Search filters applied: local government, planning, universities AND special review, performance audit AND 2016, 2011, 2006 AND infrastructure, risk, service delivery .
Actions for Fraud Survey
In a report released today, the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford provides a snapshot of reported fraud in the NSW public sector and an analysis of NSW Government agencies’ fraud controls based on a survey of 102 agencies.
Actions for Implementation of the NSW Government’s program evaluation initiative
The NSW Government’s ‘program evaluation initiative’, introduced to assess whether service delivery programs achieve expected outcomes and value for money, is largely ineffective according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford. Government services, in areas such as public order and safety, health and education, are delivered by agencies through a variety of programs. In 2016–17, the NSW Government estimates that it will sp
Actions for Monitoring food safety practices in retail food businesses
New South Wales has a lower rate of foodborne illness than the national average. This reflects some good practices in the NSW Food Authority’s approach to monitoring food safety standards. It also is a factor of the long-standing commitment by local councils’ to ensuring retail food businesses meet these standards. To ensure foodborne illness remains low, the Authority needs to better monitor its arrangements with councils which inspect retail food busi
Actions for Transport of Dangerous Goods
Dangerous goods make up 10-15% of domestic freight and have potential to harm people, property and the environment. They include substances such as explosives, flammable liquids and gases, and oxidising agents. However, Government inspection programs were limited. The Office of Environment and Heritage carried out very few checks in the four years up to 2010, with no inspections made in the metropolitan area. This is despite Port Botany handling around 5
Actions for The Cross City Tunnel Project
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 an