Decisions to relocate government agencies to non-metropolitan areas are not made purely for cost reasons. They can also serve government policy objectives, such as promoting regional economic development.

Regardless of the policy objectives that may exist, I would expect that decisions on individual agency relocations would be based on sound business cases. Those business cases would show how the relocation achieves any relevant government objectives, what costs (or savings) would be involved, logistical considerations such as obtaining appropriate accommodation and staff, and any impacts on levels service to the public.

In my view, the existence of government policy objectives does not remove the need for individual decisions to be made in a transparent, rational and accountable manner. Responsible public servants should provide the appropriate information to government to allow it to judge how best to implement its policies.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #147 - released 14 December 2005

Several of my recent audits have identified a need to improve our public transport system – both for the benefit of travellers and to assist in achieving better air quality.

Bus Transitways can provide a good public transport solution for lower density population areas, potentially at a relatively low capital cost. This audit examines the transitway running between Liverpool and Parramatta, the first of several planned for Sydney. This audit should contribute to a better understanding of the lessons learnt from this first project, and so to future transitways providing better value for money.

But this audit also raises broader issues.

It highlights the importance of accurately projecting the total cost of major infrastructure projects before governments lock in their decisions. It also highlights the need for sound decision-making processes when government agencies compete with the private sector. The principles and recommendations flowing from these issues are ones I would draw to the attention of all agencies, and to the Government.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #146 - released 5 December 2005

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

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.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our April 2002 report on how well the State Debt Recovery Office (under the Office of State Revenue) was collecting outstanding fines and penalties.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #132 - released 17 March 2005

In our view, the agencies we studied cannot be sure that the grants they allocate align with their corporate objectives, and that program outcomes are achieved. This is mainly due to problems with grant selection and the evaluation of results. It was good to see that most of the grants programs had funding objectives which were fairly clear. But we found problems across most programs which could affect the fair and equitable selection of grants, such as, often no procedures for assessing applications, no assessment guidelines for advisory committees, often no clear rationale for assessments and poor documentation of the reasons for decisions.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #104 - released 4 December 2002

The Audit Office is of the opinion that while planning, surveillance and response issues remain unresolved, the State is at significant risk from large-scale emergencies such as might occur with foot-and-mouth disease. Actions by NSW Agriculture since the Newcastle disease emergency at Mangrove Mountain in 1999 have positioned the State to manage better emergency animal diseases. Many of these actions have been pursued within the context of national agreements and programs.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #96 - released 8 May 2002

SDRO deals well with very high volumes and collects substantial sums of money. However, there are a number of factors which limit the effectiveness of the fine enforcement process and affect SDRO’s capacity to recover debt. SDRO is confronted with conflicting roles as both law enforcer and debt collector. As a law enforcement agency, SDRO treats all matters the same. But as a debt collector, other approaches could be pursued which would recover more outstanding dollars.

Many of the factors which inhibit SDRO’s ability to collect unpaid fines are beyond its control and require legislative change or a coordinated inter-agency response. Until these problems are fixed, the credibility of the fine enforcement process, and people’s willingness to pay outstanding fines, will continue to be undermined.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #94 - released 17 April 2002

Despite the issue being on the agenda for many years (formally, at least since 1988), at present there is not a comprehensive record of all government property assets in NSW. Whilst initiatives currently underway are promising, they will require continued priority to achieve tangible results. And careful coordination will be required to avoid duplication and waste.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #93 - released 31 January 2002