The NSW Government does not estimate or report the total cost of alcohol abuse. The Audit Office of New South Wales’ sponsored research estimates it costs the government over $1 billion a year, or around $416 from each NSW household.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #235 - released 6 August 2013

There are 55,000 eligible applicants on the social housing waiting list, with some people waiting for more than ten years to get a house. The waiting list could be more than 86,000 by 2016 unless things change.
 
Social housing only meets about 44 per cent of need in New South Wales even though we have the largest social housing portfolio in Australia. Social housing falls into three groups. About 80 per cent is public housing which is owned and operated by government. The remaining stock is community housing and Aboriginal housing.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #234 - released 30 July 2013

Except for the matters noted, the Members we reviewed substantially complied with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination (the PRT Determination) for the year ended 30 June 2012.

The review identified the following material exceptions:

• nine Member claims were not submitted for payment within 60 days of receipt or occurrence of the expense 
• eight Members did not return their unspent Sydney Allowance amounts by 30 September 2012
• sixteen Members did not complete an annual declaration stating the benefits accrued by way of loyalty/incentive schemes, as a consequence of using their allowance and entitlements, were used only for Parliamentary duties and not for private purposes.

There are inherent limitations in undertaking an engagement of this nature. The work was conducted as a review engagement, not an audit. Consequently, the procedures were not designed to detect all instances of non-compliance. The review provides limited assurance and expresses our conclusion about whether the Members reviewed complied with the PRT Determination’s requirements for Member entitlements.

We found that the two NSW Health campaigns had followed the required approval processes and were appropriate. We had some concerns with the two Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) campaigns. The revised Guidelines, which incorporate recommendations from earlier audit reports, are a positive step towards reducing the risk that publicly funded advertising could be used inappropriately. But there are still parts of the Guidelines that require a subjective judgement and therefore do little to help manage this risk. While we did not have any concerns with the two NSW Health campaigns, the two DPC campaigns highlighted these risks.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #194 - released 9 December 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

Assessment processes for older people needing to go to an Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF) vary depending on the processes of the Aged Care Assessement Teams (ACAT) they see and whether or not they are in hospital. The data collected on ACAT performance was significantly revised during 2004 making comparisons with subsequent years problematic. ACATs have more responsibilities than assessing older people for residential care. It is not clear whether they have sufficient resources for this additional workload.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #160 - released 5 December 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

The Audit Office acknowledges that this is an extremely complex and difficult area of Government activity and that putting in place effective systems is a significant challenge. Nevertheless, it is a critical task, given the vulnerability of clients and the scarcity of resources. Whilst there has been progress in improving systems, and further enhancements are planned, nevertheless, five years after the creation of the Ageing and Disability Department as the industry regulator, there are a number of fundamental issues which remain to be resolved.

The Audit Office is of the opinion that significant further development of performance information systems is required before there can be an adequate level of assurance that Government funding is provided in conformity with the Disability Services Act 1993 and that services provided represent value for money.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #74 - released 27 June 2000