Department of Industry and Investment cannot assure the people of NSW that all royalties owed are being paid in full. This is because it does not have sufficiently robust systems and processes to identify what is owed and to make sure it is paid.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #208 - released 30 November 2010

The Auditor-General of New South Wales, Mr Peter Achterstraat, tabled his review of the Government’s sale of NSW Lotteries. The review was designed to address concerns raised regarding the sale process.
 
No financial imprudence or waste found Mr Achterstraat found no evidence to indicate that the successful bid was inconsistent with the rules, or that there was waste of public resources or financial imprudence with the Government’s sale of NSW lotteries in early 2010.

We recognise that the event was prepared in a tight timeframe, attracted a large crowd and was proclaimed a success by the Premier. However, we concluded that: Government received inadequate advice when assessing the proposal and post-event analysis indicates that costs are more than planned and that economic impacts are less than estimated largely because of fewer visitors from interstate.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #202 - released 23 June 2010

In reviewing both the severance pay guidelines and a sample of payments, we found the guidelines to be clear and all except two payments were made in accordance with them. In these two cases the severance payment was stipulated in the employment contract guaranteeing the STE a minimum of six months pay on termination, irrespective of the length of service.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #201 - released 16 June 2010

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

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