What this report is about 

This report assesses how effectively SafeWork NSW, a part of the Department of Customer Service (DCS), has performed its regulatory compliance functions for work health and safety in New South Wales. 

The report includes a case study examining SafeWork NSW's management of a project to develop a realtime monitoring device for airborne silica in workplaces. 

Findings 

There is limited transparency about SafeWork NSW's effectiveness as a regulator. The limited performance information that is available is either subsumed within DCS reporting (or other sources) and is focused on activity, not outcomes. 

As a work health and safety (WHS) regulator, SafeWork NSW lacks an effective strategic and data-driven approach to respond to emerging WHS risks. 

It was slow to respond to the risk of respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone. 

SafeWork NSW is constrained by an information management system that is over 20 years old and has passed its effective useful life. 

While it has invested effort into ensuring consistent regulatory decisions, SafeWork NSW needs to maintain a focus on this objective, including by ensuring that there is a comprehensive approach to quality assurance. 

SafeWork NSW's engagement of a commercial partner to develop a real-time silica monitoring device did not comply with key procurement obligations. 

There was ineffective governance and process to address important concerns about the accuracy of the real-time silica monitoring device. 

As such, SafeWork NSW did not adequately manage potential WHS risks. 

Recommendations 

The report recommended that DCS should: 

• ensure there is an independent investigation into the procurement of the research partner for the real-time silica detector 
• embed a formal process to review and set its annual regulatory priorities 
• publish a consolidated performance report 
• set long-term priorities, including for workforce planning and technology uplift 
• improve its use of data, and start work to replace its existing complaints handling system 
• review its risk culture and its risk management framework 
• review the quality assurance measures that support consistent regulatory decisions

Read the PDF report.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #390 - released 27 February 2024
 

What the report is about

The Government Advertising Act 2011 requires the Auditor-General to undertake a performance audit on government advertising activities each financial year.

This audit examined whether TAFE NSW's annual advertising campaign in 2021–22:

1. was carried out effectively, economically, and efficiently
2. complied with regulatory requirements and the Government Advertising Guidelines.

What we found

TAFE NSW complied with Section 6 of the Act, prohibiting political content.

It also complied with most other advertising requirements.
 
An important exception was that the Managing Director certified that the campaign complied with regulatory requirements and was an efficient and cost-effective means of achieving its public purpose, before a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was completed.

We have found issues with agencies complying with CBA requirements in previous government advertising audits. This includes the failure to complete them before signing compliance certificates.

The policy owner, the Department of Customer Service (DCS), does not consider oversight of CBAs to be within the scope of their peer review process.  

TAFE NSW evaluated this advertising campaign by surveying a population significantly broader than the target audience. As such, survey results may not accurately reflect the views of the intended audience.

What we recommended

By 30 June 2023, TAFE NSW should:

1. implement processes that ensure:
   1. CBAs are completed before the launch of campaigns over $1 million
   2. compliance certificates are completed only after all regulatory requirements are met
2. consider adding to its current evaluation methods by surveying a population which closely reflects the age profile of its intended target audience.

By June 2023, DCS should:

3. improve whole‑of‑government reporting and monitoring processes to provide the NSW Government with a central view of compliance, including the completion of CBAs by agencies.

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) sets out requirements that must be followed by a government agency when it carries out a government advertising campaign. The requirements include an explicit prohibition on political advertising, as well as a need to complete a peer review and cost-benefit analysis before the campaign commences. The accompanying Government Advertising Regulation 2018 (the Regulation) and Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines) address further matters of detail.

The Act also requires the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit on the activities of one or more government agencies in relation to government advertising campaigns in each financial year. The performance audit must assess whether a government agency (or agencies) has carried out activities in relation to government advertising campaigns in an effective, economical and efficient manner. It also assesses compliance with the Act, the Regulation, other laws and the Guidelines.

This audit examined TAFE NSW's advertising campaign for the 2021–22 financial year. TAFE NSW is the NSW Government's public provider of vocational education and training. TAFE NSW carries out an advertising campaign every year. In 2021–22, it spent $15.16 million on developing and implementing advertising. TAFE NSW used channels such as television, radio, internet and social media, press, and out of home advertising in public settings such as bus stops. The advertising aimed to increase the percentage of people considering TAFE NSW for training or education, grow the percentage of people who consider TAFE NSW to be the preferred education provider in NSW, and maintain the proportion of people who are aware of TAFE NSW more generally.

There are a range of private service providers helping to deliver vocational education and training in NSW.

This part of the report sets out key aspects of TAFE NSW's compliance with the government advertising regulatory framework. It considers whether TAFE NSW complied with the:

• Government Advertising Act 2011
• Government Advertising Regulation 2018
• NSW Government Advertising Guidelines 2012 and other relevant policy.

This part of the report considers whether TAFE NSW's advertising program for 2021–22 was carried out in an effective, efficient, and economical manner.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – About the campaign

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 #377 - released 28 February 2023

What the report is about

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) and local councils in planning and managing equipment for bushfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression.

What we found

The RFS has focused its fleet development activity on modernising and improving the safety of its firefighting fleet, and on the purchase of new firefighting aircraft.

There is limited evidence that the RFS has undertaken strategic fleet planning or assessment of the capability of the firefighting fleet to respond to current bushfire events or emerging fire risks.

The RFS does not have an overarching strategy to guide its planning, procurement, or distribution of the firefighting fleet.

The RFS does not have effective oversight of fleet maintenance activity across the State, and is not ensuring the accuracy of District Service Agreements with local councils, where maintenance responsibilities are described.

What we recommended

1. Develop a fleet enhancement framework and strategy that is informed by an assessment of current fleet capability, and research into appropriate technologies to respond to emerging fire risks.
2. Develop performance measures to assess the performance and capabilities of the fleet in each RFS District by recording and publicly reporting on fire response times, fire response outcomes, and completions of fire hazard reduction works.
3. Report annually on fleet allocations to RFS Districts, and identify the ways in which fleet resources align with district-level fire risks.
4. Develop a strategy to ensure that local brigade volunteers are adequate in numbers and appropriately trained to operate fleet appliances in RFS Districts where they are required.
5. Establish a fleet maintenance framework to ensure regular update of District Service Agreements with local councils.
6. Review and improve processes for timely recording of fleet asset movements, locations, and maintenance status.

This audit assessed how effectively the NSW Rural Fire Service (the RFS) plans and manages the firefighting equipment needed to prevent, mitigate, and suppress bushfires. This audit also examined the role of local councils in managing bushfire equipment fleet assets. Local councils have vested legal ownership of the majority of the land-based firefighting fleet, including a range of legislated responsibilities to carry out fleet maintenance and repairs. The RFS has responsibilities to plan and purchase firefighting fleet assets, and ensure they are ready for use in response to fires and other emergencies.

This report describes the challenges in planning and managing the firefighting fleet, including a confusion of roles and responsibilities between the RFS and local councils in relation to managing certain land-based rural firefighting fleet – a point that has been made in our Local Government financial audits over several years. This role confusion is further demonstrated in the responses of the RFS and local councils to this audit report – included at Appendix one.

The lack of cohesion in roles and responsibilities for managing rural firefighting vehicles increases the risk that these firefighting assets are not properly maintained and managed, and introduces a risk that this could affect their readiness to be mobilised when needed.

While the audit findings and recommendations address some of the operational and organisational inefficiencies in relation to rural firefighting equipment management, they do not question the legislative arrangements that govern them. This is a matter for the NSW Government to consider in ensuring the fleet arrangements are fit for purpose, and are clearly understood by the relevant agencies.

The NSW Rural Fire Service (hereafter the RFS) is the lead combat agency for bushfires in New South Wales, and has the power to take charge of bushfire prevention and response operations anywhere in the State. The RFS has responsibilities to prevent, mitigate and suppress bushfires across 95% of the State, predominantly in the non-metropolitan areas of New South Wales. Fire and Rescue NSW is responsible for fire response activity in the cities and large townships that make up the remaining five per cent of the State.

The RFS bushfire fleet is an integral part of the agency's overall bushfire risk management. The RFS also uses this fleet to respond to other emergencies such as floods and storms, motor vehicle accidents, and structural fires. Fleet planning and management is one of a number of activities that is necessary for fire mitigation and suppression.

The Rural Fires Act 1997 (Rural Fires Act) imposes obligations on all landowners and land managers to prevent the occurrence of bushfires and reduce the risk of bushfires from spreading. Local councils have fire prevention responsibilities within their local government areas, principally to reduce fire hazards near council owned or managed assets, and minor roads.

The RFS is led by a Commissioner and is comprised of both paid employees and volunteer rural firefighters. Its functions are prescribed in the Rural Fires Act and related legislation such as the State Emergency Rescue Management Act 1989. The RFS functions are also described in Bush Fire Risk Management Plans, the State Emergency Management Plan, District Service Agreements, and RFS procedural documents. Some of the core responsibilities of the RFS include:

• preventing, mitigating, and suppressing fires across New South Wales
• recruiting and managing volunteer firefighters in rural fire brigades
• purchasing and allocating firefighting fleet assets to local councils
• establishing District Service Agreements with local councils to give the RFS permissions to use the fleet assets that are vested with local councils
• carrying out fleet maintenance and repairs when authorised to do so by local councils
• inspecting the firefighting fleet
• supporting land managers and private property owners with fire prevention activity.

In order to carry out its legislated firefighting functions, the RFS relies on land-based vehicles, marine craft, and aircraft. These different firefighting appliance types are referred to in this report as the firefighting fleet or fleet assets.

RFS records show that in 2021 there were 6,345 firefighting fleet assets across NSW. Most of the land-based appliances commonly associated with firefighting, such as water pumpers and water tankers, are purchased by the RFS and vested with local councils under the Rural Fires Act. The vesting of firefighting assets with local councils means that the assets are legally owned by the council for which the asset has been purchased. The RFS is able to use the firefighting assets through District Service Agreements with local councils or groups of councils.

In addition to the land-based firefighting fleet, the RFS owns a fleet of aircraft with capabilities for fire mitigation, suppression, and reconnaissance during fire events. The RFS hires a fleet of different appliances to assist with fire prevention and hazard reduction works. These include aircraft for firefighting and fire reconnaissance, and heavy plant equipment such as graders and bulldozers for hazard reduction. Hazard reduction works include the clearance of bush and grasslands around major roads and protected assets, and the creation and maintenance of fire trails and fire corridors to assist with fire response activity.

