The NSW Government does not estimate or report the total cost of alcohol abuse. The Audit Office of New South Wales’ sponsored research estimates it costs the government over $1 billion a year, or around $416 from each NSW household.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #235 - released 6 August 2013

Except for the matters noted, the Members we reviewed substantially complied with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination (the PRT Determination) for the year ended 30 June 2012.

The review identified the following material exceptions:

• nine Member claims were not submitted for payment within 60 days of receipt or occurrence of the expense 
• eight Members did not return their unspent Sydney Allowance amounts by 30 September 2012
• sixteen Members did not complete an annual declaration stating the benefits accrued by way of loyalty/incentive schemes, as a consequence of using their allowance and entitlements, were used only for Parliamentary duties and not for private purposes.

There are inherent limitations in undertaking an engagement of this nature. The work was conducted as a review engagement, not an audit. Consequently, the procedures were not designed to detect all instances of non-compliance. The review provides limited assurance and expresses our conclusion about whether the Members reviewed complied with the PRT Determination’s requirements for Member entitlements.

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

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