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

Nearly 11,000 rescues are carried out each year in New South Wales, the majority involving motor vehicle accidents.

In metropolitan areas we have three emergency services providing general land rescue - NSW Police, the Ambulance Service and the NSW Fire Brigades. The two volunteer services, the State Emergency Service and the Volunteer Rescue Association, generally cover the remainder of the State.

Rescue arrangements in NSW are different to all other mainland states. Elsewhere, the trend in metropolitan areas has been towards consolidation with only one provider of rescue services.

The State Rescue Board of NSW was set up in 1989. Its primary role is to ensure efficient and effective rescue services are maintained throughout the State.

In this audit we examined how well placed the Board was to provide assurance to Parliament and the community that the organisation of rescue services in NSW best serves those in need of rescuing.

NSW deserves a clear and unequivocal answer on such an important issue. However, the issues are complex, often strongly argued, and generally there is insufficient relevant information upon which to make judgements about performance and value. This report outlines a way forward.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #140 - released 20 July 2005

About one in every twelve Sydney people travels by train each weekday.

Unplanned disruptions to services are inevitable, even on the best-run railways.

Because of the complexities of Sydney’s rail network, a single event can disrupt many services.

From a passenger’s perspective, three issues are important –

• how quickly the disruption is fixed (“When will my train arrive?”)
• the accuracy of information provided about the disruption (“Should I change my travel/meeting/other arrangements?”)
• how often the disruptions occur (“Should I give up on rail travel?”).

In this audit, we looked at how well RailCorp responds when there are routine disruptions to its CityRail passenger services. We focused on how RailCorp manages passenger journeys and informs passengers.

This report informs Parliament and the community about the limitations of the current system, and what more needs to be done in order to minimise the impact of disruptions on passengers.

It should also help passengers judge the extent to which they can rely on the information they receive, and to better understand some of the obstacles faced by staff.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #139 - released 22 June 2005

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits.

This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our May 2002 report on how well the:

• State Transit Authority maintained its buses
• Ministry of Transport administered contracts for the provision of regular passenger bus services.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #138 - released 14 June 2005

It is estimated that one in five people will be affected at some stage by a mental health problem or illness. The increasing prevalence of mental illness means that at some point in time most of us will either be affected or we will know of someone who is.

Although most people with mental illness can be treated in the community, at times some may require emergency treatment or admission to hospital for shortterm intensive therapy.

Not only are more mental health patients presenting to an emergency department for treatment than ever before, they are reportedly sicker and a greater number require admission to a hospital bed for further treatment. And, because of its very nature, those suffering from acute mental illness may not understand what is wrong or be able to communicate their problems clearly.

This makes access to emergency mental health services a significant issue for government that requires continuing attention.

The focus of this report is on the provision of 24-hour crisis services to adults. Emergency mental health services play a vital role in providing timely and appropriate care. Without proper treatment the severity of the illness may escalate, increasing the risk of self-harm or harm to others.

There have been many changes to mental health services over the last decade to deal with increasing demand. Much has been done to improve access to, and the quality of emergency services through significant increases in funding, the opening of new beds and the employment of more mental health staff.

Yet recent reviews have highlighted problems with accessing mental health beds and inadequate levels of psychiatric support in rural areas.

I believe that our report will provide valuable assistance to area health services on alternative models of emergency mental health care that better manage patient risk and further improve service quality.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #136 - released 26 May 2005

Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

Major development and infrastructure projects may have significant environmental, social and quality-of-life impacts. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to ensure that major projects are environmentally and socially sustainable and integrated with State, regional and local planning.

The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) manages the assessment of major infrastructure proposals and coordinates whole of Government involvement. In November 2001 we audited this process, then undertaken by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. (In July 2003 the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources assumed responsibility.)

In this follow-up audit, we examine DIPNR’s implementation of the recommendations of the 2001 audit.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #129 - released 1 February 2005

The NSW Police and Department of Corrective Services (DCS) have committed to improve performance and productivity in their organisations. Both agencies have introduced several initiatives to promote the health, safety and welfare of their personnel. In addition the DCS policy provides for acknowledgements and sanctions based on the amount of medically uncertified leave taken by the employee. There are additional steps that could be taken to improve the management of sick leave.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #100 - released 23 July 2002

The Audit Office is of the opinion that while planning, surveillance and response issues remain unresolved, the State is at significant risk from large-scale emergencies such as might occur with foot-and-mouth disease. Actions by NSW Agriculture since the Newcastle disease emergency at Mangrove Mountain in 1999 have positioned the State to manage better emergency animal diseases. Many of these actions have been pursued within the context of national agreements and programs.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #96 - released 8 May 2002

Despite the issue being on the agenda for many years (formally, at least since 1988), at present there is not a comprehensive record of all government property assets in NSW. Whilst initiatives currently underway are promising, they will require continued priority to achieve tangible results. And careful coordination will be required to avoid duplication and waste.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #93 - released 31 January 2002

Notwithstanding the considerable effort, it is not apparent that the Government's vision can be fully achieved without increased efforts. Based on the current position, to ensure that the Government's vision can be achieved the Audit Office is of the view that the following key issues need to be urgently addressed: 

• more robust mechanisms are needed to monitor, review and report publicly on progress and benefits

• a greater emphasis should be placed on central coordination to ensure that agencies act in a more uniform and integrated manner  

• the achievement of significant reform of business processes will require a substantial strengthening of accountability mechanisms and more comprehensive, rigorous and systematic approaches to e-government project and risk management. 

• despite an array of guidance material and support provided by central agencies, line agency needs for assistance do not seem to be being met to sufficiently advance matters across the sector at the pace and scope desired

• the Government’s e-government aspirations and funding are not always effectively harmonised. Agencies typically have limited resources available to trial or experience new technologies, and display an aversion to the associated risks.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #87 - released 19 September 2001