The following overview of audits from 2011 found agency restructures significantly impacted agency financial reporting processes, agencies are having difficulty establishing and enforcing compliance with their own policies and procedures, agencies experienced problems complying with regulations and providing adequate documentation to support their financial statements, the poor quality of some financial statements with 1,256 misstatements identified, 540 so significant they had to be corrected, deficiencies in information security exist across many agencies, computer system disaster recovery plans for financial systems not existing or outdated, do not align with agencies’ business recovery requirements, do not properly identify and assess critical systems and processes and testing is incomplete.

We found the Commission to be performing well in delivering legal aid services. It has maintained and expanded services despite funding pressures and increasing demand. Overall, we found the Commission’s practices of making people aware of legal issues and its services to be comprehensive. Communication is via brochures, telephone and internet. We also found its processing of applications for legal aid to be sound.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #163 - released 13 December 2006

In recent years the department has significantly changed its approach to rehabilitating prisoners. It has introduced programs to address offending behaviour based on evidence of what works. It has also formed partnerships with other agencies to help reintegrate prisoners into the community. We believe the department is on the right path and should continue building on these initiatives.

Despite these efforts, almost one in two prisoners return to prison or community supervision within two years of release, which is similar to other states. Most of these return to prison. In our opinion there is a risk that the department releases prisoners who have not addressed their rehabilitation needs. The department appears to address immediate health and welfare concerns. But it does not formally assess the education and work needs of all prisoners.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #151 - released 24 May 2006

In the cases we examined, we found that agencies working together can improve services or results. However, the changes were not always as great as anticipated or had not reached maximum potential. Establishing the right governance framework and accountability requirements between partners at the start of the project is critical to success. And joint responsibility requires new funding and reporting arrangements to be developed.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #149 - released 22 March 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

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.

Major development and infrastructure projects may have significant environmental, social and quality-of-life impacts. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to ensure that major projects are environmentally and socially sustainable and integrated with State, regional and local planning.

The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) manages the assessment of major infrastructure proposals and coordinates whole of Government involvement. In November 2001 we audited this process, then undertaken by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. (In July 2003 the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources assumed responsibility.)

In this follow-up audit, we examine DIPNR’s implementation of the recommendations of the 2001 audit.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #129 - released 1 February 2005

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