supply (n=87)

Major Roads (n=72)

Prisons (n=30)

Police (n=88)

Total (n=1801)

Courts (n=35)

Water Supply (n=59)

Major Roads (n=21)

Prisons (n=12)

Police (n=53)

Total (n=790)

Courts (n=36)

Water Supply (n=35)

Major Roads (n=16)

Prisons (n=13)

Police (n=55)

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

65+(n=823)

55-64(n=585)

45-54(n=446)

35-44(n=513)

25-34(n=490)

18-24(n=315)

respondents Avg

Consumer

-022-020

-023-029

-037-033

-04 -02 0

65+ (n=838)55-64 (n=605)45-54 (n=454)35-44 (n=526)25-34 (n=497)18-24 (n=321)

+003-001

Change since 2018

65+(n=849)

55-64(n=610)

45-54(n=467)

35-44(n=532)

25-34(n=506)

18-24(n=333)

65+(n=838)

55-64(n=605)

45-54(n=454)

35-44(n=526)

25-34(n=497)

18-24(n=321)

Female(n=1841)

Male(n=1456)

-04 -02 0

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1762)

Male(n=1410)

+01 +01

Consumer

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

-035 -015

$150001+ (n=207)

$50001-$150000 (n=1231)

Up to $50000 (n=1301)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=208)

$50001 to$150000(n=1247)

Up to$50000

(n=1321)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=200)

$50001 to$150000(n=1212)

Up to$50000

(n=1277)

+01 +01

$150001 +(n=207)

$50001 to$150000(n=1231)

Up to$50000

(n=1301)

Consumer

+01+01

following services

-028-043

-097-011

-022-025

-043-031

-028-023

-06 -04 -02 0

Not working (n=183)

Other (n=175)

Student (n=178)

Retired (n=903)

Unemployed (n=214)

Not working (n=176)

Other (n=167)

Student (n=173)

Retired (n=890)

Unemployed (n=210)

Not working (n=170)

Other (n=166)

Student (n=168)

Retired (n=872)

Unemployed (n=206)

Consumer

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=50)

Retail Trade (n=63)

Other (n=108)

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

Avg respondents Avg

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

(n=732)

Business

respondents Avg

$500001+(n=160)

$50001 to$500000(n=215)

Up to$50000(n=141)

-045 -025 -005

$500001+ (n=164)

$50001 to $500000 (n=221)

Up to $50000 (n=147)

respondents Avg

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=164)

$50001 to$500000(n=221)

Up to$50000(n=147)

+02 +04

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=165)

$50001 to$500000(n=223)

Up to$50000(n=148)

Business

-055 -035 -015

200+ (n=186)

20-199 (n=166)

6-19 (n=161)

5 or less (n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=186)

20-199(n=166)

6-19(n=161)

5 or less(n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=187)

20-199(n=156)

6-19(n=157)

5 or less(n=232)

200+(n=188)

20-199(n=167)

6-19(n=162)

5 or less(n=245)

Business

-06 -04 -02 0

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=628)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional (n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=71)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=605)

-05 -02

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Region

Business (n=13)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20 staff96

20+ staff4

Metro55

Regional45

Rural0

5 8 12 181

0 6 15 182

Male50

Female50 Metro

Regional13

Rural130

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

40 4018

76 7479 80 78

7680 79

8481 81

7983 84 84 85 87 87

85 8784 85 85 86

Values

2019 - 1212018 - 1292017 - 121

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

7 91Consumer

respondents

5 95Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 87Consumer

respondents

87 85 86

2019 2018 2017

88 85 86

2019 2018 2017

83 82 81

2019 2018 2017

02 -01

Legend77

Last year

84 8684 81

8379 79

83 86 8388

9389 89 91

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

82 81 77

2019 2018 2017

84 90 89

2019 2018 2017

80 71 76

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=45)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff99

20+ staff1

Metro76

Regional18

Rural6

5164 55

Male71

Female29 Metro

69Regional10

Rural21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

27 33 2713

7874 71

73 7568 68

74 7479

81 80 8074 71

75 77 78 76

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

21 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 16 67Consumer

respondents

68 71 44

2019 2018 2017

70 74 46

2019 2018 2017

73 69 73

2019 2018 2017

-03 27

Legend77

Last year

51 5046

53 53 54 52

5652 54

Values

Whole-of-government

71 29Business

respondents

35 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

35 65Business

respondents

61 75 74

2019 2018 2017

74 72 74

2019 2018 2017

71 65 72

2019 2018 2017

-14 01

Legend77

Last year

70 72 7168 70

6569 66

70 7074 73 73 75 73

72 71 72 74 74

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

9 21 70Consumer

respondents

18 5 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 88Consumer

respondents

73 71 73

2019 2018 2017

73 60 70

2019 2018 2017

76 63 69

2019 2018 2017

01 -02

Legend77

Last year

69 7066

66 71 7169 70 71 71 70

Values

2019 - 352018 ndash 422017 ndash 22

Whole-of-government

1110 79Business

respondents

6 21 73Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 19 69Business

respondents

72 73 67

2019 2018 2017

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 66

2019 2018 2017

-02 06

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=44)

Annual turnover

Business size

1327 24 30

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2 Metro

Regional5

Rural4

45 46 47

Male60

Female40

Metro80

Regional10

Rural10

21 13 21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6360 62

7366 67

74 74 7372

7471 71 71

6467 68 70

Values

2019 - 382018 - 452017 - 58

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Consumer Affairs

Empathy

13 16 71Consumer

respondents

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 23 63Consumer

respondents

73 78 74

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

-04 04

Legend77

Last year

77 81 78

2019 2018 2017

68 6965

67 6971

71 73 72

6569 68

Values

2019 - 272018 - 122017 ndash25

Whole-of-government

Consumer Affairs

6 22 72Business

respondents

5 17 78Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

19 13 69Business

respondents

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

77 85 77

2019 2018 2017

69 77 75

2019 2018 2017

-03 02

Legend77

Last year

68 6864 66 67

76 6769

70 7173

6971 72 70

Values

2019 - 422018 - 462017 - 45

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

10 16 74Consumer

respondents

7 17 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 17 70Consumer

respondents

73 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 76 76

2019 2018 2017

74 70 68

2019 2018 2017

-01 01

Legend77

Last year

85 8780

75 7467

79 81 80 79

80 80 82

Values

2019 - 172018 - 212017 - 22

Whole-of-government

12 88Business

respondents

12 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 76Business

respondents

80 60 67

2019 2018 2017

83 63 68

2019 2018 2017

78 51 57

2019 2018 2017

20 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=87)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro78Regional

Rural19

43 44 33

Male42

Female58

Metro74

Regional12

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

32 3020 18

6766 66 64

70 69 70 6973

7072 73

7673 72

7572 73 74 74

Values

2019 - 2282018 - 1982017 - 208

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

616 78Consumer

respondents

513 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 18 73Consumer

respondents

76 74 71

2019 2018 2017

79 77 77

2019 2018 2017

73 71 66

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

68 6966

64 6466

66 6461

Values

2019 - 512018 - 572017 - 52

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

11 33 56Business

respondents

11 29 60Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 21 58Business

respondents

66 70 64

2019 2018 2017

65 64 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 06

Legend77

Last year

70 75 68

2019 2018 2017

69 69 71 7073 72

68 69 69 70

Values

2019 - 1262018 - 1592017 - 147

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

14 18 67Consumer

respondents

15 13 72Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 18 69Consumer

respondents

70 67 72

2019 2018 2017

72 73 76

2019 2018 2017

69 67 69

2019 2018 2017

03 -05

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

6164 66

6967 66

61 6567

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

2019 - 362018 - 512017 - 42

12 23 65Business

respondents

17 18 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 25 63Business

respondents

67 68 68

2019 2018 2017

70 66 70

2019 2018 2017

-01 00

68 71 71

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=70)

