Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

Inquiry Details

Infringement Processing Bureau

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Matt Brown MP, today announced a call for submissions for the Infringement Processing Bureau inquiry. The closing date for submission is 2 April 2004.

INQUIRY INTO INFRINGEMENT PROCESSING BUREAU – TERMS OF REFERENCE The Treasurer requested the Public Accounts Committee inquire into: · The relocation of the Infringement Processing Bureau to Maitland; and · The implementation of a new computer system in Maitland, in order to better understand how problems emerged within the IPB, so that knowledge can be applied to improve the management of any future agency relocations and the introduction of large computer systems. It is understood that these factors resulted in the Bureau not enforcing $32 million in unpaid infringement notices within the required six months. The Committee accepted the referral from the Treasurer. The Chairman announced the inquiry on 8 January 2004, and advertised for submissions on 28 February 2004. The closing date for submissions is Friday, 2 April 2004. To address the Treasurer’s request, the Committee developed the following scope, and key issues. Scope: · What went wrong? · Why did it go wrong? · Could this happen again in the NSW Public Sector? Key Issues: 1. How was the size of the IPB building in Maitland calculated and was there room for future expansion? Were the requirements of the Premier’s Government Office Accommodation Reform Program and associated guidance complied with? 2. Were the Government’s polices and guidelines for information and technology complied with, in implementing the new computer system? 3. Were the appropriate people involved in the planning and on-going management of the office relocation Project and Computer System Project, and was there an effective link between the two Projects? 4. Were the projects effectively project managed (against best practice project management principles)? 5. Were the risks of the projects appropriately identified and addressed? 6. Were senior management of the relevant agencies appropriately involved? 7. Was the quality and availability of guidance sufficient? Did the responsible agencies adequately promote and monitor compliance with the guidance?