What the report is about

Poor attendance at school is related to poor student outcomes, particularly once patterns of non-attendance have been established.

This report examined how the NSW Department of Education (the department) is managing student attendance in NSW government schools.

What we found

Around a third of students in Years 1–10 attended school less than 90% of the time in semester one, 2021. Missing more than 10% of school may put a student's educational outcomes at risk.

Since 2018, the department has improved the quality of student attendance data, analysis and reporting. However, there are still gaps in understanding the reasons for absence at a system level.

The department set state-wide and school-level targets to increase the proportion of students attending school at least 90% of the time. This emphasis risks diverting attention away from students with very low attendance rates.

There are gaps in central programs to support schools in lifting student attendance. Schools are taking a variety of approaches to this work.

There is a large gap in attendance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, which has increased since 2018.

What we recommended

The Department of Education should:

• set new state-wide and school level attendance targets
• evaluate its attendance support programs
• update its attendance strategies and programs
• publish the attendance level for each school in their annual reports
• improve internal analysis and reporting of attendance data
• finalise the review of the attendance policy, procedure and codes
• review programs supporting Aboriginal student attendance and address any gaps
• review the approach to enforcing compulsory school attendance.

Regular attendance at school is important for academic and other long-term outcomes. Students who do not attend regularly are less likely to complete school and more likely to experience poorer long-term health and social outcomes. A range of factors influence student attendance including student engagement and wellbeing, family and community factors and the school environment.

The NSW Department of Education's (the department's) Strategic Plan for 2018–2022 identifies improving student attendance as a priority. It has identified 95% as its expected level of attendance. It set targets to increase the proportion of students attending school at least 90% of the time, from 79.4% to 82% in primary schools and 64.5% to 70% for secondary schools.

This report focuses on attendance data for semester one of 2018, 2019 and 2021. Unless otherwise noted, attendance data refers to Years 1–10 in alignment with national reporting conventions. Changes in recording systems and definitions mean attendance data prior to 2018 is not comparable. Attendance data for semester one of 2020 and 2022 was significantly affected by COVID-related disruptions, which prevented many students across the State from attending school. Data for semester one of 2021 is considered relatively less affected by COVID-related disruptions.

The Education Act 1990 (the Act) sets out the responsibilities of students, parents and the department for ensuring students receive compulsory schooling. The department has developed policies, procedures and guidance to assist schools in managing their responsibilities to promote regular attendance. In this report, we define 'regular' attendance as at least 90% of the time. This is equivalent to missing one day of school each fortnight or four weeks of school across a school year.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether student attendance is effectively managed in NSW government schools for students from kindergarten to Year 10. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:

• there are effective systems and policies for managing student attendance
• the department effectively supports schools to manage student attendance
• schools are effectively managing student attendance.

This chapter considers the effectiveness of systems to accurately collect, analyse and report student attendance data. It also considers the effectiveness of policies and procedures to support attendance and central oversight of attendance issues.

This chapter considers the effectiveness of the department's strategies to improve student attendance and the support it provides to schools to achieve this. It also considers the effectiveness of school-level strategies and actions for students with low attendance.

Appendix one – Response from agency

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 #368 - released 27 September 2022

What the report is about

The ePlanning program is an initiative of the Department of Planning and Environment (the department) to deliver a digital planning service for New South Wales through the NSW planning portal (the portal).

Using the portal, relevant planning activities can be carried out online, including all stages of development applications.

The portal has been developed under three separate business cases in 2013, 2014 and 2020.

In late 2019, the government mandated the use of the portal for all development applications. This decision took effect across 2020–21.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the department's implementation, governance and stakeholder engagement in delivering the NSW planning portal. 

What we found

Since implementation commenced in 2013, the NSW planning portal has progressively achieved its objectives to provide citizens with access to consolidated planning information, and allow them to prepare and submit development applications online.

Shortcomings in the department's initial planning and management of the program led to a significant time overrun. It has taken the department longer and cost significantly more to implement the portal than first anticipated. 

In recent years the department has improved the planning, implementation and governance of the ePlanning program, resulting in improved delivery of the portal’s core functions.

The department now has a clear view of the scope necessary to finalise the program, but has not yet published the services it plans to implement in 2022 and 2023.

Mandating the use of the portal for all development applications changed the program's strategic risk environment and required the department to work more closely with a cohort of stakeholders, many of whom did not want to adopt the portal.