Annual turnover

Business size

5031 30

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro68

Regional8

Rural24

26 19 8

14 9 2

Male43

Female57 Metro

70Regional

Rural1626

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

38 299

43 4245

5250 50

Values

2019 - 522018 - 622017 - 53

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

52 24 25Consumer

respondents

45 13 42Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

46 26 28Consumer

respondents

52 58 57

2019 2018 2017

44 55 47

2019 2018 2017

-10 07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

45 55 48

2019 2018 2017

4551 51 51

55 56 55

7166 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 202018 - 282017 - 23

48 52Business

respondents

12 14 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 37 49Business

respondents

70 61 51

2019 2018 2017

75 64 55

2019 2018 2017

66 60 44

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

52 52 53

61 6163

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 1002018 - 1262017 - 133

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

16 19 66Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

22 23 55Consumer

respondents

66 58 65

2019 2018 2017

70 63 69

2019 2018 2017

64 54 61

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

65 66 66

69 7074 75

70 70 72 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 342018 - 322017 - 34

129 79Business

respondents

111 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 10 69Business

respondents

74 63 73

2019 2018 2017

79 68 74

2019 2018 2017

69 57 69

2019 2018 2017

11 -10

Legend77

Last year

54 56 56

55 5557

62 62 61

57 58 57 58

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 872018 - 1362017 - 171

26 17 57Consumer

respondents

19 23 58Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

33 18 49Consumer

respondents

63 68 70

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

59 66 66

2019 2018 2017

-05 -01

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

71 7275

86 8482

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 162018 - 222017 - 19

42 1 57Business

respondents

28 1 71Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 1 56Business

respondents

55 76 63

2019 2018 2017

70 80 67

2019 2018 2017

59 71 65

2019 2018 2017

-21 13

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=128)

Annual turnover

Business size

19 18 6

Under 20

staff96

20+ staff4

Metro71Regional

Rural24

Male42

Female58

Metro70Regional

Rural1722 29

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

8784 83 81

90 90 89 90 90 9288 89

92 90 91 90 89

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

57 88Consumer

respondents

35 92Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 9 86Consumer

respondents

87 89 91

2019 2018 2017

90 91 92

2019 2018 2017

85 87 89

2019 2018 2017

-03 -01

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

89 8884 86 88

91 94 93 91 92 90 91 92 93 9292 96

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

99Business

respondents

11 89Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

91 91 88

2019 2018 2017

90 91 87

2019 2018 2017

87 94 86

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

77 7579 78

7174 75 73

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 20 70Consumer

respondents

7 20 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16 23 61Consumer

respondents

74 74 76

2019 2018 2017

77 77 78

2019 2018 2017

69 69 68

2019 2018 2017

00 -03

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

59 58 58

64 59 6161

70 68 68 6965 64 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 25 65Business

respondents

10 22 68Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 27 56Business

respondents

69 72 66

2019 2018 2017

72 74 69

2019 2018 2017

66 66 63

2019 2018 2017

-03 06

Legend77

Last year

63 61 6259

74 72 72 74 7674 72 73

66 6871

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 1142018 - 1512017 - 179

11 18 71Consumer

respondents

810 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 21 61Consumer

respondents

73 71 75

2019 2018 2017

77 76 79

2019 2018 2017

67 67 68

2019 2018 2017

01 -04

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 68 67

73 74 7572

6872 70 69 69

73 7476

73 7275 73 74 76 76

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 ndash 28 2018 - 382017 - 38

7 20 72Business

respondents

7 27 66Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 27 59Business

respondents

71 66 71

2019 2018 2017

75 74 77

2019 2018 2017

70 61 67

2019 2018 2017

05 -04

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=96)

Annual turnover

Business size

legal documentation

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro76

Regional9

Rural15

4011 11 6

2912 10

Male53

Female47 Metro

70Regional

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

25 23 29 23

60 60 59

Values

2019 - 94 2018 - 1042017 - 93

Courts

23 23 54Consumer

respondents

15 22 63Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

29 23 48Consumer

respondents

63 60 64

2019 2018 2017

70 67 71

2019 2018 2017

59 55 61

2019 2018 2017

03 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6368 68

Values

2019 - 192018 ndash 292017 - 35

Courts

8 25 66Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 10 72Business

respondents

74 60 60

2019 2018 2017

79 70 74

2019 2018 2017

75 63 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

8386 88 87 86

88 8993 92 93 95 94 96

91 92 9294

Values

2019 - 242018 ndash 282017 - 34

Fire Brigades

3 97Consumer

respondents

3 97Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3 97Consumer

respondents

91 91 83

2019 2018 2017

93 92 86

2019 2018 2017

86 90 84

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

9397 98 95

85 8589

9994 94 94 94

Values

2019 - 152018 - 182017 - 18

Fire Brigades

1 99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1 99Business

respondents

91 100 76

2019 2018 2017

91 100 78

2019 2018 2017

95 90 74

2019 2018 2017

-08 24

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

65 65 65

73 73 75 74 7477

7073 73 73

Values

2019 - 217 2018 - 176 2017 - 228

Police

14 14 72Consumer

respondents

1110 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 16 72Consumer

respondents

75 77 79

2019 2018 2017

75 72 74

2019 2018 2017

-02 -02

78 82 81

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

77 79 8076

7876 76

80 7982

Values

2019 - 352018 - 562017 - 55

Police

20 79Business

respondents

20 80Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 85Business

respondents

80 79 83

2019 2018 2017

80 78 86

2019 2018 2017

00 -04

81 83 85

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

57 57 57

Values

2019 - 232018 - 272017 - 21

Prisons

31 40 29Consumer

respondents

30 9 61Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 11 46Consumer

respondents

54 36 58

2019 2018 2017

54 35 67

2019 2018 2017

17 -22

67 49 60

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6270 72 74

55 54 55

75 74 75 74 77 74 72 74 7672 69 69 71

Values

2019 - 142018 - 142017 - 11

Prisons

18 82Business

respondents

18 82Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

181 81Business

respondents

79 53 65

2019 2018 2017

73 42 52

2019 2018 2017

26 -12

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

83 61 71

2019 2018 2017

83 85 8487 86 88 86

91 90 9092 90 90 92 92 93 94

90 92 92 92

Values

2019 - 472018 - 432017 - 51

11 87Consumer

respondents

5 93Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7 91Consumer

respondents

90 85 88

2019 2018 2017

90 82 87

2019 2018 2017

05 -03

91 86 89

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

80 82 84 84 84 82 85 8289

86 82 7982 80 80 81 83 85 83 86 86

8789 85

Values

2019 - 132018 - 152017 - 14

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

100Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

100Business

respondents

87 87 60

2019 2018 2017

85 86 67

2019 2018 2017

87 82 77

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Region

Business (n=19)

