Reports
Coordination of the response to COVID-19 (June to November 2021)
What the report is about
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies’ coordination of the response to COVID-19, with a focus on the Delta variant outbreak in the Dubbo and Fairfield Local Government Areas (LGA) between June and November 2021. We audited five agencies - the Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Health, the NSW Police Force, Resilience NSW and the Department of Customer Service.
The audit also considered relevant planning and preparation activities that occurred prior to June 2021 to examine how emergency management and public health responses learned from previous events.
What we found
Prior to Delta, agencies developed capability to respond to COVID-19 related challenges.
However, lessons learned from prior reviews of emergency management arrangements, and from other jurisdictions, had not been implemented when Delta emerged in June 2021. As a result, agencies were not as fully prepared as they could have been to respond to the additional challenges presented by Delta.
Gaps in emergency management plans affected agencies' ability to support individuals, families and businesses impacted by restrictions to movement and gathering such as stay-at-home orders. In LGAs of concern, modest delays of a few days had a significant impact on people, especially those most vulnerable.
On 23 July 2021, the NSW Government established a cross-government coordinating approach, the Delta Microstrategy, which complemented existing emergency management arrangements, improved coordination between NSW Government agencies and led to more effective local responses.
Where possible, advice provided to government was supported by cross-government consultation, up-to-date evidence and insights. Public Health Orders were updated as the response to Delta intensified or to address unintended consequences of previous orders. The frequency of changes hampered agencies' ability to effectively communicate changes to frontline staff and the community in a rapidly evolving situation.
The NSW Government could provide greater transparency and accountability over decisions to apply Public Health Orders during a pandemic.
What we recommended
The audit made seven recommendations intended to improve transparency, accountability and preparedness for future emergency events.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies’ coordination (focused on the Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Health, the NSW Police Force, Resilience NSW and the Department of Customer Service) of the COVID-19 response in selected Local Government Areas (Fairfield City Council and Dubbo Regional Council) between June and November 2021.
As noted in this report, Resilience NSW was responsible for the coordination of welfare services as part of the emergency management arrangements. On 16 December 2022, the NSW Government abolished Resilience NSW.
During the audited period, Resilience NSW was tasked with supporting the needs of communities subject to stay-at-home orders or stricter restrictions and it provided secretariat support to the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC). The SEMC was, and remains, responsible for the coordination and oversight of emergency management policy and preparedness.
Our work for this performance audit was completed on 15 November 2022, when we issued the final report to the five audited agencies. While the audit report does not make specific recommendations to Resilience NSW, it does include five recommendations to the State Emergency Management Committee. On 8 December 2022, the then Commissioner of Resilience NSW provided a response to the final report, which we include as it is the formal response from the audited entity at the time the audit was conducted.
The community of New South Wales has experienced significant emergency events during the past three years. COVID-19 first emerged in New South Wales after bushfire and flooding emergencies in 2019–20. The pandemic is now into its third year, and there have been further extreme weather and flooding events during 2021 and 2022.
Lessons taken from the experience of these events are important to informing future responses and reducing future risks to the community from emergencies.
This audit focuses on the NSW Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular, the Delta variant (Delta) that occurred between June and November 2021. The response to the Delta represents six months of heightened challenges for the NSW Government.
Government responses to emergencies are guided by legislation. The State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (SERM Act) establishes emergency management arrangements in New South Wales and covers:
- coordination at state, regional and local levels through emergency management committees
- emergency management plans, supporting plans and functional areas including the State Emergency Management Plan (EMPLAN)
- operations centres and controllers at state, regional and local levels.
This audit focuses on the activities of five agencies during the audit period:
- The NSW Police Force led the emergency management response and was responsible for coordinating agencies across government in providing the tactical and operational elements that supported and enhanced the health response to the pandemic. The NSW Police Force also led the compliance response which enforced Public Health Orders and included household checks on those required to isolate at home after testing positive to COVID-19. In some parts of NSW, they were supported by the Australian Defence Force in this role.
- NSW Health was responsible for leading the health response which coordinated all parts of the health system, initially to prevent, and then to manage, the pandemic.
- Resilience NSW coordinated welfare services as part of the emergency management arrangements and provided secretariat support to the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC). The SEMC is responsible for the coordination and oversight of emergency management policy and preparedness. Resilience NSW was also tasked with supporting the needs of communities subject to stay-at-home orders or stricter restrictions.
- The Department of Customer Service (DCS) was responsible for the statewide strategic communications response.
- The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) held a key role in providing policy and legal services, as well as supporting the coordination of activity across a range of functional areas and decision-making by our State’s leaders.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies’ coordination (focused on the Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Health, the NSW Police Force, Resilience NSW and the Department of Customer Service) of the COVID-19 response in selected Local Government Areas (LGA) (Fairfield City Council and Dubbo Regional Council) after June 2021.
The audit investigated whether:
- government decisions to apply LGA-specific Public Health Orders were supported by effective crisis management governance and planning frameworks
- agencies effectively coordinated in the communication (and enforcement) of Public Health Orders.
While focusing on the coordination of NSW Government agencies’ response to the Delta variant in June through to November 2021, the audit also considered relevant planning and preparation activities that occurred prior to June 2021 to examine how emergency management and public health responses learned from previous events.
This audit does not assess the effectiveness of other specific COVID-19 responses such as business support. It refers to the preparedness, planning and delivery of these activities in the context of supporting communities in selected LGAs. NSW Health's contribution to the Australian COVID-19 vaccine rollout was also subject to a separate audit titled 'New South Wales COVID-19 vaccine rollout' tabled in NSW Parliament on 7 December 2022.
This audit is part of a series of audits which have been completed, or are in progress, regarding the New South Wales COVID-19 emergency response. The Audit Office of New South Wales '2022–2025 Annual Work Program' details the ongoing focus our audits will have on providing assurance on the effectiveness of emergency responses.
