Since our performance audit in 1995 the government has improved guidance for agencies and introduced a more robust framework for approving advertising campaigns. Greater rigour has been introduced into the process by requiring campaigns to be peer reviewed and approved by Cabinet. This new approach aims to improve the effectiveness and value for money of government advertising. We found however that the current guidelines are not adequate to prevent the use of public funds for party political purposes. We also found it difficult to obtain information on the total amount spent on advertising campaigns. This is because there is no central record of the total expenditure, only the cost of placing advertisements in the media. Greater transparency around what is spent would support more accurate and informed debate.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #171 - released 29 August 2007

Between 2004 and 2006, the number of signalling failures, signalling downtime and the number of trains delayed as a result of signal failures all fell. RailCorp’s on-time running performance improved over the same period. The fall in failures is a clear indication of improved performance. Changes in the definition of on-time and to the timetable during 2005 and 2006 however make it difficult to determine whether improvements in response downtime and signalling delays are due to a true performance improvement. To build upon this strong base, RailCorp needs to determine with more confidence the number and duration of signalling failures the network can tolerate without impacting on service levels.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #170 - released 15 August 2007

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

NSW Health is working to increase its preparedness to respond to a major infectious disease outbreak. It is also contributing to the development of national policies, strategies and capabilities, which affect its level of preparedness. We found however little evidence that other jurisdictions were significantly further advanced than NSW in preparation and testing of plans for a pandemic. In our view NSW Health needs to balance the costs of over-preparedness and additional capacity that may never be used, against the very significant consequences of under-preparation. It needs to identify the desired level of preparedness for its Area Health Services, set measurable goals and identify key gaps between those goals and current capabilities. It needs to set clear plans for closing those gaps and then sustaining desired levels of preparedness.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #159 - released 22 November 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 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.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our May 2002 report on how well the:

• State Transit Authority maintained its buses
• Ministry of Transport administered contracts for the provision of regular passenger bus services.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #138 - released 14 June 2005