Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Management of Historic Heritage in National Parks and Reserves

Management of Historic Heritage in National Parks and Reserves

Planning
Environment
Infrastructure
Management and administration

The National Parks and Wildlife Service is spreading its resources too thinly, running the risk that the heritage significance of important assets will eventually be lost.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #230 - released 29 May 2013

Published

Actions for Volume One 2013 focusing on themes from 2012

Volume One 2013 focusing on themes from 2012

Whole of Government
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Regulation
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

This overview summarises the significant findings included in my 2012 financial audit report, volumes three to eleven, and highlights NSW agencies’ overall achievements and challenges. The overview summarises key themes and messages arising from these audits to help readers understand common findings. Agencies and their audit and risk committees can use the overview to self-assess and identify issues that may be relevant to their organisations.

It found more than 85 per cent of the recommendations in my 2011 financial audit reports to Parliament were implemented in 2012. Whilst this is less than 100 per cent, NSW government agencies clearly acted on my significant recommendations. However, NSW government agencies need to do more to follow up more detailed recommendations that are made directly to management.

Published

Actions for Condition of State Roads

Condition of State Roads

Transport
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Service delivery

The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has improved the overall surface condition of State Roads in the last decade. Country road surfaces are now generally much better. Ride quality has improved and cracking has been reduced. The RTA has also achieved a substantial reduction in the number of structurally deficient bridges over the same period. 

Despite a significant increase in the State’s contribution to maintenance since 1999-2000, the RTA has deferred road rebuilding projects. The RTA is rebuilding at less than half its long term target, and has not met this target at any time this decade. The RTA has not identified how it will address deferred rebuilding, although it advises it is developing a new road network management plan which will address this.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #157 - released 16 August 2006

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 Relocating Agencies to Regional Areas

Relocating Agencies to Regional Areas

Premier and Cabinet
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

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

Published

Actions for Liverpool to Parramatta Bus Transitway

Liverpool to Parramatta Bus Transitway

Transport
Treasury
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Project management
Service delivery

Several of my recent audits have identified a need to improve our public transport system – both for the benefit of travellers and to assist in achieving better air quality.

Bus Transitways can provide a good public transport solution for lower density population areas, potentially at a relatively low capital cost. This audit examines the transitway running between Liverpool and Parramatta, the first of several planned for Sydney. This audit should contribute to a better understanding of the lessons learnt from this first project, and so to future transitways providing better value for money.

But this audit also raises broader issues.

It highlights the importance of accurately projecting the total cost of major infrastructure projects before governments lock in their decisions. It also highlights the need for sound decision-making processes when government agencies compete with the private sector. The principles and recommendations flowing from these issues are ones I would draw to the attention of all agencies, and to the Government.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #146 - released 5 December 2005

Published

Actions for Follow-up of Performance Audit: Bus Maintenance and Bus Contracts

Follow-up of Performance Audit: Bus Maintenance and Bus Contracts

Transport
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits.

This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our May 2002 report on how well the:

  • State Transit Authority maintained its buses
  • Ministry of Transport administered contracts for the provision of regular passenger bus services.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #138 - released 14 June 2005

Published

Actions for Planning for Sydney's Water Needs

Planning for Sydney's Water Needs

Planning
Environment
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Service delivery

Reliably supplying water to our State’s principal city, Sydney, is a major responsibility for the Government.

The community has been made keenly aware in recent years that inflows have been decreasing, and that Sydney has been using more water than is available. In April 2005 the water in Sydney’s storages dropped to 41.5 per cent of their capacity – the lowest level since the construction of Warragamba dam in 1960.

As Sydney continues to develop, it is expected that the demand for water will increase. The way that we use it will need to be sustainable, as it has a direct impact on our economy, our lifestyle and our environment.

In planning for the future the State’s water agencies face a range of uncertainties. But the task is vital.

This report informs Parliament and the community on the progress made - and what remains to be done - to ensure a reliable water supply for Sydney.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #135 - released 4 May 2005

Published

Actions for Follow-up of Performance Audit: Environmental Impact Assessment of Major Projects

Follow-up of Performance Audit: Environmental Impact Assessment of Major Projects

Environment
Compliance
Management and administration
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

Major development and infrastructure projects may have significant environmental, social and quality-of-life impacts. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to ensure that major projects are environmentally and socially sustainable and integrated with State, regional and local planning.

The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) manages the assessment of major infrastructure proposals and coordinates whole of Government involvement. In November 2001 we audited this process, then undertaken by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. (In July 2003 the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources assumed responsibility.)

In this follow-up audit, we examine DIPNR’s implementation of the recommendations of the 2001 audit.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #129 - released 1 February 2005