The RFS is organised into 44 RFS Districts and seven Area Commands. The RFS relies on volunteer firefighters to assist in carrying out most of its firefighting functions. These functions may include the operation of the fleet during fire response activities and training exercises, and the routine inspection of the fleet to ensure it is maintained according to fleet service standards. Volunteer fleet inspections are supervised by the RFS Fire Control Officer.

In 2021 there were approximately 73,000 volunteers located in 1,993 rural fire brigades across the State, making the RFS the largest volunteer fire emergency service in Australia. In addition to brigade volunteers, the RFS has approximately 1,100 salaried staff who occupy leadership and administrative roles at RFS headquarters and in the 44 RFS Districts.

Local councils have legislative responsibilities relating to bushfire planning and management. Some of the core responsibilities of local councils include:

• establishing and equipping rural fire brigades
• contributing to the Rural Fire Fighting Fund
• vested ownership of land-based rural firefighting equipment
• carrying out firefighting fleet maintenance and repairs
• conducting bushfire prevention and hazard reduction activity.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the RFS and local councils in planning and managing equipment for bushfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression. From the period of 2017 to 2022 inclusive, we addressed the audit objective by examining whether the NSW RFS and local councils effectively:

• plan for current and future bushfire fleet requirements
• manage and maintain the fleet required to prevent, mitigate, and suppress bushfires in NSW.

This audit did not assess:

• the operational effectiveness of the RFS bushfire response
• the effectiveness of personal protective equipment and clothing
• the process of vesting of rural firefighting equipment with local councils
• activities of any other statutory authorities responsible for managing bushfires in NSW.

As the lead combat agency for the bushfire response in NSW, the RFS has primary responsibility for bushfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression.

Three local councils were selected as case studies for this audit, Hawkesbury City Council, Wagga Wagga City Council and Uralla Shire Council. These case studies highlight the ways in which the RFS and local councils collaborate and communicate in rural fire districts.

The RFS has not made significant changes to the size or composition of the firefighting fleet in the past five years and does not have an overarching strategy to drive fleet development

Since 2017, the RFS has made minimal changes to its firefighting fleet volumes or vehicle types. The RFS is taking a fleet renewal approach to fleet planning, with a focus on refurbishing and replacing ageing firefighting assets with newer appliances and vehicles of the same classification and type. While the RFS has adopted a fleet renewal approach, driven by its Appliance Replacement Program Guide, it does not have a strategy or framework to guide its future-focused fleet development. There is no document that identifies and analyses bushfire events and risks in NSW, and matches fleet resources and fleet technologies to meet those risks. The RFS does not have fleet performance measures or targets to assess whether the size and composition of the fleet is meeting current or emerging bushfire climate hazards, or fuel load risks across its 44 NSW Fire Districts.

The RFS fleet currently comprises approximately 4,000 frontline, operational firefighting assets such as tankers, pumpers, and air and marine craft, and approximately 2,300 logistical vehicles, such as personnel transport vehicles and specialist support vehicles. Of the land-based firefighting vehicles, the RFS has maintained a steady number of approximately 3,800 tankers and 65 pumpers, year on year, for the past five years. This appliance type is an essential component of the RFS land-based, firefighting fleet with capabilities to suppress and extinguish fires.

Since 2017, most RFS fleet enhancement activity has been directed to upgrades and the modernisation of older fleet assets with new safety features. There is limited evidence of research into new fleet technologies for modern firefighting. The RFS fleet volumes and fleet types have remained relatively static since 2017, with the exception of the aerial firefighting fleet. Since 2017, the RFS has planned for, and purchased, six additional aircraft to add to the existing three aircraft in its permanent fleet.

While the RFS has made minimal changes to its fleet since 2017, in 2016 it reduced the overall number of smaller transport vehicles, by purchasing larger vehicles with increased capacity for personnel transport. The consolidation of logistical and transport vehicles accounts for an attrition in fleet numbers from 7,058 in 2016, to 6,315 in 2017 as shown in Exhibit 2.

The firefighting fleet management system is not always updated in a timely manner due to insufficient RFS personnel with permissions to make changes in the system

The RFS uses a fleet management system known as SAP EAM to record the location and status of firefighting fleet assets. The system holds information about the condition of the firefighting fleet, the home location of each fleet asset, and the maintenance, servicing, and inspection records of all assets. The RFS uses the system for almost all functions related to the firefighting fleet, including the location of vehicles so that they can be dispatched during operational exercises or fire responses.

Staff at RFS Headquarters are responsible for creating and maintaining asset records in the fleet management system. RFS District staff have limited permissions in relation to SAP EAM. They are able to raise work orders for repairs and maintenance, upload evidence to show that work has been done, and close actions in the system.

RFS District staff are not able to enter or update some fleet information in the system, such as the location of vehicles. When an RFS District receives a fleet appliance, it cannot be allocated to a brigade until the location of the asset is accurately recorded in the system. The location of the asset must be updated in the SAP EAM system by staff at RFS Headquarters. District staff can request system support from staff at RFS Headquarters to enter this information. At the time of writing, the position responsible for updating the fleet management system at RFS Headquarters was vacant, and RFS District personnel reported significant wait times in response to their service requests.

The RFS conducts annual audits of SAP EAM system information to ensure data is accurate and complete. RFS staff are currently doing data cleansing work to ensure that fleet allocations are recorded correctly in the system.

Communication between brigades, local councils and the RFS needs improvement to ensure that fleet information is promptly updated in the fleet management system

RFS brigade volunteers do not have access to the fleet management system. When fleet assets are used or moved, volunteers report information about the location and condition of the fleet to RFS District staff using a paper-based form, or by email or phone. Information such as vehicle mileage, engine hours, and defects are all captured by volunteers in a logbook which is scanned and sent to RFS District staff. RFS District staff then enter the relevant information into the fleet management system, or raise a service ticket with RFS Headquarters to enter the information.

Brigade volunteers move fleet assets for a range of reasons, including for fire practice exercises. If volunteers are unable to report the movement of assets to RFS District staff in a timely manner, this can lead to system inaccuracies. Lapses and backlogs in record keeping can occur when RFS staff at district offices or at Headquarters are not available to update records at the times that volunteers report information. A lack of accurate record keeping can potentially impact on RFS operational activities, including fire response activity.

Brigade volunteers notify RFS District staff when fleet appliances are defective, or if they have not been repaired properly. District staff then enter the information into the fleet management system. The inability of volunteers to enter information into the system means they have no visibility over their requests, including whether they have been approved, actioned, or rejected.

Local councils are responsible for servicing and maintaining the firefighting fleet according to the Rural Fires Act, but this responsibility can be transferred to the RFS through arrangements described in local service agreements. Council staff record all fleet servicing and maintenance information in their local systems. The types of fleet information that is captured in local council records can vary between councils. RFS staff described the level of council reporting, and the effectiveness of this process, as 'mixed'.

Councils use different databases and systems to record fleet assets, and some councils are better resourced for this activity than others

Firefighting fleet information is recorded in different asset management systems across NSW. Each council uses its own asset management system to record details about the vested fleet assets. All three councils that were interviewed for this audit had different systems to record information about the fleet. In addition, the type of information captured by the three councils was varied.

Local councils have varying levels of resources and capabilities to manage the administrative tasks associated with the firefighting fleet. Some of the factors that impact on the ability of councils to manage administrative tasks include: the size of the council; the capabilities of the information management systems, the size of the staff team, and the levels of staff training in asset management.

Uralla Shire Council is a small rural council in northern NSW. This council uses financial software to record information about the firefighting fleet. While staff record information about the condition of the asset, its replacement value, and its depreciation, staff do not record the age of the asset, or its location. Staff manually enter fleet maintenance information into their systems. Uralla Shire Council would like to purchase asset maintenance software that generates work orders for fleet repairs and maintenance. However, the council does not have trained staff in the use of asset management software, and the small size of the fleet may not make it financially worthwhile.

The Hawkesbury City Council uses a single system to capture financial and asset information associated with the firefighting fleet. Hawkesbury is a large metropolitan council located north-west of Sydney, with a relatively large staff team in comparison with Uralla Shire Council. The Hawkesbury City Council has given RFS District staff access to their fleet information system. RFS District staff can directly raise work orders for fleet repairs and maintenance through the council system, and receive automated notifications when the work is complete.

Two of the three audited councils report that they conduct annual reviews of fleet assets to assess whether the information they hold is accurate and up-to-date.

More than half of the fleet maintenance service agreements between the RFS and local councils have not been reviewed in ten years, and some do not reflect local practices

Local councils have a legislated responsibility to service, repair, and maintain the firefighting fleet to service standards set by the RFS. Councils may transfer this responsibility to the RFS through District Service Agreements. The RFS Districts are responsible for ensuring that the service agreements are current and effective.

The RFS does not have monitoring and quality control processes to ensure that service agreements with local councils are reviewed regularly. The RFS has 73 service agreements with local councils or groups of councils. Sixty-three per cent of service agreements had not been reviewed in the last ten years. Only four service agreements specify an end date and, of those, one agreement expired in 2010 and had not been reviewed at the time of this audit.

The RFS does not have a framework to ensure that service agreements with local councils reflect actual practices. Of the three councils selected for audit, one agreement does not describe the actual arrangements for fleet maintenance practices in RFS Districts. The service agreement with Hawkesbury City Council specifies that the RFS will maintain the firefighting fleet on behalf of council when, in fact, council maintains the firefighting fleet. The current agreement commenced in 2012, and at the time of writing had not been updated to reflect local maintenance practices.

When District Service Agreements are not reviewed periodically, there is a risk that neither local councils nor the RFS have clear oversight of the status of fleet servicing, maintenance, and repairs.

RFS District Service Agreements set out a requirement that RFS and local councils establish a liaison committee. Liaison committees typically include council staff, RFS District staff, and RFS brigade volunteers. While service agreements state that liaison committees must meet periodically to monitor and review the performance of the service agreement, committee members determine when and how often the committee meets.

RFS District staff and staff at the three audited councils are not meeting routinely to review or update their service agreements. At Wagga Wagga City Council, staff meet with RFS District staff each year to report on activity to fulfil service agreement requirements. Uralla Shire Council staff did not meet routinely with RFS District staff before 2021. When liaison committees do not meet regularly, there is a risk that the RFS and local councils have incorrect or outdated information about the location, status, or condition of the firefighting fleet. Given that councils lack systems to track and monitor fleet locations, regular communication between the RFS and local councils is essential.