Despite this change, the department kept its overall delivery approach the same.

While implementation of the portal has delivered financial benefits, the department has overestimated their value.

The Department has only reported benefits since 2019 and has not independently assured the calculation of benefits.

What we recommended

By December 2022, the department should:

• publish a roadmap of the services it expects to release on the portal across 2022 and 2023
• update its ePlanning program assumptions, benefits targets and change management approach to reflect the government's decision to mandate the use of the portal for all stages of a development application
• independently assure and report publicly the correct calculation of ePlanning program benefits.

The ePlanning program is an initiative of the Department of Planning and Environment (the department) to deliver a digital planning service for New South Wales through the NSW planning portal (the portal, or the planning portal). The department defines the portal as an online environment where community, industry and government can work together to better understand and meet their obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Using the portal, relevant planning activities can be carried out online throughout New South Wales. This includes, but is not limited to:

• applying for and gaining planning approval
• applying for and gaining approval for building works, sub-dividing land and similar activities
• issuing occupancy and other certificates.

The portal has been developed under three separate business cases. The first business case in 2013 led to the creation of a central portal, which made planning information available to view by planning applicants and allowed some planning applications to be lodged and tracked online.

Under a second business case prepared in 2014, the department set out to improve and widen the functions available via the portal. The department prepared a third business case in 2020 to fund further improvements to the portal over the period July 2020 to June 2023. The third business case also extended the portal's functions to support the building and occupation stages of the planning cycle.

In late 2019, the government mandated the use of the portal for all stages of development applications. This decision took effect across 2020–21 and applied to all councils as well as certifiers and others involved in the planning process.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the effectiveness of the department's implementation, governance and stakeholder engagement in delivering the NSW planning portal. We investigated whether:

• delivery of the NSW planning portal was planned effectively
• sound governance arrangements are in place to ensure effective implementation of the program
• users of the NSW planning portal are supported effectively to adopt and use the system.

This part of the report sets out how:

• the ePlanning program has been planned and delivered
• users of the portal have been supported
• the program has been governed.

This part of the report sets out the ePlanning program's:

• expected and reported financial benefits
• calculation of financial benefits.

In 2019, the department increased its expectations for net financial benefits

The department's three ePlanning business cases each forecast substantial financial benefits from the implementation of the planning portal. The department expected that most financial benefits would flow to planning applicants due to a quicker and more consistent planning process. It also expected that government agencies and councils would benefit from the portal.

In 2019 the department commissioned a review to explore opportunities to better identify, monitor and realise the benefits of the ePlanning program. Using this work, the department updated the expected benefits for business cases 1 and 2 to take account of:

• errors and miscalculations in the original benefits calculations
• slower delivery of the portal and changes to the take-up of portal services by councils
• changes to the services supported by the portal.

Reported benefits significantly exceed the current targets

In September 2021, the department reported that the program had achieved $334 million of benefits over the three financial years up to June 2021 plus the first two months of 2021–22. These reported benefits were significantly higher than expected. 

The department attributes the higher-than-expected financial benefits to the following:

• benefit targets have not been updated to reflect the impact of the 2019 decision to mandate the use of the portal for all development applications. This decision brought forward the expected benefits as well as potential costs of the program. However, the department did not update its third business case which was draft at the time. The business case was subsequently approved in July 2020
• one-off cost savings for agencies not having to develop their own systems
• public exhibitions of planning proposals continuing to be available online during 2020 when some newspapers stopping printing due to COVID-19.

The calculation of benefits is overstated

The department reported $334 million of benefits in September 2021 due to the ePlanning program. This calculation is overstated because:

• a proportion of reported benefits is likely to be due to other planning reforms
• the calculation of the largest single benefit is incorrect
• the reported benefits may not fully account for dis-benefits reported by some stakeholders.

The program’s benefits are calculated primarily from changes in planning performance data, such as the time it takes to determine a planning development application. The department currently attributes the benefits from shorter planning cycles entirely to the effect of the ePlanning program. However, planning cycles are impacted by many other factors such as the complexity of planning regulations and the availability of planning professionals. Planning cycles may also be impacted by other departmental initiatives which are designed to improve the time that it takes for a planning application to be evaluated. The Introduction describes some of these initiatives.

