The Government is not able to provide assurance that it is safeguarding its holdings of sensitive personal information because its policy has not been properly implemented. This is likely to remain the case until there are clear, mandatory, minimum standards that agencies sign up to, and scrutiny of performance against these standards is strengthened.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #207 - released 20 October 2010

The department has a systematic approach to receiving, investigating and responding to reports of pollution incidents. However, the department does not analyse and report on the extent of environmental harm caused by pollution incidents reported to it, whether its response has minimised harm to the environment, whether its regulatory approach has improved compliance, particularly by Environment Protection Licence (EPL) holders (licensees).

Parliamentary reference - Report number #205 - released 15 September 2010

The Museum is doing much to improve access to its collections. However, as with other natural history museums, only a small proportion is on public display. Its efforts range from placing information on the internet for use by the public and scientific users, to helping indigenous Australian and Pacific Islander communities reconnect with their respective cultures.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #203 - released 1 September 2010

The report includes comments on his annual audit of entitlements paid to Members of NSW Parliament and financial audits of WorkCover, Justice Health, Waste Recycling Processing Corporation and some other NSW Government agencies.
 
In his audit the Auditor-General had called for a system to be developed to ensure accrued loyalty/reward benefits are used to reduce Members’ parliamentary business travel expenditure, rather than be forfeited when a Member leaves Parliament. He also called for better controls over the Logistic Support Allocation used for transport, communications, printing, stationery, office supplies and equipment.

The audit’s overall conclusion is that Lands and Maritime are broadly achieving outcomes consistent with the IPART report on administering domestic waterfront tenancies. But a lack of collaboration between the agencies is contributing to poor customer service. Inconsistencies with the IPART report recommendations and operational differences between the two agencies result in different rents and conditions for tenants in the two agencies. The differences are having a significant impact on customer service.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #191 - released 23 September 2009

We found many aspects of good grants management, particularly in the Trust. All of the programs we looked at are clearly aligned to the Government’s objective to improve environmental outcomes. The Trust also has good practices for allocating grants. Performance in respect of results was mixed although many grants delivered tangible benefits - homes were protected from floods, degraded waterways restored and endangered habitats protected.

Generally we found that while both Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the NSW Environmental Trust had a range of strategies to monitor grants these were not always applied consistently or effectively. Grant programs need to be regularly evaluated to see what is working and what can be done better.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #190 - released 26 August 2009

We found no significant difference in the funding of government and opposition electorates. However, more money was given to electorates that were safely held by the major parties. These seats received $1.29 for every dollar given to marginal and independent seats with government marginals getting the least. Electorates also receive different levels of funding according to which region they are in. Such variations may reflect valid agency objectives such as meeting State Plan targets or addressing socio-economic disadvantage.

But while agencies publish who gets what, they do not adequately evaluate or explain what grant programs have achieved. As a result, there is a risk that New South Wales may not get the best value for its spending. We recommend that agencies regularly evaluate their grant programs and publish the results.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #186 - released 6 May 2009

Fraud risks, and fraud control obligations, are growing at a rate which demands that more be done.  Our 2005 report showed that still only 50 per cent of NSW public sector organisations had achieved an adequate level of performance in developing and implementing a fraud control strategy.  In response to this, our 2005 report provided a range of recommendations for improving fraud control and urged that fraud control become a key item for attention by audit committees.

We recognise that organisations need a simple and effective way to review and monitor how effectively they are implementing fraud control strategies.  This kit has been developed for precisely that purpose.  Its development reflects an extended period of consultation, focus-group review and pilot-testing to ensure that that the kit is simple to use, practical and flexible.  The kit assists organisations to meet their fraud control obligations in a cost-effective manner, tailored to their situation and based on risk.

• Fraud Control Improvement Kit
• Fraud Control Improvement Kit: Health Check Worksheet

Parliamentary reference - Report number #156 - released 20 July 2006

Overall the results were mixed. There is some good news but this is such a basic and vital issue that we must conclude that a good deal more needs to be done. Three agencies did not have sufficient information to provide a balanced view of services. And two of these agencies could not tell us whether their services actually made a difference to customers. Across the ten programs we found many examples of good practice, but some variation in the quality and coverage of performance measures. Agencies that we identified as not having sufficient information to judge services were either unaware of its importance, collected data on activities but not results or reported system limitations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #153 - released 21 June 2006

In our opinion the Government’s ‘no net cost to government’ requirement was a legitimate (but not the only possible) basis for the tunnel bid process. The Government was entitled to decide that tunnel users meet the tunnel costs. Structuring the bid process on the basis of an upfront reimbursement of costs incurred (or to be incurred) by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) was therefore appropriate.

In our opinion, however, the Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider the implications of an upfront payment involving more than simple project cost reimbursement (i.e. the ‘Business Consideration Fee’ component). In addition, the RTA was wrong to change the toll escalation factor late in 2002 to compensate the tunnel operator, Cross City Motorway Pty Ltd, for additional costs.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #152 - released 31 May 2006