The RFS has not established processes to ensure that local councils and RFS District personnel meet and exchange information about the fleet. Of the three councils selected for this audit, one council had not received information about the number, type, or status of the fleet for at least five years, and did not receive an updated list of appliances until there was a change in RFS District personnel. This has impacted on the accuracy of council record keeping. Councils do not always receive notification about new assets or information about the location of assets from the RFS, and therefore cannot reflect this information in their accounting and reporting.

RFS area commands audit system records to ensure fleet inspections occur as planned, but central systems are not always updated, creating operational risks

RFS District staff are required by the Rural Fires Act to ensure the firefighting fleet is inspected at least once a year. Regular inspections of the fleet are vital to ensure that vehicles are fit-for-purpose and safe for brigade volunteers. Inspections are also fundamental to the operational readiness and capability of RFS to respond to fire incidents.

RFS Area Command personnel conduct audits of fleet maintenance data to ensure that fleet inspections are occurring as planned. These inspections provide the RFS with assurance that the fleet is being maintained and serviced by local council workshops, or third-party maintenance contractors.

Some RFS Districts run their own fleet management systems outside of the central management system. They do this to manage their fleet inspection activity effectively. Annual fleet inspection dates are programmed by staff at RFS Headquarters. Most of the inspection dates generated by RFS Headquarters are clustered together and RFS Districts need to separate inspection times to manage workloads over the year. Spreading inspection dates is necessary to avoid exceeding the capacity of local council workshops or third party contractors, and to ensure that fleet are available during the bushfire season.

The fleet inspection records at RFS Headquarters are not always updated in a timely manner to reflect actual inspection and service dates of vehicles. District staff are not able to change fleet inspection and service dates in the central management system because they do not have the necessary permissions to access the system. The usual practice is for RFS District staff to notify staff at RFS Headquarters, and ask them to retrospectively update the system. As there is a lag in updating the central database, at a point in time, the actual inspection and service dates of vehicles can be different to the dates entered in the central fleet management system.

Fleet inspection and maintenance records must be accurately recorded in the central RFS management system for operational reasons. RFS Headquarters personnel need to know the location and maintenance status of fleet vehicles at all times in order to dispatch vehicles to incidents and fires. The RFS fleet management system is integrated with a new Computer Aided Dispatch System. The Computer Aided Dispatch System assigns the nearest and most appropriate vehicles to fire incidents. The system relies on accurate fleet locations and fleet condition information in order to dispatch these vehicles.

There is a risk that RFS Headquarters' systems do not contain accurate information about the location and status of vehicles. Some may be in workshops for servicing and repair, while the system may record them as available for dispatch. As there are many thousands of fleet vehicles, all requiring an annual service and inspection, a lack of accurate record keeping has wide implications for State fire operations.

RFS is currently exploring ways to improve the ways in which fleet inspections are programmed into the fleet management system.

RFS provides funds to councils to assist with maintaining the firefighting fleet, but does not receive fleet maintenance cost information from all local councils

Each year the RFS provides local councils with a lump sum to assist with the cost of repairing and maintaining the firefighting fleet. This lump sum funding is also used for meeting the costs of maintaining brigade stations, utilities, and other miscellaneous matters associated with RFS business.

In 2020–21, the RFS provided NSW local councils with approximately $23 million for maintenance and repairs of appliances, buildings, and utilities. Ninety councils were provided with lump sum funding in 2021, receiving on average $257,000. The amounts received by individual councils ranged from $56,200 to $1,029,884.

Some councils provide itemised repairs and maintenance reports to RFS District staff, showing the work completed and the cost of that work. However, not all councils collect this information or provide it to the RFS. Local councils collect fleet maintenance information in their local council systems. In some cases, the responsibility for fleet maintenance is shared across a group of councils, and not all councils have oversight of this process.

The RFS has not taken steps to require local councils to provide itemised maintenance costings for the firefighting fleet. Thus, the RFS does not have a clear understanding of how local councils are spending their annual fleet maintenance funding allocations. The RFS does not know if the funding allocations are keeping pace with the actual cost of repairing and maintaining the fleet.

RFS District staff report that funding shortfalls are impacting on the prioritisation of fleet servicing and maintenance works in some council areas. When fleet servicing and maintenance is not completed routinely or effectively, there is a risk that it can negatively impact the overall condition and lifespan of the vehicle. Poor processes in relation to fleet maintenance and repair risk impacting on the operational capabilities of the fleet during fire events.

The timeliness and effectiveness of fleet servicing and maintenance is affected by resource levels in RFS Districts and local councils

Local councils have a legislated responsibility to service and maintain the firefighting fleet to the service standards set by the RFS. Fleet maintenance is usually done by the entity with the appropriate workshops and resources, and the maintenance arrangements are described in District Service Agreements. RFS District staff conduct annual inspections to ensure that the firefighting fleet has been serviced and maintained appropriately, and is safe for use by brigade volunteers. If the fleet has not been maintained to RFS service standards or timelines, RFS District staff may work with local councils to support or remediate these works.

The effectiveness of this quality control activity is dependent on relationships and communication between the RFS Districts and local councils. While some RFS staff reported having positive relationships with local councils, others said they struggled to get fleet maintenance work done in a timely manner. Some councils reported that funding shortfalls for fleet maintenance activity was impacting on the prioritisation of RFS fleet maintenance works. When fleet maintenance work is not completed routinely or effectively, it can negatively impact on the overall condition and lifespan of the vehicle. It can also reduce the capacity of the RFS to respond to fire events.

Fleet quality control activities are carried out by RFS District staff. In some of the smaller RFS Districts, one person is responsible for liaising with local councils and brigade volunteers about fleet maintenance and repairs. In the regions where resources are limited, there is less ability to maintain ongoing communication. This is impacting on fleet service and maintenance timelines and the timeliness of fleet monitoring activity.

The RFS has mutual support arrangements with agencies in NSW and interstate, though shared fleet levels are yet to be quantified

The RFS has arrangements with state, federal, and international fire authorities to provide mutual support during fire incidents. In NSW, the RFS has agreements with the three statutory authorities – Fire and Rescue NSW, the Forestry Corporation of NSW, and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. The agreement with Fire and Rescue NSW provides a framework for cooperation and joint operations between the agencies. The agreements with the Forestry Corporation of NSW and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service describe the control and coordination arrangements for bush and grass fires across NSW. These arrangements are set out in legislation and incorporated into local Bush Fire Risk Management Plans.

The RFS has agreements with fire authorities in three of the four Australian states and territories that share a border with NSW – the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, and South Australia. Each agreement sets out the arrangements for mutual assistance and joint operations, including arrangements for sharing aircraft. The agreement between the RFS and Victoria had lapsed. The RFS told the NSW Bushfire Inquiry that the agreement with Victoria would be finalised by June 2020. In June 2022, the RFS reported that the agreement was in the process of being finalised.

The arrangements for mutual aid from Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania, are managed by the National Resource Sharing Centre. These agreements set out the arrangements for interstate assistance between Australian fire services, emergency services, and land management agencies in those states and territories.

These mutual support arrangements may assist during state-based fire events. However, when there are competing demands for resources, such as during the bushfires of 2019–2020, there can be limits on fleet availability. During the 2019–2020 fires, resources were stretched in all jurisdictions as these fires affected NSW, Victoria, and Queensland.

There are opportunities for the RFS and other NSW agencies to quantify fleet resources across the State and identify assets that can be mobilised for different fire activities. This form of fleet planning may be used to enhance surge capabilities during times of high fire activity. There are also opportunities for the RFS and other agencies to match the levels of shared assets to projected bushfire risks.

Appendix one – Responses 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 #376 - released 27 February 2023

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:

1. 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
2. develop an action plan to address buildings assessed as low-risk
3. improve information systems to track all buildings from identification through to remediation.

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.

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.

What the report is about

The report examined whether NSW Treasury, Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service effectively administered grants programs funded under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund, including:

• $10,000 Small Business Support Grant
• $3,000 Small Business Recovery Grant.

What we found

The agencies effectively implemented the grants within required timeframes, reflecting the NSW Government’s decision to deliver urgent financial support to small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

NSW Treasury met urgent timeframes to design the grants and Service NSW made timely payments in line with the grants' objectives and eligibility criteria.

Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service strengthened processes to detect and minimise fraud in response to identified external fraud risks, and to investigate suspected fraudulent applications.

Fraud security checks and investigations are ongoing, and the agencies will not know the full extent of fraud across the grants until these processes have been completed.

The agencies regularly monitored and reported on the timeliness of payments to small business applicants but have not yet measured all benefits of the grants programs.

The $10,000 Support Grant and the $3,000 Recovery Grant have provided around $630 million in one off grant payments to eligible small businesses.

What we recommended

NSW Treasury should finalise and implement an evaluation of both grants programs, including obtaining feedback from businesses.

Service NSW should develop a framework that documents expected controls for how it administers grants, including business processes, fraud control and governance and probity requirements.

Service NSW should publish information on all grants programs, including grants distribution and uptake.

The Department of Customer Service should ensure its processes for managing conflicts of interest meets its policy requirements.

Upcoming performance audit

The Audit Office is conducting a further performance audit into grants administration for disaster relief focussing on bushfire grants. This is planned to complete in 2021-22.

Further information

Please contact Ian Goodwin, Deputy Auditor-General on 9275 7347 or by email.

The NSW Government responded to the partial shutdown of the NSW economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 by, among other measures, announcing on 3 April 2020 that it would place $750 million into the Small Business Support Fund (the Fund).

Under the Fund, the NSW Government would pay one-off grants of up to $10,000 to small business impacted by the shutdown. The objectives of the $10,000 Small Business Support Grant ($10,000 Support Grant) were to:

• ease the pressure on small businesses that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic
• support the ongoing operations of small businesses highly impacted by the COVID-19 restrictions
• deliver cash-flow into small businesses as soon as possible so that small businesses could meet pressing financial needs.

Grant applications were assessed against eligibility criteria that were determined by the NSW Government. The eligibility criteria for the $10,000 Support Grant required an employing small business to demonstrate it was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic by self-declaring or demonstrating a significant decline of 75 per cent or more in turnover compared to 2019. Documentation requirements were relaxed for small businesses within highly impacted industries.

In June 2020, the NSW Government announced a second round of one-off grants of up to $3,000 to small businesses that were highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic ($3,000 Recovery Grant). The objective of the $3,000 Recovery Grant was to help small businesses in 'highly impacted industries' — those directly impacted by the restrictions and closures put in place under the Public Health Orders — to meet the costs of safely reopening or scaling up operations.

