Reports
Actions for Justice 2017
Justice 2017
The following report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of law and order and emergency services agencies in the Justice cluster.
No qualified audit opinions were issued on Justice agencies' financial statements. However, agencies that used the Department of Justice as their service provider experienced difficulties finalising their accounts. This was due to issues with the department’s implementation of a new financial accounting and reporting system and the continued establishment of its Business Support Centre. The Department is working to remediate the new finance system.
Financial reporting | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' 30 June 2017 financial statements. However, some agencies' year end financial reporting procedures were impacted by the implementation of a new finance system and processes at the Department. |
Early Close | Early close procedures continue to help agencies present audited financial statements on time, but there is room for further improvement. |
NSW Police Force Death and Disability Scheme | The cost of the NSW Police Force Death and Disability Scheme was higher than the statutory target. |
Fire and Rescue NSW Death and Disability Scheme | The Fire and Rescue NSW Death and Disability Scheme liability was $179 million, but is projected to reach $257 million by 30 June 2022. |
Internal Controls |
The Department experienced significant, but avoidable internal control issues in its payroll and finance functions following implementation of a new IT finance system (Justice SAP) and continued establishment of its Business Support Centre. We found 94 internal controls issues, including 28 findings repeated from the previous year. |
Human Resources | Agencies have not met State targets for managing annual leave balances. |
2. Service Delivery
Domestic violence reoffending | The Department reports decreases in domestic violence reoffending rates, but they remain above the Premier's target |
Rates of reoffending | Adult reoffending rates remain above the State's priority target. Last year, more than half had returned to prison or Corrective Services within two years of release. The Department has introduced initiatives to reduce reoffending, but their impact will not be known for several years |
Road Fatalities | New South Wales' road fatalities decreased slightly in 2016–17, but remains slightly above the State priority target.. |
NSW crime trends | NSW Bureau of Crime statistics and Research data shows the trend in most crime categories in New South Wales has been better than national trends over the last five years. |
Adult inmate numbers | Departmental data shows that NSW prisons remained overcrowded in 2016–17, but the rate of growth in inmate numbers slowed. |
Adult inmate resources | Data from the Department and the Justice Heath and Forensic Mental Health Network shows inmate access to some resources and services has not kept pace with increases in prison populations. |
NSW District Court case backlog | After falling last year, the backlog of cases in the NSW District Court again increased but the age of backlog cases decreased, according to Departmental data. |
Hazard Reduction works | The Office of the NSW Rural Fire Service advise adverse weather conditions reduced the total hectares of completed hazard reduction works by 50.7 per cent in 2016–17 compared to 2015–16. |
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in public sector decision making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision making.
This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for financial reporting and controls of Justice cluster agencies.
Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
2.1 Financial reporting | |
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements. | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' 30 June 2017 financial statements. The Department and agencies that used the Department as their service provider, were impacted by the Department's Justice SAP, and Business Support Centre implementations. |
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
Most agencies complied with the statutory timeframes for completion of early close procedures and preparation and audit of financial statements. | Early close procedures continue to facilitate the timely preparation of financial statements and completion of audits. Early close procedures for some agencies was diminished by the Department's Justice SAP and Business Support Centre implementations. |
2.3 Death and disability schemes | |
The cost of the NSW Police Blue Ribbon scheme reportedly decreased, but remains above the statutory target of 4.6 per cent of total NSW Police Officer's remuneration. The Fire and Rescue Death and Disability Scheme liability has almost doubled over the past five years. |
The Blue Ribbon Scheme cost $12.7 million or 10.4 per cent less in 2016–17 following an improvement in claims' experience. The was reflected in the cost of the scheme, which decreased from 6 per cent to 5.45 per cent of total NSW Police Officers’ remuneration. The Scheme’s liability was $179 million at 30 June 2017, almost double the $92 million recorded at 30 June 2013. A five-year period has been used due to the sensitivity of annual movements in the liability to changes in discount rates. According to Fire and Rescue NSW projections the liability will reach $257 million by 30 June 2022. |
2.5 Internal Controls | |
There were significant payroll and general finance related issues resulting from the Department's Justice SAP system implementation and establishment of the Business Support Centre. | Recommendation: The Department should reinstate controls over financial information as soon as possible, and capture and apply lessons learned from recent project implementations, including LifeLink, in any relevant future implementations. |
2.7 Human Resources | |
More than a third of Justice cluster employees have annual leave balances above the State's target. | Recommendation: Cluster agencies with annual leave balances above the State's target should proactively manage their leave balances. Particular focus should be given to employees who have taken little or no leave in the last 12 months. |
Achievement of government outcomes can be improved through effective delivery of the right mix of services, whether from the public, private or not for profit sectors. Service delivery reform will be most successful if there is clear accountability for service delivery outcomes, decisions are aligned to strategic direction and performance is monitored and evaluated.
