Fraud risks, and fraud control obligations, are growing at a rate which demands that more be done.  Our 2005 report showed that still only 50 per cent of NSW public sector organisations had achieved an adequate level of performance in developing and implementing a fraud control strategy.  In response to this, our 2005 report provided a range of recommendations for improving fraud control and urged that fraud control become a key item for attention by audit committees.

We recognise that organisations need a simple and effective way to review and monitor how effectively they are implementing fraud control strategies.  This kit has been developed for precisely that purpose.  Its development reflects an extended period of consultation, focus-group review and pilot-testing to ensure that that the kit is simple to use, practical and flexible.  The kit assists organisations to meet their fraud control obligations in a cost-effective manner, tailored to their situation and based on risk.

• Fraud Control Improvement Kit
• Fraud Control Improvement Kit: Health Check Worksheet

Parliamentary reference - Report number #156 - released 20 July 2006

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accept from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament
and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

Intellectual property (IP) can have value to the agency concerned and may have the potential for wider commercial use. Poor management of IP can impose risks, including the risk of lost opportunities. Because it is not ‘tangible’ like a building or plant and equipment, the need for properly managing IP may be overlooked.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our October 2001 report on how well public sector agencies were managing intellectual property.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #133 - released 30 March 2005

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