The eligibility criteria for the $3,000 Recovery Grant required that a small business be in a highly impacted industry, demonstrate that it was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic by declaring a significant decline in turnover, and had costs associated with reopening under the 'COVID-Safe' requirements.

NSW Treasury and Service NSW implemented both grants on behalf of the NSW Government. The process of applying for a grant was intended to be quick and easy, with Service NSW using automated assessments and simple online application forms to process applications. Applicants applied for the $10,000 Support Grant through the Service NSW website between 14 April 2020 to 30 June 2020 and applied for the $3,000 Small Business Recovery Grant between 1 July 2020 and 31 August 2020.

At May 2021, around $520 million has been paid to over 52,500 grant applicants under the $10,000 Support Grant and around $109 million had been paid to around 36,700 grant applicants under the $3,000 Recovery Grant.

The Audit Office plans to undertake a performance audit into grants administration for disaster relief focussing on bushfire grants in 2021–22.

This audit assessed whether the grants funded under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund were effectively administered and implemented to provide disaster relief. It addressed the following questions:

• Were funded grants programs planned, designed and targeted effectively?
• Were funded grants programs implemented in line with the objectives and criteria and delivery requirements?
• Have agencies established measures to monitor intended benefits and outcomes?

This audit did not seek to assess the effectiveness of any other grant programs or stimulus measures. It also did not seek to assess the impact of the funding on applicants, or the future prospects of small businesses that received support.

1. Key findings

Around $630 million in timely one-off grant payments have been made to small businesses

Service NSW and NSW Treasury have paid around $630 million in one-off grant payments to small businesses via two grants administered under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund. At May 2021:

• around $520 million has been paid to over 52,500 grant applications received for the $10,000 Small Business Support Grant ($10,000 Support Grant)
• around $109 million has been paid to 36,700 grant applications received for the $3,000 Small Business Recovery Grant ($3,000 Recovery Grant).

Across both grants, over 65,000 small businesses received a payment across either grant, and over 23,000 businesses received payments under both grants.

NSW Treasury advise that, while no data was collected on the time to pay applicants for the $10,000 Support Grant, from its monitoring of the grants' outputs it was satisfied that payment timeframes met its expectations. Service NSW met its targeted time to pay applicants with payments made within ten days for the $3,000 Recovery Grant.

Funds for both grants were not fully spent due to limitations in data and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact. At May 2021, the final demand for the $10,000 Support Grant was around 30 per cent less than initially anticipated and the final demand for the $3,000 Recovery Grant was around 40 per cent less than initially anticipated.

NSW Treasury developed proposals establishing high level design and delivery expectations within rapid timeframes

NSW Treasury put forward proposals to the NSW Government for the two grants administered under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund. It met rapid timeframes for producing this advice: within one day for the $10,000 Support Grant and within four days for the $3,000 Recovery Grant. NSW Treasury's advice to the NSW Government on how to best target the total funding, eligibility criteria and the feasibility of delivering the grants through Service NSW was based on comparable grants programs – including the $10,000 Small Business Bushfire Support Grant – which at that time were ongoing.

The proposals established, at a high-level, the rationale for the grants, expected financial costs, risks and analysis on budget impacts, and confirmation that Service NSW could deliver the grants applications platform. NSW Treasury's demand projections were uncertain due to limited data in the early stages of the pandemic regarding potential economic impact.

Given the tight timeframes, the proposals did not fully consider all planning and design aspects for both grants. For example, there was minimal identification of the costs and benefits of the programs, and a lack of detailed design and delivery requirements. The proposals outlined that arrangements to finalise the risk management, controls, and auditing plan would be agreed by Service NSW and NSW Treasury before implementation.

In future circumstances where urgent advice on program design is required, NSW Treasury could set clearer expectations for the delivery agency, including fully considering costs, benefits and delivery requirements that could be carried through to project governance and implementation.

Service NSW implemented both grants in line with delivery expectations

Service NSW met urgent timeframes to stand-up both grants: 11 days for the $10,000 Support Grant and 26 days for the $3,000 Recovery Grant. Delivery expectations for each grant were established under a grant project agreement (grant agreement). Service NSW delivered the online application platform, assessment of applications, payments and reporting of the grants' uptake as per the grant agreements.

The urgent timeframes to deliver the grants contributed to gaps in Service NSW's project and risk management processes throughout the lifecycle of both grants. For example, the requirement to meet pressing timeframes for the $10,000 Support Grant launch meant agencies had reduced time to achieve sign-off on key documentation. As a result, important documents and processes – including the grant agreement, risk documentation and key business process and quality assurance processes – were not finalised ahead of launch.

Quality assurance and compliance processes for detecting fraud were not settled until after the conclusion of the applications for the $10,000 Support Grant, and were not completed until late 2020. Some project documents, including risk registers, communication plans and project briefs are still not finalised.

The longer timeframe to develop the $3,000 Recovery Grant meant that agencies were able to build on their understanding of the implementation requirements from the $10,000 Support Grant, and better document these expectations and understanding while ensuring that key documents and sign-offs were in place prior to launch.

Service NSW tightened its risk management and controls in response to evidence of fraudulent applications

In May 2020, Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service (DCS) were alerted to suspected fraudulent activity within grants administered by Service NSW. Initially, Service NSW anticipated that up to $8.8 million of the $10,000 Support Grant was at risk of exposure to fraudulent applications. However, Service NSW reported that, at April 2021, $1.9 million for the $10,000 Support Grant and $254,000 for the $3,000 Recovery Grant from paid applications were at risk of fraud exposure.

Following an internal review of the potential exposure to fraudulent or ineligible applications, Service NSW implemented additional automated security checks on applications, increased manual assessments of grant applications, established a dedicated taskforce for grants administration and engaged a unit within DCS to manage high-risk investigations.

Service NSW and DCS's increased governance and oversight has resulted in an established case management function, increased referrals to law enforcement, prioritised investigations of suspicious applications and the development of a 'Fraud Control Framework' aimed at addressing external fraud risks. Given Service NSW had limited experience in these processes in context of administering grant payments, such actions were an appropriate response.

Security checks and investigations of suspicious applications are ongoing. Service NSW will not know the full extent of fraud across the grants until these processes have been fully completed.

Service NSW and Department of Customer Service can improve how conflicts of interest are managed for future programs

Compliance with agency policies and processes to manage conflicts of interest and financial subdelegations demonstrates that investment decisions are being made by appropriately skilled and experienced staff, allowing agencies to operate efficiently, and reducing the risk of internal fraud.

DCS was unable to produce employee conflicts of interest declarations for the $10,000 Support Grant. Therefore, it is not known how many employees had completed conflicts of interest declarations for this round.

DCS provided information on conflicts of interest declarations for the $3,000 Recovery Grant. Twenty-nine per cent of declarations provided for employees undertaking grant assessments for the $3,000 Recovery Grant were incomplete at March 2021, and a further nine per cent were not finalised even though they indicated a real, potential or perceived conflict.

For future grants programs, ensuring compliance with conflicts of interest policies would help DCS and Service NSW to have greater confidence that conflicts of interest are appropriately identified and managed.

NSW Treasury has not yet measured all benefits or outcomes of the grants

In April 2021, NSW Treasury updated its evaluation plan for the $10,000 Support Grant and $3,000 Recovery Grant in support of an economic evaluation to commence from mid-2021. The updated evaluation plan outlines inputs, activities, and outputs as well as immediate, short term and medium term outcomes for both grants.

The evaluation will consider the extent to which both grants achieved their intended outcomes, and whether the economic benefits exceeded the costs to help inform decisions about the nature and design of any future small business support programs. This will complement, and feed into a broader review of all NSW Government COVID-19 stimulus measures.

Service NSW rapidly developed an approach to administer the grants

Over recent disasters, such as the 2019–20 bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic, Service NSW has been responsible for administering grant programs on behalf of other government agencies.

Service NSW implemented both grants under its Project Management Framework and under each grant agreement with NSW Treasury as it does not have its own grants administration framework. To address the risks that emerged during delivery, Service NSW developed an approach to standardise and monitor the administration of the grants while they were being implemented.

Service NSW now has an opportunity to establish a grants administration framework, based on the processes, lessons and outcomes captured under the grants administration taskforce and in developing its fraud control framework. Embedding these processes into business as usual for grants administration will enable Service NSW to have a consistent set of expectations for controls, business processes and governance and probity requirements for future grants it implements.

2. Recommendations

By December 2021, NSW Treasury should:

1. finalise and implement an evaluation of the $10,000 Support Grant and $3,000 Recovery Grant, including obtaining direct feedback from businesses on how grant funds achieved the grant objectives.

By December 2021, Service NSW should:

2. develop a grants administration framework, which documents expected controls – including fraud controls – business processes and governance and probity requirements

3. publish information on all grants programs, including grants distribution and uptake.

By December 2021, the Department of Customer Service should:

4. ensure its process for managing conflicts of interest meets policy requirements by:

• ensuring employees promptly declare any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest
• annually producing a list of conflicts of interest for records retention purposes
• requiring a separate register of conflicts of interest declarations where a grant program is deemed as high risk.

3. Lessons for grants administered within urgent timeframes

The two grants this audit examined were administered within a context of urgent timeframes, and increased complexity and uncertainty about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following lessons are shared to assist sponsor and delivery agencies in administering future grants where rapid implementation is required.

Sponsor agencies should consider the following lessons:

1. develop an approach to define and measure benefits for rapidly developed programs and projects where a full business case and cost-benefit analysis is not feasible

2. establish common processes and expectations for co-administered grants:

• periodically assure agencies' capability to deliver grants programs
• agree and establish risk appetite statements with administering agencies
• clearly establish expected performance levels and targets under any agreement

3. review the processes and outcomes of rapidly developed programs, capture lessons learned, and apply these in planning and delivering future programs.

Delivery agencies should consider the following lessons:

1. risk management and risk appetite:

• perform robust assessment procedures to ensure risks associated with delivery of the project are identified
• ensure the controls implemented adequately address identified risks
• agree and document the acceptable risk appetite at the outset
• review risk management processes after the grants are issued when unable to finalise risk management processes ahead of launch

2. grant agreements between NSW public sector agencies:

• ensure agreements are finalised in a timely manner
• ensure agreements clearly outline:
  • roles and responsibilities of both parties,
  • changes in scope of services provided
  • fees and charges applicable

3. frameworks for grants administration:

• ensure that there is a common set of expectations in place to guide grants administration including standard controls and processes for managing risk, capturing lessons learned and reporting on outcomes.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Summary of other COVID‑19 Stimulus and Support for small businesses in NSW in April 2020

Appendix three – Public Health Orders

Appendix four – Highly impacted industries

Appendix five – About the audit

Appendix six – Performance auditing

© 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 #352 - released (24 June 2021).

