NSW public sector sick leave is higher than other States. The NSW public sector has the highest reported public sector sick leave in Australia. Public sector efforts to reduce sick leave over the last five years has seen a fall of a quarter of a day since 2004-05, less than its target of one day. On average, public sector workers take just over eight days sick leave annually. Recent surveys of public and private sector organisations show that sick leave in the public sector is higher than the private sector.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #209 - released 8 December 2010

In reviewing both the severance pay guidelines and a sample of payments, we found the guidelines to be clear and all except two payments were made in accordance with them. In these two cases the severance payment was stipulated in the employment contract guaranteeing the STE a minimum of six months pay on termination, irrespective of the length of service.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #201 - released 16 June 2010

We found that during Working Together, agencies reduced the impact of workplace injuries. Most of the results have been positive in both our sample agencies and the public sector, and savings have been achieved. Between 2005 and 2008, while the number of claims in the sample agencies remained at around 15,000, the average cost of claims reduced by around 22 per cent from $22,349 to $17,360. The incidence rate of claims for the sample agencies also decreased by nine per cent to 7.3 claims per 100 staff.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #199 - released 31 March 2010

Since our performance audit in 1995 the government has improved guidance for agencies and introduced a more robust framework for approving advertising campaigns. Greater rigour has been introduced into the process by requiring campaigns to be peer reviewed and approved by Cabinet. This new approach aims to improve the effectiveness and value for money of government advertising. We found however that the current guidelines are not adequate to prevent the use of public funds for party political purposes. We also found it difficult to obtain information on the total amount spent on advertising campaigns. This is because there is no central record of the total expenditure, only the cost of placing advertisements in the media. Greater transparency around what is spent would support more accurate and informed debate.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #171 - released 29 August 2007

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