Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Managing Grants

Managing Grants

Community Services
Industry
Planning
Management and administration
Service delivery

In our view, the agencies we studied cannot be sure that the grants they allocate align with their corporate objectives, and that program outcomes are achieved. This is mainly due to problems with grant selection and the evaluation of results. It was good to see that most of the grants programs had funding objectives which were fairly clear. But we found problems across most programs which could affect the fair and equitable selection of grants, such as, often no procedures for assessing applications, no assessment guidelines for advisory committees, often no clear rationale for assessments and poor documentation of the reasons for decisions.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #104 - released 4 December 2002

Published

Actions for Government Property Register

Government Property Register

Finance
Asset valuation
Management and administration
Shared services and collaboration

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

Published

Actions for Follow-up audits: Police response to calls for assistance, The levying and collection of Land Tax and Coordination of bushfire fighting activities

Follow-up audits: Police response to calls for assistance, The levying and collection of Land Tax and Coordination of bushfire fighting activities

Justice
Finance
Management and administration
Service delivery

The acceptance of audit recommendations by agencies in the current review was high and represented 96 per cent of the recommendations made. In addition, half of the recommendations in the 1998 audits have been adequately addressed and for over 70 per cent of recommendations there has been some measurable change in practices or performance.

But overall, most of these improvements have been incremental. And, for nearly one third of the recommendations, changes have not yet taken effect and there is a risk that the issue or problem contained in the original reports may persist. There is also a danger that current reporting arrangements may not provide Parliament sufficient assurance as to the extent accepted recommendations have been implemented and improvements have been achieved. 

To provide greater transparency and accountability, agencies, following a performance audit, should establish arrangements, such as an audit committee, to follow up on the progress of implementation of the recommendations and report on the progress of the implementation of recommendations in their annual report to Parliament.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #84 - released 21 June 2001

Published

Actions for Review of Walsh Bay

Review of Walsh Bay

Finance
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

The decision to seek development of Walsh Bay without a Master Plan and/or detailed study as to the state of the precinct presented significant problems throughout the life of the project. Now, four years later, negotiations still continue on the details of the final scheme. Based on the latest estimates, it will not provide a financial return as was originally expected. The audit found no evidence to indicate why the former Government wished to expedite Walsh Bay, but it is aware that there was an election due. Many of the problems which have been encountered could have been avoided with more careful and more extensive consideration at the start, particularly in the light of Property Services Group's recommendations.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #58 - released 17 December 1998

Published

Actions for Redevelopment proposal for East Fairfield (Villawood) Estate

Redevelopment proposal for East Fairfield (Villawood) Estate

Community Services
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Service delivery

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