|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual reports (No. 1 of 2003)March 2003 © Commonwealth of Australia 2003 ISBN 0 642 71213 |
View the report as a single document - (PDF xxKB)
View the report as separate downloadable parts:
 |
|
| Membership of the Committee | |
| Report on Annual Reports - Overview | |
| Chapter 1 - Departments | |
|
Department of Health and Ageing 2001-2002 Department of Family and Community Services 2001-2002
|
|
| Chapter 2 - Statutory authorities | |
| Australia New Zealand Food Authority 2001-2002 Australian Hearing Services (Australian Hearing) 2001-2002 Australian Institute of Family Studies 2001-2002 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2001-2002 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 2001-2002 Centrelink 2001-2002 Commissioner for Complaints 2001-2002 Gene Technology Regulator 2001-2002 Health Insurance Commission 2001-2002 National Health and Medical Research Council 2001 Operations of the Registered Health Benefits Organisations 2001-2002 Private Health Insurance Administration Council 2001-2002 Private Health Insurance Ombudsman 2001-2002 Professional Services Review 2001-2002 Social Security Appeals Tribunal 2000-2001
|
|
| Chapter 3 - Non-statutory bodies | |
Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority 2000-2001
|
|
| Chapter 4 - Government companies and Government business enterprises | |
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd 2001-2002 |
|
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Secretariat
Mr Elton
Humphery
Secretary
The Senate
Parliament House
Canberra
ACT 2600
Phone:02 6277 3515
Fax:02 6277 5829
E-mail:community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Internet:http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca
Members
|
Senator Sue Knowles, Chairman |
LP, Western Australia |
|
Senator Brian Greig, Deputy Chair |
AD, Western Australia |
|
Senator Guy Barnett |
LP, Tasmania |
|
Senator Kay Denman |
ALP, Tasmania |
|
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan |
LP, New South Wales |
|
Senator Steve Hutchins |
ALP, New South Wales |
1.1 This report was prepared pursuant to Standing Order 25 (21) relating to the consideration of annual reports by Committees.
1.2 The majority of annual reports referred to the Committee were tabled within a reasonable time after the relevant reporting period, except for the 2001-02 report of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority, which has yet to be tabled, and the January-March 2002 Quarterly Report of the Gene Technology Regulator (GTR), which was not tabled until November 2002. The Committee notes that this is the second year in a row that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority has failed to table its report within a reasonable time. While the tabling of the January-March 2002 Quarterly Report of GTR in November 2002 technically fulfills the reporting requirements which require the Regulator to table these reports ‘as soon as practicable’ after the end of each quarter, the Committee considers that this report should have been tabled earlier. The Committee urges both agencies to ensure that future reports are tabled in a timely fashion.
1.3 Annual reports place a great deal of information about government agencies on the public record. Accordingly, the timely tabling of these reports is an important element of accountability to the Parliament.
1.4 The Committee’s examination of the annual reports referred to it has shown that the reports generally address the relevant reporting guidelines in a satisfactory manner. Overall, the reports present information in a concise and ‘reader-friendly’ way and maintain a high standard of presentation.
1.5 The reports usually provide a detailed account of programs and outcomes of the relevant authorities, including performance information. However, a deficiency in some reports is that information on performance outcomes is largely a catalogue of ‘activities’ undertaken during the year. Annual reports should be documents that contain an evaluation of performance in the form of an assessment of how far the particular agency has progressed towards meeting outcomes, rather than just a description of processes and activities.
1.6 As noted above, while the reports examined by the Committee generally meet the reporting requirements, the Committee has made specific comments on several reports where reporting on certain aspects relating to the agency’s performance could be improved.
Timeliness
1.7 The report was presented to the temporary chair of committees on 30 October 2002 and tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 12 November 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
Quality
1.8 The annual report provides a detailed and balanced account of the Department’s outcomes and activities.
1.9 The report, as in previous years places a strong emphasis on performance reporting, especially through its outcome performance reports which provide a concise analysis of Departmental outcomes. The outcome reports are written in a ‘reader friendly’ style and include comprehensive reports on a range of performance measures. The report also includes useful information on portfolio-related agencies with an explanation of their functions and how they relate to general Departmental portfolio outcomes (pp.21-24). The Committee is pleased to note that several of its comments and suggestions made in its last report towards improving aspects of the Department’s annual report have been addressed in this report.