The Justice cluster is an integrated cluster with key service delivery inter-dependencies. Achieving State priorities and ensuring communities are safe requires both upstream and downstream agencies to be adequately resourced. This is a delicate balance. Increases in frontline policing can subsequently impact the court system. Court backlogs can in turn increase prison overcrowding, and limit the opportunities for inmate rehabilitation. Failure to successfully rehabilitate prisoners and prevent reoffending could impact future police resourcing.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations related to service delivery by agencies in the Justice cluster for 2016–17.
Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
Data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research shows that domestic violence reoffending decreased from 15.9 per cent in 2014–15 to 15.5 per cent in 2015–16, but remains 4.8 percentage points above the Premier's target. | Reducing domestic violence reoffending is challenging. While there was a marginal improvement in 2015–16, the Justice cluster needs to continue efforts to reduce reoffending rates, if the Premier's priority target is to be met by 2019. |
Productivity Commission data shows that in the year to 30 June 2016, 50.7 per cent of released prisoners had returned to prison and 55.1 per cent to Corrective Services, within two years of release. | There has been a consistent increase in reoffending rates over the last five years. Recommendation: The Department should reassess the sufficiency and effectiveness of measures aimed at reducing reoffending, including the recently announced initiatives, if the State priority target is to be met by 2019. A $237 million program to reduce reoffending was announced in August 2016. While new initiatives were introduced in 2016–17, their impact on reoffending rates will not be known for several years. |
New South Wales' road fatalities per 100,000 people slightly exceeded the 2016–17 target. | Statistics from the NSW Centre for Road Safety shows that New South Wales' road fatalities decreased to 4.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2016–17, slightly above the State priority target of 4.3 deaths. This is better than the 5.1 deaths recorded in 2015–16, but worse than the 4.0 deaths in 2014–15. |
Between 31 December 2012 and 31 December 2016, the number of crimes has trended down in most crime categories, except for sexual assault, which has increased in each of the last five years. | The downward trend in most crime categories indicates the cluster is effectively achieving the State’s priority to prevent and reduce crime. However, the Department should assess whether the mix of offered programs is consistent with crime trends. |
Department data shows that the NSW prison system remained overcrowded in 2016–17. Overcrowding of correctional centres can negatively impact all aspects of custodial life, and ultimately higher reoffending rates. |
Data from the Department shows that the inmate population reached 13,253, compared to an operational capacity of 13,402 beds on 27 August 2017. This equates to an operational vacancy rate of 1.1 per cent, which is significantly less than the recommended 5.0 per cent buffer. However, the rate of inmate growth slowed to 5.1 per cent, from 11.8 per cent in 2015–16. The Department should ensure that measures aimed at reducing reoffending are not compromised by continued overcrowding. Reoffending, will in the long term contribute to further overcrowding. |
Adult inmate resources. | Inmate access to some resources and services has not kept pace with increases in prison populations, such as the ratio of nurses to inmates. In addition, Productivity Commission information on out-of-cell hours in 2015–16 shows New South Wales prisoners' average time out-of-cell of 7.8 hours was the lowest of any Australian jurisdiction. |
After falling in 2015–16, the backlog of cases in the NSW District Court increased again in 2016–17. The age of cases however decreased in 2016–17 compared to 2015–16. | A working group which includes the Department and the Chief Judge of the District Court has identified a number of new measures to address the backlog. The Department needs to assess whether these measures will be sufficient, given that the backlog increased again in 2016–17. As noted in financial reporting and controls chapter, staffing levels in a number of just cluster agencies increased in 2016–17, in response to the backlog. |
Department data shows the annual cost of a juvenile detainee decreased from $355,444 to $335,840 (5.5 per cent) in the three-year period between 2014–15 and 2016–17. | The Department has been analysing the Juvenile Justice division's operating costs in the context of declining custodial numbers, and has achieved some cost savings. The savings in part reflect decreases in the number of detainees. |
The Office of the NSW Rural Fire Service data shows that completed hazard reduction works decreased in 2016–17. | The total hectares of completed hazard reduction works decreased 50.7 per cent in 2016–17 compared to 2015–16. The Office of the NSW Rural Fire Service attributes the decrease to adverse weather conditions during the peak burning period |
Actions for Energy rebates for low income households
Energy rebates for low income households
The Department of Planning and Environment provides more than $245 million in energy rebates to around 27 percent of NSW households. This report highlights that the department is not monitoring the rebate schemes to understand whether they are delivering the best outcomes.