In this document Aboriginal refers to the First Nations peoples of the land and waters now called Australia, and includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Conclusion
Prior to June 2021, agencies worked effectively together to adapt and refine pre-existing emergency management arrangements to respond to COVID-19. However, lessons learned from prior reviews of emergency management arrangements, and from other jurisdictions, had not been implemented when Delta emerged in June 2021. As a result, agencies were not as fully prepared as they could have been to respond to the additional challenges presented by Delta.
In the period March 2020 to June 2021, the State's Emergency Management (EM) arrangements coordinated the New South Wales emergency response to COVID-19 with support from the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) which led the cross-government COVID-19 Taskforce. NSW Government agencies enhanced the EM arrangements, which until then had typically been activated in response to natural disasters, to meet the specific circumstances of the pandemic.
However, the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC), supported by Resilience NSW, did not address relevant recommendations arising from the 2020 Bushfires Inquiry before June 2021 and agencies did not always integrate lessons learned from other jurisdictions or scenario training exercises into emergency management plans or strategies before Delta. As a result, deficiencies in the EM arrangements, including representation of vulnerable communities on EM bodies, well-being support for multicultural communities in locked down environments and cross-agency information sharing, persisted when Delta emerged in June 2021.
It should be noted that for the purposes of this audit there is no benchmark, informed by precedent, that articulates what level of preparation would have been sufficient or proportionate. However, the steps required to address these gaps were reasonable and achievable, and the failure to do so meant that agencies were not as fully prepared as they could have been for the scale and escalation of Delta’s spread across the State.
The Delta Microstrategy complemented the EM arrangements to support greater coordination and agencies are working to improve their capability for future events
The Delta Microstrategy (the Microstrategy) led to innovations in information sharing and collaboration across the public service. Agencies involved in the response have completed, or are completing, reviews of their contribution to the response. That said, none of these reviews includes a focus on whole-of-government coordination.
On 23 July 2021, the NSW Government approved the establishment of the Microstrategy to respond to the additional challenges presented by Delta including the need to support communities most impacted by restrictions to movement and gathering in the LGAs of concern. An extensive range of government agencies were represented across eight Microstrategy workstreams, which coordinated with the existing EM arrangements to deliver targeted strategies to communities in high-risk locations and improve data and information sharing across government. This enhanced the public health, compliance, income and food support, communications and community engagement aspects of the response.
Agencies also leveraged learnings from early weeks of the Delta wave and were able to replicate those lessons in other locations. The use of pre-staging hubs in Fairfield to support food and personal hamper distribution was used a month later in Dubbo which acted as a central hub for more remote parts of the State.
Emergency management plans did not enable government to respond immediately to support vulnerable communities in high-risk LGAs or regional NSW
There are gaps in the emergency management plans relating to the support for individuals, families and businesses impacted by the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions to movement and gathering. These gaps affected agencies' ability to respond immediately when the need arose during Delta.
Emergency management plans and supporting instruments did not include provision for immediate relief for households, which meant arrangements for isolation income support and food security measures had to be designed in the early stages of Delta before it could be approved and deployed.
There were delays – sometimes only days, on occasion, weeks - in providing support to affected communities. In particular, there were delays to the provision of income support and in scaling up efforts to coordinate food and grocery hampers to households in isolation. In LGAs of concern, modest delays of a few days had a significant impact on people, especially those most vulnerable.
Although government issued stricter restrictions for workers in the Fairfield LGA on 14 July 2021, it only approved targeted income support for people in LGAs of concern on 16 August 2021.
Overall, agencies coordinated effectively to provide advice to government but there are opportunities to learn lessons to improve preparedness for future events
Agencies coordinated in providing advice to government. The advice was supported by timely public health information, although this was in the context of a pandemic, where data and information about the virus and its variants was changing regularly. However, agencies did not always consider the impact on key industries or supply chains when they provided advice to government, which meant that Public Health Orders would sometimes need to be corrected.
Public Health Orders were also updated as the response to Delta intensified or to address unintended consequences of previous orders. The frequency of changes hampered agencies' ability to effectively communicate changes to frontline staff and the community in a rapidly evolving situation.
The audit identified several occasions where there were delays, ranging from three to 21 days, between the provision of advice to government and subsequent decision-making (which we have not detailed due to the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations). Agency officers advised of instances where they were not provided sufficient notice of changes to Public Health Orders to organise local infrastructure (such as traffic support for testing clinics) to support compliance with new requirements.
The COVID-19 pandemic arrived in Australia in late January 2020 as the bushfire and localised flooding emergencies were in their final stages. Between 2020 and mid-2021, agencies responded to the initial variants of COVID-19, managed a border closure with Victoria that lasted nearly four months and dealt with localised ‘flare-ups’ that required postcode-based restrictions on mobility in northern parts of Sydney and regional New South Wales. During this period, New South Wales had the opportunity to learn from events in Victoria which imposed strict restrictions on mobility across the State and the growing emergence of the Delta variant (Delta) across the Asia Pacific.
This section of the report assesses how emergency management and public health responses adapted to these lessons and determined preparedness for, and responses to, widespread community transmission of Delta in New South Wales.
The previous chapter discusses how agencies had refined the existing emergency management arrangements to suit the needs of a pandemic and describes some gaps that were not addressed. This chapter explores the first month of Delta (mid-June to mid-July 2021). It explores the areas where agencies were prepared and responses in place for the outbreak. It also discusses the impact of the gaps that were not addressed in the period prior to Delta and other issues that emerged.
NSW Health provided advice on the removal of restrictions based on up-to-date advice
The NSW Government discussed the gradual process for removing restrictions using the Doherty Institute modelling provided to National Cabinet on 10 August 2021. NSW Health highlighted the importance of maintaining a level of public health and safety measure bundles to further suppress case numbers. This was based on additional modelling from the Doherty Institute.