Reporting requirements
1.10 All reporting requirements are met.
Performance reporting
1.11 The report provides details of the Department’s activities during the 2001-02 financial year against the performance indicators presented in the 2001-02 Portfolio Budget Statements and Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements. The report states that although its primary purpose is to provide members of Parliament and Senators with an accurate description of Departmental activities the report is also a valuable source of information for the community and as such the Department has ‘endeavoured to take into consideration the requirements of such a diverse audience’ by providing readers with a narrative account of programs as well as more specific performance information (p.iii).
1.12 The report is structured into four parts - an overview section which provides an explanation of the Department’s activities and broad strategic directions and priorities; outcome performance reports, which discuss the main activities, including major achievements and challenges of the nine Departmental outcomes; financial statements; and appendices which provide a range of statistical and other information.
1.13 The report provides a comprehensive focus on performance reporting. The Secretary’s review discusses a number of initiatives during the year, including major reviews into health expenditures, and other issues including access to residential aged care places, nursing and skilled Indigenous health workforce issues, and issues related to child immunisation rates (pp.1-3). This review also discusses areas where the Department was unable to meet intended outcomes, including some aspects of the residential care and Indigenous health outcomes, with the review noting that ‘these continue to be a challenge for the Department’ (p.3).
1.14 The report also contains detailed performance information in the form of outcome performance reports which discuss the major achievements and challenges of the nine outcomes within the Department. Financial resources summary tables are also located within each outcome report and provide a useful summary of budget expenditures for 2001-02 and budget estimates for 2002-03. The approach adopted in these performance reports has generally improved in the current annual report by providing a more balanced approach to performance reporting. In its last report the Committee noted that some performance reports overly concentrated on ‘achievements’ to the detriment of balanced reporting. In the current annual report the performance reports discuss ‘achievements’ but also note ‘challenges’ that the Department needs to address in meeting objectives.
External scrutiny
1.15 As in previous years, the report provides information on external scrutiny of its activities by several bodies including the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Parliament (pp.15-19).
1.16 With regard to ANAO audits, the report provides a concise summary of the audits specific to the Department and Departmental action in relation to the reports. A list of cross agency audits relevant to the Department is included in the report and readers are directed to the ANAO website for further information in relation to these audit reports (pp.15-17).
Consultancies
1.17 The report provides comprehensive information on consultancies, including details of the amounts paid and the justification for individual consultancies (pp.438-61). The report states that the Department engaged 305 consultants during 2001-02 (p.438). Expenditure on consultancies in 2001-02 was $23 million - similar to the previous year’s expenditure of $22 million (pp.438,475).
Timeliness
1.18 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
Quality
1.19 The annual report provides a detailed overview of the Department’s functions and activities. Volume 1 provides an overview of Departmental operations while Volume 2 provides more detail of Departmental outcomes, including performance reporting.
1.20 The report is ‘user-friendly’ and generally provides performance information in a clear, concise and well-presented manner. While the sections on performance reporting provide a useful overview of Departmental outcomes, these parts of the report could be improved by providing a more thoroughly analytical approach in acknowledging where outcomes and goals have not been achieved.
Reporting requirements
1.21 All reporting requirements have been met.
Performance reporting
1.22 As noted above, this year’s annual report has been split into two volumes ‘for ease of access and readability’ (Volume 1, p.69). Volume 1 provides a strategic focus, with an overview of the Department’s achievements and policy directions. Volume 2 provides more detailed information, covering performance reporting, management issues, financial statements and a series of appendices, which provide information on advertising, consultants and other matters. FaCS comments that ‘it is a continuing challenge for the department to maintain a manageable publication size while ensuring mandatory requirements are met. This is a difficult task for a department that has appropriations of more than $56.4 billion to report’ (Volume 1, p.69).
