Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Planning for road maintenance

Planning for road maintenance

Transport
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Project management

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the RTA is taking positive steps in planning for road maintenance and in many instances follows better practice. There are, however, some important improvements which need to be implemented in order to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of that function.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #69 - released 1 December 1999

Published

Actions for Enforcement of street parking

Enforcement of street parking

Justice
Management and administration
Regulation
Service delivery

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the arrangements for the enforcement of parking are not as efficient and effective as they could be and should be reviewed. Accountability of the enforcement role needs to be improved. Currently there is minimal monitoring of the success or otherwise of the enforcement function.

There is a need to address and assign more closely the current responsibilities for enforcement arrangements between the Police Service and councils. There is also a need to articulate more clearly the objectives to be achieved from the legislation and their relative priorities.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #68 - released 24 November 1999

Published

Actions for Administrative arrangements

Administrative arrangements

Universities
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Service delivery

The Audit Office is of the opinion that cost of administration at the University of Western Sydney is unnecessarily high and could be reduced. In addition, its approach to administration can place barriers in the way of potential students and other users of the University. To its credit, the University has recognised that administrative costs are high and is developing plans to reduce those costs. The Audit Office considers that there is now an urgent need to accelerate those activities and to move from planning to implementation. Further delays will be costly and will affect the service the University provides to its customers, the students and other users.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #67 - released 17 November 1999

Published

Actions for Complaints and review processes

Complaints and review processes

Justice
Management and administration
Service delivery

The Audit Office found no evidence that the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) or the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) decisions in respect of cases reviewed were flawed, but areas needing improvement were identified. 

Currently there is no simple, inexpensive external appeal mechanism available to challenge or review decisions of OPC/OPG. Appeals are available to the Supreme Court. However, this seems to be widely regarded as intimidating, inappropriate to the nature of the matters involved, time consuming and expensive. The need for a simpler, quicker and more accessible external review mechanism is the most crucial issue identified by The Audit Office in this audit.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #66 - released 28 September 1999

Published

Actions for Management of Court waiting times

Management of Court waiting times

Justice
Management and administration
Service delivery

The audit found that the court system in NSW does not possess a comprehensive management framework and, with some exception in relation to the District Court, there is a distinct lack of any reporting system in a management sense. There is little evidence of realistic objectives, forward plans, or clear definition of responsibilities for performance, and there have been few reviews of performance. There is no assessment of waiting time performance in relation to other measures of court performance.

Whilst it is recognised that the Attorney General’s Department and the courts have taken positive steps to improve court waiting times, The Audit Office considers that a more systematic approach is needed.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #65 - released 3 September 1999

Published

Actions for Key performance indicators: Government-wide framework, Defining and measuring performance (better practice principles) and Legal Aid Commission case study

Key performance indicators: Government-wide framework, Defining and measuring performance (better practice principles) and Legal Aid Commission case study

Whole of Government
Management and administration

A lot of groundwork has been done in NSW to move towards improved performance accountability through the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). Recent initiatives have focussed attention on improving the quality and consistency of performance measurement. This audit concludes that, taken overall, NSW has a considerable array of performance information publicly reported. However, there are two substantial deficiencies with present arrangements, these being what individual agencies report, and how they measure what they choose to report, varies across the NSW public sector.

Although there are efforts towards establishing a Government-wide approach, currently, no overall approach nor any overall guiding framework, standards or methodology have been introduced to engender consistency in the types of KPIs reported by agencies or the methods used to produce such information. NSW performance reporting systems also lack independent assessment and validation of reported information. As a result, whatever information is reported has not been subject to the rigour of independent review. This would not be tolerated for financial information and it is anomalous that performance information goes unvalidated.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #64 - released 31 August 1999

Published

Actions for The school accountability and improvement model

The school accountability and improvement model

Education
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

The Audit Office is of the view that the intention to achieve greater accountability for, and transparency in, public school performance is highly commendable. To date, these provisions have not been imposed by the Government on private schools even where public funds are provided to such schools.

The model however has fallen short of its potential because the reporting protocols allow principals and self-evaluation committees the scope to determine what, in their view, is ‘significant’ for their school and how they will report on it. Although the Department has set out a common reporting format to be used, and schools have been given specific directions on what information should be reported, in the reports reviewed by The Audit Office it was apparent that the definition of ‘significant’ and the clarity of reporting varied between schools.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #63 - released 12 May 1999