Annual turnover

Business size

71 7054

13 8 9

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro44

Regional46

Rural10

1925 21

Male65

Female35 Metro

63Regional21

Rural1642 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

31 27 2912

6058 56

6966 66 65 65

70 69 70 71

6165 64 64

Values

2019 - 382018 - 362017 - 38

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

14 15 70Consumer

respondents

23 3 75Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 10 67Consumer

respondents

73 81 75

2019 2018 2017

75 83 81

2019 2018 2017

66 81 71

2019 2018 2017

-08 06

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 66 68 6769 71

78 7876

78 7780 78 76 77

73 73 7571

Values

2019 - 192018 - 162017 - 12

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

33 67Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 91Business

respondents

74 66 73

2019 2018 2017

78 79 77

2019 2018 2017

78 68 77

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=193)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional13

Rural12

412 16

Male52

Female48 Metro

Regional12

Rural1127 31

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

69 69 6865

73 7479

72 73 7378 77 76 76

7478 78

7375 75 74

Values

510 85Consumer

respondents

9 88Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

813 79Consumer

respondents

80 79 78

2019 2018 2017

82 80 79

2019 2018 2017

77 76 73

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

64 65 6562

70 7174

67 6669

72 7275

6872 73

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

11 20 70Business

respondents

10 17 72Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 20 66Business

respondents

71 73 77

2019 2018 2017

75 74 78

2019 2018 2017

73 67 73

2019 2018 2017

-02 -04

Legend77

Last year

51 50 49 50

58 5552

61 6164

58 58 59 58

Values

Major Roads

18 27 55Consumer

respondents

14 12 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

25 32 43Consumer

respondents

65 66 63

2019 2018 2017

71 72 67

2019 2018 2017

57 61 60

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

78 7873

6469 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Major Roads

48 50Business

respondents

47 53Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

47 50Business

respondents

74 79 63

2019 2018 2017

75 76 67

2019 2018 2017

69 72 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 16

Legend77

Last year

66 66 66 65

71 7175

67 68 6871 70 70 70

73 7269

67 6769 70

Values

Public Transport

7 19 73Consumer

respondents

5 20 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 27 62Consumer

respondents

74 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 75 74

2019 2018 2017

69 69 67

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6466 66 67

7169 68 71

69 7067

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Transport

514 81Business

respondents

5 14 81Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 15 80Business

respondents

72 72 67

2019 2018 2017

76 73 71

2019 2018 2017

73 73 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=67)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional15

Rural10

3723 27

Male51

Female49

Metro76

Regional10

Rural1427 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6463 64

6967 65

71 73 73 72 74

6467 68 68

Values

2019 - 2402018 - 2382017 - 239

Water Supply

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

4 17 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 18 70Consumer

respondents

76 74 74

2019 2018 2017

78 75 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 69

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

62 62 6360

66 6769

Values

2019 - 672018 - 532017 - 49

Water Supply

5 24 71Business

respondents

4 18 77Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 24 62Business

respondents

74 69 74

2019 2018 2017

77 70 74

2019 2018 2017

70 66 69

2019 2018 2017

04 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Public ndash I1-A2

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

values)

jurisdictions

Project Objectives

Research Inputs

Research Outputs

Victoria 2073 537 2610

Protection

In scope services

Public ndash I1-A2

18-24 12 (n=209)

Male 49(n=891)

(n=580)

25-34 17 (n=302)

Female 51 (n=1107)

Public Hospitals 14

(n=412)

35-44 16(n=310)

Rural SA 14(n=218)

(n=240)

55-64 16(n=388)

Police 7(n=217)

65+ 23(n=509)

TAFE 3 (n=126)

(n=135)

Rural SA 14(n=52)

10-19 employees 20

(n=57)

20-199 1 (n=113)

200+ 1 (n=120)

Police 6(n=35)

TAFE 5(n=36)

Disability 5 (n=34)

Ambulance 4(n=24)

(n=32)

Employee attributes

Outcome area

employees

Good service

Integrity

Accountability

GoalsComponent 2

Are consistent

Communicate well

Consumer

employees

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Values

Driver

Moderate

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Low (1) High (10)74

Low (1) High (10)70

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)64

Low (1) High (10)66

Low (1) High (10)68

Communication

Consumer

Low (1) High (10)73

Slide Number 1

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Slide Number 3

Slide Number 4

Slide Number 5

Slide Number 6

Slide Number 7

Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19

Slide Number 20

Slide Number 21

Slide Number 22

Slide Number 23

Slide Number 24

Slide Number 25

Slide Number 26

Slide Number 27

Slide Number 28

Slide Number 29

Slide Number 30

Slide Number 31

Slide Number 32

Slide Number 33

Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35

Slide Number 36

Slide Number 37

Slide Number 38

Slide Number 39

Slide Number 40

Slide Number 41

Slide Number 42

Slide Number 43

Slide Number 44

Slide Number 45

Slide Number 46

Slide Number 47

Slide Number 48

Slide Number 49

Slide Number 50

Slide Number 51

Slide Number 52

Slide Number 53

Slide Number 54

Slide Number 55

Slide Number 56

Slide Number 57

Slide Number 58

Slide Number 59

Slide Number 60

Slide Number 61

Slide Number 62

Slide Number 63

Slide Number 64

Slide Number 65

Slide Number 66

Slide Number 67

Slide Number 69

Slide Number 70

Slide Number 71

Slide Number 72

Slide Number 73

Slide Number 74

Slide Number 75

Slide Number 76

Slide Number 77

Slide Number 78

Slide Number 79

Slide Number 80

Slide Number 81

Slide Number 82

Slide Number 83

Slide Number 84

Slide Number 85

Slide Number 86

Slide Number 87

Slide Number 88

Slide Number 89

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99

Slide Number 100

Slide Number 101

Slide Number 102

Slide Number 103

Slide Number 104

Slide Number 105

Slide Number 106

Slide Number 107

Slide Number 108

Slide Number 109

Slide Number 110

Slide Number 111

Slide Number 112

Slide Number 113

Slide Number 114

Slide Number 115

Slide Number 116

Slide Number 117

Slide Number 118

Slide Number 119

Slide Number 120

Slide Number 121

Slide Number 122

Slide Number 123

Slide Number 124

Slide Number 125

Slide Number 126

Slide Number 127

Slide Number 128

Slide Number 129

Slide Number 130

Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

Slide Number 134

Slide Number 135

Slide Number 136

Slide Number 137

Slide Number 138

Slide Number 139

Slide Number 140

Slide Number 141

Slide Number 142

Slide Number 143

Slide Number 144

Slide Number 145

Slide Number 146

Slide Number 147

Slide Number 148

Slide Number 149

Slide Number 150

Slide Number 151

Slide Number 152

Slide Number 153

Slide Number 154

Slide Number 155

Slide Number 156

Slide Number 157

Slide Number 158

Slide Number 159

Slide Number 160

Slide Number 161

Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167

Slide Number 168

Slide Number 169

Slide Number 170

Slide Number 171

Slide Number 172

Slide Number 173

Slide Number 174

Slide Number 175

Slide Number 176

Slide Number 177

Slide Number 179

Expectation

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local Council60

Banks59

Energy54

Fed Govt53

76(2017)

Communication

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Moderate

75(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

75(2019)

Moderate

Consumer CSI

Consumer

785784

2016 2017 2018 2019

74(2016)

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos62

Banks61

Local Council61

Fed Govt 57

Energy56

71(2017)

72(2018)

(avg satisfaction)

73(2019)

Expectation

(+01)(+01)