The Department of Regional NSW led discussion and planning around reopening with a range of proposal through August and September 2021. The Department of Premier and Cabinet and NSW Health jointly developed a paper to provide options on the restrictions when the State reached a level of 70% double dose vaccinations.
The roadmap to reopening was originally published on 9 September 2021. However, by 11 October 2021, the restrictions were relaxed when the 70% double dose threshold was reached to allow:
- up to ten fully vaccinated visitors to a home (increased from five)
- up to 30 fully vaccinated people attending outdoor gatherings (increased from 20)
- weddings and funerals limits increased to 100 people (from 50)
- the reopening of indoor pools for training, exercise and learning purposes only.
On the same day, the NSW Government announced further relaxation of restrictions once the 80% double dose threshold was reached. These restrictions were further relaxed on 8 November 2021. This included the removal of capacity restrictions to the number of visitors to a private residence, indoor pools to reopen for all purposes and density limits of one person for every two square metres, dancing allowed in nightclubs and 100% capacity in major stadia.
The NSW Government allowed workers in regional areas who received one vaccination dose to return to their workplace from 11 October 2021.
The Premier extended the date of easing of restrictions for unvaccinated people aged over 16 from 1 December to 15 December 2021.
Many agencies have undertaken reviews of their response to the Delta outbreak but a whole-of-government review has yet to be conducted
Various agencies and entities associated with the response to the Delta outbreak conducted after-action review processes. These processes assessed the achievements delivered, lessons learned and opportunities for improvement. However, a whole-of-government level review has not been conducted. This limits the New South Wales public service's ability to improve how it coordinates responses in future emergencies.
The agencies/entities that conducted reviews included:
- South West Metropolitan region, Western NSW region, Fairfield Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC), Dubbo Local Emergency Operations Controller (LEOCON), which were collated centrally by the State Emergency Operations Centre (SEOC)
- Aboriginal Affairs NSW assessed representation and relevance of the emergency management arrangements for Aboriginal communities following the 2019 bushfires
- Resilience NSW developed case studies to capture improved practice with regard to food security and supply chains
- a community support and empowerment-focused after-action review undertaken by the Pillar 5 workstream of the Microstrategy.
Key lessons collated from the after-action reviews include:
- the impact of variation in capability across agencies on the management of key aspects of the response including welfare support and logistics
- issues with boundary differences between NSW Police Force regions, local government areas (LGA and local health districts (LHD) caused issues in delivering and coordinating services in an emergency situation
- the need to improve relationships between state and local Government outside of acute emergency responses to improve service delivery
- issues arising from impediments to information sharing between agencies and jurisdictions, such as:
- timeliness and accuracy of data used to direct compliance activities
- the impact of insufficient advance notice on changes to Public Health Orders
- timely access to data across public sector agencies and other jurisdictions to inform decision-making, analysis and communications
- gaps in data around ethnicity, geolocation of recent positive cases and infection/vaccination rates in Aboriginal communities.
- the lack of Aboriginal community representation on many LEMCs
- compared with the response to COVID-19 in 2020, improved coordination of communications with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) populations with a reduction in overlapping messages and over-communication
- improved attendance from agency representatives in LEMCs, and regional emergency operations centres (REOC) to improve interagency communications, planning, capability development and community engagement issues
- deficiencies in succession planning and fatigue management practices
- the potential for REOC Welfare/Well-being subgroups to be included as part of the wider efforts to community needs during emergencies.
NSW Health commenced a whole of system review of its COVID-19 response in May 2022. At the time of writing, the completion due date for the debrief is 7 November 2022. This debrief is expected to explore:
- governance
- engagement
- innovation and technology
- community impact
- workforce impact
- system impact and performance.
NSW Health is also undertaking a parallel Intra-Action Review that is focused on the public health aspects of the response with finalisation estimated for the end of November 2022. At the time of completing this performance audit report, NSW Health had not finalised these reviews and, as a result, we cannot validate their findings against our own observations.
Recent inquiries are likely to impact the governance of emergency management in New South Wales
In March 2022, the NSW Government established an independent inquiry to examine and report on the causes of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from the 2022 floods. The Flood Inquiry report made 28 recommendations, which the NSW Government supported in full or in principle. Some of the recommendations relate directly to the governance and leadership of emergency management arrangements in New South Wales.
The State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) will likely be involved in, and impacted by, the recommendations arising from the Flood Inquiry with potential changes to its membership and reshaping of functional areas and agencies. At the same time, the SEMC may have a role in overseeing the changes that emerge from the SEOC consolidated after-action reviews. This can also extend to ensuring local and regional bodies have incorporated the required actions. There is a risk that the recommendations from the pandemic-based after-action reviews may not be considered due to the priority of action resulting from the Flood Inquiry.
Furthermore, there is potential for the SEMC to work with NSW Health during its system-wide review. Such an approach is likely to improve preparedness for future events.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Chronology 2020–2021
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #371 - released 20 December 2022
Facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes
What the report is about
The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act) provides land rights over certain Crown land for Aboriginal Land Councils in NSW.
If a claim is made over Crown land (land owned and managed by government) and meets other criteria under the Act, ownership of that land is to be transferred to the Aboriginal Land Council.
This process is intended to provide compensation for the dispossession of land from Aboriginal people in NSW. It is a different process to the recognition of native title rights under Commonwealth law.
We examined whether relevant agencies are effectively facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes. The relevant agencies are:
- Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
- Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)
- NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC).
We consulted with Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and other Aboriginal community representative groups to hear about their experiences.
What we found
Neither DPC nor DPE have established the resources required for the NSW Government to deliver Aboriginal land claim processes in a coordinated way, and which transparently commits to the requirements and intent of the Act.
Delays in determining land claims result in Aboriginal Land Councils being denied the opportunity to realise their statutory right to certain Crown land. Delays also create risks due to uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land.
DPC has not established governance arrangements to ensure accountability for outcomes under the Act, and effective risk management.
