Chapter 2 - STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

Australia New Zealand Food Authority 2000-2001

1.32 The report was presented to the President on 31 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.33 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the Authority’s functions and activities. The report details the activities and outcomes of each of the ‘output groups’ identified in the report. Major outputs are listed at the end of each section of the report. Appendices to the report contain information on applications and proposals processed; a statistical overview of staffing; information on the use of consultants; and information on the Authority’s functions and powers.

1.34 The report notes that a major achievement of the Authority was the review and rewriting of the Food Standards Code which resulted in ‘removing very large amounts of prescription and red tape which has previously restricted innovation and added to costs’ (p.9). The report states that a new statutory authority, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, based on the existing Authority, is to be established. The report notes that that it will be a major task of the Authority to inform the public ‘about the disappearance of ANZFA and its re-emergence as the new Food Standards Australia New Zealand at a time when ANZFA has become reasonably well known. Our challenge will be to minimise any confusion during the changeover period as to who should be approached in relation to food regulatory matters’ (p.19).

Australian Hearing Services (Australian Hearing) 2000-2001

1.35 The report was presented to the President on 31 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.36 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful review of the activities of Australian Hearing. The report provides information on the range of services provided to its client groups. The report notes that the effectiveness of the services, products and rehabilitation outcomes is monitored regularly (p.9). Some further information on these reviews should be included in future reports.

1.37 In relation to operational performance, the Committee notes that over the last 12 months, some 167 000 people used the services offered by Australian Hearing, compared with 158 980 in the previous year (p.9). Further details of operational performance is provided in the report (see pp.9-21).

1.38 Regarding external scrutiny, the report states that an ANAO audit of accounts processing concluded that Australian Hearing has good controls to ensure the proper management authorisation of payment for goods and services, and effective risk management strategies related to the payment of accounts. The report noted that recommendations from the ANAO for further improvements were accepted by the authority (p.21).

Australian Institute of Family Studies 2000-2001

1.39 The report was presented to the President on 8 November 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.40 The reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive review of the Institute’s activities and programs.

1.41 The report provides a 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.32-42). The report notes that performance indicators for its research projects require 95 per cent of contracted research projects to be completed within planned timeliness and ‘this target has been achieved’ (p.10). The report also notes that a key performance indicator - to provide publications and other written material as required - has been achieved, and these are detailed throughout the report.

1.42 While there is more emphasis on performance reporting in this year’s report, the main body of the report, however, largely concentrates on a description of ‘activities’ of the Institute. Performance reporting could be improved by a greater emphasis on discussing performance against outputs throughout the report.

1.43 In the Committee’s last report it stated that further details of the Institute’s internal audit program should be included in future reports. The report provided information in this area in the current annual report, indicating that the main focus during the financial year was on upgrading the Institute’s fraud control plan and in reviewing the Institute’s project planning and performance reporting (p.6).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2000-2001

1.44 The report was presented to the President on 29 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.45 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise account of the Institute’s functions and activities in the health and welfare field. This report states that the Institute produced some 82 reports and working papers in 2000-2001 compared to 77 publications during the previous year (pp.17, 37). The report comments on the importance of facilitating access to AIHW data and notes that its website, which averages 1 000 visits per day, ‘has become a cornerstone of the AIHW’s information dissemination strategy by offering the full text of all publications for downloading free of charge’ (p.2).

1.46 In its last report, the Committee stated that performance reporting could be improved by a greater emphasis on measuring performance against outcomes and goals. The Committee notes that in the Institute’s current report it provides information on performance according to its contribution to the achievement of the broad output groups in DHAC’s Portfolio Budget Statements, but as the Institute produces its own annual report these are not included in DHAC’s annual report. The report also provides information on AIHW activities in relation to their contribution to meeting the objectives of the FaCS portfolio (pp.15-48).

