Page 2741 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS ELLIS (11.34): Along with the other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I endorse this report. There are a couple of points I would like to make in relation to separate sections of the report, and I would like to take the opportunity today to do so. This was a difficult inquiry, given the amount of material we were required to consider and the complexity of grasping all of the relevant information. There is a fairly historical base from which we needed to start, and the information that was contained in both the Enfield and Andersen reports and the evidence given to the committee subsequent to that assisted very much in placing into a context and a perspective the issue we were looking at.
The information given in those reports and reinforced by the former chair of the former Board of Health indicated a vast difference between the financial management practices prior to those reports and the current situation. This is not to say, of course, that everything is absolutely rosy, but I do not think any part of any organisation the size of Health, no matter how hard we aim at it, would ever be absolutely and completely perfect. However, it is important to acknowledge, on the evidence to the committee, the ground that has been made up by the ACT Department of Health officials in addressing the issues raised in both the Enfield and Andersen reports and since that time. I mention particularly pages 9, 10 and 11 approximately - I am sorry; my copy and the printed copy are a little different - which deal with the past and current situations in some detail. It is very important that you read this report from that perspective.
A point of concern raised in the report relates to the need to develop a full cost attribution system, and I would like to address that issue. I bring to your attention particularly paragraphs 3.33, 3.34, 3.35 and 3.36, which put this question into a context that is warranted. It is obvious to me that, whilst it would be preferable to have a full cost attribution system and whilst I personally would encourage any organisation to adopt that direction, acknowledgment of the difficulties in perfecting that system must be made. I have no doubt that, on the evidence before the committee, the intent to develop that full cost attribution system is a sincere one.
One issue that has still to be resolved before a full cost strategy can be set in place is how those overhead costs are apportioned. For example, splitting the costs of food services, energy, all those very diverse things that cost money and therefore need to be attributed, is a very difficult thing to do. The officials of Health said that, despite the advances they have made in this area, they have to come to grips with the complexity of that, and I think the committee fairly acknowledged that. As outlined in paragraph 3.36:
Officials confirmed that information based on a cost attribution basis will be available in 1994 in relation to the hospital component of ACT Health and will progressively become available in connection with community health and public health.
I emphasise the words "progressively become available", because we are looking at a steady upward curve in the Department of Health. We should not expect instant reactions and instant answers overnight when issues as complex as this one have to be addressed and worked out accordingly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .