Using public-private partnerships to achieve value for money in the delivery of healthcare in Australia

International Journal of Public Policy

Volumn 1, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 91-121

  English, Linda M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; healthcare; new public management; public private partnerships; risk sharing; value for money

Indexed keywords

EID: 55449085869     PISSN: 17400600     EISSN: 17400619     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijpp.2005.007795     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Audit Review of Government Contracts (Audit Review) (2000) Audit Review of Government Contracts: Contracting, Privatisation, Probity & Disclosure 1992-1999, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
2. The phrase ‘joined-up government’ was first used by Geoff Mulgan, Head of the UK’s Strategic Unit Office, to refer to ways of harnessing and coordinating the efforts of strong and competitive ‘top down’ administrative units with the overall goal of implementing whole-of-government policies that cut across functional boundaries (Barrett, 2003).
3. Australian Council for Infrastructure Development (AusCID) (2004) Australian Council for Infrastructure Development (AusCID) National Public Private Partnership Project Database, Sydney: AusCID.
4. Should local governments also move into utilising PPP arrangements, as is likely, there could potentially be many more PPP ‘variations’ in Australia.
5. Barrett, P. (2003) ‘Outsourcing and partnerships in the public sector – driving a generic brand approach’, CPA Australia National Public Sector Convention 2003, Perth.
6. The terms ‘federal’ and ‘commonwealth’ are used interchangeably to indicate the first level of government, below which exist the state (second) and local (third) levels. The Commonwealth Parliament’s authority includes, inter alia at a macro level: national economic management; corporate and securities industry regulation; international and interstate trade and commerce; international relations; defence; telephone and postal services; social welfare; education; transport and roads; and health and related services.
7. English and Guthrie (2003) show that PPP policy documentation in Australia is largely based on Victorian initiatives, which have in turn been influenced by the PFI initiative in the UK.
8. Barton, A. (1999) ‘Public choice theory and economic rationalism – the philosophical basis of modern public sector reform?’, Working Paper, The Australian National University Department of Accounting and Finance, Canberra.
9. Broadbent J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003) ‘Evaluating the private finance initiative in the national health service in the UK’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.422–466.
10. Other than the contractual forms that have been characterised as PPP (English and Guthrie, 2003), this figure includes more conventional forms of private sector delivery of public infrastructure and associated services, such as privatisations, leases, franchises and contracted upgrades.
11. PFI is the UK equivalent of PPP, and as indicated later, has influenced the development and implementation of PPP in Australia.
12. Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (1999) ‘The private finance initiative: clarification of a future research agenda’, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, p.95.
13. Financial management reforms are beyond the ambit of this paper. For further discussion, see English and Guthrie (2001).
14. Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2004) ‘Striving for excellence in public service delivery: experiences from an analysis of the private finance initiative’, Mapping the Future: Research into Public Policy, Administration and Management in Britain Workshop, 19–20 April, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCContent/DownloadDocs/Broadbent.pdf, retrieved: December 7, 2004.
15. NCP is supported by the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 (Commonwealth), parallel state legislation and Council of Australian Government Agencies agreements (between state and federal governments) and related documents. NPM implementation has been steered by copious other legislation, regulation and policy documentation at both the Commonwealth and state levels (English and Guthrie, 2003).
16. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Finance and Administration (CDFA) (2002) Commonwealth Policy Principles for the Use of Private Financing, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Finance and Administration, Canberra.
17. Corbett, D. (1996) Australian Public Sector Management, 2nd edition, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
18. The second level of government consists of six states, as well as two federally administered territories. Each state has its own parliament, executive government and judiciary, and has the power to set laws on matters relating to the state. State governments play a direct role in the delivery of education, healthcare, transport, water, policing and social services. The federal government also plays roles in these areas, either directly at a macro level, or indirectly through the terms and conditions it applies to state funding grants to support such activities.
19. Duckett, S., Hunter, L. and Rassaby, A. (1999) Health Services Policy Review Discussion Paper, Melbourne: Phillips Fox and Casemix Consulting. Available from: http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/archive/review/index.htm, retrieved: August 15, 2004.
20. The standard payment unit in Victoria essentially provides for a uniform payment for patients with a particular diagnosis or procedure, determined using a casemix classification. The rate of increase in the standard payment is slower than the increase in volume, to encourage hospitals providing public patient care to increase efficiency, in terms of reducing costs per procedure and increasing patient throughput over time.IPP provides consulting services to facilitate private sector participation in the provision of public infrastructure and associated services.
21. Dunleavy, P. and Hood, C. (1994) ‘From old public administration to new public management’, Public Money and Management, July–September, pp.9–16.
22. Stanley and Hencher (2004) document a similar failure by the Victorian government in relation to the effectiveness of its own reforms to public transport, and the similar failure of the PPP arrangement to provide public transport services in Melbourne.
23. Indicators used by the Auditor-General are: operating result for the year, excluding extraordinary items; operating result prior to special revenue grants; net cash flows generated from operating activities; and working capital position at year-end (VAGO, 2003c).
24. English, L. (2003) ‘Emasculating public accountability in the name of competition: transformation of state audit in Victoria’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14, pp.51–76.
25. English, L. and Guthrie, J. (2001) ‘Public sector management in the State of Victoria 1992-1999: genesis of the transformation’, in L.R. Jones, J. Guthrie and P. Steane (Eds) Learning From International Public Management Reform, New York: Elsevier Science Inc., pp.45–60.
26. Stanley and Hensher (2004) document a similar failure by the Victorian government in relation to the effectiveness of its own reforms to public transport, and the similar failure of the PPP arrangement to provide public transport services in Melbourne.
27. English, L. and Guthrie, J. (2003) ‘Driving privately finance projects in Australia: what makes them tick?’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.493–511.
28. English, L. and Walker, R.G. (2004) ‘Risk weighting and accounting choices in public-private partnerships: case study of a failed prison contract’, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.62–77.
29. English, L., Carlin, T. and Guthrie, J. (2000) ‘Transformation of public sector financial management: reflection on the Victorian experience downunder’, EAA 23rd Annual Congress, 29–31 March, Munich.
30. English, L., Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (2005, forthcoming) ‘Financial management change in Australia: market experiences’, in J. Guthrie, C. Humphrey, O. Olson and L. Jones (Eds) (2004, forthcoming) Debating Public Sector Management and Financial Management Reforms: An International Study, USA: Information Age Press.
31. Fitzgerald, P. (2003) Review of Partnerships Victoria Provided Infrastructure: Draft Report, December.
32. Fitzgerald, P. (2004) Review of Partnerships Victoria Provided Infrastructure: Final Report, January.
33. Froud, J. and Shaoul, J. (2001) ‘Appraising and evaluating PFI for NHS hospitals’, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.247–270.
34. Guthrie, J., Olson, O. and Humphrey, C. (1999) ‘Debating developments in new public financial management: the limits of global theorising and some new ways forward’, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, Nos. 3/4, pp.209–228.
35. Heald, D. (2003) ‘Value for money tests and accounting treatments in PFI schemes’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.342–371.
36. Hood, C. (1995) ‘The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: variations on a theme’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, Nos. 2/3, pp.93–109.
37. Infrastructure Project Partners (IPP) (2002) ‘Case study: the lessons leamt from the privatisation of health facilities in Victoria: learning from the privatisation of Latrobe Regional Hospital and Mildura Base’, IIR Conferences Providing Value for Money through Public Private Partnerships: ‘The lessons learnt so far from economic and social infrastructure’, Sydney, June 25-26.
38. Infrastructure Project Partners (IPP) (2003) Latrobe Regional Hospital Case Study. Available from: http://www.infraproj.com/projects.htm, retrieved: August 8.
39. Maguire, G. and Malinovitch, A. (2004) ‘Development of PPPs in Victoria’, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.27–33.
40. Minister for Health and the Treasurer of Victoria (2004) ‘Shortlist for New Royal Women’s Hospital’, Media Release, 28 January.
41. New South Wales, Working With Government Task Force (NSWWWG) (2001) Working with Government: Guidelines for Privately Financed Projects, Sydney: New South Wales Government Printer.
42. Officer, R.R. (2004) ‘Public or private: where government should draw the line’, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.22–26.
43. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1993) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, New York: Penguin.
44. Queensland Department of State Development (QDSD) (2002) Public Private Partnerships Guidance Material: Policy, Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer.
45. Quiggin, J. (2004) ‘Risk, PPPs and the public sector comparator’, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.51–61.
46. SCCSSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision) (1998) Report on Government Services 1998, Secretariat, Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision Industry Commission, Melbourne.
47. South Australia, Department of Treasury and Finance, Public-Private Partnerships Unit (SADTF) (2002) Partnerships SA: Private Sector Participation in the Provision of Public Services: Guidelines for the Private Sectors, South Australia, Department of Treasury and Finance, Adelaide.
48. Stanley, J. and Hensher, D.A. (2004) ‘Melbourne’s public transport franchising: lessons for PPPs’, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.42–51.
