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

Reliably supplying water to our State’s principal city, Sydney, is a major responsibility for the Government.

The community has been made keenly aware in recent years that inflows have been decreasing, and that Sydney has been using more water than is available. In April 2005 the water in Sydney’s storages dropped to 41.5 per cent of their capacity – the lowest level since the construction of Warragamba dam in 1960.

As Sydney continues to develop, it is expected that the demand for water will increase. The way that we use it will need to be sustainable, as it has a direct impact on our economy, our lifestyle and our environment.

In planning for the future the State’s water agencies face a range of uncertainties. But the task is vital.

This report informs Parliament and the community on the progress made - and what remains to be done - to ensure a reliable water supply for Sydney.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #135 - released 4 May 2005

Air is fundamental to our existence.

The quality of our air is a key issue for everyone. It directly affects our health. It also affects our environment, and can even affect our economy.

And air pollution does not respect geo-political boundaries. Pollution produced locally may have regional and global implications.

The substances which may pollute our air can interact in complex ways, which even the best scientists do not fully understand. Strategies that reduce some types of air pollution can make others worse.

All this points to the need for a well-planned and coordinated approach with effective monitoring, review and reporting.

The Government’s plans to address air quality issues place particular emphasis on pollution from road transport as a major contributor to air pollution. Managing these emissions is a critical issue facing governments everywhere, and is an important part of a broader challenge of developing sustainable cities.

This performance audit examines the New South Wales Government’s approach to managing air quality. It is also one of several by my Office in recent times with an environmental focus.

These audits contribute to an understanding of complex issues in public administration and to public debate on issues that affect us all.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #134 - released 6 April 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