Most rebates are ongoing payments applied directly to energy bills reducing the amount payable by the householder. The structure of these rebates is complex and can be inequitable. Some households are eligible for four different rebates, each with its own eligibility criteria. Also, some households in very similar circumstances receive different levels of support depending on what type of energy is used in their home or which adult in the house is the energy account holder. For example, a household using both electricity and gas receives more assistance than a household with electricity alone even if total energy bills are the same.
By September 2018, the Department of Planning and Environment should:
- Ensure effective strategies are in place to make information about rebates available to all eligible, low-income households
- Evaluate alternative models and develop advice for government to reduce complexity and improve equity of ongoing rebates
- Establish measurable objectives for schemes that provide ongoing support, and monitor and measure performance of all schemes against objectives and outcome measures
- Assess the impacts of the forecast increase in embedded networks and develop strategies to manage any increased administrative risk
- Strengthen assurance that EAPA is being provided in accordance with its objectives and guidelines by implementing accreditation and compliance programs
- Ensure those eligible for EAPA financial support are not disadvantaged by inflexible payments, inconsistent provider practices, or inability to access an EAPA provider in a timely manner. Options include:
- moving from a fixed-value voucher to a flexible payment based on need irrespective of energy type
- establishing a ‘Provider of Last Resort’ facility for households that cannot access an EAPA Provider.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #292 - released 19 September 2017
Actions for Therapeutic programs in prisons
Therapeutic programs in prisons
Corrective Services NSW should ensure eligible prisoners receive timely programs to reduce the risk they will reoffend on release.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #283 - released 3 May 2017
Actions for 2016 - An overview
2016 - An overview
This report focuses on key observations and findings from 2016 audits and highlights key areas of focus for financial and performance audits in 2017.
Financial reporting | |
Observation | Conclusion |
Only one qualified audit opinion was issued on the 2015–16 financial statements of NSW public sector agencies, compared to two in 2014–15. | The quality of financial reporting continued to improve across the NSW public sector. |
More 2015–16 financial statements and audit opinions were signed within three months of the year end. | Timely financial reporting was facilitated by more agencies resolving significant accounting issues early, completing asset valuations on time and compiling sufficient evidence to support financial statement balances. |
NSW Treasury’s early close procedures in 2015–16 were again successful in improving the quality and timeliness of financial reporting, largely facilitated by the early resolution of accounting issues. For 2016–17, NSW Treasury has narrowed the scope of mandatory early close procedures. |
The narrowed scope of mandatory early close procedures may diminish the good performance in ensuring the quality and timeliness of financial reporting achieved in recent years. To mitigate this risk, NSW Treasury has mandated that agencies perform non-financial asset valuations and prepare proforma financial statements in their early close procedures. It also encourages them to continue with the good practices embedded in recent years. |
Although most agencies complied with NSW Treasury’s early close asset revaluation procedures we identified areas where they can improve. | Asset revaluations need to commence early enough to ensure all assets are identified and the results are analysed, recorded and reflected accurately in the early close financial statements. |
Number of misstatements | |||||
Year ended 30 June | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2012-13 | 2011-12 |
Total reported misstatements | 298 | 396 | 459 | 661 | 1,077 |
All material misstatements identified by agencies and audit teams were corrected before the financial statements and audit opinions were signed. A material misstatement relates to an incorrect amount, classification, presentation or disclosure in the financial statements that could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users.