A report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford found that select advertising campaigns conducted by Service NSW and the NSW Rural Fire Service met most requirements of the Government Advertising Act, regulations, Guidelines and other laws. However, the audit found that Service NSW inappropriately used its post campaign evaluation to measure sentiment towards and confidence in the NSW Government.  

While agency analysis shows that the ‘Cost of Living’ (phases 2 and 3)  and ‘How Fireproof is Your Plan?’ campaigns achieved most of their objectives, the campaign objectives and targets set by both agencies were not sufficient to measure all aspects of campaign effectiveness. 

The report makes two recommendations to the Department of Customer Service. The first is to review its guidance to ensure agencies are not using post campaign evaluations to measure sentiment towards the government. The second, to review its guidance and the new process of peer review to ensure they support agencies to comply with the Act, the regulations and the Guidelines. 

The Government Advertising Act 2011 requires the Auditor General to conduct an annual performance audit of one or more government agencies to see whether their advertising activities were carried out in an effective, economical and efficient manner and in compliance with the Government Advertising Act 2011.
 

Read full report (PDF)

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit on the activities of one or more government agencies in relation to government advertising campaigns in each financial year. The performance audit assesses whether a government agency or agencies have carried out activities in relation to government advertising in an effective, economical and efficient manner and in compliance with the Act, the regulations, other laws and the Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines). This audit examined two campaigns run during the 2018–19 and 2019–20 financial years respectively:

• the 'Cost of Living' campaign run by Service NSW (phases 2 and 3 delivered in 2018–19)
• the 'How Fireproof Is Your Plan?' (Fireproof) campaign run by NSW Rural Fire Service (year two of a three-year campaign delivered in 2019–20).

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising. Under this section, material that is part of a government advertising campaign must not contain the name, voice or image of a minister, member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament or the name, logo or any slogan of a political party. Further, a campaign must not be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party.

In 2018–19, Service NSW delivered phases 2 and 3 of the 'Cost of Living' campaign. The Cost of Living advertising campaign aimed to build awareness of the help available to ease the cost of living for people under financial pressure including awareness of specific rebates that can be claimed. As part of the Cost of Living program, Service NSW developed a webpage designed as a single portal to access more than 40 NSW Government savings, rebates and initiatives (which originated from over 12 different agencies). It also launched the Cost of Living service which includes face to face meetings and phone interviews to help people claim rebates from the NSW Government. Phase 2 of the campaign ran from September 2018 to August 2019. Phase 3 of the campaign ran from January 2019 to July 2019. The budgets for phases 2 and 3 were $4.127 million and $934,800 respectively. See Appendix two for more details on this campaign.

Campaign materials we reviewed did not breach section 6 of the Act

The audit team reviewed campaign materials developed as part of the paid advertising campaign including radio transcripts, digital videos and display. The audit team did not review the use of social media outside paid social media content as section four of the Act defines government advertising as the dissemination of information which is funded by or on behalf of a government agency. See Appendix two for examples of campaign materials for this campaign.

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising as part of a government advertising campaign. A government advertising campaign must not:

• be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
• contain the name, voice or image of a minister, a member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
• contain the name, logo, slogan or any other reference to a political party.

The audit found no breaches of section 6 of the Act in the campaign material we reviewed. 

Post-campaign evaluations measured sentiment towards and confidence in the NSW Government

The post-campaign evaluation for phases 2 and 3 measured levels of confidence with the statement ‘the NSW Government has your best interests at heart’, despite the fact this was not a stated objective of the campaign. This is not an appropriate use of the post-campaign evaluation, which should measure the success of the campaign against its stated objectives. The post-campaign evaluation for phase 3 found that exposure to the campaign improved sentiment towards the government amongst those who did not have confidence in the NSW Government.

Service NSW advised that it was important to measure the sentiment of the advertising including the wording 'best interests' as it did not want the whole of government brand to be detrimental to customer engagement with applying for the rebates.

Following phase 2, Service NSW conducted analysis of media sentiment using the key words 'cost of living' and the names of the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Customer Service. The analysis presented the level of positive, negative and neutral media sentiment. The Government Advertising Guidelines 2012 list the purposes that government advertising may serve which do not include improving the perception of the government. The inclusion of this analysis in Service NSW's post-campaign evaluation creates a risk that the results may be used for party political purposes.

Section 10 of the Act restricts agencies from carrying out a campaign after 26 January in the calendar year before the Legislative Assembly is due to expire and before the election for the Legislative Assembly in that year. Service NSW authorised a media agency to book media in line with the media plans for the campaign. The media plans for the campaign show that Service NSW did not authorise or plan to run any advertisements between 27 January 2019 and 23 March 2019.

Service NSW did not set targets for all rebates advertised in phase 2

Service NSW did not set targets for four of the seven rebates that were advertised as part of phase 2 of the campaign. These rebates were the Family Energy Rebate, Appliance Replacement Offer, National Parks Concession Offer and the Pensioner Travel Voucher. As a result, it was unable to evaluate whether the advertisements for these rebates were effective. Service NSW advised that at the time the campaign went to peer review, when campaign objectives are set, it did not know which rebates would be included in the advertisements.

Service NSW stated in its submission to the Department of Premier and Cabinet that it may change the creative content for phase 2 as it announced new initiatives and rebates. The peer review process should have ensured that Service NSW set targets for any additional rebates or savings it intended to advertise before that advertising commenced to ensure a strategic approach to the campaigns that clearly demonstrated anticipated benefits were in place.

The post-campaign evaluation for phase 2 shows that the advertising campaign met most of its objectives

Service NSW set overall campaign objectives and specific targets for some rebates advertised as part of phase 2 of the campaign. The objectives, targets and results for phase 2 are shown in Exhibit 5. In phase 2, Service NSW established baseline data on levels of awareness of government rebates during the peer review process. The baseline level of awareness for government rebates was 44 per cent. The level of awareness for specific rebates was 46 per cent for the Compulsory Third Party (CTP) green slip refund, and 21 per cent for both Active Kids and Toll Relief.

Post-campaign evaluation reports for phase 2 show that the campaign met its objective to raise awareness of NSW Government rebates, achieving a 16 per cent increase in awareness from 44 per cent to 51 per cent. The campaign did not meet its target to increase awareness of the CTP green slip refund by ten per cent.

Service NSW did not report the results of the uptake of the CTP green slip refund, Active Kids and Toll Relief in its post campaign effectiveness report submitted to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. However, other post-campaign evaluation documentation, which Service NSW advise was submitted to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, show that these targets were met.

Service NSW did not report to the Department of Premier and Cabinet on whether it achieved the target of a ten per cent increase of average monthly visits to the Cost of Living webpage. Service NSW reported that it had achieved an average of 11,753 visitors to the webpage per day during the campaign. These average daily results indicate that the target was met.

Exhibit 5: Phase 2 - campaign objectives, targets and results

Campaign objectives and targets	Does the post-campaign evaluation show that the target was met?
1. a) Increase awareness of rebates from the NSW Government by ten per cent.	Image
b) Increase average monthly visits to the Cost of Living webpage by ten per cent.	Image
2. Increase awareness of rebates and savings by ten per cent for:
CTP green slip refund	Image
Active Kids	Image
Toll Relief.	Image
3. Increase awareness that NSW Government initiatives relating to the cost of living are available via Service NSW by ten per cent.	Image
4. Increase the uptake of rebates and savings for the CTP green slip refund, Active Kids and Toll Relief by ten per cent.	Image

Key

Image

Yes

Image

Not Fully

The post-campaign evaluation for phase 3 shows that the advertising campaign met most of its objectives

Service NSW set overall campaign objectives and specific targets for the two rebates advertised as part of phase 3 of the campaign. The objectives, targets and results for phase 3 are shown in Exhibit 6.

In phase 3, Service NSW established baseline data on levels of awareness during the peer review process. The baseline level of awareness for government rebates was 44 per cent. This is the same baseline that was used to measure performance for phase 2 of the campaign. Service NSW did not set baselines for awareness and uptake of Energy Switch and Creative Kids as these were new services.

Post-campaign evaluation reports for phase 3 show that the campaign met its objective to raise awareness of NSW Government rebates by ten per cent, achieving a 30 per cent increase in awareness from 44 per cent to 57 per cent. The overall increase in message take-out was met with 43 per cent agreeing with the message that the NSW Government is taking steps to ease the cost of living. The campaign achieved awareness and uptake targets for the specific rebates included in phase 3, except for awareness of Creative Kids which achieved 28 per cent awareness, falling short of the 30 per cent awareness target.

Exhibit 6: Phase 3 - campaign objectives, targets and results

Campaign objectives and targets	Does the post-campaign evaluation show that the target was met?
1. Increase message takeout that ‘The NSW Government is taking steps to help ease the cost of living in NSW’ by ten per cent for those who can recall the campaign.
2. Increase awareness that the NSW Government has a range of rebates and savings by ten per cent.
3. Generate awareness with NSW residents aged 18+ of:
Energy Switch (15 per cent awareness)
Creative Kids (30 per cent awareness).
4. Create uptake of Energy Switch and Creative Kids (8,356 clicks on the Energy Switch website and 107,938 Creative Kids vouchers downloaded with 70 per cent conversion).

Key

Yes

Not Fully

The timing of campaign phases meant that it was difficult for Service NSW to evaluate each distinct campaign phase and reduced opportunities to incorporate learnings from previous phases

Service NSW commenced planning for phase 2 of the campaign while phase 1 was still underway. This limited the opportunity for Service NSW to incorporate learnings from phase 1 into phase 2. There was some overlap in the timing of phase 2 and the start of phase 3 of the campaign, making it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of each distinct campaign phase. Both phases 2 and 3 had the same high-level outcome objective to raise awareness of rebates by ten per cent. The baseline measures that were used to evaluate performance for phase 3 were the same as those used to evaluate phase 2. As a result, Service NSW was not able to separately evaluate these two phases of the campaign. This is important given the budgets for phases 2 and 3 were $4.127million and $934,800 respectively.

