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

Over 96 per cent of the audit recommendations made were accepted by the agencies. And more than half of these recommendations have been implemented. In addition, many of the problems identified in the 1999 audits have been addressed. For over 90 per cent of recommendations there has been some measurable change in practices or performance.

In general, the approach taken by the agencies to monitor and report on the progress of implementation could be improved. Agencies should establish arrangements, like 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 #86 - released 14 September 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

Correctional Industries (CIs) have come a long way in NSW.  CIs have grown to employ rates of inmates which rank amongst the highest in the world.  This is a commendable achievement by the Department. Whilst there are other notable achievements to date, the Audit Office believes that CIs have developed to a stage where they can, and should, tackle even more challenging issues.

The audit is found that to optimise the development of inmates for employability purposes, further actions are needed to improve CIs’ effectiveness. Among these is the option to shift the inmate development focus towards providing inmates with broader, foundational employability skills which are transferable to the wide variety of work they may pursue upon release. There would also be benefit in using more specific performance indicators to monitor and assess CIs’ achievements against this objective.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #83 - released 13 June 2001

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the arrangements for the enforcement of parking are not as efficient and effective as they could be and should be reviewed. Accountability of the enforcement role needs to be improved. Currently there is minimal monitoring of the success or otherwise of the enforcement function.

There is a need to address and assign more closely the current responsibilities for enforcement arrangements between the Police Service and councils. There is also a need to articulate more clearly the objectives to be achieved from the legislation and their relative priorities.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #68 - released 24 November 1999

The Audit Office found no evidence that the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) or the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) decisions in respect of cases reviewed were flawed, but areas needing improvement were identified. 

Currently there is no simple, inexpensive external appeal mechanism available to challenge or review decisions of OPC/OPG. Appeals are available to the Supreme Court. However, this seems to be widely regarded as intimidating, inappropriate to the nature of the matters involved, time consuming and expensive. The need for a simpler, quicker and more accessible external review mechanism is the most crucial issue identified by The Audit Office in this audit.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #66 - released 28 September 1999

The audit found that the court system in NSW does not possess a comprehensive management framework and, with some exception in relation to the District Court, there is a distinct lack of any reporting system in a management sense. There is little evidence of realistic objectives, forward plans, or clear definition of responsibilities for performance, and there have been few reviews of performance. There is no assessment of waiting time performance in relation to other measures of court performance.

Whilst it is recognised that the Attorney General’s Department and the courts have taken positive steps to improve court waiting times, The Audit Office considers that a more systematic approach is needed.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #65 - released 3 September 1999

A lot of groundwork has been done in NSW to move towards improved performance accountability through the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). Recent initiatives have focussed attention on improving the quality and consistency of performance measurement. This audit concludes that, taken overall, NSW has a considerable array of performance information publicly reported. However, there are two substantial deficiencies with present arrangements, these being what individual agencies report, and how they measure what they choose to report, varies across the NSW public sector.

Although there are efforts towards establishing a Government-wide approach, currently, no overall approach nor any overall guiding framework, standards or methodology have been introduced to engender consistency in the types of KPIs reported by agencies or the methods used to produce such information. NSW performance reporting systems also lack independent assessment and validation of reported information. As a result, whatever information is reported has not been subject to the rigour of independent review. This would not be tolerated for financial information and it is anomalous that performance information goes unvalidated.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #64 - released 31 August 1999