The largest contribution to the department’s September 2021 benefit report was an estimated saving of $151 million for developers due to lower costs associated with holding their investment for a shorter time. However, the department’s calculation of this benefit assumes a high baseline for the time to determine a development application. It also assumes that all development applications except for additions or alterations to existing properties will incur financing costs. However, a small but material number of these applications will be self-financed. The calculation also includes several data errors in spreadsheets.

The calculation of some benefits relies upon an extrapolation of the benefits experienced by a small number of early-adopter councils, including lower printing and scanning costs, fewer forms and quicker processing times. However, some councils report that their costs have increased following the introduction of the portal, primarily because aspects of the portal duplicate work that they carry out in their own systems. The portal has also required some councils to re-engineer aspects of their own systems, such as the integration of their planning systems with other council systems such as finance or property and rating systems. It has also required councils to create new ways of integrating council information systems with the planning portal.

The department has published information to help councils and certifiers to automatically integrate their systems with the planning portal. This approach uses application programming interfaces (or APIs) which are an industry-standard way for systems to share information. In April and May 2021, the government granted $4.8 million to 96 regional councils to assist with the cost of developing, implementing and maintaining APIs. The maximum amount of funding for each council was $50,000. The department is closely monitoring the implementation of APIs by councils and other portal users. Once they are fully implemented the department expects APIs to reduce costs incurred by stakeholders.

The department has not yet measured stakeholder costs. It was beyond the scope of this audit to validate these costs.

The department has not independently assured the calculation of reported benefits

In 2020 the department appointed an external provider to calculate the benefits achieved by the ePlanning program. The department advised that it chose to outsource the calculation of benefits because the provider had the required expertise and because it wanted an independent calculation of the benefits. The process involves:

• extraction and verification of planning performance data by the department
• population of data input sheets by the department
• calculation of benefits by the external provider using the data input
• confirmation by the department that the calculation includes all expected benefit sources.

The department does not have access to the benefits calculation model which is owned and operated by the external provider. The department trusts that the provider correctly calculates the benefits and does not verify the reported benefit numbers. However, as the benefits model involves many linked spreadsheets and approximately 300 individual data points, there is a risk that the calculation model contains errors beyond those discussed in this audit.

The reported benefits have only been calculated since 2019

The department originally intended to track benefits from October 2014. However, it only started to track benefits in 2019 when it appointed an external provider to calculate the benefits achieved by the portal. Any benefits or dis-benefits between the introduction of the portal and 2019 are unknown and not included in the department’s calculation of benefits.

Appendix one – Response from agency

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 #366 - released 21 June 2022

What the report is about

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act) provides land rights over certain Crown land for Aboriginal Land Councils in NSW.

If a claim is made over Crown land (land owned and managed by government) and meets other criteria under the Act, ownership of that land is to be transferred to the Aboriginal Land Council.

This process is intended to provide compensation for the dispossession of land from Aboriginal people in NSW. It is a different process to the recognition of native title rights under Commonwealth law.

We examined whether relevant agencies are effectively facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes. The relevant agencies are:

• Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
• Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)
• NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC).

We consulted with Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and other Aboriginal community representative groups to hear about their experiences.

What we found

Neither DPC nor DPE have established the resources required for the NSW Government to deliver Aboriginal land claim processes in a coordinated way, and which transparently commits to the requirements and intent of the Act.

Delays in determining land claims result in Aboriginal Land Councils being denied the opportunity to realise their statutory right to certain Crown land. Delays also create risks due to uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land.

DPC has not established governance arrangements to ensure accountability for outcomes under the Act, and effective risk management.

DPE lacks clear performance measures for the timely and transparent delivery of its claim assessment functions. DPE also lacks a well-defined framework for prioritising assessments.

LALCs have concerns about delays, and lack of transparency in the process.

Reviews since at least 2014 have recommended actions to address numerous issues and improve outcomes, but limited progress has been made.

The database used by DPC (Office of the Registrar) for the statutory register of land claims has not been upgraded or fully validated since the 1990s.

In 2020, DPE identified the transfer of claimable Crown land to LALCs to enable economic and cultural outcomes as a strategic priority. DPE has some activities underway to do this, and to improve how it engages with Aboriginal Land Councils – but DPE still lacks a clear, resourced strategy to process over 38,000 undetermined claims within a reasonable time.