1.47 While this approach provides a focus on performance reporting, future reports need to provide, at least in summary form, a clearer assessment of the extent to which ‘outputs’ are achieved. For example, in Output Group 3 - production of health related information - while there is a list of ‘reports produced’ there is no indication as to the extent to which the numerous reports listed met identified targets or not (pp.36-48). 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.[4]

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 2000-2001

1.48 The report was presented to the President on 31 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.49 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive review of the Agency’s functions and activities. The report clearly sets out progress against four main objectives discussed in its last report. The report notes that ‘good progress’ was made in relation to three of these four objectives - ‘without fully achieving the aims set out in last year’s report’ (p.3). The report provides details as to why all the objectives have not been fully achieved (pp.3-4). The report also sets out a number of goals to be addressed in the next financial year (p.9).

1.50 The Committee commends ARPANSA on the frank assessment of the Agency’s activities presented in the current report - as in its last report - and suggests that other agencies could benefit from a more transparent approach to performance reporting as evidenced in this report.

Centrelink 2000-2001

1.51 The report was presented to the President on 22 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.52 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a detailed overview of the operations of Centrelink. The Committee considers that Centrelink’s performance reporting has improved in recent reports with more balanced reporting overall and an acknowledgment of areas where the agency needs to improve its performance.

1.53 The annual report reports on achievements against performance targets set out in FaCS’ 2000-01 Portfolio Budget Statements. The report notes that Centrelink achieved ‘strong results in most measures, including that of staff satisfaction, which we targeted for specific improvement in last year’s report’ (p.8; see also pp.45-46). The report noted that staff approval against each of the 14 measures in place increased over the year, and in the June 2001 staff survey more than 70 per cent of staff rated their job satisfaction as ‘good’ or ‘better’ (p.7). Measures to address staffing issues, including staff satisfaction are detailed in the report (pp.46, 127-149).

1.54 Regarding client partnerships, the report commented that ‘while relationships with our client agencies continued to improve this year, Centrelink again encountered significant challenges in striving to meet some key performance indicators (KPIs)’ (p.8). These included meeting client agencies’ KPIs; addressing issues identified in the ANAO audit in relation to new claims for Age Pensions; and providing additional value to client agencies through feedback on policy implementation and future policy development (pp.8, 53-78). Strategies to address these issues are discussed in the report (p.8; see also pp.41-42, 53-84).

1.55 With regard to customer satisfaction, the report noted that survey results in November 2000, indicated that 76 per cent of customers rated the overall quality of Centelink’s people and services as either ‘good’ or ‘very good’ - an increase of 10 per cent since the last survey in May 2000 (p.95). The report commented that a notable success in 2000-01 was the ‘overall improvement in customer satisfaction with Centrelink’s people, service and information. We have received our highest ever customer ratings for our Customer Service Centres and Call Centres. On top of this, our Call Centres have again been benchmarked as best practice within the industry’ (p.8; see also pp.43-44). The Committee notes, however, that the Commonwealth Ombudsman received a significant number of complaints about difficulties customers had in contacting Call Centres.[5]

1.56 The Committee in its last report noted that while performance reporting had improved in the report generally, more information needed to be provided throughout the report on areas where outcomes had not been met. This issue has been addressed in the current report with a more balanced approach to performance reporting in the body of the report.

1.57 In relation to external scrutiny, the report discusses oversight by the Ombudsman, Privacy Commissioner and Parliamentary committees (pp.231-234) and the ANAO (pp.26-27). Discussion of overall external scrutiny issues would be improved by consolidation of the various sections dealing with this topic in one section of the report in future.

1.58 The report provides a useful discussion of ANAO audits and action taken by Centrelink in response to issues raised in these reports. In relation to the ANAO report into new claims for Age Pensions, (Report No.34, 2000-01: Assessment of New Claims for the Age Pension in Centrelink), which found high levels of inaccuracy in Centrelink’s processing of new Age Pension claims, Centrelink noted that a number of measures have been put in place to address the issues raised in the audit report (p.27; see also pp.6-7).

