Agencies have managed the planning of outsourcing in a competent way. All agencies satisfactorily managed the contractual aspects of outsourcing. The Audit Office is of the opinion, however, that there is no objective evidence to demonstrate that agencies have achieved their goals in outsourcing IT. Most agencies had identified the current and expected costs and risks of outsourcing. Agencies were not able to demonstrate that the actual costs of outsourcing matched the expected costs.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #103 - released 23 October 2002

The Audit Office is of the opinion that, while agencies are aware of the need to manage risk, their risk management falls short of better practice. Many agencies do not consider their risk management to be adequate. The survey suggests that some agencies, mainly those in the Public Trading Enterprise Sector have approached risk management in a systematic way and in accordance with the principles of better practice standards. Others, mainly departments not subject to commercial imperatives, have yet to progress the management of risk beyond the traditional response of insuring against the more common types of risk. Thus there is a danger that with a number of agencies, risk may not be managed adequately, especially in the General Government Sector.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #98 - released 19 June 2002

State Transit has developed fleet management plans and maintenance standards that meet its regulatory and contractual obligations as a bus operator and are consistent with vehicle manufacturers’ standards and best practice. However, assumptions used in fleet management plans to forecast fleet growth may not result in the most efficient and effective outcome for State Transit. Forecasts fail to take account of opportunities to redesign or reduce services where they exceed contract requirements and are difficult to justify on a commercial basis. Of greater concern are the consequences arising from bus maintenance practices not meeting State Transit’s own standards.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #97 - released 29 May 2002

In most organisations with a board or committee, there was confusion about the respective roles, powers, responsibilities and accountabilities of the Minister/s, the board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). There are a wide variety of governance arrangements in operation across the spectrum of boards and committees. This is partly due to differing arrangements set out in relevant legislation and gaps in legislative detail which have been addressed in a variety of ways.

Under current arrangements, governing boards of SOCs have accountabilities to Shareholding Ministers and Portfolio Ministers, as well as to Ministers who are responsible for industry-wide regulation. Non-corporatised Government businesses have different accountability and control arrangements. The large number of statutory and nonstatutory bodies and authorities have a wide array of governance arrangements. As a result of uncertainty and confusion on governance aspects, The Audit Office observed that many governing boards operate as high level advisory management committees. The audit also found that board and committee practices fell short of standards expected in a professional boardroom culture.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #49 - released 7 April 1998