Business CSI

Business

754759

2016 2017 2018 2019

Inperson

70(2016)

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

Business

BusinessConsumer

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Consumer

Consumer Business

Consumer

-01 -01 +01

+01 -+02

+01 - +01

Business

+01 +01

f 10 )

Legend77

Last year

76 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7371

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 70

201969

6765 63

Consumer

69 68 67

7570 68 67

201973 72 72

73 72 7270

Legend77

Last year

Consumer

71 71 71 71 7070 71

6767 67

75 7573 72 72 72 71 71 71

69 68 68

2019 67 64 64 62

6865 65

Legend77

Last year

Business

66 65 6559

7469 68 67

201971 70 70

72 71 71 70

ith in

Legend77

Last year

Business

Consumer

73 72 7270

74 7371

Phone Mailfax Email

-10) +01

+01+01 +01

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

looking for

Consumer (n=798)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02NA

Consumer

50 4640

79 798080

Business

70 71 7169

73 7372 72 71

-02+01 +01

+03+02

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

online

accurate

accessrequirements

needed to do

was looking for

Business (n=210)

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06+09

224 I chose to go

online

darr2 darr5

2922 22 22

3224 23

Business

61 60 5954 53

7066 62 61 61

TelephoneService

Providers

My localcouncil

FederalGovernment

LowestHighest

Consumer Business

10 05 0406 05

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

727779

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I gave acompliment

7668 69 71

7971 74 75

never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

change

I gave acompliment

Consumer Business

Consumer n=1998

Business n=502

Business (n=194)

Consumer (n=519)

Given feedback

Consumer Business

2018 2019

sesConsumers

2018 2019

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Consumer Business

Consumers Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

2016(n=3462)

2017(n=3433)

2018(n=3245)

2019(n=3241)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=3507)

2017(n=3482)

2018(n=3307)

2019(n=3297)

2016(n=3398)

2017(n=3375)

2018(n=3154)

2019(n=3172)

Business

2016(n=817)

2017(n=753)

2018(n=801)

2019(n=758)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

2016(n=825)

2017(n=769)

2018(n=814)

2019(n=762)

2016(n=797)

2017(n=742)

2018(n=795)

2019(n=732)

Expectation

respondents Avg

Business(n=758)

Consumer(n=3241)

Low (1-4)Med (5-6)High (7-10)

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Sig Sig

Figure 13 Figure 14

Consumer Business

Business(n=732)

Consumer(n=3172)

Comparison to ideal

respondents Avg

Figure 15 Figure 16

Satisfaction

respondents Avg

Business(n=762)

Consumer(n=3297)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)76

Business

Satisfaction

Ideal service

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Neutral (5-6)

-04 -02 00

2019 2018

Consumer Business

-06 -04 -02 00

2019 2018

-1 -05 0 05Avg

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1

Courts(n=89)

Prisons(n=21)

Consumer Business

Water Supply (n=240 n=67) 24 23 76 74 78 77 -02 -03

Police (n=217 n=35) 21 9 75 80 78 81 -03 -01

Major Roads (n=86 n=11) 8 3 65 74 71 75 -07 -01

Courts (n=94 n=19) 6 4 63 74 70 79 -07 -05

Prison (n=23 n=14) 2 2 54 79 67 83 -13 -03

Public ndash I1-A2

77 76 7675 74 74 74 74 73

7070 69

78 7877

76 76 76 76 7575

Average 7410

Base(n)=2704

77 76 76 75 74 74 74 74 7370 70 69

556065707580

Consumer

+01 +01 - - - - - - --

+01 -01

65 6563

understand

first time

methods

first time

methods

Base(n)=2668

Consumer

+01+01

-01 - -

7570 68 67

decision-making

Base(n)=2561

Consumer

+01- - -01

Average 7210

73 72 72 70

7372 72

Base(n)=2916

Consumer

- - --

75 75 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 69 68 68

7372 73

68 6968

77 7775

75 75 74 74

7170 71

Average 7110

Base(n)=724

Business

+02 +01 +02 +01 +01 +01 +01 +01 - +02

+01 +01

68 66 65 6561

methods

first time

Average 6510

68 6767 67

methods

first time

Base(n)= 712

Business

+01+01

+01+01-01

7469 68 67

6866 66

decision-making

Base(n)= 695

Business

+03 -03 +03 +02

Average 7110

74 74 74

71 71 71

72 71 71 70

Base(n)= 758

Business

+01 +01 +01 +02

knowledge

possible

Consumer

Transparency

Privacy

Employee autonomy

Monitor

Communication

Consumer

Public ndash I1-A2

Inperson

2922 22 22

3224 23

Inperson

22 2112

3324 21

Inperson

Consumer Business

Third parties

NSW (n=1801) VIC (n=790) QLD (n=832)

UK (n=1420) NZ (n=868) SA (n=762)

23 2116

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

Third parties

21 20 20

21 21 20

Third parties

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

70 71 71 69 68

73 73 72 72 7167

76 7573 72 72

77 75 74 73 71 70

+01+01

+02+01

Consumer Business

75 75 75

76 7675 75

7271 71

73 73 73

73 7372 72 71

Consumer

Business

Consumer Business

63 6360

63 6261

59 59 58

67 66 6564

69 6865 65

6865 66 66

66 66 66 66

6462 62 62

65 6562 61

6865 63 63

69 6972

Consumer Business

79 79 78 78 78 78 78 75

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

handledsecurely

and accurate

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

82 81 81 80 79 79 79 78

102030405060708090100

0102030405060708090

and accurate

was handledsecurely

accessrequirements

Thewebsiteapp

Content andsupport

questions

Consumer (n=798)

Business (n=210)

+01 +01 +01 +02+01 +01 +02

+05 NA +04 +09 +08 +06 +06

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=2401)

Business (n=762)

37 16 12 7 7 6 5 5 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirements

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

Consumer Business

37 17 11 8 8 7 7 6 3

The servicewasnt

online

an onlinedevice

accessrequirement

I was not sureif my

such as adiscount

The contentwas not

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted

to goonline

I chose togo online

respondents

available

I wasdirected or

I chose togo online

respondents

Consumer Business

n=843 n=220

uarr1 darr2

Consumer Business

50 4640

79 798080

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

FederalGovernment

(n=465)

Banks (n=486)

(n=484)

Airlines (n=457)

respondents Avg

Consumer (n=1649)

7375 00 +01

FederalGovernment

(n=1835)

Banks(n=1934)

(n=1915)

Airlines(n=1649)

