The Audit Office’s performance audit report, The Management of Intellectual Property (October 2001) addressed issues at the whole-of-government level and examined IP management in fourteen agencies.

This Better Practice Guide draws on the audit report and seeks to build upon initiatives undertaken by the Premier’s Department and other agencies. Some of these initiatives are included under the heading of ‘Additional Information’ at the end of the guide. These should be consulted for help in formulating policies and procedures for the management of Intellectual Property.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #90 - released 17 October 2001

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the good management of Intellectual Property (IP) by the public sector depends on an adequate and coordinated framework to guide agencies in developing their own policies. The current framework for IP is incomplete because it does not help agencies to develop policy, identify the IP assets that need to be managed, integrate management of IP with agency objectives, access expert help when they need it, encourage staff to be innovative and so create and promote the uptake of IP or monitor and defend IP against unauthorised use.

It is also important to improve coordination between agencies responsible for developing whole-of-government policy in regard to IP. The lack of an integrated framework and co-ordinated support for agencies means that the management of IP has varied across the public sector and in general is not adequate.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #89 - released 17 October 2001

Notwithstanding the considerable effort, it is not apparent that the Government's vision can be fully achieved without increased efforts. Based on the current position, to ensure that the Government's vision can be achieved the Audit Office is of the view that the following key issues need to be urgently addressed: 

• more robust mechanisms are needed to monitor, review and report publicly on progress and benefits

• a greater emphasis should be placed on central coordination to ensure that agencies act in a more uniform and integrated manner  

• the achievement of significant reform of business processes will require a substantial strengthening of accountability mechanisms and more comprehensive, rigorous and systematic approaches to e-government project and risk management. 

• despite an array of guidance material and support provided by central agencies, line agency needs for assistance do not seem to be being met to sufficiently advance matters across the sector at the pace and scope desired

• the Government’s e-government aspirations and funding are not always effectively harmonised. Agencies typically have limited resources available to trial or experience new technologies, and display an aversion to the associated risks.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #87 - released 19 September 2001

The Audit Office observed that there is diversity in the form, content and quality of reports produced by the agencies. This reflects, in the main, that agencies tailor reports to meet local needs and conditions. It is considered that improvement is needed. A more consistent approach to financial reporting through the use of minimum standards is suggested. The Audit Office is of the view that agencies would benefit from a systematic approach to the reporting of outputs and outcomes and using financial and non-financial information to measure, monitor and thereby improve performance.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #85 - released 27 June 2001

The acceptance of audit recommendations by agencies in the current review was high and represented 96 per cent of the recommendations made. In addition, half of the recommendations in the 1998 audits have been adequately addressed and for over 70 per cent of recommendations there has been some measurable change in practices or performance.

But overall, most of these improvements have been incremental. And, for nearly one third of the recommendations, changes have not yet taken effect and there is a risk that the issue or problem contained in the original reports may persist. There is also a danger that current reporting arrangements may not provide Parliament sufficient assurance as to the extent accepted recommendations have been implemented and improvements have been achieved. 

To provide greater transparency and accountability, agencies, following a performance audit, should establish arrangements, such as an audit committee, to follow up on the progress of implementation of the recommendations and report on the progress of the implementation of recommendations in their annual report to Parliament.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #84 - released 21 June 2001

This performance audit indicates that the Service has considerable work to do to reach its aspirations of being recognised amongst leading examples of best practice services. The commitment of the Service to serving the community and the professionalism of the Service's officers is not in question. It is, however, apparent that a number of barriers to performance will need to be overcome for the Service to perform as well as it would wish.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #80 - released 7 March 2001

The Audit Office is of the opinion that whilst agencies have taken steps to combat fare evasion, the current arrangements are not adequate and improvement is required. A significant number of passengers travel without paying the due fare, resulting in many millions of dollars in revenue foregone. Even when infringed, the majority does not pay the fine. To some extent it would appear to be due to the lack of a provision requiring evaders to produce valid identification.

There is a need for the State Rail Authority and the State Transit Authority to estimate more reliably the extent of fare evasion. Only with more accurate estimates can the most appropriate response to fare evasion be developed.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #78 - released 5 December 2000

The Audit Office has recently completed a performance audit of the information published in the annual reports of eight public sector agencies. Although there is much guidance material on preparing annual reports, the performance audit found that the quality of published performance information in annual reports often falls short of what is considered best practice.

The aim of this Guide is to assist agencies to prepare annual reports that provide performance information that demonstrates accountability for the expenditure of public monies.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #77 - released 29 November 2000

Agencies have made some notable attempts to nominate objectives and define measures of performance and report against them each year. However, the quality of the performance information varies and in most cases falls short of what is accepted as best practice. The result is diminished accountability, transparency and openness.

Agencies still have problems reporting outcomes and results and frequently regress to reporting activities and plans. Few annual reports discussed setbacks and failures (particularly in the same detail as successes) or compared performance to goals or targets. And none of the agencies benchmarked their achievements against the results of operators in other jurisdictions or the private sector.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #76 - released 29 November 2000

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the Department’s levels of regulatory activity in respect of road passenger transport regulation may have exceeded optimum levels. The Department’s current focus on processing activity limits the Department in achieving all of its desired outcomes. The Audit Office considers that a change in the approach to undertaking and managing road passenger transport regulatory activities would achieve better outcomes for the community and a better use of resources within the Department.

The Audit Office believes that while there is scope to make some improvements from procedural changes, such changes would not be sufficient to generate significant improvements.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #75 - released 6 September 2000