49. Stiglitz, J. (2000) Economics of the Public Sector, New York: W.W. Norton.
50. Stockdale, A. (1994) ‘The role of a Minister in government boards’, Australian Institute of Company Directors Conference: Governance: Focus on Roles, Sydney.
51. Tasmania, Department of Treasury and Finance (TDTF) (2000) Guiding Principles for Private Sector Participation in Public Infrastructure Provision, Tasmania, Department of Treasury and Finance, Hobart.
52. Treblicock, M. (1995) ‘Can government be reinvented?’, in J. Boston (Ed.) The State Under Contract, Wellington, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
53. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1991) Infrastructure Investment Guidelines for Victoria: ‘Public/private sector partnership’, May, Melbourne: VDTF.
54. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1994) Infrastructure Investment Policy for Victoria, June, Melbourne: VDTF.
55. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1996) Investment Evaluation: Policy and Guidelines, September, Melbourne: VDTF.
56. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1997a) Reform of the Budget Sector Victoria: Elements of Financial Management, October, Melbourne: VDTF.
57. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1997b) Output Specification and Performance Measurement Victoria, Melbourne: VDTF.
58. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1997c) Output Costing Guide Victoria, Melbourne: VDTF.
59. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1998a) Accrual Output-Based Budgeting and Management: Information and Guidance Package, 2nd edition, September, Melbourne: VDTF.
60. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1998b) Improving Budget Information: What is Different about the Budget Papers in 1998–99, Melbourne: VDTF.
61. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1998c) Managing the Full Cost of Government Service Provision: Output Costs Appear Higher Under the New Accounting and Reporting Systems, Melbourne: VDTF.
62. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (1998d) Introducing Conventional Financial Statements: The Key to a New understanding of Resource Management in the Victorian Budget Sector, Melbourne: VDTF.
63. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2000) Partnerships Victoria, June, Melbourne: VDTF.
64. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2001a) Partnerships Victoria: Risk Allocation and Contractual Issues, June, Melbourne: VDTF.
65. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2001b) Partnerships Victoria: Public Sector Comparator: a Technical Note, June, Melbourne: VDTF.
66. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2001c) Partnerships Victoria: Practitioners Guide, June, Melbourne: VDTF.
67. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2001d) Partnerships Victoria: Overview, June, Melbourne: VDTF.
68. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2003a) Partnerships Victoria: Contract Management Guide, July, Melbourne: VDTF.
69. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2003b) Partnerships Victoria: Use of Discount Rate in Partnerships Victoria Process: Technical Note, July, Melbourne: VDTF.
70. Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (VDTF) (2003c) Partnerships Victoria: Public Sector Comparator: Supplementary Technical Note, July, Melbourne: VDTF.
71. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (1997) Report of the Auditor-General on the Government’s Annual Financial Statement, 1996-97: October 1997, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
72. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (1998) Acute Health Services Under Casemix: A Case of Mixed Priorities: Special Report No. 56: May 1998, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
73. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (1999) Report on Ministerial Portfolios: May 1999, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
74. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (2001) Report on Ministerial Portfolios: June 2001, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
75. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (2002) Report on Public Sector Agencies: Results of Special Reviews and 31 December 2001 Financial Statement Audits: June 2002, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
76. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (2003a) Report on Public Sector Agencies: Results of Special Reviews and 30 June 2002 Financial Statement Audits: February 2003, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
77. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (2003b) Report on Public Sector Agencies: Results of Special Reviews and Financial Statement Audits for Agencies with Balance Dates other than 30 June 2002: June 2003, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
78. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) (2003c) Report on Public Sector Agencies: Results of Special Reviews and 30 June 2003 Financial Statement Audits: November 2003, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
79. Victorian Commission of Audit (VCA) (1993) Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
80. Walker, R.G. (2002) ‘Public private partnerships: different perspectives’, paper presented at the Australian Equities Investment Conference 2002, Sydney.
81. Walker, R.G. and Walker, B.C. (2000) Privatisation: Sell Off or Sell Out? The Australian Experience, Sydney: BC Books.
82. Western Australia, Department of Treasury and Finance (WADTF) (2002) Partnerships for Growth: Policies and Guidelines for Public Private Partnerships in Western Australia, Western Australia, Department of Treasury and Finance, Perth.
83. Zifcak, S. (1994) New Managerialism: Administrative Reform in Whitehall and Canberra, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.