Significant matters reported to the portfolio Minister, Treasurer and Agency Head
In 2015–16, we reported the following significant matters to the portfolio Minister, Treasurer and agency head in our Statutory Audit Reports:
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and the implementation and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision making.
In 2015–16, our audit teams made the following key observations on the financial controls of NSW public sector agencies.
Financial controls | |
Observation | Conclusion |
More needs to be done to implement audit recommendations on a timely basis. We found 212 internal control issues identified in previous audits had not been adequately addressed by 30 June 2016. |
Delays in implementing audit recommendations can impact the quality of financial information and the effectiveness of decision making. Agencies need to ensure they have action plans, timeframes and assigned responsibilities to address recommendations in a timely manner. |
Agencies continue to face challenges managing information security. Most information technology issues we identified related to poor IT user administration in areas like password controls and inappropriate access. | Agencies should review the design and effectiveness of information security controls to ensure data is adequately protected. |
We found shared service provider agreements did not always adequately address information security requirements. |
Where agencies use shared service providers they should consider whether the service level arrangements adequately address information security. |
Thirteen of 108 agencies required to attest to having a minimum set of information security controls did not do so in their 2015 annual reports. | The 'NSW Government Digital Information Security Policy' recognises the growing need for effective information security. With cyber security threats continuing to increase as digital services expand we plan to look at cyber security as part of our 2017–18 performance audit program. |
We identified instances where service level agreements with shared service providers were outdated, signed too late or did not exist. | Corporate and shared service arrangements are more effective when service level arrangements are negotiated and signed in time, clearly detail rights and responsibilities and include meaningful KPIs, fee arrangements and dispute resolution processes. |
Internal controls at GovConnect, the private sector provider of transactional and information technology services to many NSW public sector agencies were ineffective in 2015–16. We found mitigating actions taken to manage transition risks from ServiceFirst to GovConnect were ineffective in ensuring effective control over client transactions and data. | The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should ensure GovConnect addresses the control deficiencies. It should also examine the breakdowns in the transition of the shared service arrangements and apply the learnings to other services being transitioned to the private sector. |
Maintenance backlogs exist in several NSW public sector agencies, including Roads and Maritime Services, Sydney Trains, NSW Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. | To address backlog maintenance it is important for agencies to have asset lifecycle planning strategies that ensure newly built and existing assets are funded and maintained to a desired service level. |
Actions for Assessing major development applications
Assessing major development applications
The Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) has improved its decision-making processes for major development applications in recent years. The Commission has improved how it consults the public and manages conflicts of interest, and now also publishes records of its meetings with applicants and stakeholders.
The Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) is an independent body established in 2008 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act). It makes decisions on major development applications in New South Wales. Along with the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) and the Land and Environment Court, it is one of three bodies that have a role in making decisions on these applications.
The Department refers development applications to the Commission where 25 or more objections have been received from the community, a local council objects to the proposal, or the applicant has donated to a political party.
These applications are often complex and controversial, and can attract a high level of public interest. This may mean that, regardless of the process, not all stakeholders are satisfied with the outcome.
The Commission is required to take into account section 79C of the EP&A Act when making decisions. Section 79C includes consideration of the likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the development.
This audit assessed the extent to which the Commission’s decisions on major development applications are made in a consistent and transparent manner. To assist us in making this assessment, we asked whether the Commission:
- has sound processes in place to help it make decisions on major development applications that are informed and made in a consistent manner
- ensures its decisions are free from bias and transparent to stakeholders and the public.
Conclusion
Over the last two years, the Commission has improved its decision-making process. It has improved how it consults the public and manages conflicts of interest, and now also publishes records of its meetings with applicants and stakeholders.
However, there are still some vital issues to be addressed to ensure it makes decisions in a consistent and transparent manner. Most importantly, the Commission was not able to show in every decision we reviewed how it met its statutory obligation to consider the matters in section 79C of the EP&A Act.
