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

Decisions to relocate government agencies to non-metropolitan areas are not made purely for cost reasons. They can also serve government policy objectives, such as promoting regional economic development.

Regardless of the policy objectives that may exist, I would expect that decisions on individual agency relocations would be based on sound business cases. Those business cases would show how the relocation achieves any relevant government objectives, what costs (or savings) would be involved, logistical considerations such as obtaining appropriate accommodation and staff, and any impacts on levels service to the public.

In my view, the existence of government policy objectives does not remove the need for individual decisions to be made in a transparent, rational and accountable manner. Responsible public servants should provide the appropriate information to government to allow it to judge how best to implement its policies.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #147 - released 14 December 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 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

In recent years the Department of Housing (DoH) has made a major effort to improve both the quality of service to tenants and its processes for maintenance. In addition, the funding for maintenance has also been increased. There is, however, a need to ensure that the maintenance of assets is adequately planned for and funded from the start. Without adequate maintenance, the value of an asset will deteriorate more rapidly and can result in significant losses.

DoH needs to give greater emphasis to completing property condition surveys in order to improve the way in which maintenance is planned and organised. There is also a need for DoH to establish a performance reporting framework in order to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance function in an objective way. The framework should benchmark maintenance across regions and with public housing authorities in other States.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #81 - released 11 April 2001