Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the following financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2013: Department of Education and Communities (including the TAFE Commission), Technical and Further Education Commission, Board of Studies, Office of the Board of Studies, Board of Studies Casual Staff Division, Institute of Teachers, Office of the Institute of Teachers, NSW Board of Vocational Education and Training.

A key issue of focus was around the revaluation of School and TAFE NSW buildings. The report found that the Department’s approach to revaluing its buildings addressed previous concerns, however more work is required to refine the revaluation model and to build on the evidence available for cost rates.

The following report assessed the activities of the two agencies in relation to their government advertising campaigns in 2012-13 and tested compliance by tracking a campaign through from development to dissemination.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #236 - released 23 September 2013

The report includes a review on the Building the Education Revolution and outcomes of his financial audits on NSW Government agencies for Education and Communities 2009-10. Whilst the Department of Education appears to have achieved its key objective of rapidly constructing school facilities, costs were higher than business as usual and the preferences of local communities were not always met.

In reviewing both the severance pay guidelines and a sample of payments, we found the guidelines to be clear and all except two payments were made in accordance with them. In these two cases the severance payment was stipulated in the employment contract guaranteeing the STE a minimum of six months pay on termination, irrespective of the length of service.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #201 - released 16 June 2010

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