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

Since our performance audit in 1995 the government has improved guidance for agencies and introduced a more robust framework for approving advertising campaigns. Greater rigour has been introduced into the process by requiring campaigns to be peer reviewed and approved by Cabinet. This new approach aims to improve the effectiveness and value for money of government advertising. We found however that the current guidelines are not adequate to prevent the use of public funds for party political purposes. We also found it difficult to obtain information on the total amount spent on advertising campaigns. This is because there is no central record of the total expenditure, only the cost of placing advertisements in the media. Greater transparency around what is spent would support more accurate and informed debate.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #171 - released 29 August 2007

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