Despite improved probity measures put in place by the Commission, there is a perception among some stakeholders that it is not independent of the Department. The reasons for some of these concerns are outside of the Commission’s control. For example, the Commission becomes involved after the Department has prepared an assessment report which recommends whether a development should proceed. This creates the perception that the Commission is acting on the recommendation of the Department. The Department’s assessment report should state whether an application meets relevant legislative and policy requirements, but not recommend whether a development should be approved or not.
More can also be done to improve transparency in decision-making and the public’s perception of the independence of Commissioners. The Commission should continue to improve how it communicates the reasons for its decisions and also publish on its website a summary of Commissioners’ conflict of interest declarations for each development application.
Decision-making processes have improved but some key aspects need to be addressed
Although not articulated in one document, there is a framework in place to assist Commissioners make decisions on major development applications. This includes setting out the information to be considered, who to consult, and that a report is to be prepared. The Commission has recently improved how it conducts public meetings and the level of support provided to Commissioners to ensure they understand the decision-making process. The Commissioners we interviewed all showed a good understanding of their role.
As a consent authority, the Commission is required to consider the matters in section 79C of the EP&A Act when making a decision. However, it was not able to show how it met this requirement in every decision we reviewed. We found some evidence of these considerations in six of the nine cases we reviewed, for example in meeting notes or in its report on a decision. Of these six cases, the degree to which the Commission considered all matters under section 79C varied considerably. The larger, more complex applications were more likely to address these considerations. To demonstrate compliance with the EP&A Act, the Commission must be able to show how it considers all matters in section 79C for each decision it makes.
We found that the Commission has access to relevant information to make a decision and consults stakeholders for their views of the development. The level of consultation depends on the size and complexity of an application. If Commissioners decide they need more information to make a decision, they consult local councils, the community, other government agencies and experts as needed.
The Commission’s public meetings are a valuable part of the decision-making process, where new perspectives or issues are often raised. However, some aspects could be improved. For example, many stakeholders thought the five minutes allowed for individual speakers was insufficient. The Commission could be more flexible with this timeframe. Identifying new ways to notify the public of its meetings, other than advertisements on its website and in newspapers, would also ensure it reaches as many interested parties as possible.
Improved transparency and probity but the Commission is not seen by some as impartial
The Commission has sound processes in place to ensure that its decisions are impartial and transparent to the community. It has improved its probity measures over the last two years, following a review by the NSW Ombudsman in 2014. We found that the Commission:
- has probity policies and procedures which are available on its website
- has improved its record keeping of some processes, such as meetings with applicants and stakeholders
- publishes its decision and supporting documentation, such as meeting notes, on its website.
Conflicts of interest are a significant risk for the Commission because they could lead to corruption, abuse of public office, and affect the public’s view of its independence. The Commission manages this risk well. It has a policy in place to address potential, perceived or actual conflicts. Commissioners update their conflicts of interest records annually, and declare any conflicts when the Commission assigns them to a development application. Unlike the Commission’s probity polices, Commissioners’ conflict of interest declarations are not available on its website. Providing a summary of this information on its website when Commissioners are allocated to a development application would further improve transparency around conflicts of interest.
The Commission has been improving how it communicates its decisions to the public. It now produces fact sheets for its decisions on matters that attract a high level of public interest. Its reports on decisions for complex applications also discuss issues raised by the community. However, the level of detail varied in the decisions we reviewed, and it was not always clear how conditions placed on a development would resolve identified issues. Similarly, the reports did not clearly address the matters under section 79C of the EP&A Act. Reporting this would further improve the transparency of its decisions, and clearly demonstrate compliance with the EP&A Act.
While we did not find any issues that would make us question the integrity or independence of Commissioners, there remains a perception among some stakeholders that the Commission is not impartial. Some of these concerns are within the Commission’s control to fix, such as allowing individual speakers at public meetings extra time to discuss their issues, therefore avoiding perceptions of bias.
Other perceptions, such as the Commission being part of the Department and not an independent decision making authority, are outside the Commission’s immediate control. For example, the Commission receives applications at the end of the assessment process, after the Department has prepared an assessment report recommending whether the application should be approved. This means there are effectively two reports on an application; the Department’s assessment report and the Commission’s report on its decision. However, there is only one decision-maker: the Commission. This may cause community confusion about the roles of the Department and the Commission in the decision-making process. Clearer separation of their roles in assessing applications and preparing reports is needed.