1.23 Performance reporting in both volumes of the report could be improved by a more explicit acknowledgment of areas where outcomes have not been met. The Department’s last report provided a more analytical assessment of how far the Department had progressed towards meeting its outcomes. While Volume 1 contains sections on ‘achievements and challenges’ for output groups, discussion of outcomes is largely in terms of ‘achievements’. Volume 2 contains more detailed information on performance, however, reporting in this area needs to include more discussion of areas where outcomes have not been achieved - this aspect often gets ‘lost’ in the detail of the voluminous information presented. The information presented is largely descriptive whereas more evaluation of the material needs to be provided. Some ‘performance summaries’ relating to output groups in this volume are little more than lists of achievements. Some output groups do, however, make some attempt to provide a more balanced account (see, for example, output group 2.1- housing support, Volume 2, pp.117-18).
External scrutiny
1.24 As in previous years, the report provides useful information on the external scrutiny of its activities by a range of agencies, including the Privacy Commissioner, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the ANAO (Volume 2, pp.245-54).
1.25 With regard to privacy matters, the Committee notes the low level of complaints received by the Privacy Commissioner in relation to activities by the Department and Departmental-related agencies - the Child Support Agency (CSA) and CRS Australia (Volume 2, pp.245-48).
1.26 Complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman are also discussed in the report (pp.249-51). Complaints in relation to FaCS and CRS Australia were low, whereas the Ombudsman received 2007 complaints about the Child Support Agency. The Ombudsman’s report notes however, that the number of complaints received was 8 per cent lower than the previous year, when 2178 complaints were received. The Ombudsman stated that the ‘continuing downward trend in relation to CSA complaints reflects in part improved service standards within the CSA and the effectiveness of the CSA’s own complaints service’.[1]
1.27 The report also discusses ANAO audits conducted in 2001-02, with the Department indicating that it was the subject of eight such reviews in 2001-02. A summary of these audit reports is provided in the annual report and the Department’s actions in response to the recommendations is also discussed (Volume 2, pp.251-53).
Consultancies
1.28 Information in the report provides details on consultancy services for the FaCS portfolio, excluding Centrelink and the Australian Institute of Family Studies, including the cost of individual consultancies (Volume 2, pp.319-332).
1.29 The report shows that during the 2001-02 financial year, 135 consultancy services were engaged (where the amount paid was $10 000 or greater) with an overall expenditure of $13.2 million for the portfolio as a whole, compared with $16.5 million in the previous year (p.319). Of these consultancy services, the Department engaged 95 - for a total amount of $10.8 million (p.319).
Australia New Zealand Food Authority 2001-2002
1.30 The report was presented to the temporary chair of committees on 29 October 2002 and tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 12 November 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.31 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful review of the Authority’s functions and activities. The report notes that the Authority has put in place a number of arrangements for its establishment on 1 July 2002 as a new organisation - Food Standards Australia New Zealand (p.9).
1.32 The bulk of the report provides detailed program reports on major areas of the Authority’s operations. Performance reporting could, however, be improved in these sections of the report by more discussion of where objectives have not been achieved or problems encountered in administering programs in addition to the emphasis on ‘achievements’. This should be the focus of performance reporting in future reports of the new authority.
Australian Hearing Services (Australian Hearing) 2001-2002
1.33 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.34 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise review of the activities of Australian Hearing.
1.35 The report states that over the last 12 months, some 167 000 people used the services provided by Australian Hearing, which was similar to the number in the previous year (pp.8, 48). There was however a decline in the number of children receiving hearing services in 2001-02 compared with the previous year. Some explanation should have been included in the report for this decline. The report notes that as part of its service to Indigenous Australians, 351 visits were made to 127 communities, often in remote locations (p.8). Further details of operational performance are provided in the report (see pp.8-15).
Australian Institute of Family Studies 2001-2002
1.36 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.37 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a detailed review of the Institute’s activities and programs.
