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.

The Government’s WRAPP initiative has achieved its intended outcome. The public sector has reduced the proportion of waste going to landfill from 27 per cent to eight per cent over the last six years, and has increased its use of recycled content materials. Most agencies have played their part, identifying how waste can be reduced and changing practices accordingly.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #181 - released 11 June 2008

At the time of our 2003 audit agencies were unable to measure the water quality in NSW rivers as they had not established a comprehensive and ongoing monitoring system for water quality. Agencies are now developing a monitoring system to measure the progress against the State Plan 2006 target to improve the condition of riverine ecosystems by 2015. It may not be possible to identify an overall trend in the condition of riverine ecosystems by the State Plan target date of 2015. This is because riverine ecosystems do not respond rapidly to change in the environment. A long period of time is required to collect sufficient data to establish a baseline for all indicators being used and to determine trends, particularly given the prolonged drought.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #180 - released 21 May 2008

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

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

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

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the Department’s levels of regulatory activity in respect of road passenger transport regulation may have exceeded optimum levels. The Department’s current focus on processing activity limits the Department in achieving all of its desired outcomes. The Audit Office considers that a change in the approach to undertaking and managing road passenger transport regulatory activities would achieve better outcomes for the community and a better use of resources within the Department.

The Audit Office believes that while there is scope to make some improvements from procedural changes, such changes would not be sufficient to generate significant improvements.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #75 - released 6 September 2000