Home >> Publications >> ICT Better Practice & Collaboration >> Australians' use of and satisfaction with e-government services >> Use of e-government services

Australians' Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services

3 Use of e-government services

Central to this study was the need to determine levels of e-government usage, including what specific services people were and were not accessing via the Internet and telephone. The study also sought to identify whether Internet and telephone contacts with government tended to be for basic or more sophisticated tasks, such as transactions involving credit cards.

The following section covers:

• levels of general Internet use;
• which government services are being accessed, particularly those being accessed via the Internet and telephone;
• the level of government that people are more likely to access via the Internet and telephone; and
• the sophistication level of services accessed via the Internet and telephone.

3.1 Internet use

3.1.1 Levels of general Internet use

More than 7 in 10 Australian adults used the Internet in the past year and 42% of those people used it daily.

The random survey found that more than 7 in 10 Australian adults used the Internet in the past year. Specifically, it found that:

• 71% of respondents had used the Internet at home, work, school, library, or other locations;
• 27% had never used the Internet; and
• 2% were not sure whether or not they had used the Internet.

In terms of frequency of use, 42% of people who had used the Internet in the past year used it daily, 22% used it weekly, 5% used it monthly and only 2% used it less than once a month.

People who participated in focus groups indicated that their Internet use had increased over time. Not only were they using the Internet more often, people also said that they were spending more time on it when they did access it. Participants in the groups said the types of tasks they were using the Internet for had changed, and they were now more likely to use it for functional purposes such as banking and paying bills rather than entertainment. Overall, Internet users are doing more and surfing less.

3.1.2 Levels of Internet use to access government services

Results for the general population

Figure 3.1 shows that 39% of adult Australians had accessed a government service via the Internet in the past 12 months (from the random survey of the general adult Australian population). This figure is based on the fact that 39% of all respondents to the random survey said that ‘all’, ‘most’, ‘some’, ‘a few’ or ‘just one’ of their contacts with government agencies and services took place over the Internet.

Significantly, 14% of people who reported contacting government via the Internet reported using the Internet in the majority(all or most) of their contacts with government services.

Of the remaining 61% who had not accessed a government service in the past 12 months via the Internet, almost half of these did not use the Internet at all, for any purpose.

Perhaps a more revealing – and certainly more positive – measure is to exclude people that do not use the Internet at all. This reveals that more than half of all Australian adult Internet users (55%) used the Internet to access a government service in the past 12 months.

How these findings compare with previous e-government results

E-government use (currently 39% of Australians) has grown. The most recent data based on a sample size comparable to this study was by the ABS[6]. Data collected in 2002 indicated that one in five (21%) adults accessed government services via the Internet for private purposes (that is, not business purposes). The significant increase in use of the Internet to access government services confirms the steady increase in use that the ABS had found. For example, the ABS reported that use of the Internet to access government had increased by 5% from 2001-2002.

It should also be noted that another study[7] - conducted by consulting firm Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) - reported that 47% of Australian adults use online government services. There are some clear differences in the terms of reference for the TNS study, not least of which is the fact that it was global. It is likely that the size of the samples used to calculate Australian data were significantly lower - and therefore less reliable - than the sample used for this study.[8] The TNS survey also contained prompts about types of government services that people may have accessed, which this study did not.

3.2 Telephone use

Governments around Australia have invested heavily in providing access to services via the telephone. The study found that people are more likely to use the telephone than the Internet to access government. As part of the random survey, people were asked to nominate up to three contacts with government, including those made in person, via mail, via Internet and via telephone. The study found that of all contacts with government in the past 12 months, 28% were by telephone and 19% of contacts were via the Internet. Both Internet and telephone are more popular than mail (13% of all contacts) as channels for accessing government services. As would be expected, given that a number of services are only available in person, nearly half (46%) of all contacts with government occurred face-to-face.

3.3 Types of services being accessed

3.3.1 Most popular services and service categories

When asked whether they had contacted government for any reason in the past 12 months, 86% of respondents answered positively. For the purposes of this study, specific services were grouped into larger `service categories’ to allow detailed analysis. As shown in Figure 3.2, the category with the highest proportion of contacts was community and social services (20%), followed by transport (18%), and land, property, planning, and construction (15%).

