Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for WestConnex: Assurance to the Government

WestConnex: Assurance to the Government

Transport
Treasury
Premier and Cabinet
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Risk

This audit assesses the assurance provided to the NSW Government for the initial stages of the WestConnex project.

The audit examined the WestConnex project from concept development to the pre-tender phase for Stage 1A – M4 (Parramatta to Homebush Bay). It did not examine the merit of the project or whether it represented value-for-money.

This audit found a number of shortcomings with the governance of the WestConnex project during its early stages and makes recommendations on how to better govern the remainder of the project to minimise the risk of failure.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #247 - released 18 December 2014

Published

Actions for Government Advertising 2009

Government Advertising 2009

Premier and Cabinet
Finance
Treasury
Compliance
Management and administration
Procurement
Regulation

We found that the two NSW Health campaigns had followed the required approval processes and were appropriate. We had some concerns with the two Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) campaigns. The revised Guidelines, which incorporate recommendations from earlier audit reports, are a positive step towards reducing the risk that publicly funded advertising could be used inappropriately. But there are still parts of the Guidelines that require a subjective judgement and therefore do little to help manage this risk. While we did not have any concerns with the two NSW Health campaigns, the two DPC campaigns highlighted these risks.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #194 - released 9 December 2009

Published

Actions for Grants Administration

Grants Administration

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Health
Community Services
Planning
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Risk

We found no significant difference in the funding of government and opposition electorates. However, more money was given to electorates that were safely held by the major parties. These seats received $1.29 for every dollar given to marginal and independent seats with government marginals getting the least. Electorates also receive different levels of funding according to which region they are in. Such variations may reflect valid agency objectives such as meeting State Plan targets or addressing socio-economic disadvantage.

But while agencies publish who gets what, they do not adequately evaluate or explain what grant programs have achieved. As a result, there is a risk that New South Wales may not get the best value for its spending. We recommend that agencies regularly evaluate their grant programs and publish the results.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #186 - released 6 May 2009

Published

Actions for Agency use of performance information to manage services

Agency use of performance information to manage services

Treasury
Whole of Government
Management and administration

Overall the results were mixed. There is some good news but this is such a basic and vital issue that we must conclude that a good deal more needs to be done. Three agencies did not have sufficient information to provide a balanced view of services. And two of these agencies could not tell us whether their services actually made a difference to customers. Across the ten programs we found many examples of good practice, but some variation in the quality and coverage of performance measures. Agencies that we identified as not having sufficient information to judge services were either unaware of its importance, collected data on activities but not results or reported system limitations.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #153 - released 21 June 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 The New Schools Privately Financed Project

The New Schools Privately Financed Project

Education
Treasury
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

In our view the contracts in the New Schools Privately Financed Project were established and let in a way that greatly assists their potential for delivering value for money. The contracts in the New Schools Privately Financed Project are at an early stage of their 30 year lives and the savings and other benefits are not guaranteed. The contracts will need to be carefully managed over the 30 year period to ensure that benefits are realised and that costs do not escalate beyond expectations.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #148 - released 8 March 2006