The NSW Government does not estimate or report the total cost of alcohol abuse. The Audit Office of New South Wales’ sponsored research estimates it costs the government over $1 billion a year, or around $416 from each NSW household.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #235 - released 6 August 2013

Except for the matters noted, the Members we reviewed substantially complied with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination (the PRT Determination) for the year ended 30 June 2012.

The review identified the following material exceptions:

• nine Member claims were not submitted for payment within 60 days of receipt or occurrence of the expense 
• eight Members did not return their unspent Sydney Allowance amounts by 30 September 2012
• sixteen Members did not complete an annual declaration stating the benefits accrued by way of loyalty/incentive schemes, as a consequence of using their allowance and entitlements, were used only for Parliamentary duties and not for private purposes.

There are inherent limitations in undertaking an engagement of this nature. The work was conducted as a review engagement, not an audit. Consequently, the procedures were not designed to detect all instances of non-compliance. The review provides limited assurance and expresses our conclusion about whether the Members reviewed complied with the PRT Determination’s requirements for Member entitlements.

The NSW Government’s defined benefit superannuation funds have had positive returns for the last three years. However, the returns fell significantly in 2011-12. Global economic conditions led to substantial volatility and uncertainty in markets creating challenges for superannuation funds’ trustees.

The Members tested substantially complied with the requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal’s (PRT) Determination for the year ended 30 June 2011. Findings note that the Department of Parliamentary Services should remind Members that they should not approve additional temporary staff claim forms before staff have worked the hours.

The following overview of audits from 2011 found agency restructures significantly impacted agency financial reporting processes, agencies are having difficulty establishing and enforcing compliance with their own policies and procedures, agencies experienced problems complying with regulations and providing adequate documentation to support their financial statements, the poor quality of some financial statements with 1,256 misstatements identified, 540 so significant they had to be corrected, deficiencies in information security exist across many agencies, computer system disaster recovery plans for financial systems not existing or outdated, do not align with agencies’ business recovery requirements, do not properly identify and assess critical systems and processes and testing is incomplete.

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

Freedom of Information (FOI) Coordinators and their staff were supportive of the legislation. However, the agencies examined can do considerably more to fully achieve the intentions of the Act. On the positive side, all three agencies had processes in place to handle requests and had made a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the FOI process. Fees and charges had also been kept to a minimum. No processing fees were requested in the majority of cases, and if charged, were not unreasonable.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #114 - released 28 August 2003