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

NZ Govt Service 68

Banks 69

Energy 66

Local council 58

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 65

Airlines 71

Banks 60

Energy 57

Telcorsquos 60

Local council 61

Fed Govt 60

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 61

Banks 57

Energy 57

Fed Govt 58

Airlines 71

Banks 58

Energy 57

Local council 59

Fed Govt 57

Telcorsquos 60

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 62

Banks 61

Energy 56

Local council 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 63

Local Council 61

Banks 68

Business

NZ Govt Service 69

Banks 69

Airlines 74

Telcorsquos 66

Energy 66

Local council 59

NSW NSW

Public Service 71

Airline 71

Telcorsquos 62

Energy 59

Local council 62

Banks 61

Fed Govt 57

Airlines 70

VIC SA

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 61

Local council 60

Banks 59

Energy 54

Fed Govt 53

Airlines 71

Banks 69

Energy 64

Telcorsquos 69

Local council 61

Consumer Business

Lowest

Highest

Airlines 71

Telcorsquos 63

Banks 63

Local council 62

Energy 60

Fed Govt 59

Telcorsquos 62

Local council 62

Banks 60

Energy 59

Fed Govt 58

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Accountable

Caring

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

40Lazy

Controlling

Patronising

Complacent

Wasteful

Inflexible

Difficult

Impersonal

Inefficient

Top 5 descriptors

Consumer

Patronising

Controlling

Complacent

Difficult

Inflexible

Impersonal

Wasteful

Inefficient

40Innovative

Motivated

Modern

Flexible

Caring

Accountable

EfficientHonest

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

Top 5 descriptors

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

5 FEEDBACK

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

Theprocesses

Theemployees

youinteracted

Theoutcomes of

yourinteraction

17 1416

4 6 105 4 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

37 41 37

37 29 45

5 19921 11 5

I gave acompliment

change

I made acomplaint

bull Other

bull Via email

Consumer Business

2219 18

28 28 29

27 28 28

39 39 39

Consumer Business

Consumer (n=519)

Business (n=194)

provided feedback

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

39 41 41 46 50 55

17 2325

23 23 17

44 36 34 30 28 28

48 45 43

VIC(n=154)

SA(n=169)

UK(n=196)

NZ(n=138)

QLD(n=140)

NSW(n=314)

35 44 49 45 50 52

24 2415

3418 22

41 32 3621

48 46 45

UK(n=174)

SA(n=83)

QLD(n=72)

VIC(n=69)

NSW(n=184)

NZ(n=76)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

4626 22

37 32 34

Metro(n=139)

Regional(n=14)

Rural(n=16)

Metro(n=67)

Regional(n=4)

Rural(n=12)

Consumer Business

Consumer

Business

26 28 29 31 31 33

18 21 18 19 23 26

5651 54 50

47 4065 61 61 59 58 56

VIC(n=159)

SA(n=174)

NZ(n=148)

UK(n=199)

NSW(n=333)

QLD(n=150)

21 28 25 31 37 36

30 19 29 24 31 17

4953 46 45 33

4662 61 59 58 55 55

NZ(n=78)

UK(n=176)

VIC(n=70)

NSW(n=188)

QLD(n=74)

SA(n=83)

Consumer Business

Other (n=57)

Prisons (n=4)

Fire Brigades (n=4)

Courts (n=10)

Major Roads (n=26)

Police (n=27)

Water Supply (n=45)

Other (n=26)

Art Galleries (n=1)

Prisons (n=2)

Courts (n=4)

Police (n=14)

Major Roads (n=11)

Water Supply (n=25)

Consumer Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

91 9087 87

8076 76 75 74 74 73 73 73 73 73

70 68 66 65 63 63

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

93 91 90 88

8279 78 78 77 77 77 76 76 75 73 72 71 70 70 70 67 67

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

rts (n

abilit

9086 85 83

77 76 75 74 73 73 71 69 69 69 67 67 66 6459 59 57

tratio

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

Consumer

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Prisons (n=21)

Courts (n=89)

Major Roads (n=81)

Police (n=216)

Consumer

91 9187

82 80 80 7975 74 74 74 74 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 67 66

ffairs

ildlif

abilit

rts (n

tratio

Business

91 90 8784 83 83 81 79 79 78 77 77 76 75 75 75 75 75 74 72 70 70 68

abilit

rts (n

ildlif

ffairs

tratio

Business

87 8580 80 78 78

75 73 73 73 71 71 70 70 70 69 69 6966 66 65

ildlif

rts (n

tratio

ffairs

abilit

Business

-13-05

-05-05-05

-04-04-04

-03-03-03-03-03-03

-02-02

-01-01-01

-15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15

Business

Services

Are honest

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

possible

Held Accountable

Explain intended

their knowledge

Communicate well

Provide services

without bias

Consumer

Services

Courts 64 66 59 64

Police 73 73 70 73

Prisons 55 62 62 61

Services

Courts 61 50 58 55 62

Major Roads 55 50 50 49 51

Police 70 65 65 65 73

Prisons 53 50 57 57 57

Consumer

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 61 49 64 57 70

Major Roads 56 53 56 58 68

Police 65 58 68 63 76

Prisons 54 49 56 49 64

Consumer

Services

Are honest

Deliver high

safety standards

Provide good value

services

Are reliable

Communicate well

Are consistent

their knowledge

possible

Held Accountable

Provide services

without bias

Business

Services

Courts 72 78 63 71

Police 80 79 78 82

Prisons 69 69 72 71

Business

Services

decisions

Courts 58 46 55 54 74

Major Roads 59 69 73 64 78

Police 69 64 69 63 76

Prisons 72 70 72 62 71

Business

Services

making

services

for customers

Courts 59 44 69 63 83

Major Roads 59 69 74 78 74

Police 66 70 77 70 81

Prisons 71 55 54 55 74

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Consumer

ServicesOnline

+9 pts

+8 pts

+11 pts

Business

text message)

-30 pts

Consumer

calls text message)

Business

calls text message)

Consumer Business

ServicesConsumer

Consumer

ServicesBusiness

Major Roads (n=2) 55 75 70 60 55 50 65 55

Public Schools (n=6) 74 94 70 84 74 65 69 69

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Prisons (n=23)

Courts (n=94)

Major Roads (n=86)

Police (n=217)

Total (n=3297)

Prisons (n=57)

Courts (n=255)

Major Roads (n=157)

Police (n=289)

Total (n=6771)

Prisons (n=32)

Courts (n=145)

Major Roads (n=111)

Police (n=190)

Total (n=3458)

Prisons (n=34)

Courts (n=130)

Major Roads (n=61)

Police (n=203)

Total (n=3346)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Consumer

Courts (n=19)

Water Supply (n=67)

Major Roads (n=11)

Prisons (n=14)

Police (n=35)

Total (n=762)

Courts (n=64)

Water Supply (n=87)

Major Roads (n=72)

Prisons (n=30)

Police (n=88)

Total (n=1801)

Courts (n=35)

Water Supply (n=59)

Major Roads (n=21)

Prisons (n=12)

Police (n=53)

Total (n=790)

Courts (n=36)

Water Supply (n=35)

Major Roads (n=16)

Prisons (n=13)

Police (n=55)

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

65+(n=823)

55-64(n=585)

45-54(n=446)

35-44(n=513)

25-34(n=490)

18-24(n=315)

respondents Avg

Consumer

-022-020

-023-029

-037-033

-04 -02 0

65+ (n=838)55-64 (n=605)45-54 (n=454)35-44 (n=526)25-34 (n=497)18-24 (n=321)

+003-001

Change since 2018

65+(n=849)

55-64(n=610)

45-54(n=467)

35-44(n=532)

25-34(n=506)

18-24(n=333)

65+(n=838)

55-64(n=605)

45-54(n=454)

35-44(n=526)

25-34(n=497)

18-24(n=321)

Female(n=1841)

Male(n=1456)

-04 -02 0

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1813)

Male(n=1428)

respondents Avg

Female(n=1762)

Male(n=1410)

+01 +01

Consumer

Rural(n=349)

Regional(n=332)

Metro(n=2560)

-045 -025 -005

Rural (n=349)

Regional (n=332)

Metro (n=2560)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=341)

Regional(n=327)