Note: the total percentage for all service categories exceeds 100% as multiple responses were allowed.

To provide further detail about people’s interaction with government through all channels, respondents were also asked about the specific services they had accessed. Examples of these types of services include various registrations, payments and benefits.

Figure 3.3 shows the specific services used (through any channel, not only e-government), where the most frequently reported were:

• car, boat, vehicle registration and licences (13% of all services reported);
• land tax or rates (10%);
• income or personal tax (8%); and
• family benefit, child allowance, or childcare benefits (7%).

Other commonly reported contacts with government services included building permits or planning applications, health benefits, and non-health related services for the aged (4% of contacts were reported for each service).

Most popular services accessed via the Internet

There were significant variations in the types of services accessed by people via the Internet. Specifically, income or personal tax services displaced vehicle registrations and land rates as the most often accessed service. Of all contacts with government that were made via the Internet,[10] the services most frequently accessed were:

• income or personal tax (16%);
• land rates or tax (10%);
• car, boat, vehicle registration and licences (8%);
• family benefit, child allowance or childcare benefits (3%); and
• parking permits or fines (3%).

Most popular services accessed via the telephone

Variations between what people accessed via the telephone, and what people accessed generally, were much less obvious. In general, the types of services accessed via the telephone mirrored the services accessed across the board. Of all contacts made with government over the telephone, the services most frequently accessed were:

• family benefit, child allowance or childcare benefits (13%);
• land rates or tax (9%);
• income or personal tax (7%);
• car, boat, vehicle registration and licences (5%); and
• building permit or planning applications (4%).

3.3.2 Level of government contacted

Respondents were asked to specify the level of government for each service they accessed (Australian Government, state/territory governments, or local government). For those who knew the name of the government agency accessed rather than the level of government, the agency name was recorded and later assigned to the appropriate level of government.[11]

As shown in Figure 3.4, contact with the three levels of government was fairly evenly distributed – 35% of contacts were with the Australian Government, 31% with state/territory governments and 33% with local governments.

Of the contacts made with the Australian Government, contacts with community and social services were the most common (28%), followed by business services, economics, finance and taxation (25%), and health and health services (11%).

Contacts relating to transport are most common (49%) for state/territory governments, followed by community and social services (9%), and health and health services (7%).

Contacts relating to land, property planning and construction are most common (42%) for local government, followed by community and social services business services (20%), and transport (8%).

Level of government accessed via the Internet and telephone

The channel used to access government did not vary significantly by level of government. In person was the most commonly used channel with all three levels of government, followed by telephone, and to a lesser extent, Internet.

Despite this, there are some notable differences in channel use across the various tiers of government. The Internet accounted for 23% of contacts with the Australian Government, 19% of contacts with state/territory governments and 15% of contacts with local government. Similarly, while in person is the most popular channel across all tiers of government, it is less often used for contacts with the Australian Government (38% of contacts with which were in person) than for state/territory governments (50% of contacts with which were in person) or local government (49% of contacts with which were in person).

3.3.3 Type of information exchange

The study examined what types of services, in terms of sophistication, were being accessed via specific channels. To capture this information, people interviewed for the random survey were asked to specify exactly what was involved in a specific contact. The responses fell into one of the three types; contacts were:

• where the person sought information (least sophisticated) only;
• where the person provided information about themselves (with no exchange of information); or
• where information was exchanged (most sophisticated) between the person and the government.

Overall, over half (58%) of the total contacts with government services involved information exchange, the most ‘sophisticated’ type of contact. The next highest response (21%) was for seeking information, followed by providing information (20%).

As shown in Figure 3.5, contacts with local or state/territory governments tended to involve more sophisticated interactions (35% each involved an exchange of information), than contacts with the Australian Government (29% of which involved an exchange of information). Contact involving simple seeking or obtaining of information was significantly more likely to occur when dealing with the Australian Government (48% provided information to government, 41% sought information from government).

Other significant differences in the sophistication level of contacts by tier of government were:

• Only 24% of contacts involving provision of information occurred with state/territory governments, and 26% with local governments (compared with 48% for Australian Government contacts).
• Only 25% of contacts involving only seeking information occurred with state/territory governments and 32% with local governments (compared with 41% for Australian Government contacts).