1.59 The Committee notes that the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 10 161 complaints about Centrelink in 2000-01, an increase of 4.9 per cent over the previous year.[6] The Ombudsman reported that the increase in complaints was consistent across all Centrelink programs with he exception of the Information and Access Program which had a disproportionate growth in complaints - primarily concerning Call Centre access problems.[7] Centrelink noted that one reason for the increase in complaints is that, as customers become more aware of the agency’s ‘commitment to service’ they ‘feel empowered to express their concerns when our service has not lived up to their expectations’ (p.232). While this may be true, it needs to be emphasised that clients of Centrelink have a right to expect a high quality service and the onus is on the agency to provide that level of service.

1.60 The report noted that the Privacy Commissioner formally referred 11 cases to Centrelink during 2000-01 and, after receiving reports from Centrelink, finalised 10 cases. The Commissioner found that in five cases there had been no interference with privacy. In the other five cases, the Commissioner found that Centrelink had adequately dealt with the complaints, resulting in dismissal of the complaints (p.232). The report noted that Centrelink conducted 1 398 privacy investigations. Of the inquiries finalised in 2000-01, 29 per cent of incidents were substantiated as a breach of privacy or confidentiality. The report noted that most of the substantiated breaches were ‘of a minor or inadvertent nature’ and resulted in feedback being provided to staff and revised procedures being introduced to address the problem (p.233). Criminal charges were laid by the Director of Public Prosecutions in two of the more serious substantiated privacy breaches. Disciplinary action was also taken against 41 staff members, resulting in these officers being either dismissed, fined, counselled or warned in writing (p.233).

1.61 Regarding consultancy services, the report indicates that the total value of consultancy contracts let in 2000-01, where the total contract value was $10 000 or greater, was $10.7 million, compared with $5.03 million in 1999-00 (p.174). Centrelink should provide some explanation where significant increases in expenditures occur in future reports.

1.62 The total number of consultancy services let during 2000-01 was 128. Of these, 87 were consultancies where the total contract value was $10 000 or greater (p.174). A detailed breakdown of individual consultancies, including a description of the consultancy, is provided in the report (pp.174-179).

Commissioner for Complaints 2000-2001

1.63 The report was presented to the Deputy President on 8 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.64 All reporting requirements are met. This is the first annual report of the Commissioner for Complaints, which was established in September 2000. The functions of the Office are, inter alia, to oversee the effectiveness of the Complaints Resolution Scheme (the Scheme) - which is administered by DHAC - and to deal with complaints about the operation of the Scheme. Under the Scheme, complaints may be made about the care or services provided by residential aged care and other aged care services funded by the Commonwealth.

1.65 The report provides a concise overview of the Commissioner’s activities. However, 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, while outlined in the report, should be explained more concisely and with greater clarity in future reports. A clearer distinction also needs to drawn in the report when matters relating to the Commissioner as distinct from the Scheme or the Department are referred to.

1.66 The report notes that since its establishment the Office has been engaged in establishing a ‘public profile’ for the role of the Commissioner; developing a quality assurance strategy and other administrative matters (pp.6-7). The report stated that the Scheme received 1 729 complaints in 2000-01. The majority of complaints related to aged residential care services and the majority of complaints were lodged by relatives (p.37). Of the total number of complaints received during the reporting period, 76 per cent were finalised, 9 percent were ongoing, 7 per cent were listed as incomplete and 8 per cent of cases were withdrawn (p.41). The average time taken to finalise complaints was 57 days (p.40).

1.67 The report concludes that while the Scheme is operating effectively ‘there are issues that need to be addressed if the efficiency and effectiveness of the Scheme is to be improved further’ (p.28). These issues should be elaborated upon in future reports. The Committee is pleased to note that the Office is preparing a set of performance measures for the Scheme and that reporting on these indicators will commence from January 2002. The Committee looks forward to discussion of these and other performance data in future reports.

Health Insurance Commission 2000-2001

1.68 The report was presented to the President on 29 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.69 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the Commission’s activities and performance.

1.70 In relation to its operational activities, the report provides a set of useful key performance objectives against which the Commission’s performance can be assessed. Key objectives, such as accuracy and prompt processing of payments, remained at 1999-00 levels or had improved (p.12). Statistics on staff satisfaction from a staff survey in 2000 indicated that 66 per cent of staff indicated overall job satisfaction - although this was a decrease from the 70 per cent staff satisfaction recorded in 1998-99 - in 1999-00 no survey was conducted - (pp.12, 29). A number of measures being undertaken to address staffing issues are outlined in the report (pp.27-32).

