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

Intellectual property (IP) can have value to the agency concerned and may have the potential for wider commercial use. Poor management of IP can impose risks, including the risk of lost opportunities. Because it is not ‘tangible’ like a building or plant and equipment, the need for properly managing IP may be overlooked.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our October 2001 report on how well public sector agencies were managing intellectual property.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #133 - released 30 March 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.

Maintaining public infrastructure – whether social or economic – is a topic that is attracting significant attention.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our April 2001 report on how well the Department of Housing managed its public housing maintenance.

Approximately 400,000 people in New South Wales live in public housing provided by the Department of Housing. The majority of these people are assessed as not being able to afford private rental.

The Department’s stock of some 138,000 housing units is valued at over $28.5 billion. Maintaining that stock in a condition that meets the needs of its tenants and minimises the long-term cost to the taxpayer is an ongoing challenge. Balancing expenditure between maintenance and expanding the housing stock is another challenge.

The findings from this audit should be of interest to all government agencies that are responsible for the maintenance of public infrastructure.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #131 - released 2 March 2005

In most organisations with a board or committee, there was confusion about the respective roles, powers, responsibilities and accountabilities of the Minister/s, the board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). There are a wide variety of governance arrangements in operation across the spectrum of boards and committees. This is partly due to differing arrangements set out in relevant legislation and gaps in legislative detail which have been addressed in a variety of ways.

Under current arrangements, governing boards of SOCs have accountabilities to Shareholding Ministers and Portfolio Ministers, as well as to Ministers who are responsible for industry-wide regulation. Non-corporatised Government businesses have different accountability and control arrangements. The large number of statutory and nonstatutory bodies and authorities have a wide array of governance arrangements. As a result of uncertainty and confusion on governance aspects, The Audit Office observed that many governing boards operate as high level advisory management committees. The audit also found that board and committee practices fell short of standards expected in a professional boardroom culture.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #49 - released 7 April 1998

This audit examines the processes which led to the Government’s decision to demolish and sell the East Fairfield (Villawood) housing estate at a cost of nearly $32m gross ($17m net). In doing so, the audit focuses on whether the decision process demonstrates that it is an efficient and effective use of government funds.

The audit raises a number of concerns about the decision-making process. Although demolition and redevelopment may have been the most efficient and effective outcome, The Audit Office is not able to confirm this from the evidence presented. Audit found that the process used to arrive at this decision was not transparent, nor was it adequately justified by available evidence.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #46 - released 29 January 1998