DPE lacks clear performance measures for the timely and transparent delivery of its claim assessment functions. DPE also lacks a well-defined framework for prioritising assessments.
LALCs have concerns about delays, and lack of transparency in the process.
Reviews since at least 2014 have recommended actions to address numerous issues and improve outcomes, but limited progress has been made.
The database used by DPC (Office of the Registrar) for the statutory register of land claims has not been upgraded or fully validated since the 1990s.
In 2020, DPE identified the transfer of claimable Crown land to LALCs to enable economic and cultural outcomes as a strategic priority. DPE has some activities underway to do this, and to improve how it engages with Aboriginal Land Councils – but DPE still lacks a clear, resourced strategy to process over 38,000 undetermined claims within a reasonable time.
What we recommended
In summary:
- DPC should lead strategic governance to oversee a resourced, coordinated program that is accountable for delivering Aboriginal land claim processes
- DPE should implement a resourced, ten-year plan that increases the rate of claim processing, and includes an initial focus on land grants
- DPE and DPC should jointly establish operational arrangements to deliver a coordinated interagency program for land claim processes
- DPC should plan an interagency, land claim spatial information system, and the Office of the Registrar should remediate and upgrade the statutory land claims register
- DPC and NSWALC should implement an education program (for state agencies and the local government sector) about the Act and its operations
- DPE should implement a five-year workforce development strategy for its land claim assessment function
- DPE should finalise updates to its land claim assessment procedures
- DPE should enhance information sharing with Aboriginal Land Councils to inform their claim making
- NSWALC should enhance information sharing and other supports to LALCs to inform their claim making and build capacity.
Fast facts
|
The return of land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act) is intended to provide compensation for the dispossession of land from Aboriginal people in New South Wales. A claim on Crown land1 made by an Aboriginal Land Council that meets criteria under the Act is to be transferred to the claimant council as freehold title. The 2021 statutory review of the Act recognises the spiritual, social, cultural and economic importance of land to Aboriginal people.
The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs administers the Act, with support from Aboriginal Affairs NSW (AANSW) in the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). AANSW also leads the delivery of Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility and Empowerment (OCHRE), the NSW Government's plan for Aboriginal affairs, and assists the Minister to implement the National Agreement on Closing the Gap – which includes a target for increasing the area of land covered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's legal rights or interests.
The Act gives responsibility for registering land claims to an independent statutory officer, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (the Registrar), whose functions are supported by the Office of the Registrar (ORALRA) which is resourced by AANSW.2
The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has stated that there is an implied obligation for land claims to be determined within a reasonable time. The Minister administering the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW) is responsible for determining land claims. This function is supported by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE),3 whose staff assess and recommend claims for determination based on the criteria under section 36(1) of the Act. There is also a mechanism under the Act for land claims to be negotiated in good faith through an Aboriginal Land Agreement.
The NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) is a statutory corporation constituted under the Act with a mandate to provide for the development of land rights for Aboriginal people in NSW, in conjunction with the network of 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs). LALCs are constituted over specific areas to represent Aboriginal communities across NSW. Both NSWALC and LALCs can make land claims.
DPC and DPE are responsible for governance and, in partnership with NSWALC, operational and information-sharing activities that are required to coordinate Aboriginal land claim processes. LALCs, statutory officers, government agencies, local councils, and other parties need to be engaged so that these processes are coordinated effectively and managed in a way that is consistent with the intent of the Act, and other legislative requirements.
The first land claim was lodged in 1983. The number of undetermined land claims has increased over time, and at 31 December 2021 DPE data shows 38,257 undetermined claims.
The issue of undetermined land claims has been publicly reported by the Audit Office since 2007. Recommendations to agencies to better facilitate processes and improve how functions are administered have been made in multiple reviews, including two Parliamentary inquiries in 2016.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether relevant agencies are effectively facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes. In making this assessment, we considered whether:
- agencies (DPE, DPC (AANSW and ORALRA) and NSWALC) coordinate information and activities to effectively facilitate Aboriginal land claim processes
- agencies (DPE and DPC (ORALRA)) are effectively administering their roles in the Aboriginal land claim process.
We consulted with LALCs to hear about their experiences and priorities with respect to Aboriginal land claim processes and related outcomes. We have aimed to incorporate their insights into our understanding of their expectations of government with respect to delivering requirements, facilitating processes, and identifying opportunities for improved outcomes.