Service NSW allocated 7.5 per cent of its media budget to communications with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and Aboriginal audiences

The NSW Government CALD and Aboriginal Advertising Policy requires that agencies spend at least 7.5 per cent of an advertising campaign media budget on direct communications with CALD and Aboriginal audiences. Service NSW authorised a media company to book media in line with the media plans for the campaign. The media plans for phases 2 and 3 of the campaign indicate that Service NSW met this requirement, with 7.5 per cent of the budget allocated to these audiences in phase 2 and 10.4 per cent in phase 3.

The post campaign evaluation for phases 1 and 2 of the Cost of Living campaign contained a recommendation to look at other opportunities to reach CALD audiences. Effective communication with CALD audiences was particularly important in phase 3 of the campaign, where they made up 30 per cent of the target audience for the Creative Kids advertisement. The post-campaign analysis for phase 3 showed that the campaign performed well with some, but not all CALD audiences. The post-campaign analysis also showed low awareness and uptake with Aboriginal audiences. Pre-campaign focus groups in phase 3 found Aboriginal audiences had a negative reaction to the campaign tag line ‘NSW Government is helping with the cost of living’ however this tagline was still used in some advertisements in phase 3.

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for phase 2 did not accurately assess the benefits of the campaign and did not assess the costs and benefits of alternatives to advertising

Under the Government Advertising Act 2011, agencies are required to prepare a CBA when the cost of the campaign is likely to exceed $1 million. The CBA conducted by Service NSW for phase 2 includes $8 million in benefits attributed to the advertisements for the Energy Switch tool and $6.9 million in benefits attributed to the advertisements for Creative Kids vouchers. These benefits should not have been included in the CBA for phase 2 as they were not included in this phase of the campaign. The CBA did not estimate the benefits of some other rebates and savings advertised in phase 2 of the campaign. This means that the CBA did not accurately assess the benefits of the campaign. Service NSW advised that at the time the CBA was developed it had not selected the rebates to be included in the campaign.

The Government Advertising Guidelines require agencies to consider options other than advertising to achieve the desired objective including a comparison of costs and benefits. The CBA developed as part of phase 2 identified using existing NSW Government communication channels as an alternative to advertising but did not assess the costs and benefits of this alternative.

This is a repeat finding from two previous government advertising audits. The report ‘Government Advertising: 2015–16 and 2016–17’ found that both agencies subject to the audit did not meet the requirements in the guidelines to consider alternatives to advertising. The report made a recommendation to the Department of Premier and Cabinet to work with Treasury to ensure the requirements of the guidelines are fully reflected in the 'Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for Government Advertising and Information Campaigns'. The report ‘Government advertising 2017–18’ found that one agency subject to the audit did not identify to what extent the benefits could be achieved without advertising, nor did it consider alternatives to advertising which could achieve the same impact as the advertising campaign.

Service NSW negotiated with a single creative agency in phase 2, making it difficult to demonstrate value for money

Agencies are required to obtain three quotes when procuring a creative agency on the prequalification scheme if the estimated cost of the creative content is greater than $150,000. In phase 2 of the campaign, Service NSW extended the contract with the creative agency used for phase 1 of the campaign and did not obtain three quotes despite the cost of the creative content for phase 2 being $731,480. The requirement to obtain three quotes was met in phase 1 when initially selecting this creative agency.

Service NSWs procurement policy details that direct negotiation may be appropriate where there is a compelling reason to renew or rollover a contract beyond temporal or convenience reasons or in the cases of a genuine emergency. In its briefing to the Chief Executive, Service NSW stated that this contract extension was sought due to the time-sensitive nature of the project and that if work was delayed by a tender process, Service NSW may not be able to meet marketing milestones and this could result in limited customer uptake. This reason is not a genuine emergency and is not compelling as it does not explain what consequences would occur if it did not meet the marketing milestones or if there was limited customer uptake.

Service NSW's procurement policy also states that under no circumstances must Service NSW employees enter into discussions with a supplier until the delegate has formally made their decision to enter into direct negotiation. Service NSW briefed the Chief Executive of Service NSW in relation to extending the contract on 5 September 2018. The briefing states that the creative agency had already begun developing creative content for phase 2 and Service NSW had already received quotes from the creative provider for the proposed work prior to 5 September 2018. Procurement sign-offs were not completed until 7 September 2018. The engagement of the creative provider prior to appropriate approvals was contrary to Service NSWs procurement policy.

The economy of the campaign may have been limited by not meeting the procurement requirements in phase 2. It is possible that the creative provider may have offered a more competitive rate if it was aware that Service NSW was seeking quotes from other creative providers. Additionally, it is possible that another creative provider could have provided better value for money.

In phase 3 of the campaign, the estimated cost of the creative exceeded $150,000 however Service NSW chose to contract two different creative agencies, and the cost for each agency fell below the threshold to obtain three quotes. Agencies are permitted to obtain one quote when using a creative provider on the prequalification scheme if the cost is between $50,000 to $150,000. Service NSW advised that it contracted two creative providers as two different project teams were responsible for the rebates, each with separate marketing budgets.

Service NSW allowed sufficient time for cost-efficient media placement

During the peer review process, the Department of Premier and Cabinet advised agencies about the time they should allow to ensure cost-efficient media placement. For example, the Department of Premier and Cabinet advised that agencies book television advertising six to 12 weeks in advance and that agencies book radio advertising two to eight weeks in advance.

Service NSW allowed sufficient time between the completion of the peer review process and the commencement of the first advertising. Service NSW signed the agreement with the approved Media Agency Services provider with sufficient time to achieve cost-efficient media placement for all types of media used in this campaign.

The campaign may have been misleading for some people who were not eligible for rebates

Advertisements we reviewed focused on the amount of savings that could be obtained from rebates, for example ‘Save up to $285’, and ended with a statement ‘To save, visit service.nsw.gov.au. This directed viewers to the Cost of Living website which contains eligibility information. However, the advertisements in phases 2 and 3 we reviewed did not contain any details on the eligibility for these rebates and not all advertisements stated that eligibility criteria apply. Service NSW advised that the eligibility criteria for each rebate is extensive and that it was not possible to include this in the creative material.

Post-campaign evaluations in phase 3 recommended that advertisements for Creative Kids should indicate eligibility (e.g. age criteria) as statements on savings have the potential to be misleading when not all viewers will be eligible for rebates. Social media analysis conducted following phase 2 showed ineligibility or inability to claim rebates or refunds caused anger for some respondents.

Some advertisements in phase 2 stated ‘we've got something for everyone’. However, as rebates were subject to eligibility criteria, it is possible that some residents in NSW would not be eligible for any rebates as part of the Cost of Living initiative. As such, this statement has the potential to be misleading.

The campaign included statements that underestimated the savings that some customers could obtain

The Guidelines require accuracy in the presentation of all facts, statistics, comparisons and other arguments. The Guidelines also require that all claims of fact included in government advertising campaigns must be able to be substantiated.

In phase 2, the possible savings customers could obtain for two rebates or savings exceeded the amounts stated in the advertising campaign. Exhibit 7 shows some advertisements in phase 2 which stated, ‘My Green Slip Saving Save up to $60’. However, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority website shows that savings for some types of motor vehicles under the 2017 CTP scheme exceed $60. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority website states that the average saving under this scheme has been $129. Service NSW advised that these advertisements were designed for regional markets and that it used different advertisements for metropolitan areas which contained different amounts of savings.

Some advertisements in phase 2 stated, ‘My Toll Relief save up to $700’. The Service NSW website states that drivers can obtain free vehicle registration if they have spent $1,352 or more in tolls in the previous financial year. The cost of registration for some vehicles exceeds $700. This means the savings detailed in the advertisement were lower than what some customers could actually save.

NSW Rural Fire Service conducted the 'How FireProof Is Your Plan?' (Fireproof) campaign. The Fireproof campaign is a three-year campaign which ran in 2018–19 (year one), 2019–20 (year two) and is planned for 2020–21 (year three). This audit examined year two of the campaign (2019–20).

The Fireproof campaign is a public safety campaign encouraging people to plan and prepare for bush fires across the summer period. The campaign aims to improve the quality of bush fire planning and preparation in the community and decrease the impact of fires on the community when they occur.

Campaign materials we reviewed did not breach section 6 of the Act

The audit team reviewed campaign materials developed as part of the paid advertising campaign for example radio advertisements, television commercials and digital displays. The audit team did not review the use of social media outside paid social media content as section four of the Act defines government advertising as the dissemination of information which is funded by or on behalf of a government agency. Examples of campaign materials are shown in Appendix two.

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising as part of a government advertising campaign. A government advertising campaign must not:

• be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
• contain the name, voice or image of a minister, a member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
• contain the name, logo, slogan or any other reference to a political party.

The audit found no breaches of section 6 of the Act in the campaign material we reviewed. 

NSW Rural Fire Service did not set targets for the second year of the campaign

The second year of the Fireproof campaign (2019–20) had the same objectives as the first year of the campaign (2018–19), however no specific targets were set for the second year. The advertising submission for the first year of the campaign (2018–19) details the targets for each objective as an increase of ten per cent against the baseline data to be achieved by March 2021, at the end of the three-year campaign.

The second year of the Fireproof campaign (2019–20) was one of the first campaigns approved under the new budget and peer review processes introduced by the Department of Customer Service in 2019–20. The new process for peer review introduced a new template for campaign submissions. The former template for campaign submissions contained more prompts for agencies to ensure the submission contained sufficient detail of campaign objectives, baseline measures, targets, dates for measurement and detail on how they would measure objectives. Despite this, the peer review process should have identified that NSW Rural Fire Service did not set targets for the second year of the campaign.

The 2016 Guidelines for Implementing NSW Government Evaluation Framework for Advertising and Communications requires campaign objectives to be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed). NSW Rural Fire Service did not meet this requirement for year two of the Fireproof campaign.

Post-campaign evaluations showed increases against four out of five objectives, however there were no specific targets

NSW Rural Fire Service set three campaign objectives at the time it submitted the second year of the campaign (2019–20) to the Department of Customer Service for peer review. However, the post-campaign effectiveness report submitted to the Department of Customer Service measured campaign effectiveness against five campaign objectives. The objectives in the post-campaign effectiveness report were the same objectives set for the first year of the campaign, which is appropriate as this was a repeat campaign.

NSW Rural Fire Service achieved increases against four of their five objectives. However, as noted above there were no specific targets (such as percentage increases) against which performance of the 2019–20 campaign could be measured. Despite this, at the end of the second year, the Fireproof campaign had already achieved some of the targets that NSW Rural Fire Service had set for the end of the third year of the campaign. The post-campaign research showed that both audience recall and exposure to the campaign increased significantly from the prior year. The campaign objectives and results are shown in Exhibit 8.