1.38 Regarding performance reporting, the report provides a useful summary of the research undertaken by the Institute in terms of performance outcomes, with most of the planned outputs listed as having been ‘achieved’ (see pp.37-50). However, the main body of the report largely concentrates on a description of the ‘activities’ of the Institute. The Committee reiterates the point made in its last review that performance reporting could be improved by a greater emphasis on discussing performance against outputs throughout the report.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2001-2002
1.39 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.40 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful description of the Institute’s functions and activities.
1.41 In relation to performance reporting, the Committee in several previous reports stated that this aspect of the Institute’s reporting could be improved by a greater emphasis on measuring performance against outcomes and goals. While the Institute’s current report provides information on performance according to its contribution to the achievement of broad output groups these need to be developed further to present a more comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of the Institute. For example, in Output Group 3 - production of health-related information - while it is stated that the Institute ‘produced 71 reports averaging 95 pages each’ there is no indication as to the extent to which the majority of the reports met identified targets or not (pp.43-44).
1.42 In the Committee’s last report it suggested that future reports need to provide, at least in summary form, a clearer assessment of the extent to which ‘outputs’ are achieved. A useful model that the Institute could use is the performance summary provided by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in its annual report, referred to above.[2] The Committee believes that the Institute should give consideration to this suggestion in future reports.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 2001-2002
1.43 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 22 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.44 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a detailed review of the Agency’s functions and activities. In particular, the report provides a useful overview of its performance, including a frank assessment of areas where goals have not been met (pp.1-9). The report also includes a useful summary of performance against output groups set out in DOHA’s 2001-02 Portfolio Budget Statements (pp.14-15). In addition, the report sets out a number of objectives to be addressed in the next financial year (p.9).
1.45 The report continues the high standard of presentation of previous years with a continuing emphasis on providing a comprehensive and frank assessment of the Agency’s activities and performance.
Centrelink 2001-2002
1.46 The report was and tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 22 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.47 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive review of the operations of Centrelink, and generally provides a balanced approach to performance reporting.
1.48 Centrelink reports on achievements against performance targets set out in FaCS’ 2001-02 Portfolio Budget Statements and Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements and on six key priorities for service delivery set by the Government and the agency. The report provides a number of performance measures against which Centrelink’s operations can be assessed. The Balanced Scorecard is the key instrument for measuring and reporting Centrelink’s performance and reports against a number of corporate goals. The report comments that ‘maintaining the relevance and dynamics of the Scorecard is an important challenge in a changing environment. Centrelink has identified further opportunities to improve organisational alignment, planning and performance reporting and has commenced a review of the Scorecard in conjunction with the Strategic Directions and Business Plan’ (p.53). The Committee looks forward to reporting on these developments in future reports.
1.49 The report indicates that with regard to client partnerships, Centrelink generally met most of the major client agency’s key performance indicators ‘with significant improvements overall’ (p.54). In relation to customer satisfaction, the report notes that overall customer satisfaction with the quality of Centelink’s people and services is 75 per cent - one percent point lower than the record high achieved in 2000 (p.54). The report notes that Centrelink achieved slightly lower levels of staff satisfaction than last financial year. The report indicates that key challenges in this area are, inter alia, the negotiations of the next Workplace Bargaining Agreement, the development of a people management strategy and implementation of job redesign initiatives (p.55).
1.50 The report also provides information in relation to external scrutiny by a number of bodies including the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the ANAO.
1.51 Regarding privacy issues, the report notes that Centrelink finalised 1310 privacy investigations out of a total of 1383 reported incidents. Of the inquiries finalised in 2001-02, 28 per cent of incidents were substantiated as a breach of privacy or confidentiality (which was a similar proportion to the previous year). The report notes that most of the substantiated breaches were of a ‘minor nature’ and resulted in local managerial action and feedback to staff to address the problem (p.77). Criminal charges were laid by the Director of Public Prosecutions in one of the more serious substantiated privacy breaches. Disciplinary action was also taken against 31 staff members, resulting in these officers being either dismissed, fined, counselled or warned in writing - 41 staff faced disciplinary action in 2000-01 (p.77).
