Government responses to improve legal and safe driving among Aboriginal people have had limited success reducing Aboriginal peoples’ over-representation in road accident fatalities, traffic-related offending and imprisonments.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #238 - released 19 December 2013

Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the NSW Government controlled insurance and compensation entities’ 30 June 2013 financial statements, except the NSW Self Insurance Corporation (SICorp). SICorp’s audit opinion was qualified due to non-compliance with Australian Accounting Standards applicable to general insurance contracts. The auditor’s reports drew attention to the significant uncertainty in estimating outstanding claims liabilities of $14.0 billion in the Workers’ Compensation Nominal Insurer and $2.1 billion in the Lifetime Care and Support Authority. The audit of the Building Insurers’ Guarantee Corporation was not complete at the time of this report and is excluded from this commentary. 

The following report assessed the activities of the two agencies in relation to their government advertising campaigns in 2012-13 and tested compliance by tracking a campaign through from development to dissemination.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #236 - released 23 September 2013

The NSW Government does not estimate or report the total cost of alcohol abuse. The Audit Office of New South Wales’ sponsored research estimates it costs the government over $1 billion a year, or around $416 from each NSW household.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #235 - released 6 August 2013

Except for the matters noted, the Members we reviewed substantially complied with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination (the PRT Determination) for the year ended 30 June 2012.

The review identified the following material exceptions:

• nine Member claims were not submitted for payment within 60 days of receipt or occurrence of the expense 
• eight Members did not return their unspent Sydney Allowance amounts by 30 September 2012
• sixteen Members did not complete an annual declaration stating the benefits accrued by way of loyalty/incentive schemes, as a consequence of using their allowance and entitlements, were used only for Parliamentary duties and not for private purposes.

There are inherent limitations in undertaking an engagement of this nature. The work was conducted as a review engagement, not an audit. Consequently, the procedures were not designed to detect all instances of non-compliance. The review provides limited assurance and expresses our conclusion about whether the Members reviewed complied with the PRT Determination’s requirements for Member entitlements.

Overall, the audited entities are managing some aspects of gifts and benefits effectively but other aspects require improvement. We found that all five entities had gifts and benefits policies that addressed some but not all of the attributes of a sound policy. All five have communicated their gifts and benefits policies to staff and external stakeholders, although in each case we identified opportunities to better communicate their policies.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #228 - released 27 March 2013

The Audit Office is of the opinion that, whilst all universities have developed policies to manage POW and to protect IP rights, many of those polices are outdated and require urgent review. Many of them do not adequately protect the universities or provide adequate compensation for the use of their resources or their name. There also seems to be a lack of clarity for accountability to monitor and enforce the policy. Whilst greater attention seems to have been given to protect the intellectual property rights, which mainly arise as a consequence of research projects, there is a need to review and revisit those policies as well.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #71 - released 7 February 2000

The Audit Office has undertaken an audit on Government Office Accommodation. The audit examined the cost effectiveness of long-term leasing versus ownership and the housing of agencies involved with the delivery of core government activities.  Core activities are those intrinsically linked to basic and ongoing functions of Government and Parliament.

It recommends that:

• the Government consider owning office accommodation, as opposed to leasing, for its long-term core needs, subject to a case by case analysis of the relevant financial and nonfinancial factors

• the Government undertake an analysis of the costs/savings from proposed asset sales of office accommodation in light of the demonstrated need for long-term office accommodation (for core needs) New, Expired and Expiring Leases

• given the findings of the own versus lease case studies presented in this report, it is recommended that the Government require agencies to undertake, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works and Services (DPWS) a cost/benefit analysis of available accommodation options prior to committing to any proposed major new leases

• the Government direct the DPWS, in collaboration with all agencies, to negotiate the renewal of all major expired/expiring leases (where continued occupancy is warranted) in order to reduce the financial risk of above-market rent increases and the risk of cancellation of leases (Major leases are defined, for the purposes of these recommendations, to be those over $500,000 rental per annum or a net lettable area over 1,000 square metres) Management of Property Information

•  in order to improve the integrity of the Government Office Accommodation Database, agencies be required to respond to the annual data request from DPWS by a predetermined date

• a senior officer within each agency be required to certify to the accuracy of information provided by an agency as input to the database maintained by DPWS

• DPWS verify, on a sample basis, information provided by agencies as input to the Government Office Accommodation Database Premier’s Memorandum No 97-2

• the compliance by agencies with Premier’s Memorandum No 97-2 Government Office Accommodation and Property Disposal be established by DPWS.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #45 - released 11 December 1997

The audit found that the process for the lease and development of the Showground site commenced on the basis that no Government moneys would be provided and no theme park activities would be allowed. However despite this a State Government subsidy of between $84.8m and $106.8m (in net present value terms) is to be provided for the development and the area of the Showground to be leased to Fox was extended to comprise 24.3 hectares of the 28.8 hectare site to allow Fox also to develop a family entertainment park.

The audit also found that the process commenced under the former Government were intended to ensure that no one party was placed above another however, the actual processes employed up to the General Election in March 1995 were so flawed as not to be relied upon to select a preferred proponent or to justify dispensing with a tender process.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #44 - released 8 December 1997