NSW public sector sick leave is higher than other States. The NSW public sector has the highest reported public sector sick leave in Australia. Public sector efforts to reduce sick leave over the last five years has seen a fall of a quarter of a day since 2004-05, less than its target of one day. On average, public sector workers take just over eight days sick leave annually. Recent surveys of public and private sector organisations show that sick leave in the public sector is higher than the private sector.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #209 - released 8 December 2010

The report includes comments on his financial audits of NSW Government transport, planning and industry agencies for 2009-10. A key recommendation from the report is that the New South Wales Government identify lessons learnt from the metro experience and ensure that future decision processes are developed to ensure the State never again expends such a large amount of scarce transport funding dollars and valuable time on a project that does not proceed.

The report includes comments on his financial audits of NSW Government human services and technology agencies. The audits of these agencies’ financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2010 each resulted in an unqualified Independent Auditor’s Report. The number of supported accommodation places for people with a disability has increased by 517 during 2009-10.

The report includes comments on NSW Treasury and agencies in the finance and superannuation sectors. The New South Wales public sector superannuation funds’ investments were $42.2 billion at 30 June 2010, up from $38.5 billion in 2009. Investment returns reached 14.5 per cent in 2009-10. This is a significant improvement on the investment returns of up to negative 18.4 per cent at the peak of the global financial crisis in 2008.
 

The final Budget result for 2009-10 was a surplus of $994 million, originally budgeted to be a $990 million deficit. If the Commonwealth Government’s capital stimulus funding had been excluded, the result would have been a deficit of $861 million. Employee costs (excluding superannuation costs) increased by approximately 3.5 per cent compared to 7.5 per cent in the prior year.
 
“I have issued a qualified Independent Auditor’s Report as the State has not recognised the value of Crown Reserves and the infrastructure on those reserves that should be recorded as an asset,” Mr Achterstraat said. 

The report includes comments on his annual audit of entitlements paid to Members of NSW Parliament and financial audits of WorkCover, Justice Health, Waste Recycling Processing Corporation and some other NSW Government agencies.
 
In his audit the Auditor-General had called for a system to be developed to ensure accrued loyalty/reward benefits are used to reduce Members’ parliamentary business travel expenditure, rather than be forfeited when a Member leaves Parliament. He also called for better controls over the Logistic Support Allocation used for transport, communications, printing, stationery, office supplies and equipment.

We found that during Working Together, agencies reduced the impact of workplace injuries. Most of the results have been positive in both our sample agencies and the public sector, and savings have been achieved. Between 2005 and 2008, while the number of claims in the sample agencies remained at around 15,000, the average cost of claims reduced by around 22 per cent from $22,349 to $17,360. The incidence rate of claims for the sample agencies also decreased by nine per cent to 7.3 claims per 100 staff.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #199 - released 31 March 2010

Issues of corporate governance have long been a matter for concern in the private sector. Following recent corporate collapses and scandals, legislators and regulators in a number of countries have focused on strengthening governance in publicly traded corporations. Considerable attention has been given to setting clear expectations for the performance of boards and for the disclosure of information to various stakeholders.

Good governance is no less important in the public sector.

Indeed issues of oversight and accountability may be more complex in the public sector, particularly in government businesses. There are more stakeholders involved (portfolio Ministers, shareholder Ministers, Parliament and central agencies) and there are competing – and potentially conflicting - objectives (financial, social, environmental, etc).

Because of these potential conflicts, it is important that Boards understand what government expects of them. Some of these expectations reflect the government’s regulatory role in areas such as safety, pricing and ensuring consumers receive essential services. Some expectations reflect the government’s role as a business owner.

Having a clear separation of regulatory expectations from ownership expectations is essential if boards are to be accountable for their performance on both aspects. To assist in this separation, New South Wales (like many other jurisdictions) has adopted the concept of ‘shareholder Ministers’ – as distinct from the portfolio Minister – to exercise the ownership function.

This report looks more closely at a particular area - how the State conducts itself as the owner of the State owned electricity corporations. This is an important issue as the State’s (ie taxpayers’) equity in these businesses is worth over $9 billion. Managing the risks associated with continuing ownership of these businesses is an essential aspect of good governance.

Although the audit focuses on the State’s holdings in the electricity sector, its findings and recommendations have relevance for all State owned corporations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #144 - released 19 October 2005

Hospitals, schools, public housing, roads, bridges, buses and trains are just some of the assets used by government in providing services to citizens.

The NSW Government’s asset base is impressive in size - with a value of around $167 billion and with government plans to spend around $8 billion acquiring or replacing assets in the current year. Another $2 billion is spent each year on maintenance.

Good asset management is very important to government; even a small efficiency gain in this area can provide significant returns. Good practice by those responsible for managing assets can improve reliability, extend asset life, save on maintenance costs and aid in identifying and disposing of unnecessary or non-performing assets.

Improving the NSW public sector’s approach to asset management has been on the reform agenda for at least a decade. Changes in practice have been accelerated more recently by integrating asset management policy with the budget process.

In this audit we examined NSW Treasury’s efforts to improve asset management practices in the public sector and the progress made by 3 agencies - the Department of Corrective Services, NSW Fire Brigades and the Powerhouse Museum - towards better managing their asset portfolios.

This report informs Parliament and the community on progress to date and what more needs to be done to ensure that agencies manage assets effectively and achieve best value.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #143 - released 12 October 2005

The annual Budget is one of the most important and visible statements about a government’s financial intentions.

Once a Budget is released, it is important to monitor variations from the projections it contains. This is done for two reasons -

• first, to ensure that individual agencies are properly managing their budget allocations and that any genuine emerging need for additional funding is met.
• second, to ensure that any changes to the State’s overall financial position are understood and corrective action is undertaken.

This audit dealt primarily with the second of these objectives.

Budget monitoring involves both agencies and Treasury working together to quickly identify factors that might impact the budget, to clearly understand the implications for their budget position and to take any remedial action needed.

Poor monitoring may reduce the confidence that stakeholders have in the government’s financial management. It may mean that government decisions made in- year or for the following budget (for example on tax measures or spending increases/savings) are based on an incorrect understanding of the State’s true financial position.

I hope that this Report provides some useful insights that will assist in better monitoring.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #141 - released 28 July 2005