1.52 The Committee notes that the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 8854 complaints about Centrelink in 2001-02, a decrease of 13 per cent over the previous year. The Ombudsman stated that ‘while this is a significantly lower number than the 10,161 received in the previous year, it represents 46% of complaints received in all jurisdictions this year. This is similar to the 47% of all complaints that Centrelink represented in 2000-01’.[3] The Ombudsman indicated that the office has established a working group to consider systemic issues arising from the delivery of social support programs, particularly those developed and administered by FaCS, Centrelink, and the CSA as ‘together, complaints about these agencies accounted for 57% of all complaints to my office in 2001-02’.[4]
1.53 The report also provides information on ANAO audits and action taken by Centrelink in response to issues raised in these reports (pp.34-36).
1.54 With regard to consultancy services, the report indicates that the total number of consultancy services let during 2001-02 was 99. Of these, 65 were consultancies where the total contract value was $10 000 or greater - the total value of these consultancies was $5.6 million in 2001-02, compared with $10.7 million in 2000-01. The total amount paid on all consultancy service contacts in 2001-02 was $8.1 million. This figure includes amounts for consultancies let in 2000-01 that were still active in 2001-02 (p.211).
Commissioner for Complaints 2001-2002
1.55 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.56 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a detailed review of the Commissioner’s activities. The report outlines a number of measures undertaken to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Complaints Resolution Scheme (the Scheme) - ‘by strengthening accountability practices and ensuring a consistent approach to the resolution of complaints’ (p.27).
1.57 The report also provides a clearer description of the functions and role of the Commissioner and the inter-relationship of the Commissioner and the Scheme (and the Department) and the overall complaints process - this addresses a deficiency noted in the Committee’s last report.
1.58 The report states that the Scheme received 1249 complaints in 2001-2002 compared to 1729 complaints in the last financial year. A number of reasons are advanced for this significant decrease in complaints, several arising from the implementation of the aged care reforms (p.29). The average time taken to finalise complaints was reduced from 57 days in 2000-2001 to 40 days in 2001-2002 (p.36).
Gene Technology Regulator 2001-2002
1.59 Quarterly reports covering the period 2001-2002 were tabled in the Senate on 11 March 2002 (July-September 2001 report); 18 June 2002 (October-December 2001 report); and 12 November 2002 (both the January-March 2002 and April-June 2002 reports).
1.60 All reporting requirements are met, except that the January-March 2002 quarterly report was tabled a considerable time after the relevant reporting period.
1.61 The Gene Technology Regulator (GTR) is an independent statutory officeholder responsible for administering and enforcing the regulatory system for genetically modified organisms in Australia.
1.62 The GTR operates through a system of dual reporting responsibilities. The Gene Technology Act 2000 requires the GTR to provide a report to the Minister after each quarter on the operations of the Regulator during that period and the Minister must table the report in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receipt of the report. The annual report of the GTR is incorporated within the Department of Health and Ageing’s annual report.
1.63 The quarterly reports provide a comprehensive review of the activities of the Regulator. The reports are generally well structured, ‘reader-friendly’ and make good use of tables to present an array of detailed material. The reports provide information on the activities and outcomes achieved in relation to the implementation of the national regulatory system; the regulatory activities undertaken during the quarter; activities of the three advisory committees; and other activities, such as advice provided on gene technology regulation and reviews and research undertaken.
Health Insurance Commission 2001-2002
1.64 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 12 November 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.65 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a detailed overview of the Commission’s activities and performance.
1.66 The report provides a set of useful performance measures relating to its customer base, internal business processes and growth and development objectives. Statistics on most of these measures remained at 2000-01 levels or had improved over the reporting period (p.8). In relation to customer satisfaction, the report notes that market research found high levels of satisfaction with HIC services - 90 per cent of customers said they were satisfied with the service they received at Medicare offices (pp.xi, 8).
1.67 With regard to external scrutiny, the report notes that the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 152 complaints about the HIC in 2001-02, which represents less than one percent of all complaints received by the Ombudsman during the reporting period (p.149). Some 150 complaints were received in 2000-01. In relation to privacy issues, the report states that the HIC submits annual returns to the Privacy Commissioner listing the types and use of information it holds. The report indicates that HIC procedures have been found to be satisfactory whenever the Privacy Commissioner has audited compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 (p.149).