1.71 Data on customer service satisfaction is provided for three groups - health consumers, pharmacists and medical practitioners. Community satisfaction increased from 83 per cent in 2000 to 92 per cent in 2001. Pharmacist satisfaction rose one per cent to 90 per cent in 2001; and medical practitioner satisfaction dropped seven per cent to 71 per cent in 2001. The HIC noted that it was ‘pleased to see the significant increase in consumer satisfaction but concerned by the drop in satisfaction by medical practitioners. We will analyse the data and take steps to improve this level’ (p.12).

1.72 Regarding external scrutiny, the Commonwealth Ombudsman stated that it received 150 complaints about the HIC in 2000-01, representing a reduction of 25 percent from 1999-00. The Ombudsman commented that ‘the very small number of complaints relative to the large size of the Commission’s customer base and the volume of its administrative transactions is a very creditable outcome for the Commission’.[8] The Committee agrees with these comments and commends the Commission on its performance, which is reflected in other performance data in its annual report.

National Health and Medical Research Council 2000

1.73 The report was tabled in both houses of Parliament on 28 August 2001, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.74 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a detailed review of the functions and operations of the Council. A separate volume, Grants Book 2001, details the health and medical research grants recommended for funding in 2001 by the NHMRC.

1.75 The annual report refers to amendments in March 2000 to the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 to enhance the operations of the Council and respond to some of the recommendations of the 1998-99 Health and Medical Research Strategic Review (p.10). The report also notes the adoption of the NHMRC Strategic Plan 2000-2003, which will provide direction for the Council and its activities over the next three years (pp.10-11). An outline of the key features of the strategic plan is provided in the report (p.11).

1.76 The Committee is pleased to note that a feature of the strategic plan is its emphasis on developing the NHMRC’s mechanism’s for reporting on performance. The report notes that in 2000, the Council made ‘significant progress’ in laying the foundations for a comprehensive reporting system that will enable more detailed performance reporting in future years (p.11). The report stated that as a result of changes in the NHMRC Act, as noted above, the Council will operate more independently of DHAC. In addition, in the 1999-2000 budget, the Government increased funding for health and medical research -‘these initiatives bring with them the need for strengthened performance reporting arrangements’ (p.11).

Operations of the Registered Health Benefits Organisations 2000-2001

1.77 The report was presented to the Deputy President on 2 January 2002 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.78 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the financial operations of registered health benefits organisations, including detailed statistical data on the operations of the health funds.

1.79 The report notes that 2000-01 was a year of consolidation for the health insurance industry, following the rapid growth of membership in late 1999-2000 and early 2000-01 as a result of the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover. The report stated that at June 2001, 44.9 per cent of Australians held private hospital cover - an increase of 1.9 percentage points over the previous year (p.15).

1.80 The report noted that ‘overall’ the industry’s financial strength improved during 2000-01 (p.1). New solvency and capital adequacy standards were also put into effect from 1 January 2001. The report commented that the improvement in the reserves position of the industry during the year ensured compliance with the new prudential standards - ‘PHIAC has been active in working with organisations to ensure that the solvency and capital adequacy standards are met to ensure the protection of members’ entitlements’ (p.2).

Private Health Insurance Administration Council 2000-2001

1.81 The report was presented to the President on 17 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.82 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise review of the operations of the Council. The report states that the implementation of new prudential standards for private health insurance, and the significant growth in the industry as a result of Lifetime Health Cover were important developments during the financial year (p.3). The report notes that during 2000-01 PHIAC ‘continued to lay the groundwork for a robust and competitive industry, which provided high quality services to its members’ (p.3). The report commented that the Council ‘has undertaken a number of initiatives during the year to encourage the industry to continue its efforts towards corporate governance initiatives and improved strategic focus’ (p.3). A number of PHIAC activities during 2000-01 are discussed in the report (see pp.19-30).