For those people who already have a bush fire plan, the campaign aimed to increase the number of those plans which have included two or more elements from the Guide to Making a Bush Fire Survival Plan. Elements from the Guide to Making A Bush Fire Survival Plan include actions such as deciding what to take with you if you leave, ensuring you have the right equipment for defending your home and allocating responsibilities to members of a household. The post-campaign evaluation showed that the campaign did not achieve an increase against this objective for people who planned to stay and defend their property rather than leave.

Exhibit 8: Campaign objectives and results

Campaign objectives	Does the post-campaign evaluation show increases against the objective?
1. Continue to increase the number of people that have discussed and/or written a plan with regards to what they will do in the event of a fire.
2. Of those who indicate they have a plan, increase the number of people who have included two or more elements from the Guide to Making a Bush Fire Survival Plan:
for those who plan to leave
for those who plan to stay and defend.
3. Increase the frequency in completing preparation activities around a person’s property.
4. Increase the number of people who correctly assess it is their responsibility to complete preparation activities and enact their plan without direct intervention from emergency services.
5. Visits to MyFirePlan website.

Key

Yes

No

NSW Rural Fire Service achieved cost efficiencies by reusing creative content developed in the first year of the campaign

Total creative and production costs incurred in year one of the campaign were $1.08 million. Rather than commissioning new creative materials, NSW Rural Fire Service re-used the same creative content in year two of the campaign. NSW Rural Fire Service incurred $100,000 in creative and production costs in year two of the campaign and achieved cost-efficiencies by reusing the same creative developed in the prior year.

NSW Rural Fire Service allowed sufficient time for cost-efficient media placement and received free media placements

The Department of Customer Service advises agencies to work with media contacts to book media in advance to ensure a cost-efficient placement. Prior to 2019–20, the Department of Premier and Cabinet provided suggested timeframes for agencies to book media as part of the peer review process. For example, it advised agencies to book television six to 12 weeks in advance and book radio advertising two to eight weeks in advance. NSW Rural Fire Service allowed sufficient time for a cost-efficient media placement.

NSW Rural Fire Service received $4 million of free advertising time and space donated by media companies due to the extent and impact of the 2019–20 fire season.

The cost benefit analysis (CBA) did not assess the costs and benefits of alternatives to advertising

Under the Government Advertising Act 2011, agencies are required to prepare a CBA when the cost of the campaign is likely to exceed $1 million. As part of the CBA, the Government Advertising Guidelines require agencies to consider options other than advertising to achieve the desired objective including a comparison of costs and benefits.

The CBA for the Fireproof campaign (year two) notes that the proposed campaign is one component of a broader community engagement strategy which has been developed over time and is based on research and evaluation. The CBA considers two options to achieve the objectives of the campaign. The first option is community engagement activities without an advertising campaign and the second option is community engagement activities alongside an advertising campaign. The CBA does not identify and assess the costs and benefits of both of the options in order to assess the most cost-efficient option.

This is a repeat finding from two previous government advertising audits. The report ‘Government Advertising: 2015–16 and 2016–17’ found that both agencies subject to the audit did not meet the requirements in the guidelines to consider alternatives to advertising. The report made a recommendation to the Department of Premier and Cabinet to work with Treasury to ensure the requirements of the guidelines are fully reflected in the 'Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for Government Advertising and Information Campaigns'. The report ‘Government advertising 2017–18’ found that one agency subject to the audit did not identify to what extent the benefits could be achieved without advertising, nor did it consider alternatives to advertising which could achieve the same impact as the advertising campaign.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – About the campaigns

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 #342 - released 19 November 2020

This report examines whether NSW Health effectively planned and delivered major capital works to meet the demand for health services in New South Wales.

The report found that NSW Health has substantially expanded health infrastructure across New South Wales since 2015. However, the program was driven by Local Health District priorities without assessment of the State’s broader and future‑focussed health requirements.

The report found that unclear decision making roles and responsibilities between Health Infrastructure and the Ministry of Health limited the ability of NSW Health to effectively test and analyse investment options.

Project delays and budget overruns on some major projects indicate that Health Infrastructure's project governance, risk assessment and management systems could be improved.

The Auditor‑General recommends that NSW Health ensure its capital projects offer the greatest value to New South Wales by establishing effective policy guidance and enhancing project governance and management systems.

Read full report (PDF)

Since 2011–12, NSW Health has aimed to improve its facilities and build 'future focused' infrastructure. The NSW Government’s 2015–16 election commitments established a four-year $5.0 billion capital program for NSW Health to build and upgrade more than 60 hospitals and health services. The 2019–20 State Budget committed a further $10.1 billion over four years for another 29 projects. This is the largest investment to date on health capital works in New South Wales.

Recent reviews of infrastructure have recognised that population and demographic growth will require a change in the delivery and composition of health infrastructure, including considering greater use of non-traditional, non-capital health service options and assets.

To ensure that expenditure on capital works represents the best value for money, NSW Health's business cases need to be robust and supported by evidence that demonstrates they are worthy investments. The NSW Process of Facility Planning has been the main framework guiding the detailed planning and development of NSW Health's capital works proposals. This framework was developed by the then NSW Department of Health in 2010. Its aim is to ensure investment proposals are supported by rigorous planning processes that address health service needs and provide value for money.

Infrastructure projects of the complexity and scale being delivered by NSW Health carry inherent risks. For example, unplanned cost escalations can potentially impact on the State’s finances. Unforeseen delays can also reduce the intended benefits. The growth in the State’s health capital spend and project profile, means its exposure to such risks has increased over time.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of planning and delivery of major capital works to meet demand for health services in New South Wales. To address this objective, the audit examined whether:

• the Ministry of Health has effective procedures for planning and prioritising investments in major health capital works
• Health Infrastructure develops robust business cases for initiated major capital works that reliably inform government decision making
• Health Infrastructure has effective project governance and management systems that support delivering projects on-time, within budget and achievement of intended benefits.

The audit focused on the Ministry of Health and Health Infrastructure – being the lead agencies within NSW Health responsible for prioritising, planning and delivering major health capital works across the State. The audit examined 13 business cases for eight discrete projects over a ten-year period.

Over the period of review, NSW Government policies for business case development and submission have emphasised that effective governance arrangements are critical to a proposal's successful implementation.

NSW Health's Process of Facility Planning similarly highlights the importance of effective governance and project management for achieving good outcomes. It prescribes a general governance structure managed by Health Infrastructure that can be tailored to the planning and delivery of health infrastructure projects greater than $10.0 million.

The three major hospital redevelopments examined in metropolitan, regional and rural areas had a combined Estimated Total Cost of more than $1.2 billion and comprised eight discrete projects and 13 separate business cases.

Almost all these projects experienced delivery challenges which impacted achievement of their original objectives and intended benefits. This is expected in complex and large-scale health infrastructure programs. However, in some projects the impacts were significant and resulted in substantial delays, unforeseen costs, and diversion of resources from other priority areas.

Our review of the selected case studies highlighted opportunities for enhancing governance and project management. Specifically, it indicates a need for improving transparency in the management of contingencies, risk management and assessments particularly relating to adverse site conditions and the selection of contractors. There is also a need to strengthen forward planning for options to address unfunded priorities within business cases that risk complicating the delivery of future project stages resulting in unforeseen costs and potentially avoidable budget overruns.

In February 2017, the Ministry's Capital Strategy Group approved the use of surplus funds of $13.76 million from Stage 1 of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital Redevelopment for new works deemed needed to support Stage 2. Following this decision, Health Infrastructure finalised and submitted a business case addendum for Stage 1 to the Ministry in March 2017, addressing the new works comprising a two-storey building for medical imaging and paediatric floors. The business case addendum also addressed options to fit out and procure major medical imaging equipment. The Ministry approved the Stage 1 business case in July 2017, noting the Ministry's Capital Strategy Group had already approved the use of remaining Stage 1 funds to deliver the new works.

Stage 1 was completed in 2015, almost two years before the Stage 1 business case addendum was prepared in February 2017.

The Ministry's decision to approve the new works using $13.76 million of surplus Stage 1 funds did not comply with the NSW Treasury Circular TC 12/20. This policy establishes the Treasurer's approval must be sought and received before a new capital project with an Estimated Total Cost of $5.0 million or more can be approved by NSW Health. The Ministry therefore exceeded its delegated authority in making this decision, as it was not evident it had sought and received the Treasurer's approval prior to doing so.

Consequently, the surplus Stage 1 funds should not have been used by the Ministry to deliver new works in the circumstances. Instead, they should have been released from the Stage 1 project in accordance with established NSW Health procedures, and the Stage 1 Estimated Total Cost revised down accordingly. This did not occur, and NSW Health ultimately directed $11.0 million in surplus Stage 1 funds to the new works.

These circumstances indicate a need to strengthen transparency and accountability within NSW Health for the approval of new projects, and how contingency funds are used in the management of major health capital works. They also demonstrate the impact of weaknesses with options appraisal as the initial Stage 1 business case did not consider alternative options for addressing the initially unfunded works later covered by the Stage 1 business case addendum and ultimately funded from the Stage 1 contingency provision.

In addition to proposing the above-noted new works, the 2017 Stage 1 Business Case Addendum for the Hornsby-Ku-ring-gai development sought to retrospectively address the estimated funding gap of around $14.0 million for the internal fit out, supply of major medical imaging equipment, and cost to operate the medical imaging service at Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital also not addressed in the originally Stage 1 business case.

The Stage 1 business case addendum considered various procurement options to purchase and run the medical imaging services ranging from State operation purchase options to private operation purchase options.

It recommended outsourcing the operation and provision of equipment to the private sector based on estimated savings to the public sector initially of around $650,000 per annum reducing over time to $270,000. The Ministry endorsed this option in June 2017, but it did not ultimately proceed.

A July 2018 report to the Executive Steering Committee on the project shows NSW Health later decided to deliver operation of the medical imaging unit 'traditionally' with an updated estimate of the cost at approximately $16.4 million. The report also shows the Ministry supported the costs now being met by the Northern Sydney Local Health District.

This means the funding gap previously identified in the Stage 1 business case addendum for fitting out the medical imaging building and supply of major medical equipment would need to be met fully by the State, representing a $16.4 million cost overrun for the project.

Examined reports to the Executive Steering Committee show this was largely funded by the Northern Sydney Local Health District via the disposal of land realising approximately $15.0 million in proceeds.