1.68 The report was tabled in both houses of Parliament on 27 August 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.69 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a balanced assessment of the operations of the Council.
1.70 The report highlights several developments over the reporting period, including changes in the grants structure; new programs in priority-driven research; and a range of research initiatives for the improvement of Indigenous health (pp.3-5). The report comments that the NHMRC had a ‘difficult year’ in 2001 ‘balancing the activities of the Council with the resources available to perform all the duties and responsibilities of the organisation’ (p.7). The report notes that the NHMRC commissioned an independent operational review to identify ways to improve the efficiency of the Council’s processes, systems and governance structures. The review was scheduled to be completed in 2002 and the Council indicated that ‘it will underpin our further reform and resourcing arrangements’ (p.7).
1.71 The report was tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 12 December 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.72 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful review of the financial operations of registered health benefits organisations.
1.73 The report notes that the year under review posed a series of difficulties for the health insurance industry related especially to the rapid growth of membership in late 1999 -2000 and early 2000-01 and the consequent ‘significant growth in claims’ as waiting periods expired. The report comments that ‘overall the industry’s financial strength declined during the year. Higher claims, combined with a significant downturn in investment markets, have presented new challenges to the industry. However the industry as a whole remains capitally adequate’ (p.1).
Private Health Insurance Administration Council 2001-2002
1.74 The report was presented to the temporary chair of committees on 28 October 2002 and tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 12 November 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.75 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful overview of the operations of the Council. The report states that the Council has encouraged the industry towards improved corporate governance, and has examined its own internal governance and risk management processes (p.3). Details of these initiatives are discussed in the report (pp.16-18). In 2002-03, the report states that PHIAC aims to take an increasingly pro-active attitude to the issues of governance and financial management and continue to improve its approach to regulation (p.5). The Committee looks forward to a discussion of these issues in future reports.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman 2001-2002
1.76 The report was presented to the temporary chair of committees on 31 October 2002 and tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 12 November 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.77 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive review of the activities of the authority over the reporting period. In the overview section of the report the Ombudsman makes a series of useful observations in relation to the need for improved informed financial consent procedures; the necessity for all health funds to have in place internal complaints review and resolution processes; and the need for a greater emphasis on management and director responsibilities - in this regard two health funds are singled out for particular criticism (pp.6-9).
1.78 The report states that the Ombudsman received 3182 complaints in 2001-02, representing a 5 per cent decrease in complaints compared with 2000-01 (p.12). The office finalised 3181 complaints during the year (an average of 265 per month), compared with an average of 274 complaints finalised per month in the previous year (p.16). Further details of performance outcomes are provided in the report (pp.12-21).
Professional Services Review 2001-2002
1.79 The report was presented to the temporary chair of committees on 31 October 2002 and tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 12 November 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.80 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise review of the operations of the Professional Services Review (PSR).
1.81 The report notes that during the year under review some Federal Court decisions impacted negatively on the work of the PSR, however - ‘more recent court decisions have been supportive of the PSR scheme and the manner in which it is being implemented’ (p.viii). The report comments that there has been ‘continuous improvement to the [PSR] framework established in previous years and modified by experience and legal influences...It has also become clear that aberrant professional conduct is being modified by practitioners as a result of PSR outcomes and publicity’ (p.x).
1.82 In relation to operational activities, the report notes that that the PSR received an increase in the number of referrals from the HIC - 94 cases in 2001-02, compared with 63 cases in 2000-01. The report notes that while the number of referrals appears high it is skewed because 52 of the 94 referrals were withdrawn following a Federal Court decision - the HIC subsequently re-referred 33 of these cases. Some 50 referrals were finalised during the reporting period, compared with 42 finalised in 2000-01 (pp.5, 9-10).
Social Security Appeals Tribunal 2001-2002
1.83 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.84 All reporting requirements are met. The report notes that during 2001-02 the Tribunal focussed on ‘taking further steps to establish and maintain nationally consistent standards and approaches’ (p.7). Details of these approaches are discussed in the report (pp.7, 18-20). The report also comments on discussions with Centrelink regarding the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding to improve service delivery outcomes for appellants and improve the Tribunal’s liaison across a range of administrative matters (p.7).