To minimise the perception that the Commission is simply ‘rubber stamping’ the Department’s recommendations, assessment reports should not recommend whether or not a project be approved. Instead, they should provide the Department’s views on whether a project meets relevant legislative and policy requirements. The Commission should also be involved earlier in the process, so it can establish key facts and identify relevant issues sooner. It should request that the Department’s assessment report covers matters Commissioners consider particularly important when assessing projects under section 79C. Earlier referral of applications should also help the Commission to plan its work in assessing applications, and may reduce the time taken to reach a decision.
Unless these issues are addressed, stakeholders will continue to believe the Commission does not act in a transparent and impartial manner, which could erode public confidence in the Commission.
The Planning Assessment Commission
The Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) is a planning authority established in 2008 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act). One of its functions is to make decisions on major development applications.
The Commission is independent of the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) and the Minister for Planning. This means its decisions are not subject to the direction or control of the Department or the Minister.
The Department refers applications for major development to the Commission, including state significant development and infrastructure applications. These projects are generally initiated by the private sector. Applications are referred to the Commission when one or more of the following criteria are met:
- more than 25 objections are received about the proposal
- the local council objects to the proposal
- the applicant has donated $1,000 or more to a political party or member of parliament.
These applications are often controversial and may attract a high level of public interest. Of the 29 development applications the Commission received in 2015–16, almost 40 per cent were in the mining and energy sectors, and another 40 per cent related to urban development.
Section 79C of the EP&A Act outlines the matters the Commission must consider when making decisions about major development applications. These include:
- any relevant environmental and planning instruments
- likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the development
- suitability of the site for the development
- submissions received about the application
- the public interest.
In addition to making decisions about major development applications, the Commission also reviews major developments as part of the planning process, and provides independent expert advice to the government on planning and development matters. Since the Commission’s inception, it has provided advice on 76 matters, conducted 39 reviews, and made 444 decisions on development applications.
Process for approving major development applications
The Commission is one of three bodies that have a role in the planning and approval process for major development applications in New South Wales, as seen in Exhibit 1. The other two bodies are the Department of Planning and Environment, and the Land and Environment Court.
The Department determines the outcomes of major development applications. When an application meets one of the criteria listed above, it refers these to the Commission to make the decision. In certain circumstances, the Land and Environment Court hears appeals against decisions made by either the Department or the Commission.
A Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Department sets out timeframes the Commission must meet when making a decision, specifically:
- two weeks where no stakeholder meetings are required
- three weeks where stakeholder meetings are required
- six weeks when a public meeting is required.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #279 - released 19 January 2017
Actions for Industry, Skills, Electricity and Water 2016
Industry, Skills, Electricity and Water 2016
The Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford released a report today highlighting a decline in net profits of electricity agencies and the distributions the government received from these agencies. The report also details continuing issues in the management of Crown Land and TAFE NSW's student administration system.
Actions for Planning and Environment 2016
Planning and Environment 2016
Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford released a report on the planning and environment cluster today, concluding that the quality of financial reporting is improving. However, the cluster can improve its financial controls and governance framework.
Actions for Justice 2016
Justice 2016
Overcrowding in the NSW prison system continues to worsen along with the backlog of cases in the District Court, according to a report released by the New South Wales Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford on the annual financial statements audits in the Justice cluster.
Actions for Fraud Survey
Fraud Survey
In a report released today, the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford provides a snapshot of reported fraud in the NSW public sector and an analysis of NSW Government agencies’ fraud controls based on a survey of 102 agencies.
Actions for Implementation of the NSW Government’s program evaluation initiative
Implementation of the NSW Government’s program evaluation initiative
The NSW Government’s ‘program evaluation initiative’, introduced to assess whether service delivery programs achieve expected outcomes and value for money, is largely ineffective according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.
Government services, in areas such as public order and safety, health and education, are delivered by agencies through a variety of programs. In 2016–17, the NSW Government estimates that it will spend over $73 billion on programs to deliver services.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #277 - released 3 November 2016