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

Criminal or anti-social juvenile behaviour affects us all. Some of us may be victims of juvenile crime, some may be apprehensive about their personal safety, while others may know of young people who have been in trouble with the law. And, as taxpayers, all of us contribute to the costs of juvenile justice.

Currently about one in every 200 young people in NSW is convicted of a crime each year. The Department of Juvenile Justice works with these young offenders to help them fit back into society and lead a life free of crime.

This is not an easy task. Young offenders are often difficult to help. Many come from disadvantaged backgrounds and may have had poor parental supervision. They may have achieved little at school, have poor work prospects and psychological problems, and be part of an anti-social peer group.

While the Department of Juvenile Justice has prime responsibility, agencies in the justice and welfare systems need to work closely together to tackle these complex and diverse issues. They ultimately desire the same result for young offenders – progression to a well-adjusted, crime-free adulthood.

The report highlights the challenges facing all those who work with young offenders - youth workers, police officers, magistrates, health workers and teachers. Achieving the best possible outcome for these young people will help bring about safer and more harmonious communities for us all.

This is the first of two audits in our current performance audit program that deals with young offenders. We examined how the Department of Juvenile Justice measures performance, and whether staff have adequate information to make sound planning decisions and recommend appropriate interventions for young offenders.

Our next audit, starting later in 2005, will review whether relevant government agencies effectively coordinate the management of young offenders.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #142 - released 14 September 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

Nearly 11,000 rescues are carried out each year in New South Wales, the majority involving motor vehicle accidents.

In metropolitan areas we have three emergency services providing general land rescue - NSW Police, the Ambulance Service and the NSW Fire Brigades. The two volunteer services, the State Emergency Service and the Volunteer Rescue Association, generally cover the remainder of the State.

Rescue arrangements in NSW are different to all other mainland states. Elsewhere, the trend in metropolitan areas has been towards consolidation with only one provider of rescue services.

The State Rescue Board of NSW was set up in 1989. Its primary role is to ensure efficient and effective rescue services are maintained throughout the State.

In this audit we examined how well placed the Board was to provide assurance to Parliament and the community that the organisation of rescue services in NSW best serves those in need of rescuing.

NSW deserves a clear and unequivocal answer on such an important issue. However, the issues are complex, often strongly argued, and generally there is insufficient relevant information upon which to make judgements about performance and value. This report outlines a way forward.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #140 - released 20 July 2005