Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Search filters applied: premier and cabinet AND 2013, 2009, 2006 AND infrastructure, procurement, project management, risk .

Published

Actions for Government Advertising 2012-13

Government Advertising 2012-13

Premier and Cabinet
Health
Transport
Compliance
Procurement

The following report assessed the activities of the two agencies in relation to their government advertising campaigns in 2012-13 and tested compliance by tracking a campaign through from development to dissemination.   Parliamentary reference - Report number #236 - released 23 September 2013

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 subjecti

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

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 an