Reports
Actions for Volume Fourteen 2014 Focusing on Trade and Investment
Volume Fourteen 2014 Focusing on Trade and Investment
There are 63 agencies in the DTIRIS cluster. These agencies include nine electricity and eight water agencies that were reported in the NSW Auditor-General’s report to Parliament Volume Five 2014 on 11 November 2014. Commentary in this volume is on the remaining 46 DTIRIS cluster agencies. The findings found the quality of financial statements in the trade and investment cluster needs to improve.
Actions for Volume Eleven 2014 Focusing on Planning and Environment
Volume Eleven 2014 Focusing on Planning and Environment
The quality of financial reporting in the planning and environment cluster continues to improve with fewer reported misstatements over the last two years. The financial statements of all agencies within this cluster received unqualified audit opinions, except for one small agency where the audit is incomplete. Many cluster agencies’ actual revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities varied from budget by more than five per cent, suggesting financial management and budgetary controls could be improved.
Actions for Volume Five 2014 Focusing on Electricity and Water
Volume Five 2014 Focusing on Electricity and Water
In 2013-14, the NSW Government electricity businesses generated $9 billion in revenue ($9.6 billion during 2012-13) and achieved a combined net profit after tax of $1.5 billion ($1.6 billion). The combined profit after tax for NSW Distributors was $1.2 billion in 2013-14 down from $1.3 billion in 2012-13. The Distributors’ revenues decreased by $205 million to $6.8 billion in 2013-14, largely due to lower consumption by customers associated with milder weather conditions, economic impacts, energy efficiency measures and an increase in the number of customers using solar energy.
Actions for Volume Four 2014 focusing on New South Wales State Finances
Volume Four 2014 focusing on New South Wales State Finances
For the second consecutive year, the General Government and Total State Sector Accounts received an unqualified auditor’s opinion following more than a decade of qualifications. The quality and timeliness of financial reporting across the NSW public sector has continued to improve. Compared to previous years, there were fewer errors in agencies’ 2013–14 financial statements submitted for audit and used for whole-of-government financial reporting.
Actions for Managing Contaminated Sites
Managing Contaminated Sites
NSW Government agencies with large landholdings need to better manage their contaminated sites.
When contaminated sites are reported to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) there are long delays in assessing the extent of contamination. The EPA also lacks the management controls to ensure that all significantly contaminated sites are actively monitored and key milestones for remediation are met.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #245 - released 10 July 2014
Actions for Volume One 2014 - Areas of focus from 2013
Volume One 2014 - Areas of focus from 2013
Today the Auditor-General of New South Wales, Grant Hehir, released his Volume One Report to Parliament for 2014. The observations included in this report are designed to inform readers of common findings from the 2013 financial and performance audits so agencies and audit committees can use them to identify issues that may be relevant to their organisations.
Actions for Administering Domestic Waterfront Tenancies
Administering Domestic Waterfront Tenancies
The audit’s overall conclusion is that Lands and Maritime are broadly achieving outcomes consistent with the IPART report on administering domestic waterfront tenancies. But a lack of collaboration between the agencies is contributing to poor customer service. Inconsistencies with the IPART report recommendations and operational differences between the two agencies result in different rents and conditions for tenants in the two agencies. The differences are having a significant impact on customer service.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #191 - released 23 September 2009
Actions for Environmental Grants Administration
Environmental Grants Administration
We found many aspects of good grants management, particularly in the Trust. All of the programs we looked at are clearly aligned to the Government’s objective to improve environmental outcomes. The Trust also has good practices for allocating grants. Performance in respect of results was mixed although many grants delivered tangible benefits - homes were protected from floods, degraded waterways restored and endangered habitats protected.
Generally we found that while both Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the NSW Environmental Trust had a range of strategies to monitor grants these were not always applied consistently or effectively. Grant programs need to be regularly evaluated to see what is working and what can be done better.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #190 - released 26 August 2009
Actions for Grants Administration
Grants Administration
We found no significant difference in the funding of government and opposition electorates. However, more money was given to electorates that were safely held by the major parties. These seats received $1.29 for every dollar given to marginal and independent seats with government marginals getting the least. Electorates also receive different levels of funding according to which region they are in. Such variations may reflect valid agency objectives such as meeting State Plan targets or addressing socio-economic disadvantage.
But while agencies publish who gets what, they do not adequately evaluate or explain what grant programs have achieved. As a result, there is a risk that New South Wales may not get the best value for its spending. We recommend that agencies regularly evaluate their grant programs and publish the results.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #186 - released 6 May 2009
Actions for The Cross City Tunnel Project
The Cross City Tunnel Project
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