1 Audit context

In 2018–19, the VPS employed 47 961 people. Personnel security—including employment screening—is a critical part of managing this workforce.

1.1 Why this audit is important

VPS employees hold positions of trust, with responsibility for administering Victoria’s finances and assets, and providing a wide range of services to the community, including vulnerable Victorians.

The public expects that VPS employees are competent and appropriately qualified, and that they act in the public interest.

Audit overview

The Victorian public service (VPS) relies on employees, contractors and consultants who are appropriately qualified, competent and act in the public interest.

To achieve this, VPS agencies and departments must have effective personnel security measures, including employment screening. If properly implemented, these measures help to control fraud and corruption risks during recruitment and maintain the integrity of the VPS.

Acronyms

Acronyms
ACIC Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
COI conflict of interest
DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
DET Department of Education and Training
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DJCS Department of Justice and Community Safety
DJPR

Transmittal letter

Independent assurance report to Parliament

Ordered to be published

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER May 2020

PP No 130, Session 2018–20

The Hon Shaun Leane MLC
President
Legislative Council
Parliament House
Melbourne
 
The Hon Colin Brooks MP
Speaker
Legislative Assembly
Parliament House
Melbourne
 

Dear Presiding Officers

Appendix A. Submissions and comments

We have consulted with DHHS and DHSV and we considered their views when reaching our audit conclusions. As required by the Audit Act 1994, we gave a draft copy of this report, or relevant extracts, to those agencies and asked for their submissions and comments.

Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.

Responses were received as follows:

 

4 Realising benefits from regional rail upgrades

When a government invests in a major infrastructure project, it expects benefits for the end user, as well as for the broader economy and society. Typically, a business case lists these expected benefits, and an economic analysis of the project then derives a BCR.

A hierarchy of relative beneficial effects helps governments decide which project will achieve the best outcome in a field of competing demands for capital investment.

In this Part, we examine:

3 Project planning, issues and lessons from delivery

Before government approved the rail freight upgrades we examined in this audit, the rail freight network in Victoria had extensive maintenance backlogs. The projects were an opportunity to rectify existing maintenance issues while upgrading the system to operate in a sustainable and fit-for-purpose manner.

In this Part, we examine the planning and delivery of the upgrade projects, and any lessons learnt from works to date.

Our analysis primarily focused on the MBRP and examined:

2 Status of regional rail upgrade projects

This Part summarises the status of the audited programs compared to the original scope, time, cost and benefits parameters approved by government.

2.1 Conclusion

The rail upgrades we examined are not yet improving the efficiency, useability or cost-efficiency of the rural freight network to better support rural freight outcomes.

Completion of the MBRP is a year overdue, with over twice the original budget now estimated as necessary to complete the project to its original approved scope. This is due to: