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

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

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

The audit identified that overall the agencies had carried out the redundancy process satisfactorily and the process, with some exceptions, complied with Government and internal policies. Government policy states that performance problems should be dealt with by managing the performance of the employee rather than restructuring/redundancy processes. In a limited number of instances certain employees, whose performance had been questioned, had been offered and accepted voluntary redundancy.

The audit also indicates that the process of redundancies has resulted in lower salary costs, in real dollar terms, without undue increase in either overtime or consultancy costs nor any detrimental effect on service quality. However, it is noted that the decrease in staffing levels occurred exclusively in the non-budget sector. Budget sector staffing levels increased by 1.4 per cent during 1989-95. There are also signs that the need for and the benefits arising out of redundancies are not well planned or measured. The need for redundancies often arises from a desire to reduce staff related costs while there is no comparison of the costs of redundancy compared to benefits.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #37 - released 17 April 1997

Following a request from the NSW Legislative Council in September 1996, a performance audit into various matters affecting the operation of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture was undertaken by The Audit Office.

Among the recommendations from this report, the Audit Office found that:

• An economic appraisal should be undertaken before all major developments, including rationalisation plans, are implemented. It should include details of anticipated benefits from the changes planned, so that their achievement can be evaluated after implementation.

• Government policies should be made explicit or else established by directives in writing. Planning Infrastructure and human resources should be planned to maximise efficiency and effectiveness. If Government chooses alternatives that have higher costs or lower benefits for the Department, then these should be explicitly funded.

• The Department should strengthen its system of internal control by strengthening the role of the Board of Management as a means of management control, directing an overhaul of the Charter of the Internal Audit Committee and using it to drive the Department’s internal audit function and ensuring implementation of an effective financial management information system.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #36 - released 27 March 1997