ConclusionThe Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) are not effectively facilitating or administering Aboriginal land claim processes. Neither agency has established the resources required for the NSW Government to operate a coordinated program of activities to deliver land claim processes in a way that transparently commits to the requirements and intent of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act). Arrangements to engage the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) in these activities have not been clearly defined. There are more than 38,000 undetermined land claims that cover approximately 1.12 million hectares of Crown land. As such, DPE has not been meeting its statutory requirement to determine land claims nor its obligation to do so within a reasonable time. Over 60 per cent of these claims were lodged with the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, for DPE to determine, more than five years ago. DPE’s Aboriginal Outcomes Strategy 2020–23 identifies transferring claimable Crown land to Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) as a priority to enable economic and cultural outcomes. Since mid-2020 DPE has largely focused on supporting LALCs to identify priority land claims for assessment and on negotiating Aboriginal Land Agreements. This work may support the compensatory intent of the Act but is in its early stages and is unlikely to increase the pace at which land claims are determined. Based on current targets, it will take DPE around 22 years to process existing undetermined land claims. Delays in processing land claims result in Aboriginal Land Councils being denied the opportunity to realise their statutory right to certain Crown land in NSW. The intent of the Act to provide compensation to Aboriginal people for the dispossession of land has been significantly constrained over time. Since 2014, numerous reviews have made recommendations to agencies to address systemic issues, improve processes, and enhance outcomes: but DPC and DPE have made limited progress with implementing these. Awareness of the intent and operations of the Act was often poor among staff from some State government agencies and local government representatives we interviewed for the audit. DPC has not established culturally informed, interagency governance to effectively oversee Aboriginal land claim processes – and ensure accountability for outcomes consistent with the intent of the Act, informed by the expectations of the NSWALC and LALCs. Such governance has not existed since at least 2017 (the audited period) and we have not seen evidence earlier. DPE still does not have performance indicators for its land claim assessment function that are based on a clear analysis of resources, that demonstrate alignment to defined outcomes, and which are reported routinely to key stakeholders, including NSWALC and LALCs. LALCs have raised strong concerns during our consultations, describing delays in the land claim process and the number of undetermined land claims as disrespectful. LALCs have also noted a lack of transparency in, and opportunity to engage with, Aboriginal land claim processes. DPE’s role in assessing Aboriginal land claims, and identifying opportunities for Aboriginal Land Agreements, requires specific expertise, evidence gathering and an understanding of the complex interaction between the Act and other legislative frameworks, including the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW). In mid-2020, DPE created an Aboriginal Land Strategy Directorate within its Crown lands division, increased staffing in land claim assessment functions, and set a target to increase the number of land claims to be granted in 2021–22. In the six months to December 2021, DPE granted more land claims (207 claims) than in most years prior. DPE has also assisted some LALCs to identify priority land claims for assessment. But the overall number of claims processed per year remains well below the historical (five-year) average number of claims lodged (2,506 claims). As such, DPE has not yet established an appropriately resourced workforce to assess the large number of undetermined land claims and engage effectively with Aboriginal Land Councils and other parties in the process. There also are notable gaps in DPE’s procedures that impact the transparency of the process, especially with respect to timeframes and the prioritisation of land claims for assessment. DPC (the Office of the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, ORALRA) has not secured or applied resources that would assist the Registrar to use discretionary powers, introduced in 2015, not to refer certain land claims to DPE for assessment (those not on Crown land). This could have improved the efficiency and coordination of end-to-end land claim processes. DPC (ORALRA) is also not effectively managing data and ensuring the functionality of the statutory Register of Aboriginal land claims. This contributes to inefficient coordination with DPE and NSWALC, and creates a risk of inconsistent information sharing with LALCs, government agencies, local councils and other parties. More broadly, responsibilities for sharing information about the location and status of land under claim are not well defined across agencies. These factors contribute to risks to Crown land with an undetermined land claim, which case law has found to establish inchoate property rights for the claimant Aboriginal Land Council.4 It can also lead to uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land, with financial implications for various parties. |
Since 1983, 53,861 Aboriginal land claims have been lodged with the Registrar.25
The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has stated there is an implied obligation on the Crown Lands Minister to determine land claims within a reasonable time.26
As at 31 December 2021, DPE has processed less than a third (31 per cent) of these land claims: 14,273 were determined by the Crown Lands Minister (that is, granted or refused, in whole or part) and 2,562 were withdrawn. This amounts to 16,835 claims processed, including the negotiated settlement of 15 claims through three Aboriginal Land Agreements. As a result, DPE reports that approximately 163,900 hectares of Crown land has been granted to Aboriginal Land Councils since 1983 up to 31 December 2021.
There are 38,257 land claims awaiting determination, which cover about 1.12 million hectares of Crown land.
The 2017 report on the statutory review of the Act noted that the land claims ‘backlog’ was one of the ‘Top 5’ priorities identified by LALCs during consultations. The importance of this issue is consistent with findings from our consultations with LALCs in 2021 (see Exhibit 7).
|
LALCs raised concerns about delays in the Aboriginal land claim process, including waiting decades for claims to be assessed and years for land to be transferred once granted. The large number of undetermined claims has been described by LALCs as disrespectful, and as reflecting under-resourcing by governments. LALCs reported that these delays undermine the compensatory intent of the Act, including by creating uncertainty for their plans to support the social and economic aspirations of their communities. |
Delays in delivering on the statutory requirement to determine land claims, and limited use of other mechanisms to process claims in consultation or agreement with NSWALC and LALCs, undermines the beneficial and remedial intent of Aboriginal land rights under the Act. It also:
- impacts negatively on DPE’s ability to comply with the statutory requirement to determine land claims, because often the older a claim becomes the more difficult it can be to gather the evidence required to assess it
- creates uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land, which can have financial impacts on Aboriginal Land Councils, government agencies, local councils and developers.
Risks that arise in the context of undetermined claims are discussed further in section 3.3.
26 Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [2007] NSWLEC 577 at 125. The Court stated, ‘While a reasonable time may vary on a case-by-case basis, a delay of 15 to 20 years in determining claims does not accord with any idea of reasonableness’.
NSW Treasury describes public sector governance as providing strategic direction, ensuring objectives are achieved, and managing risks and the use of resources responsibly with accountability.
Consistent with the NSW Treasury’s Risk Management Toolkit (TPP-12-03b), governance arrangements for Aboriginal land claim processes should ensure their effective facilitation and administration. That is, arrangements are expected to contribute to and oversee the performance of administrative processes and service delivery towards outcomes, and ensure that legal and policy compliance obligations are met consistent with community expectations of accountability and transparency.
DPC and DPE are responsible for governance and, in partnership with NSWALC, operational and information-sharing activities required to coordinate Aboriginal land claim processes. LALCs, statutory officers, government agencies, local councils, and other parties (such as native title groups and those with an interest in development on Crown land) need to be engaged so that these processes are coordinated effectively with risks managed – consistent with the intent of the Act, and other legislative requirements.
