Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Areas of focus from 2014

Areas of focus from 2014

Education
Community Services
Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Local Government
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Universities
Whole of Government
Environment
Compliance
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Procurement
Project management
Risk

The 2014 audits showed that the quality and timeliness of financial reporting have continued to improve. However, many agencies do not have financial sustainability indicators that provide early warning of management issues, such as an inability to meet financial obligations. Weaknesses were identified in information security, management of leave balances, asset management and internal controls.
 
Governance issues and gaps in performance information and reporting across the sector suggest Chief Financial Officers should have a stronger role and be more involved in strategy and risk management to maximise performance and add value.
 

Published

Actions for In-year Monitoring of the State Budget

In-year Monitoring of the State Budget

Finance
Premier and Cabinet
Compliance
Financial reporting
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

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

Published

Actions for Follow-up of Performance Audit: Collecting Outstanding Fines and Penalties

Follow-up of Performance Audit: Collecting Outstanding Fines and Penalties

Finance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Service delivery

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.

In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our April 2002 report on how well the State Debt Recovery Office (under the Office of State Revenue) was collecting outstanding fines and penalties.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #132 - released 17 March 2005