Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Cost of Alcohol Abuse to the NSW Government

Cost of Alcohol Abuse to the NSW Government

Treasury
Justice
Health
Premier and Cabinet
Management and administration
Regulation

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

Published

Actions for Volume Two 2013 focusing on Universities

Volume Two 2013 focusing on Universities

Universities
Financial reporting
Fraud
Management and administration
Regulation

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.

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 In-year Monitoring of the State Budget

In-year Monitoring of the State Budget

Finance
Premier and Cabinet
Compliance
Financial reporting
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

The annual Budget is one of the most important and visible statements about a government’s financial intentions.

Once a Budget is released, it is important to monitor variations from the projections it contains. This is done for two reasons -

  • first, to ensure that individual agencies are properly managing their budget allocations and that any genuine emerging need for additional funding is met.
  • second, to ensure that any changes to the State’s overall financial position are understood and corrective action is undertaken.

This audit dealt primarily with the second of these objectives.

Budget monitoring involves both agencies and Treasury working together to quickly identify factors that might impact the budget, to clearly understand the implications for their budget position and to take any remedial action needed.

Poor monitoring may reduce the confidence that stakeholders have in the government’s financial management. It may mean that government decisions made in- year or for the following budget (for example on tax measures or spending increases/savings) are based on an incorrect understanding of the State’s true financial position.

I hope that this Report provides some useful insights that will assist in better monitoring.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #141 - released 28 July 2005