The annual Budget is one of the most important and visible statements about a government’s financial intentions.

Once a Budget is released, it is important to monitor variations from the projections it contains. This is done for two reasons -

• first, to ensure that individual agencies are properly managing their budget allocations and that any genuine emerging need for additional funding is met.
• second, to ensure that any changes to the State’s overall financial position are understood and corrective action is undertaken.

This audit dealt primarily with the second of these objectives.

Budget monitoring involves both agencies and Treasury working together to quickly identify factors that might impact the budget, to clearly understand the implications for their budget position and to take any remedial action needed.

Poor monitoring may reduce the confidence that stakeholders have in the government’s financial management. It may mean that government decisions made in- year or for the following budget (for example on tax measures or spending increases/savings) are based on an incorrect understanding of the State’s true financial position.

I hope that this Report provides some useful insights that will assist in better monitoring.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #141 - released 28 July 2005

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits.

This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our May 2002 report on how well the:

• State Transit Authority maintained its buses
• Ministry of Transport administered contracts for the provision of regular passenger bus services.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #138 - released 14 June 2005

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accept from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament
and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

Intellectual property (IP) can have value to the agency concerned and may have the potential for wider commercial use. Poor management of IP can impose risks, including the risk of lost opportunities. Because it is not ‘tangible’ like a building or plant and equipment, the need for properly managing IP may be overlooked.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our October 2001 report on how well public sector agencies were managing intellectual property.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #133 - released 30 March 2005

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accept from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

Given the size of the NSW public sector, the potential for fraud could run into billions of dollars if not properly managed. It is an area of risk that warrants close and ongoing attention. Over the last decade, we have responded by issuing three performance audits and a comprehensive guide to better practice on this topic.

In conducting my financial audits, there is now an Auditing Standard that requires me to seek annual assurances from every agency concerning the adequacy of their arrangements for fraud control. This latest performance audit provides a further report card on the extent to which the NSW public sector is managing its fraud risks.

This Report also provides updated guidance on improving arrangements for fraud control both at a whole-of-government level and at the agency level.

I commend the Report for close and careful attention by every agency.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #130 - released 9 February 2005