NSW Government agencies have sound processes for implementing performance audit recommendations in Auditor-General’s Reports to Parliament. There are many cases of good practice. For example, some agencies formed a steering committee and developed a detailed plan to implement recommendations. Another incorporated the implementation of recommendations into both its business plan and the work plans of individual officers who were managing projects. Most agencies also used their Audit and Risk Committees to monitor recommendations.
 
We found some cases where agencies can improve how they coordinate actions to address recommendations. Most agencies were not revisiting these actions to determine whether they remain appropriate.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #254 - released 24 June 2015

The Government Advertising Act 2011 requires the Auditor-General to conduct an annual performance audit to check NSW Government agency compliance with the Act.

This audit focused on the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s (DPC) role in monitoring government agencies compliance with government advertising requirements, and examined advertising campaigns run by Destination NSW and the Sydney Opera House.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #253 - released 22 June 2015

The independent assurance given to the NSW Government and sponsor agencies on the viability of large capital projects throughout their lifecycle is inadequate. Government policy is regularly not followed and not properly communicated to those responsible for implementing such policy.
 
This audit sought to test the effectiveness of the NSW capital project assurance system - which includes gateway reviews and reporting - but significant levels of non-compliance identified in our case studies prevented this. The NSW Commission of Audit also identified this issue in 2012. Gateway reviews are conducted by independent reviewers at key stages of a project’s life cycle and provide an independent assessment on a project’s readiness to proceed to the next stage.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #252 - released 7 May 2015

In reviewing both the severance pay guidelines and a sample of payments, we found the guidelines to be clear and all except two payments were made in accordance with them. In these two cases the severance payment was stipulated in the employment contract guaranteeing the STE a minimum of six months pay on termination, irrespective of the length of service.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #201 - released 16 June 2010

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

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