1.83 Regarding consumer information, PHIAC stated that a range of publications, including Insure? Not Sure?, PHIAC’s Service Charter and the Private Patients’ Hospital Charter are produced. The report notes that most PHIAC publications are available on its website - ‘to make available to consumers and other industry stakeholders the information it collects and disseminates as part of its monitoring and regulatory activities’ (p.22).

Private Health Insurance Ombudsman 2000-2001

1.84 The report was presented to the Deputy President on 20 December 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.85 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise analysis of the activities of the Ombudsman over the reporting period. The report is well organised and ‘user-friendly’ and makes good use of graphics and charts.

1.86 The Ombudsman received 3 357 complaints in 2000-01, some 79 percent higher than the 1875 complaints recorded in 1999-00. Approximately 50 per cent of the complaints were received from health fund members with less than 12 months membership (p.14). The Ombudsman noted that ‘it was obvious there would be a greater number of complaints flowing from the increase of around thirty per cent in the insured population following the lifetime health cover campaign’ (p.6).

1.87 The office finalised 3 284 complaints during the year (an average of 274 per month), compared with an average of 154 complaints finalised per month in the previous year (p.16). The Ombudsman noted that with only a small increase in staff numbers and no increase in budget ‘the office was able to provide a high level of service to the consumers and the industry. This is evidenced not only by reference to the numbers appearing in the body of the report, but also from the client survey conducted during the peak of the workload’ (p.6).

1.88 The report notes various strategies to increase community awareness of the service provided by the Ombudsman, including a web site where consumers can access a range of information and where complaints and enquires can be lodged. In 2000-01, the web site was visited by 27 275 users compared with 12 354 users in 1999-00 (p.30).

Professional Services Review 2000-2001

1.89 The report was presented to the President on 18 October 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.90 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a useful overview of the operations of the Professional Services Review (PSR). The report notes that the past year has been a significant one for the PSR because of ‘a number of highly successful outcomes’ from the Federal Court and the Professional Services Review Tribunals (p.1). A summary of each of these is included in the report (pp.14-22).

1.91 Regarding operational activities, the report noted that that the PSR received an increase in the number of referrals from the HIC - 63 cases in 2000-01, compared with 50 cases in 1999-00. Some 42 referrals were finalised during the reporting period, compared with 23 finalised in 1999-00. Of the 63 new referrals, five were re-referrals of practitioners who had previously been referred to the PSR. (pp.1-2).

Social Security Appeals Tribunal 2000-2001

1.92 The report was presented to the President on 2 November 2001 and tabled in the Senate on 12 February 2002 and in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2002, within the required 15 sitting days.

1.93 All reporting requirements are met. The report provides a concise account of the activities of the Tribunal. The report stated that the proposed amalgamation of Commonwealth tribunals, including the SSAT, into a new Administrative Review Tribunal did not proceed, as the Bills were not passed by the Senate. The report noted that, as a result, the SSAT will be developing strategies ‘for better co-operation between Commonwealth tribunals, and to investigate the possibility of entering into more concrete arrangements, such as co-location and the sharing of some administrative functions’ (p.1). The report commented that the continuing demand for greater efficiencies and improved administrative performance will place ‘increasing pressures upon the SSAT and its administration’ (p.3).

1.94 Statistics in the report indicate that the Tribunal’s appeal levels increased marginally over the reporting period with 9112 applications for review in 2000-01, compared with 8965 applications for the previous year (p.2). The report noted that the trend towards lower appeal lodgements, evident since 1997-98, was reversed in 2000-01 (p.2). A total of 9060 applications, involving review of 9636 separate decisions, were finalised in 2000-01. At June 2001 there were 1470 appeals on hand (p.16).

1.95 The report commented that during 2000-01, performance improved against seven out of eight performance indicators (pp.2, 15-26). Of particular note is the improvement in the timeliness of appeals processing, with the average time taken to process an appeal decreasing from 9.9 weeks in 1999-00 to 8.9 weeks in 2000-01 (p.2).

Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page