Channels favoured for contacts of different levels of sophistication

Figure 3.6 shows there are significant variations in the channels that are preferred by people for contacts involving different levels of sophistication. Perhaps the most significant finding is that the people favoured face-to-face (in person) dealings for the most sophisticated contacts.

Conversely, when conducting a transaction that only involved seeking or obtaining information, people favoured the telephone or the Internet over face-to-face contact.

Note: Percentages add to more than 100% as a small proportion of contacts involved more than one channel (that is, more than one channel was used to complete a single contact).

Other significant findings from analysis of sophistication level of the contact by channels are summarised below:

• the channel used for basic contacts (that is, seeking or obtaining information) were roughly evenly distributed, with telephone most popular (36%), followed by the Internet (33%) and in person (30%);
• the channel used for contacts involving providing information (with no exchange) were more likely to be made in person (41%) than by telephone (28%), mail (20%), and the Internet (16%); and
• over half of all contacts involving an exchange of information were made in person (52%), followed by telephone (26%), and the Internet (15%).

Participants in the focus groups provided additional insight into the types of contacts best suited to the Internet and telephone. A number of participants suggested that the sophistication level of the transaction was not the key factor in deciding how suitable a contact was for the Internet. Rather, it was the perceived ambiguity or complexity of a particular task that was more critical. Ambiguous tasks were those that involved clarification and were open to interpretation, including qualification for benefits. Examples of complex tasks were those that required multiple forms, including applications for passports.

As a general rule, the study found the more ambiguous a task, the less likely it is to be performed online. Simple tasks like changing address details, or paying registration were often performed online, however more complex tasks were not. “It depends on how specific your issue is. If it’s something straightforward, like paying my rego [registration], I’ll do it on the Internet, but if it’s ‘hang on, why have I used more water when I haven’t been at home than my mother who waters her garden everyday’ – that’s a phone job”.

The Internet was used far more often for tasks that are unambiguous. This is true for both searching for information, as well as transactions. One participant stated they were “more comfortable with the written word [than a spoken word], it’s there in black and white in front of you” and therefore not subject to interpretation by the person giving you the information.

Participants indicated that they shy away from online transactions for certain types of interactions. One person stated “If it’s an easy answer [I’d feel comfortable using] email ... but if it gets complicated face-to-face, because it’s all open to interpretation when you’re reading it”. This was further enhanced by the inability of the Internet to adequately transmit non-verbal communications such as body language. Table 3.1 depicts channel preferences expressed by focus group participants in particular circumstances.

Table 3.1 - Ambiguity of contact and relationship to channel preference

Level of complexity	Low Ambiguity	High Ambiguity
Low complexity	Prefer Internet – usage already high	Prefer phone
Moderate complexity	Use Internet if confident, increasing use over time	Prefer face to face or phone
High complexity	Lower usage of Internet, however there is willingness if shown how. Internet use increasing over time	Prefer face to face

---

[5] In response to the survey question: ‘Thinking of all the contacts that you have had with government agencies and services over the past 12 months, about what proportion of these took place over the Internet?’. Note that the figures in this chart, where at least one contact has been made, appear to add to 38% - this is a rounding issue, where figures have been rounded down to avoid decimal places in the chart. The total of all responses indicating government usage is 39%

[6] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) Year Book Australia: Communications and information technology, Use of information technology.

[7] Government Online: An International Perspective 2003. TNS

[8] While a country by country breakdown is not available for the TNS data, and so there is not absolute clarity on the TNS Australia numbers, it can be anticipated that Australia did not have three times more respondents than other countries (or, in other words, take up 12% of the sample, which would be what was required to reach 3,838 respondents).

[9] This graph indicates the top 10 responses, therefore total percentages may not equal 100%.

[10] Based on findings of the re-contact survey.

[11] 1% of contacts were unable to be allocated to a level of government as the respondent was unsure of the level of government and the nature of the service (for example, particular health services can be provided by all levels of government in Australia) meant that it was difficult for the interviewer to determine.

---

Contact for information on this page: <a href="mailto:e-government@finance.gov.au">e-government@finance.gov.au</a>

---

Back to top