Policy commitments to Aboriginal people and communities made by the NSW Government in the OCHRE Plan and Closing the Gap priority reforms establish an expectation for culturally informed governance.
|
LALCs expressed a strong desire to have their voices heard so that outcomes in the Aboriginal land claim process are informed by LALC aspirations and consistent with the intent of the Act. The importance of respect and transparency were consistently raised. The following quotes are from our consultations with LALCs during this audit which illustrate the inherent cultural value of land being returned, as well as the importance of its social and economic value and potential. There’s batches of land in and around town. This land is significant…We want to get the land activated to encourage economic development, and promote the community…our job is to step up to create infrastructure, employment, maintenance and services and lead by example. One of the best things we were able to do is develop a long term 20-year plan and where Crown Land could directly see where land was transferred to us and it was going to things like education, housing, health and other social programs… There has been a claim lodged on a parcel of land that has long lasting cultural significance, a place that is very special to the Aboriginal community members and holds a lot of history. If the claim lodged was successful this land would be used to strengthen the cultural knowledge of the local youth, through placing signage that depicts stories that have been passed down by the Elders, cultural talks and tours and school group visits. This land, although not large in size, has a significant number of cultural trees and artefacts. Aboriginal families and members of the LALC that have lived in our town are very protective of the site and others surrounding it, respecting the importance of the cultural history of the site. There is one, which is a cultural one. We received a land claim that contained a cultural site. This is the high point: we were given back lands that contained rock engravings, carvings. A real diamond for us, especially as an urban based land council. At the heart of the ALRA is the ability to claim Crown Land…The slow determination of claims gets in the way of us doing what we want to do, which is focus on our communities and address our real needs which are about health, wellbeing and culture. If we could realise these rights, we can address all sorts of socio-economic needs. We would become an economic benefit to the state…If it was operating well there could be more caring for Country too. |
Source: Excerpts from NSW Audit Office interviews with LALC representatives, facilitated by Indigenous consultants.
The Crown Lands Minister, supported by DPE, is required to determine whether Aboriginal land claims meet the criteria to be ‘claimable Crown lands’ under section 36(1) of the Act. DPE staff within its Crown Lands division are responsible for assessing land claims and preparing recommendation briefs to the Crown Lands Minister, or their delegate, on determination outcomes. That is, on whether to grant or refuse the claim.38 DPE staff also make decisions about which land claims within the large number of undetermined claims should be processed first.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Banner image used with permission.
Title: Forces of Nature
Artist: Lee Hampton – Koori Kicks Art
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #365 - released 28 April 2022.
Building regulation: combustible external cladding
What the report is about
The report focuses on how effectively the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) led reforms addressing the unsafe use of combustible external cladding on existing residential and public buildings.
Nine local councils were included in the audit because they have responsibilities and powers needed to implement the NSW Government’s reforms.
What we found
After the June 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London, the NSW Government committed to a ten-point action plan, which included establishing the NSW Cladding Taskforce, chaired by DCS, and with DPE as a key member. The Taskforce co-ordinates and oversees the implementation of the plan.
Depending on the original source of development approval, either individual local councils or DPE are responsible for ensuring that buildings are identified, assessed, and remediated. NSW Government-owned buildings are the responsibility of each department.
Identifying buildings potentially at risk was complex and resource intensive. However, on balance, it is likely that most affected buildings have now been identified.
By October 2021, around 40 per cent of assessed high-risk buildings that are the responsibility of local councils had either been remediated or found not to pose an unacceptable fire risk.
By February 2022, almost 50 per cent of affected NSW Government-owned buildings, and 90 per cent of buildings that are the responsibility of DPE, have either been cleared or are in the process of being remediated.
Earlier guidance on some key issues could have been provided by DCS and DPE in the two years after the Grenfell Tower fire. This may have reduced confusion and inconsistency across local councils we audited, and in some NSW Government departments. This especially relates to the application of the Fair Trading Commissioner's product use ban.
Given the inherent risks posed by combustible external cladding, buildings initially assessed as low-risk may also still warrant further action.
While most high-risk buildings have likely been identified, poor information handling makes it difficult to keep track of all buildings from identification, through to risk assessment and remediation.
What we recommended
DCS and DPE should:
- address the confusion surrounding the application of the Commissioner for Fair Trading's product use ban for aluminium composite panels with polyethylene content greater than 30 per cent
- develop an action plan to address buildings assessed as low-risk
- improve information systems to track all buildings from identification through to remediation.
Fast facts
| Authority responsible for ensuring that owners make their buildings safe |
Approximate number of buildings referred for further investigation* |
Approximate percentage of buildings remediated or assessed to be safe |
|---|---|---|
| Local councils | 1,200 | 40% |
| NSW Government owned | 66 | 50% |
| DPE under delegation from the Minister for Planning |
137 | 90% |
fire from combustible external cladding.
NSW Government's response to the risks posed by combustible external cladding
The NSW Government first became aware of the potential heightened risks posed by combustible external cladding on building exteriors after the 2014 Lacrosse Tower fire in Melbourne. However, it was the tragic loss of life from the Grenfell Tower fire in London, in June 2017, that gave added urgency to the need to address these risks.
Within six weeks of the London fire, the NSW Government committed to a ten-point plan of action for NSW to:
- identify and remediate any buildings with combustible external cladding
- ensure that regulation prevented the unsafe use of such cladding
- ensure that experts involved in providing advice and certifying fire safety measures had the necessary skills and experience.
One of the actions in the ten-point plan was the creation of the NSW Government's Fire Safety and External Wall Cladding Taskforce (the Cladding Taskforce) chaired by the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) as a key member.
The ten-point plan also specified that NSW Government departments would be responsible, in regard to buildings they owned to '…audit their buildings and determine if they have aluminium cladding'.
Local councils play a key role in implementing the Government's reforms, given their responsibilities and powers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and Local Government Act 1993 (Local Government Act) to approve building works (as 'consent authorities'), as well as to ensure fire safety standards are met. DPE plays an equivalent role for a smaller number of 'State Significant Developments' for which it is the consent authority under delegation from the Minister for Planning.