Metro(n=2504)

Rural(n=353)

Regional(n=337)

Metro(n=2607)

Consumer

-035 -015

$150001+ (n=207)

$50001-$150000 (n=1231)

Up to $50000 (n=1301)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=208)

$50001 to$150000(n=1247)

Up to$50000

(n=1321)

respondents Avg

$150001 +(n=200)

$50001 to$150000(n=1212)

Up to$50000

(n=1277)

+01 +01

$150001 +(n=207)

$50001 to$150000(n=1231)

Up to$50000

(n=1301)

Consumer

+01+01

following services

-028-043

-097-011

-022-025

-043-031

-028-023

-06 -04 -02 0

Not working (n=183)

Other (n=175)

Student (n=178)

Retired (n=903)

Unemployed (n=214)

Not working (n=176)

Other (n=167)

Student (n=173)

Retired (n=890)

Unemployed (n=210)

Not working (n=170)

Other (n=166)

Student (n=168)

Retired (n=872)

Unemployed (n=206)

Consumer

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=50)

Retail Trade (n=63)

Other (n=108)

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

Avg respondents Avg

Mining (n=7)

Construction (n=51)

Retail Trade (n=66)

Other (n=115)

(n=732)

Business

respondents Avg

$500001+(n=160)

$50001 to$500000(n=215)

Up to$50000(n=141)

-045 -025 -005

$500001+ (n=164)

$50001 to $500000 (n=221)

Up to $50000 (n=147)

respondents Avg

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=164)

$50001 to$500000(n=221)

Up to$50000(n=147)

+02 +04

Notspecified(n=226)

$500001+(n=165)

$50001 to$500000(n=223)

Up to$50000(n=148)

Business

-055 -035 -015

200+ (n=186)

20-199 (n=166)

6-19 (n=161)

5 or less (n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=186)

20-199(n=166)

6-19(n=161)

5 or less(n=245)

respondents Avg

200+(n=187)

20-199(n=156)

6-19(n=157)

5 or less(n=232)

200+(n=188)

20-199(n=167)

6-19(n=162)

5 or less(n=245)

Business

-06 -04 -02 0

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=628)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=78)

Regional (n=56)

Metro(n=624)

respondents Avg

Rural(n=71)

Regional(n=56)

Metro(n=605)

-05 -02

Business

Public ndash I1-A2

Region

Business (n=13)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20 staff96

20+ staff4

Metro55

Regional45

Rural0

5 8 12 181

0 6 15 182

Male50

Female50 Metro

Regional13

Rural130

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

40 4018

76 7479 80 78

7680 79

8481 81

7983 84 84 85 87 87

85 8784 85 85 86

Values

2019 - 1212018 - 1292017 - 121

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

7 91Consumer

respondents

5 95Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 87Consumer

respondents

87 85 86

2019 2018 2017

88 85 86

2019 2018 2017

83 82 81

2019 2018 2017

02 -01

Legend77

Last year

84 8684 81

8379 79

83 86 8388

9389 89 91

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

82 81 77

2019 2018 2017

84 90 89

2019 2018 2017

80 71 76

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=45)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff99

20+ staff1

Metro76

Regional18

Rural6

5164 55

Male71

Female29 Metro

69Regional10

Rural21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

27 33 2713

7874 71

73 7568 68

74 7479

81 80 8074 71

75 77 78 76

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

21 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 16 67Consumer

respondents

68 71 44

2019 2018 2017

70 74 46

2019 2018 2017

73 69 73

2019 2018 2017

-03 27

Legend77

Last year

51 5046

53 53 54 52

5652 54

Values

Whole-of-government

71 29Business

respondents

35 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

35 65Business

respondents

61 75 74

2019 2018 2017

74 72 74

2019 2018 2017

71 65 72

2019 2018 2017

-14 01

Legend77

Last year

70 72 7168 70

6569 66

70 7074 73 73 75 73

72 71 72 74 74

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

9 21 70Consumer

respondents

18 5 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 88Consumer

respondents

73 71 73

2019 2018 2017

73 60 70

2019 2018 2017

76 63 69

2019 2018 2017

01 -02

Legend77

Last year

69 7066

66 71 7169 70 71 71 70

Values

2019 - 352018 ndash 422017 ndash 22

Whole-of-government

1110 79Business

respondents

6 21 73Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 19 69Business

respondents

72 73 67

2019 2018 2017

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 66

2019 2018 2017

-02 06

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=44)

Annual turnover

Business size

1327 24 30

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2 Metro

Regional5

Rural4

45 46 47

Male60

Female40

Metro80

Regional10

Rural10

21 13 21

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6360 62

7366 67

74 74 7372

7471 71 71

6467 68 70

Values

2019 - 382018 - 452017 - 58

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Consumer Affairs

Empathy

13 16 71Consumer

respondents

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 23 63Consumer

respondents

73 78 74

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

-04 04

Legend77

Last year

77 81 78

2019 2018 2017

68 6965

67 6971

71 73 72

6569 68

Values

2019 - 272018 - 122017 ndash25

Whole-of-government

Consumer Affairs

6 22 72Business

respondents

5 17 78Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

19 13 69Business

respondents

75 78 76

2019 2018 2017

77 85 77

2019 2018 2017

69 77 75

2019 2018 2017

-03 02

Legend77

Last year

68 6864 66 67

76 6769

70 7173

6971 72 70

Values

2019 - 422018 - 462017 - 45

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Empathy

10 16 74Consumer

respondents

7 17 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 17 70Consumer

respondents

73 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 76 76

2019 2018 2017

74 70 68

2019 2018 2017

-01 01

Legend77

Last year

85 8780

75 7467

79 81 80 79

80 80 82

Values

2019 - 172018 - 212017 - 22

Whole-of-government

12 88Business

respondents

12 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 76Business

respondents

80 60 67

2019 2018 2017

83 63 68

2019 2018 2017

78 51 57

2019 2018 2017

20 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=87)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro78Regional

Rural19

43 44 33

Male42

Female58

Metro74

Regional12

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

32 3020 18

6766 66 64

70 69 70 6973

7072 73

7673 72

7572 73 74 74

Values

2019 - 2282018 - 1982017 - 208

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

616 78Consumer

respondents

513 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 18 73Consumer

respondents

76 74 71

2019 2018 2017

79 77 77

2019 2018 2017

73 71 66

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

68 6966

64 6466

66 6461

Values

2019 - 512018 - 572017 - 52

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Schools

11 33 56Business

respondents

11 29 60Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 21 58Business

respondents

66 70 64

2019 2018 2017

65 64 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 06

Legend77

Last year

70 75 68

2019 2018 2017

69 69 71 7073 72

68 69 69 70

Values

2019 - 1262018 - 1592017 - 147

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

14 18 67Consumer

respondents

15 13 72Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 18 69Consumer

respondents

70 67 72

2019 2018 2017

72 73 76

2019 2018 2017

69 67 69

2019 2018 2017

03 -05

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

6164 66

6967 66

61 6567

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

TAFE Services

2019 - 362018 - 512017 - 42

12 23 65Business

respondents

17 18 65Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 25 63Business

respondents

67 68 68

2019 2018 2017

70 66 70

2019 2018 2017

-01 00

68 71 71

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=70)

