Fraud risks, and fraud control obligations, are growing at a rate which demands that more be done.  Our 2005 report showed that still only 50 per cent of NSW public sector organisations had achieved an adequate level of performance in developing and implementing a fraud control strategy.  In response to this, our 2005 report provided a range of recommendations for improving fraud control and urged that fraud control become a key item for attention by audit committees.

We recognise that organisations need a simple and effective way to review and monitor how effectively they are implementing fraud control strategies.  This kit has been developed for precisely that purpose.  Its development reflects an extended period of consultation, focus-group review and pilot-testing to ensure that that the kit is simple to use, practical and flexible.  The kit assists organisations to meet their fraud control obligations in a cost-effective manner, tailored to their situation and based on risk.

• Fraud Control Improvement Kit
• Fraud Control Improvement Kit: Health Check Worksheet

Parliamentary reference - Report number #156 - released 20 July 2006

Overall the results were mixed. There is some good news but this is such a basic and vital issue that we must conclude that a good deal more needs to be done. Three agencies did not have sufficient information to provide a balanced view of services. And two of these agencies could not tell us whether their services actually made a difference to customers. Across the ten programs we found many examples of good practice, but some variation in the quality and coverage of performance measures. Agencies that we identified as not having sufficient information to judge services were either unaware of its importance, collected data on activities but not results or reported system limitations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #153 - released 21 June 2006

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