Commissioner for Fair Trading's building product use ban
On 18 December 2017, the Building Products (Safety) Act 2017 (BPS Act) came into effect in NSW, introducing new laws to prevent the use of unsafe building products. Notably, the BPS Act gave the Secretary of DCS and the Commissioner for Fair Trading the power to ban unsafe uses of building products.
After an extensive consultative process, the Commissioner for Fair Trading used these powers to issue a product use ban on 15 August 2018. This banned the use of external wall cladding of aluminium composite panels with a core comprised of more than 30 per cent polyethylene by mass on new buildings, unless the proposed use was subject to independent fire propagation testing of the specific product and method of application to a building in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.
Buildings occupied before the product use ban came into force are not automatically required to have the banned product removed. Under the BPS Act, consent authorities may determine necessary actions to eliminate or minimise the risk posed by the banned material on existing buildings.
Project Remediate
Project Remediate is a three-year NSW Government program announced in November 2020. The program was designed by the NSW Government to assist building owners of multi-storey apartments (two storeys or more) with high-risk combustible cladding to remediate their building to a high standard and for a fair price.
The scheme is voluntary and includes government paying for the interest on ten-year loans, as well as incorporating assurance and project management services to provide technical and practical support to owners’ corporations and strata managing agents. Building remediations under the program are expected to commence in 2022.
About this audit
This audit assessed whether DCS and DPE effectively led reforms to manage the fire safety risk of combustible external cladding on existing residential and public buildings.
In making this assessment, we considered whether the expressed policy intent of the NSW Government's ten-point plan for fire safety reform had been achieved by asking:
- are the fire safety risks of combustible external cladding on existing buildings identified and remediated?
- is there a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products on existing buildings?
- is fire safety certification for combustible external cladding on existing buildings carried out impartially, ethically and in the public interest by qualified experts?
Consistent with the focus of the Cladding Taskforce on multi-storey residential buildings and public buildings, the scope of our audit is limited to buildings categorised under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) as class 2, 3 and 9. These classes are defined in detail in section 1.2, but include: multi-unit residential apartments, hotels, motels, hostels, back-packers, and buildings of a public nature, including health care buildings, schools, and aged care buildings. The scope was also limited to existing buildings, which is defined as buildings occupied by 22 October 2018.
Auditees
The Department of Customer Service chairs the NSW Government's Cladding Taskforce, which is responsible for coordinating the combustible external cladding reforms. The Commissioner of Fair Trading sits within DCS and DCS regulates the industry accreditation scheme for fire safety practitioners, as well as administering the BPS Act.
The Department of Planning and Environment administers the EPA Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation), which regulate the building development process. As well as being the delegated consent authority for State Significant Developments, DPE is also responsible for maintaining the mandatory cladding register requiring building owners of multi-storey (BCA class 2, 3 or 9) buildings to register buildings with combustible external cladding on an online portal.
Functions and responsibilities between DCS and DPE varied over time. For example, in October 2019, the DPE building policy team responsible for co-ordinating the DPE response to the combustible cladding issue was transferred to DCS, following changes to agency responsibilities resulting from machinery of government changes. DPE advised this resulted in a lessening of DPE's subsequent policy work on combustible cladding and its involvement in the Cladding Taskforce.
While the focus of the audit was on the oversight and coordination provided by DCS and DPE, nine councils were also auditees for this performance audit. Councils play an essential part as consent authorities for building development approvals in NSW, as well as having responsibilities and powers to ensure fire safety standards. To fully understand how well their activities were overseen and coordinated, a sample of councils was included as auditees.
Nine councils were selected to represent both metropolitan and regional areas, noting that there are very few in-scope buildings in rural areas. The audited councils were:
- Bayside Council
- City of Canterbury Bankstown Council
- Cumberland City Council
- Liverpool City Council
- City of Newcastle Council
- City of Parramatta Council
- City of Ryde Council
- City of Sydney Council
- Wollongong City Council.
Terminology
The two NSW Government department auditees have, over time, been subject to machinery of government changes, which have changed some of their functions and what the departments are called.
Relevant to this audit, the effect of these changes has been:
- the Department of Finance, Services, and Innovation (DFSI) became the Department of Customer Services (DCS) on 1 July 2019
- on 1 July 2019, the Department of Planning and Environment became the Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment (DPIE)
- on 21 December 2021, DPIE became the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).
To avoid confusion, we use the titles by which these departments are known at the date of this report: the Department of Customer Service and the Department of Planning and Environment.
Conclusion
At July 2017, immediately after the Grenfell Tower fire, there was no reliable source to identify buildings that may have had combustible external cladding. However, it is now likely that most high-risk buildings have been identified.
Following the 2014 Lacrosse Tower fire in Melbourne, the NSW Government recognised that there was a need to be able to identify buildings in NSW that could have combustible external cladding.
The process of identifying buildings that could have combustible external cladding has been complex, resource-intensive, and inefficient principally due to the lack of centralised and coordinated building records in NSW. In total, approximately 1,200 BCA class 2, 3 and 9 buildings have been brought to the attention of councils by either Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW), the Cladding Taskforce, or through councils' own inspection for possible further action. In addition, approximately 2,000 more buildings were inspected by FRNSW but not referred to local councils because they either had no combustible external cladding or had combustible external cladding not assessed as being high-risk.
A multi-pronged approach to identifying buildings has been used by the DCS and DPE, through the Cladding Taskforce. While it is impossible to know the full scope of potentially affected buildings, the approach appears thorough in having identified most relevant buildings.
The process of clearing buildings with combustible external cladding has been inconsistent.
In the more than four years since the NSW Government's ten-point plan was announced, around 40 per cent of the buildings brought to the attention of councils have been cleared by either rectification or being found not to pose an unacceptable fire risk. Also, around 50 per cent of NSW Government-owned buildings identified with combustible external cladding and almost 90 per cent of identified buildings for which DPE is consent authority have been cleared or remediation is underway.