Annual turnover

Business size

5031 30

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro68

Regional8

Rural24

26 19 8

14 9 2

Male43

Female57 Metro

70Regional

Rural1626

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

38 299

43 4245

5250 50

Values

2019 - 522018 - 622017 - 53

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

52 24 25Consumer

respondents

45 13 42Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

46 26 28Consumer

respondents

52 58 57

2019 2018 2017

44 55 47

2019 2018 2017

-10 07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

45 55 48

2019 2018 2017

4551 51 51

55 56 55

7166 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 202018 - 282017 - 23

48 52Business

respondents

12 14 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 37 49Business

respondents

70 61 51

2019 2018 2017

75 64 55

2019 2018 2017

66 60 44

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

52 52 53

61 6163

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 1002018 - 1262017 - 133

21 21 58Consumer

respondents

16 19 66Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

22 23 55Consumer

respondents

66 58 65

2019 2018 2017

70 63 69

2019 2018 2017

64 54 61

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

65 66 66

69 7074 75

70 70 72 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Disability Services

2019 - 342018 - 322017 - 34

129 79Business

respondents

111 88Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

21 10 69Business

respondents

74 63 73

2019 2018 2017

79 68 74

2019 2018 2017

69 57 69

2019 2018 2017

11 -10

Legend77

Last year

54 56 56

55 5557

62 62 61

57 58 57 58

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 872018 - 1362017 - 171

26 17 57Consumer

respondents

19 23 58Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

33 18 49Consumer

respondents

63 68 70

2019 2018 2017

67 71 72

2019 2018 2017

59 66 66

2019 2018 2017

-05 -01

Legend77

Last year

Empathy

71 7275

86 8482

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 162018 - 222017 - 19

42 1 57Business

respondents

28 1 71Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 1 56Business

respondents

55 76 63

2019 2018 2017

70 80 67

2019 2018 2017

59 71 65

2019 2018 2017

-21 13

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=128)

Annual turnover

Business size

19 18 6

Under 20

staff96

20+ staff4

Metro71Regional

Rural24

Male42

Female58

Metro70Regional

Rural1722 29

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

8784 83 81

90 90 89 90 90 9288 89

92 90 91 90 89

Values

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

57 88Consumer

respondents

35 92Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 9 86Consumer

respondents

87 89 91

2019 2018 2017

90 91 92

2019 2018 2017

85 87 89

2019 2018 2017

-03 -01

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

89 8884 86 88

91 94 93 91 92 90 91 92 93 9292 96

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Ambulance Services

99Business

respondents

11 89Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

99Business

respondents

91 91 88

2019 2018 2017

90 91 87

2019 2018 2017

87 94 86

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

77 7579 78

7174 75 73

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 20 70Consumer

respondents

7 20 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16 23 61Consumer

respondents

74 74 76

2019 2018 2017

77 77 78

2019 2018 2017

69 69 68

2019 2018 2017

00 -03

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

59 58 58

64 59 6161

70 68 68 6965 64 65

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Hospitals

10 25 65Business

respondents

10 22 68Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17 27 56Business

respondents

69 72 66

2019 2018 2017

72 74 69

2019 2018 2017

66 66 63

2019 2018 2017

-03 06

Legend77

Last year

63 61 6259

74 72 72 74 7674 72 73

66 6871

Values

erYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 - 1142018 - 1512017 - 179

11 18 71Consumer

respondents

810 82Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 21 61Consumer

respondents

73 71 75

2019 2018 2017

77 76 79

2019 2018 2017

67 67 68

2019 2018 2017

01 -04

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 68 67

73 74 7572

6872 70 69 69

73 7476

73 7275 73 74 76 76

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

2019 ndash 28 2018 - 382017 - 38

7 20 72Business

respondents

7 27 66Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 27 59Business

respondents

71 66 71

2019 2018 2017

75 74 77

2019 2018 2017

70 61 67

2019 2018 2017

05 -04

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=96)

Annual turnover

Business size

legal documentation

Under 20

staff97

20+ staff3

Metro76

Regional9

Rural15

4011 11 6

2912 10

Male53

Female47 Metro

70Regional

Rural14

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

25 23 29 23

60 60 59

Values

2019 - 94 2018 - 1042017 - 93

Courts

23 23 54Consumer

respondents

15 22 63Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

29 23 48Consumer

respondents

63 60 64

2019 2018 2017

70 67 71

2019 2018 2017

59 55 61

2019 2018 2017

03 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6368 68

Values

2019 - 192018 ndash 292017 - 35

Courts

8 25 66Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18 10 72Business

respondents

74 60 60

2019 2018 2017

79 70 74

2019 2018 2017

75 63 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

8386 88 87 86

88 8993 92 93 95 94 96

91 92 9294

Values

2019 - 242018 ndash 282017 - 34

Fire Brigades

3 97Consumer

respondents

3 97Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3 97Consumer

respondents

91 91 83

2019 2018 2017

93 92 86

2019 2018 2017

86 90 84

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

9397 98 95

85 8589

9994 94 94 94

Values

2019 - 152018 - 182017 - 18

Fire Brigades

1 99Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1 99Business

respondents

91 100 76

2019 2018 2017

91 100 78

2019 2018 2017

95 90 74

2019 2018 2017

-08 24

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

65 65 65

73 73 75 74 7477

7073 73 73

Values

2019 - 217 2018 - 176 2017 - 228

Police

14 14 72Consumer

respondents

1110 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 16 72Consumer

respondents

75 77 79

2019 2018 2017

75 72 74

2019 2018 2017

-02 -02

78 82 81

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

77 79 8076

7876 76

80 7982

Values

2019 - 352018 - 562017 - 55

Police

20 79Business

respondents

20 80Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14 85Business

respondents

80 79 83

2019 2018 2017

80 78 86

2019 2018 2017

00 -04

81 83 85

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

57 57 57

Values

2019 - 232018 - 272017 - 21

Prisons

31 40 29Consumer

respondents

30 9 61Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

42 11 46Consumer

respondents

54 36 58

2019 2018 2017

54 35 67

2019 2018 2017

17 -22

67 49 60

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6270 72 74

55 54 55

75 74 75 74 77 74 72 74 7672 69 69 71

Values

2019 - 142018 - 142017 - 11

Prisons

18 82Business

respondents

18 82Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

181 81Business

respondents

79 53 65

2019 2018 2017

73 42 52

2019 2018 2017

26 -12

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

83 61 71

2019 2018 2017

83 85 8487 86 88 86

91 90 9092 90 90 92 92 93 94

90 92 92 92

Values

2019 - 472018 - 432017 - 51

11 87Consumer

respondents

5 93Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7 91Consumer

respondents

90 85 88

2019 2018 2017

90 82 87

2019 2018 2017

05 -03

91 86 89

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

80 82 84 84 84 82 85 8289

86 82 7982 80 80 81 83 85 83 86 86

8789 85

Values

2019 - 132018 - 152017 - 14

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

100Business

respondents

100Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

100Business

respondents

87 87 60

2019 2018 2017

85 86 67

2019 2018 2017

87 82 77

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Region

Business (n=19)

Annual turnover

Business size

71 7054

13 8 9

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro44

Regional46

Rural10

1925 21

Male65

Female35 Metro

63Regional21

Rural1642 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

31 27 2912

6058 56

6966 66 65 65

70 69 70 71

6165 64 64

Values

2019 - 382018 - 362017 - 38

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

14 15 70Consumer

respondents

23 3 75Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23 10 67Consumer

respondents

73 81 75

2019 2018 2017

75 83 81

2019 2018 2017

66 81 71

2019 2018 2017

-08 06

Empathy

Legend77

Last year

68 66 68 6769 71

78 7876

78 7780 78 76 77

73 73 7571

Values

2019 - 192018 - 162017 - 12

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

33 67Business

respondents

25 75Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9 91Business

respondents

74 66 73

2019 2018 2017

78 79 77

2019 2018 2017

78 68 77

2019 2018 2017

08 -07

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=193)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional13

