The Department monitors the attendance of all students who remain enrolled at government schools, and responds when these students fail to attend. For young people that have been granted an exemption from attending school, the Department monitors apprentices, trainees and those completing the equivalent of Year 10 of secondary education at TAFE. However, the Department does not monitor young people post Year 10 in full-time work or vocational education programs until they turn 17 years of age. In accordance with the law, it is a parent’s responsibility to make sure that a child is attending school or involved in an approved alternate activity until they turn 17 years of age.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #226 - released 1 November 2012

The following overview of audits from 2011 found agency restructures significantly impacted agency financial reporting processes, agencies are having difficulty establishing and enforcing compliance with their own policies and procedures, agencies experienced problems complying with regulations and providing adequate documentation to support their financial statements, the poor quality of some financial statements with 1,256 misstatements identified, 540 so significant they had to be corrected, deficiencies in information security exist across many agencies, computer system disaster recovery plans for financial systems not existing or outdated, do not align with agencies’ business recovery requirements, do not properly identify and assess critical systems and processes and testing is incomplete.

Special education programs so far have been able to support schools to accommodate these students and as a result, we have an inclusive education system. Our concern is that as the number of students with disabilities increases, pressure will be placed on both funding and the capacity of schools to provide quality services.

The Government’s special education initiative is a positive step towards addressing these problems. Nevertheless, other changes need to be made to improve services to meet the needs of individual students. For example, the department needs to develop a common assessment tool to capture the additional support needs of students with disabilities on enrolment and improve accountability for services and results after enrolment.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #158 - released 6 September 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

In the cases we examined, we found that agencies working together can improve services or results. However, the changes were not always as great as anticipated or had not reached maximum potential. Establishing the right governance framework and accountability requirements between partners at the start of the project is critical to success. And joint responsibility requires new funding and reporting arrangements to be developed.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #149 - released 22 March 2006

In our view the contracts in the New Schools Privately Financed Project were established and let in a way that greatly assists their potential for delivering value for money. The contracts in the New Schools Privately Financed Project are at an early stage of their 30 year lives and the savings and other benefits are not guaranteed. The contracts will need to be carefully managed over the 30 year period to ensure that benefits are realised and that costs do not escalate beyond expectations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #148 - released 8 March 2006

The audit found that the process for the lease and development of the Showground site commenced on the basis that no Government moneys would be provided and no theme park activities would be allowed. However despite this a State Government subsidy of between $84.8m and $106.8m (in net present value terms) is to be provided for the development and the area of the Showground to be leased to Fox was extended to comprise 24.3 hectares of the 28.8 hectare site to allow Fox also to develop a family entertainment park.

The audit also found that the process commenced under the former Government were intended to ensure that no one party was placed above another however, the actual processes employed up to the General Election in March 1995 were so flawed as not to be relied upon to select a preferred proponent or to justify dispensing with a tender process.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #44 - released 8 December 1997