Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Managing Gifts and Benefits

Managing Gifts and Benefits

Planning
Finance
Transport
Environment
Compliance
Fraud
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

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

Published

Actions for Government Licensing Project

Government Licensing Project

Finance
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Project management
Shared services and collaboration

The Government Licensing Project (GLP) is standardising and simplifying processes of agencies which issue licences. However, it is currently running over the original anticipated completion date, exceeding the original budget and expected to produce savings less than originally planned.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #192 - released 7 October 2009

Published

Actions for Grants Administration

Grants Administration

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Health
Community Services
Planning
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Risk

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

Published

Actions for The Cross City Tunnel Project

The Cross City Tunnel Project

Transport
Treasury
Premier and Cabinet
Planning
Environment
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Risk

In our opinion the Government’s ‘no net cost to government’ requirement was a legitimate (but not the only possible) basis for the tunnel bid process. The Government was entitled to decide that tunnel users meet the tunnel costs. Structuring the bid process on the basis of an upfront reimbursement of costs incurred (or to be incurred) by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) was therefore appropriate.

In our opinion, however, the Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider the implications of an upfront payment involving more than simple project cost reimbursement (i.e. the ‘Business Consideration Fee’ component). In addition, the RTA was wrong to change the toll escalation factor late in 2002 to compensate the tunnel operator, Cross City Motorway Pty Ltd, for additional costs.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #152 - released 31 May 2006

Published

Actions for Agencies working together to improve services

Agencies working together to improve services

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Justice
Transport
Education
Internal controls and governance
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration

In the cases we examined, we found that agencies working together can improve services or results. However, the changes were not always as great as anticipated or had not reached maximum potential. Establishing the right governance framework and accountability requirements between partners at the start of the project is critical to success. And joint responsibility requires new funding and reporting arrangements to be developed.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #149 - released 22 March 2006

Published

Actions for Lease to Fox Studios Australia

Lease to Fox Studios Australia

Premier and Cabinet
Asset valuation
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

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