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

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

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

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

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

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