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

The audit reviewed policies and practices in large government and non-government residential centres to determine if policies and practices protected the human and legal rights, safety and dignity of residents.

The report indicates that practices in both government and non-government centres fail to protect adequately the human and legal rights, safety and dignity of residents. Factors contributing to this situation are the absence of minimum criteria for the protection of residents’ human and legal rights, safety and dignity, inadequate policies to direct service delivery, the absence of staff training to reinforce practices, low levels of supervision and the absence of effective monitoring systems to trigger a response to service deficiencies. Even where policies have been developed to guide practices, the nature of institutional care (the environment renders some policies ineffective), inadequate implementation, inadequate monitoring of practices and lack of compliance results in the centre’s failure to protect people living there.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #40 - released 26 June 1997

This Report, Volume Two: Corporate Governance in Practice reports upon how actual corporate governance practices by NSW public sector boards compare with “better practice”.

It found criteria and processes for appointing directors to boards are not always transparent. It also found a more systematic and rigorous approach to the range of corporate governance issues is required across the public sector if it is to approach "better practice", there is a lack of accountability for board decision making and board performance and where boards are to serve a governance role, then a basic framework needs to be created to ensure they can operate efficiently and effectively.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #39 - released 17 June 1997

A Supplement to Volume Two: Survey Findings has also been prepared, presenting The Audit Office’s survey findings in detail. This may serve as a useful benchmark for governance in the NSW public sector.

It found that, supporting/enabling legislation, governance structures and boards creation processes should facilitate better governance practice. It also found boards and management should understand their roles, responsibilities and duties and that these should be clearly articulated in legislation, board directors should possess appropriate qualifications and expertise to fulfil their responsibilities, boards need to ensure that adequate systems are in place to be able to oversight on the activity of the agency and boards must be accountable to those whose interests they represent.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #39 - released 17 June 1997