Hospitals, schools, public housing, roads, bridges, buses and trains are just some of the assets used by government in providing services to citizens.

The NSW Government’s asset base is impressive in size - with a value of around $167 billion and with government plans to spend around $8 billion acquiring or replacing assets in the current year. Another $2 billion is spent each year on maintenance.

Good asset management is very important to government; even a small efficiency gain in this area can provide significant returns. Good practice by those responsible for managing assets can improve reliability, extend asset life, save on maintenance costs and aid in identifying and disposing of unnecessary or non-performing assets.

Improving the NSW public sector’s approach to asset management has been on the reform agenda for at least a decade. Changes in practice have been accelerated more recently by integrating asset management policy with the budget process.

In this audit we examined NSW Treasury’s efforts to improve asset management practices in the public sector and the progress made by 3 agencies - the Department of Corrective Services, NSW Fire Brigades and the Powerhouse Museum - towards better managing their asset portfolios.

This report informs Parliament and the community on progress to date and what more needs to be done to ensure that agencies manage assets effectively and achieve best value.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #143 - released 12 October 2005

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 accept 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 April 2002 report on how well the State Debt Recovery Office (under the Office of State Revenue) was collecting outstanding fines and penalties.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #132 - released 17 March 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.

Maintaining public infrastructure – whether social or economic – is a topic that is attracting significant attention.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our April 2001 report on how well the Department of Housing managed its public housing maintenance.

Approximately 400,000 people in New South Wales live in public housing provided by the Department of Housing. The majority of these people are assessed as not being able to afford private rental.

The Department’s stock of some 138,000 housing units is valued at over $28.5 billion. Maintaining that stock in a condition that meets the needs of its tenants and minimises the long-term cost to the taxpayer is an ongoing challenge. Balancing expenditure between maintenance and expanding the housing stock is another challenge.

The findings from this audit should be of interest to all government agencies that are responsible for the maintenance of public infrastructure.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #131 - released 2 March 2005

The decision to seek development of Walsh Bay without a Master Plan and/or detailed study as to the state of the precinct presented significant problems throughout the life of the project. Now, four years later, negotiations still continue on the details of the final scheme. Based on the latest estimates, it will not provide a financial return as was originally expected. The audit found no evidence to indicate why the former Government wished to expedite Walsh Bay, but it is aware that there was an election due. Many of the problems which have been encountered could have been avoided with more careful and more extensive consideration at the start, particularly in the light of Property Services Group's recommendations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #58 - released 17 December 1998

This audit examines the processes which led to the Government’s decision to demolish and sell the East Fairfield (Villawood) housing estate at a cost of nearly $32m gross ($17m net). In doing so, the audit focuses on whether the decision process demonstrates that it is an efficient and effective use of government funds.

The audit raises a number of concerns about the decision-making process. Although demolition and redevelopment may have been the most efficient and effective outcome, The Audit Office is not able to confirm this from the evidence presented. Audit found that the process used to arrive at this decision was not transparent, nor was it adequately justified by available evidence.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #46 - released 29 January 1998