1.85 The report indicates that the Tribunal’s appeal levels decreased marginally over the reporting period with 8919 applications for review in 2001-02, compared with 9112 applications for the previous year (p.8). The report notes that there was continued improvement across a range of performance indicators. Of particular note is the improvement in the timeliness of appeal processing, with the average time taken to process an appeal decreasing from 8.9 weeks in 2000-01 to 8.4 weeks in 2001-02. The internal SSAT standard is to finalise appeals within 10 weeks of lodgment. The report notes that achieving a ‘turnaround’ time of less than nine weeks as an overall average ‘is a very pleasing result’ (p.32; see also Chapter 4). Further details of performance outcomes are provided in the report (pp.21-32).
Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority 2000-2001
1.86 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 18 June 2002.
1.87 All reporting requirements are met, except that the report was tabled a considerable time after the relevant reporting period.
1.88 The report provides a useful review of the operations of the Authority. The report provides information on pricing matters dealt with by the Authority and also includes a range of statistical data.
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd 2001-2002
1.89 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.90 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise overview of the operations of the Agency. The report notes that during the year under review the Agency concentrated, inter alia, on ways to improve both its internal and external operations; evaluated the results of the first round of accreditation; and placed greater emphasis on its educational and information roles so that continuous improvement in the industry can be maintained (p.2).
1.91 The Committee is pleased to note that the suggestions it made in its last report towards improving the content and standard of the Agency’s reporting have been satisfactorily addressed in the current report. In particular the report contains more information on the results of contacts with services and consequent follow-up by the Agency and the Department (pp.13-15). The report also includes information on additional performance indicators so that a more comprehensive picture of performance outcomes is provided (pp.15-18). Overall, the report includes a more detailed and frank assessment of the operations of the Agency than was the case in previous reports.
Health Services Australia Ltd (HSA) 2001-2002
1.92 The report was presented to the temporary chair of committees on 29 November 2002 and tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 2 December 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.93 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful review of HSA services and operations.
1.94 The report states that the company achieved an operating profit before tax of $7.1 million ($5 million after tax) in 2001-02 and achieved its fifth consecutive year of growth in services (pp.3,9). The report notes that in 2001-02 the company developed from a single entity into a Group structure providing a comprehensive range of medical and allied health services to the corporate sector. The report argues that this diversification, combined with innovative, client-focused changes to its business systems has positioned HSA for ‘strong growth’ in future years (p.3).
Medibank Private Ltd 2001-2002
1.95 The report was presented to the Deputy President on 27 September 2002 and tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 15 October 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.96 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise outline of the functions and operations of Medibank Private.
1.97 The report commented on the ‘severe downturn’ in its financial performance which resulted in a $175 million deficit in 2001-02, emphasising that the organisation has ‘re-focussed our priorities to better manage our core business and to work harder at providing leadership in the delivery of private health insurance excellence to our members’ (p.1). A number of initiatives in this area are outlined in the report (pp.1,10-11).
1.98 The report provides a number of useful performance indicators relating to the operation of Medibank Private (pp.6-7). The report also includes information on comparative industry performance (p.5) - this overcomes a deficiency noted in the Committee’s last annual report.
National Institute of Clinical Studies 2001-2002
1.99 The report was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 25 September 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.
1.100 All reporting requirements are met. The Institute is a wholly owned Commonwealth Company, limited by guarantee and governed by the Board of Directors. The Company aims to lead the continuous improvement of clinical practice and its delivery and engage stakeholders in improving clinical services. The report reflects the Institute’s first full year of operations.
1.101 The report provides details of the projects developed in relation to key clinical priority areas and its grants program (pp.6-7,12-21). Its priorities for the future include expanding its clinical priority areas and to ‘identify and invest in areas that more broadly address barriers to the uptake of evidence into routine clinical care within the Australian health system’ (p.7). Future reports need to provide an objective assessment of the Institute’s performance in relation to its objectives.
Senator Sue Knowles
Chairman
March 2003