Rural12

412 16

Male52

Female48 Metro

Regional12

Rural1127 31

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

69 69 6865

73 7479

72 73 7378 77 76 76

7478 78

7375 75 74

Values

510 85Consumer

respondents

9 88Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

813 79Consumer

respondents

80 79 78

2019 2018 2017

82 80 79

2019 2018 2017

77 76 73

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

64 65 6562

70 7174

67 6669

72 7275

6872 73

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

11 20 70Business

respondents

10 17 72Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 20 66Business

respondents

71 73 77

2019 2018 2017

75 74 78

2019 2018 2017

73 67 73

2019 2018 2017

-02 -04

Legend77

Last year

51 50 49 50

58 5552

61 6164

58 58 59 58

Values

Major Roads

18 27 55Consumer

respondents

14 12 74Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

25 32 43Consumer

respondents

65 66 63

2019 2018 2017

71 72 67

2019 2018 2017

57 61 60

2019 2018 2017

-01 03

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

78 7873

6469 70

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Major Roads

48 50Business

respondents

47 53Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

47 50Business

respondents

74 79 63

2019 2018 2017

75 76 67

2019 2018 2017

69 72 63

2019 2018 2017

-05 16

Legend77

Last year

66 66 66 65

71 7175

67 68 6871 70 70 70

73 7269

67 6769 70

Values

Public Transport

7 19 73Consumer

respondents

5 20 76Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11 27 62Consumer

respondents

74 74 73

2019 2018 2017

76 75 74

2019 2018 2017

69 69 67

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

6466 66 67

7169 68 71

69 7067

Values

sYoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

Profiling

Public Transport

514 81Business

respondents

5 14 81Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5 15 80Business

respondents

72 72 67

2019 2018 2017

76 73 71

2019 2018 2017

73 73 61

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Region

Business (n=67)

Annual turnover

Business size

Under 20

staff98

20+ staff2

Metro75

Regional15

Rural10

3723 27

Male51

Female49

Metro76

Regional10

Rural1427 33

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

6463 64

6967 65

71 73 73 72 74

6467 68 68

Values

2019 - 2402018 - 2382017 - 239

Water Supply

8 15 77Consumer

respondents

4 17 79Consumer

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12 18 70Consumer

respondents

76 74 74

2019 2018 2017

78 75 76

2019 2018 2017

71 71 69

2019 2018 2017

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Empathy

62 62 6360

66 6769

Values

2019 - 672018 - 532017 - 49

Water Supply

5 24 71Business

respondents

4 18 77Business

respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13 24 62Business

respondents

74 69 74

2019 2018 2017

77 70 74

2019 2018 2017

70 66 69

2019 2018 2017

04 -04

Legend77

Last year

Whole-of-government

Public ndash I1-A2

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

values)

jurisdictions

Project Objectives

Research Inputs

Research Outputs

Victoria 2073 537 2610

Protection

In scope services

Public ndash I1-A2

18-24 12 (n=209)

Male 49(n=891)

(n=580)

25-34 17 (n=302)

Female 51 (n=1107)

Public Hospitals 14

(n=412)

35-44 16(n=310)

Rural SA 14(n=218)

(n=240)

55-64 16(n=388)

Police 7(n=217)

65+ 23(n=509)

TAFE 3 (n=126)

(n=135)

Rural SA 14(n=52)

10-19 employees 20

(n=57)

20-199 1 (n=113)

200+ 1 (n=120)

Police 6(n=35)

TAFE 5(n=36)

Disability 5 (n=34)

Ambulance 4(n=24)

(n=32)

Employee attributes

Outcome area

employees

Good service

Integrity

Accountability

GoalsComponent 2

Are consistent

Communicate well

Consumer

employees

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Values

Driver

Moderate

Employee autonomy

Transparency

Privacy

Low (1) High (10)74

Low (1) High (10)70

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)

Low (1) High (10)75

Low (1) High (10)64

Low (1) High (10)66

Low (1) High (10)68

Communication

Consumer

Low (1) High (10)73

Slide Number 1

TABLE ON CONTENTS

Slide Number 3

Slide Number 4

Slide Number 5

Slide Number 6

Slide Number 7

Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19

Slide Number 20

Slide Number 21

Slide Number 22

Slide Number 23

Slide Number 24

Slide Number 25

Slide Number 26

Slide Number 27

Slide Number 28

Slide Number 29

Slide Number 30

Slide Number 31

Slide Number 32

Slide Number 33

Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35

Slide Number 36

Slide Number 37

Slide Number 38

Slide Number 39

Slide Number 40

Slide Number 41

Slide Number 42

Slide Number 43

Slide Number 44

Slide Number 45

Slide Number 46

Slide Number 47

Slide Number 48

Slide Number 49

Slide Number 50

Slide Number 51

Slide Number 52

Slide Number 53

Slide Number 54

Slide Number 55

Slide Number 56

Slide Number 57

Slide Number 58

Slide Number 59

Slide Number 60

Slide Number 61

Slide Number 62

Slide Number 63

Slide Number 64

Slide Number 65

Slide Number 66

Slide Number 67

Slide Number 69

Slide Number 70

Slide Number 71

Slide Number 72

Slide Number 73

Slide Number 74

Slide Number 75

Slide Number 76

Slide Number 77

Slide Number 78

Slide Number 79

Slide Number 80

Slide Number 81

Slide Number 82

Slide Number 83

Slide Number 84

Slide Number 85

Slide Number 86

Slide Number 87

Slide Number 88

Slide Number 89

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99

Slide Number 100

Slide Number 101

Slide Number 102

Slide Number 103

Slide Number 104

Slide Number 105

Slide Number 106

Slide Number 107

Slide Number 108

Slide Number 109

Slide Number 110

Slide Number 111

Slide Number 112

Slide Number 113

Slide Number 114

Slide Number 115

Slide Number 116

Slide Number 117

Slide Number 118

Slide Number 119

Slide Number 120

Slide Number 121

Slide Number 122

Slide Number 123

Slide Number 124

Slide Number 125

Slide Number 126

Slide Number 127

Slide Number 128

Slide Number 129

Slide Number 130

Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

Slide Number 134

Slide Number 135

Slide Number 136

Slide Number 137

Slide Number 138

Slide Number 139

Slide Number 140

Slide Number 141

Slide Number 142

Slide Number 143

Slide Number 144

Slide Number 145

Slide Number 146

Slide Number 147

Slide Number 148

Slide Number 149

Slide Number 150

Slide Number 151

Slide Number 152

Slide Number 153

Slide Number 154

Slide Number 155

Slide Number 156

Slide Number 157

Slide Number 158

Slide Number 159

Slide Number 160

Slide Number 161

Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167

Slide Number 168

Slide Number 169

Slide Number 170

Slide Number 171

Slide Number 172

Slide Number 173

Slide Number 174

Slide Number 175

Slide Number 176

Slide Number 177

Slide Number 179

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION …

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Documents

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION …

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1

Sheet1