While DCS and DPE did seek to work cooperatively with councils and provided high-level guidance on the NSW Government’s fire safety reforms, it took until September 2019 before a model process and other detailed advice was provided to councils to encourage consistent processes. DCS and DPE advice to councils and NSW Government-building owners should have been more timely on two key issues:
- the use of experts in the process of assessing and remediating existing buildings, and
- the implementation of the product use ban on aluminium composite panels with polyethylene content 30 per cent or greater.
Clarifying the application of the product use ban may require consent authorities and building owners to revisit how some buildings have been cleared.
The management of buildings assessed as low-risk by FRNSW, estimated to be over 500, has not been a priority of the Cladding Taskforce to date, despite those buildings potentially posing unacceptable fire risks.
Information management by the Cladding Taskforce is inadequate to provide a high-level of assurance that all known affected buildings have been given proper attention.
While most high-risk buildings have likely been identified, information management is not sufficiently robust to reliably track all buildings through the process from identification, through to risk assessment and, where necessary, remediation.
Reforms to certifier registration schemes are limited to new buildings and do not apply to the existing buildings covered by this audit.
While reforms are limited in application to new buildings, some consent authorities took steps to obtain greater assurance on the quality of the work done by fire safety experts regarding combustible external cladding on existing buildings. For example, by requiring fire safety experts to be appropriately qualified and requiring peer review of cladding risk assessments and proposed remediation plans.
This chapter considers the part played by DCS and DPE as key members of the Cladding Taskforce in ensuring that buildings with combustible external cladding were effectively identified and remediated through processes implemented by:
- local councils or DPE, where those bodies were consent authorities under the EPA Act for the relevant buildings
- in the case of NSW Government buildings, the departments that owned those buildings.
This chapter considers what has been done to deliver a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products.
This chapter considers whether reforms have ensured that only people with the necessary skills and experience are certifying buildings and signing off on fire-safety.
Inspections of existing buildings and development of any subsequent action plans to address combustible external cladding are not activities covered by accreditation or registration schemes for building certifiers
Almost all the risk assessment and remediation work done on buildings in the scope of this audit have been undertaken under fire safety orders issued by consent authorities using their powers under the EPA Act. This has been the recommended approach by DPE and DCS since at least 2016 (that is, before the Grenfell Tower fire in London).
While there have been reforms to certifier registrations scheme, these were not intended to ensure that combustible cladding-remediation on existing buildings is supported by people with the necessary skills and experience in fire safety under the fire safety order process. Instead, they are focused on offering better assurance for work done in respect to new building projects where accredited experts certify that building work is carried out in accordance with BCA under the DCS managed certifier registration schemes.
No steps have been taken to ensure the quality of the work done by experts inspecting, assessing the fire risk and developing action plans to address combustible external cladding on existing buildings, other than where consent authorities have chosen to exercise their discretion. This includes requiring fire safety experts to be appropriately qualified and requiring peer review of some cladding risk assessments and remediation plans.
Consent authorities determine whether individuals with accreditation are required for combustible cladding inspection, risk assessments and remediation on existing buildings
Whether an individual with certifier accreditation participates in a cladding inspection, risk assessment, or remediation for an existing building will be determined by what councils as consent authorities specify in their fire safety orders unless building owners opt to use such experts without being directed to do so by the consent authority.
As discussed earlier, councils acting as consent authorities vary in whether they require building owners to engage individuals with certifier accreditation. In most of the councils we audited, A1 or C10 accredited experts were either required, or recommended, to perform functions such as auditing suspected combustible cladding, or conducting fire safety risk assessments and developing plans to rectify combustible cladding.
However, these types of work are not functions covered by the accreditation or registration schemes that apply to building and development certifiers.
Certifier accreditation schemes do not cover cladding remediation work done under fire safety orders
While councils may require or recommend that independent accredited A1 or C10 certifiers be engaged by building owners for cladding risk assessment and remediation, they are not performing those functions as certifiers — they are, in effect, more akin to expert consultants. Accordingly, how they perform their functions and duties is not covered by the legislation supporting the accreditation scheme for certifiers that was operated until July 2020 by the Building Professional Board.
Instead, their use in this process is a convenient and practical way for consent authorities to ensure that building owners use appropriate experts who have the qualifications, skills and experience needed to investigate and identify combustible cladding, and then to formulate appropriate action to deal with such cladding. However, these individuals are not performing regulated or accredited work, are not subject to regulatory oversight, and are not accountable to any accreditation body for the quality of the work they perform.
While councils could (and sometimes do) choose to decline poor quality or incomplete cladding-related work prepared by A1 or C10 certifiers, the burden of resolving poor quality would fall on the building owner, who would have to seek amended or additional risk assessments or rectification plans.
In the absence of regulatory oversight, disincentives for poor quality cladding-related work, may include litigation being commenced by the property owner, harm to the expert's reputation in a small and competitive market, and the potential impact on whether the individual could retain their professional indemnity insurance at a reasonable cost (especially in an environment when many insurance providers withdrew coverage for cladding related work).
Reforms impact on regulated experts doing work on new buildings
The reforms that commenced on 1 July 2020, replaced categories of accreditation with classes of registration, and varied the classes such that:
- accredited building surveyor category A1 became registered building surveyor-unrestricted
- accredited certifier—fire safety engineer category C10 became registered certifiers-fire safety.
The legislation that introduced these reforms, the Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018, also repealed the pre-existing Building Professionals Act 2005 and abolished the Building Professionals Board. The new Act was accompanied by the Building and Development Certifiers Regulation 2020.
While the scope of this audit is limited to existing buildings, we note that there are buildings with combustible external cladding that are yet to be remediated. Just as these processes previously drew on the expertise of A1 and C10 category certifiers, it seems inevitable that the remediation of existing buildings will continue to draw on the expertise of the equivalent new classes of registered building surveyor-unrestricted and registered certifier-fire safety.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #364 - released 13 April 2022.