This initially unforeseen cost, along with the additional $11.0 million for the new works approved under the Stage 1 business case addendum, were ultimately merged with the Stage 2 project initially approved in 2017–18 with an Estimated Total Cost of $200 million.

The 2019–20 State Budget provided an additional $65.0 million for a further Stage 2A to deliver additional built capacity to support outpatient services, enhanced allied health services, re-housed community health services and the delivery of prioritised clinical services unfunded as part of Stage 2. The funds were approved based on an Investment Decision Template (IDT) that examined two options in addition to the base case representing scoping alternatives to the preferred master planned capital solution.

However, we found the IDT showed around 23 per cent of the $65.0 million sought (i.e. $15.0 million) was to be allocated to fund the deficit in Stage 2, which had arisen as a result of project delays due to adverse site conditions. This was not discussed in the IDT.

The February 2020 report to the Executive Steering Committee shows a combined Stage 2 and 2A final forecast cost of $292.6 million against a potential budget of $290.7 million representing an overall deficit for the project of around 0.6 per cent.

However, this favourable final budget position does not transparently show the funding challenges experienced over the project's implementation to-date. The three major budget issues include:

• inappropriate use of around $11.0 million in Stage 1 contingency for originally unfunded works contrary to Treasury policy
• the additional $16.4 million cost unforeseen in the Stage 1 business case for delivering medical imaging services mostly funded through the sale of land
• an additional $15.0 million from Stage 2A to cover the budget overrun in Stage 2 due to adverse site conditions.

The cumulative impact of these events is that Stages 1 and 2 of the Hornsby project cost approximately $42.4 million than it should have in the circumstances around 14 per cent more than what the revised combined Estimated Total Cost for both stages should have been after releasing the $11.0 million in surplus Stage 1 funds, with Stage 2 delayed by around 14 months.

Major construction projects often experience adverse site conditions which can be difficult to fully detect in advance. However, we found this was a common occurrence in the projects we examined sometimes with significant time and/or budget impacts indicating scope to enhance related risk and cost assessments. Specifically:

• Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital Redevelopment Stage 2: adverse site conditions during demolition works resulted in an 11-month delay for delivering the medical imaging unit and 14-month delay completing Stage 2 main works including need for additional $15.0 million in funds to cover the resultant budget deficit for the project.
• Blacktown Mt Druitt Hospital Redevelopment Stage 2: adverse site conditions combined with project complexity delayed completion of the early works by approximately five months. This contributed to the delay in completing the main construction works which occurred around nine months later than planned in the business case.
• Dubbo Health Service Redevelopment Stages 3 and 4: Health Infrastructure advised adverse site conditions including asbestos containing materials and ground conditions delayed works for the main building with completion forecast for March 2021, around 21 months later than planned in the final business case. This resulted in the need for additional $13.5 million to cover increased construction costs and risks, increasing the Stage 3 and 4 forecast final cost from $150 million to $163.5 million as at February 2020.

These examples indicate a risk the cumulative impact of adverse site conditions may be substantial when measured across both time and Health Infrastructure's full delivery program. They also point to potential for Health Infrastructure to achieve efficiencies and improved outcomes from strengthening its approach to assessing and mitigating the risks from adverse site conditions.

Main construction works on Stage 1 of the Dubbo Health Service Redevelopment were completed in October 2015, approximately 13 months later than planned in the final business case. Delays were mainly due to insolvency of the early works contractor resulting in their departure from the project. The ensuing 11-month delay in completing the early works significantly impacted the overall schedule and delivery of main construction works.

The insolvency event was significant as it affected nine separate Health Infrastructure projects – three of which had yet to reach practical completion. It also affected state-funded projects in other sectors. It resulted in the need for additional funding of $11.5 million that was provided in the 2014–15 State Budget increasing the total Stage 1 and 2 budget from $79.8 million to $91.3 million.

Health Infrastructure’s analysis of lessons learned shows it worked actively to mitigate the impacts of the insolvency event across all affected projects. However, it also indicates a risk the lessons were mainly focused on mitigating the impacts after an insolvency event occurred rather than on prevention.

Although Health Infrastructure initially commissioned a financial assessment of the now insolvent early works contractor before engagement, it did not detect any risks of the impending insolvency and instead concluded the contractor was in a strong financial position. However, the contractor became insolvent shortly after commencement approximately seven months later. This indicates a risk of weaknesses in the assessment performed that was not explicitly addressed by the lessons learned.

Delivery of the main construction works were further impacted by disputes with the main works contractor over the scope of works for the renal unit resulting in Health Infrastructure terminating the contract in November 2016 following lengthy negotiations over several months.

The scope of works relating to the renal unit were ultimately transferred to Stages 3 and 4 and were delivered in December 2019, around five years later than originally planned in the business case.

Health Infrastructure advised the delay was ultimately beneficial to the project because the refurbishment works for the renal unit, initially scheduled for Stages 1 and 2, would have been demolished to accommodate the new Western Cancer Centre proposed after Stages 1 and 2 and currently being delivered in parallel with Stages 3 and 4.

Health Infrastructure advised the actual cost of Stages 1 and 2 was $84.7 million against the budget of $91.3 million. The residual $6.6 million relates to the renal works not delivered during Stage 1 and 2 and transferred to Stage 3 and 4.

Health Infrastructure advised the contractual provisions for mitigating insolvency events 'in-flight' are limited highlighting the importance of proactive and effective due diligence prior to engaging contractors for significant construction projects.

Health Infrastructure's 2017-20 Corporate Plan identifies the development of a quality framework to support delivery of future-focused outcomes as a key organisational priority. Related initiatives within the Corporate Plan describe a framework underpinned by a Quality Committee providing advice on:

• records management, to meet the requirements of the State Records Act 1998
• project assurance, to ensure future focused outcomes and enhance Health Infrastructure's Standards, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines, Templates and Design Guidance Notes
• knowledge management and library services, to promote and leverage from project learnings.

Although Health Infrastructure has some elements of a quality framework it is not yet fully in place. Health Infrastructure advised it had yet to establish the quality framework and related committee described in its Corporate Plan due in part to its focus on responding to the growth of its capital program.

Health Infrastructure's Development and Innovation team has been active in supporting continuous improvement in knowledge and project management including development of business cases. Although useful, these initiatives have relied heavily on leveraging and disseminating insights from Gateway reviews and have not formed part of a systematic quality and continuous improvement framework.

The limited focus on the quality of business cases is reflected in internal performance monitoring and reporting which focuses mainly on tracking the delivery of projects against internal benchmarks, often revised from the baselines in the business case, and expenditure against cashflow targets. There is no evident internal monitoring and/or reporting to the Chief Executive and Board on defined quality metrics linked to business case development and staff capability.

Performance reporting on balanced scorecard metrics has similarly focused mainly on process rather than quality and has been inconsistent in recent years.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

Appendix four – Ministry of Health planning tools and guidelines

Appendix five – Streamlined investment decision process for Health Capital Projects

Appendix six – Timeline of business cases and relevant policy guidelines

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 #338 - released 12 August 2020

This report found the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) needs to do more to demonstrate it is effectively and efficiently contracting NGOs to deliver community services in the Permanency Support Program (a component of out-of-home-care services) and Specialist Homelessness Services. It notes that FACS is moving to an outcomes-based commissioning model and recommends this be escalated consistent with government policy.

Government agencies, such as the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), are increasingly contracting non-government organisations (NGOs) to deliver human services in New South Wales. In doing so, agencies are responsible for ensuring these services are achieving expected outcomes. Since the introduction of the Commissioning and Contestability Policy in 2016, all NSW Government agencies are expected to include plans for customer and community outcomes and look for ways to use contestability to raise standards.

Two of the areas receiving the greatest funding from FACS are the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services. In the financial year 2017–18, nearly 500 organisations received $784 million for out-of-home care programs, including the Permanency Support Program. Across New South Wales, specialist homelessness providers assist more than 54,000 people each year and in the financial year 2017–18, 145 organisations received $243 million for providing short term accommodation and homelessness support, including Specialist Homelessness Services.

In the financial year 2017–18, FACS entered into 230 contracts for out-of-home care, of which 49 were for the Permanency Support Program, representing $322 million. FACS also entered into 157 contracts for the provision of Specialist Homelessness Services which totalled $170 million. We reviewed the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services for this audit.

This audit assessed how effectively and efficiently FACS contracts NGOs to deliver community services. The audit could not assess how NGOs used the funds they received from FACS as the Audit Office does not have a mandate that could provide direct assurance that NGOs are using government funds effectively.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #323 - released 26 June 2019

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.

The HealthRoster system is delivering some business benefits but Local Health Districts are yet to use all of its features, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales,  Margaret Crawford. HealthRoster is an IT system designed to more effectively roster staff to meet the needs of Local Health Districts and other NSW health agencies.

The NSW public health system employs over 100,000 people in clinical and non-clinical roles across the state. With increasing demand for services, it is vital that NSW Health effectively rosters staff to ensure high quality and efficient patient care, while maintaining good workplace practices to support staff in demanding roles.

NSW Health is implementing HealthRoster as its single state-wide rostering system to more effectively roster staff according to the demands of each location. Between 2013–14 and 2016–17, our financial audits of individual LHDs had reported issues with rostering and payroll processes and systems.

NSW Health grouped all Local Health Districts (LHDs), and other NSW Health organisations, into four clusters to manage the implementation of HealthRoster over four years. Refer to Exhibit 4 for a list of the NSW Health entities in each cluster.

• Cluster 1 implementation commenced in 2014–15 and was completed in 2015–16.
• Cluster 2 implementation commenced in 2015–16 and was completed in 2016–17.
• Cluster 3 began implementation in 2016–17 and was underway during the conduct of the audit.
• Cluster 4 began planning for implementation in 2017–18.

Full implementation, including capability for centralised data and reporting, is planned for completion in 2019.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the HealthRoster system in delivering business benefits. In making this assessment, we examined whether:

• expected business benefits of HealthRoster were well-defined
• HealthRoster is achieving business benefits where implemented.

The HealthRoster project has a timespan from 2009 to 2019. We examined the HealthRoster implementation in LHDs, and other NSW Health organisations, focusing on the period from 2014, when eHealth assumed responsibility for project implementation, to early 2018.

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #301 - released 7 June 2018

In an audit of medical equipment in NSW hospitals, the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford found that the management of PET-CT scanners could be enhanced by better performance reporting and replacement planning, and that biomedical equipment needed more timely testing and maintenance.

The NSW Auditor-General examined the management of:

Parliamentary reference - Report number #286 - released 25 May 2017