What we recommended

In summary:

• DPC should lead strategic governance to oversee a resourced, coordinated program that is accountable for delivering Aboriginal land claim processes
• DPE should implement a resourced, ten-year plan that increases the rate of claim processing, and includes an initial focus on land grants
• DPE and DPC should jointly establish operational arrangements to deliver a coordinated interagency program for land claim processes
• DPC should plan an interagency, land claim spatial information system, and the Office of the Registrar should remediate and upgrade the statutory land claims register
• DPC and NSWALC should implement an education program (for state agencies and the local government sector) about the Act and its operations
• DPE should implement a five-year workforce development strategy for its land claim assessment function
• DPE should finalise updates to its land claim assessment procedures
• DPE should enhance information sharing with Aboriginal Land Councils to inform their claim making
• NSWALC should enhance information sharing and other supports to LALCs to inform their claim making and build capacity.

The return of land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act) is intended to provide compensation for the dispossession of land from Aboriginal people in New South Wales. A claim on Crown land¹ made by an Aboriginal Land Council that meets criteria under the Act is to be transferred to the claimant council as freehold title. The 2021 statutory review of the Act recognises the spiritual, social, cultural and economic importance of land to Aboriginal people.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs administers the Act, with support from Aboriginal Affairs NSW (AANSW) in the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). AANSW also leads the delivery of Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility and Empowerment (OCHRE), the NSW Government's plan for Aboriginal affairs, and assists the Minister to implement the National Agreement on Closing the Gap – which includes a target for increasing the area of land covered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's legal rights or interests.

The Act gives responsibility for registering land claims to an independent statutory officer, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (the Registrar), whose functions are supported by the Office of the Registrar (ORALRA) which is resourced by AANSW.²

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has stated that there is an implied obligation for land claims to be determined within a reasonable time. The Minister administering the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW) is responsible for determining land claims. This function is supported by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE),³ whose staff assess and recommend claims for determination based on the criteria under section 36(1) of the Act. There is also a mechanism under the Act for land claims to be negotiated in good faith through an Aboriginal Land Agreement.

The NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) is a statutory corporation constituted under the Act with a mandate to provide for the development of land rights for Aboriginal people in NSW, in conjunction with the network of 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs). LALCs are constituted over specific areas to represent Aboriginal communities across NSW. Both NSWALC and LALCs can make land claims.

DPC and DPE are responsible for governance and, in partnership with NSWALC, operational and information-sharing activities that are required to coordinate Aboriginal land claim processes. LALCs, statutory officers, government agencies, local councils, and other parties need to be engaged so that these processes are coordinated effectively and managed in a way that is consistent with the intent of the Act, and other legislative requirements.

The first land claim was lodged in 1983. The number of undetermined land claims has increased over time, and at 31 December 2021 DPE data shows 38,257 undetermined claims.

The issue of undetermined land claims has been publicly reported by the Audit Office since 2007. Recommendations to agencies to better facilitate processes and improve how functions are administered have been made in multiple reviews, including two Parliamentary inquiries in 2016.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether relevant agencies are effectively facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes. In making this assessment, we considered whether:

• agencies (DPE, DPC (AANSW and ORALRA) and NSWALC) coordinate information and activities to effectively facilitate Aboriginal land claim processes
• agencies (DPE and DPC (ORALRA)) are effectively administering their roles in the Aboriginal land claim process.

We consulted with LALCs to hear about their experiences and priorities with respect to Aboriginal land claim processes and related outcomes. We have aimed to incorporate their insights into our understanding of their expectations of government with respect to delivering requirements, facilitating processes, and identifying opportunities for improved outcomes. 

Since 1983, 53,861 Aboriginal land claims have been lodged with the Registrar.²⁵

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has stated there is an implied obligation on the Crown Lands Minister to determine land claims within a reasonable time.²⁶

As at 31 December 2021, DPE has processed less than a third (31 per cent) of these land claims: 14,273 were determined by the Crown Lands Minister (that is, granted or refused, in whole or part) and 2,562 were withdrawn. This amounts to 16,835 claims processed, including the negotiated settlement of 15 claims through three Aboriginal Land Agreements. As a result, DPE reports that approximately 163,900 hectares of Crown land has been granted to Aboriginal Land Councils since 1983 up to 31 December 2021.

There are 38,257 land claims awaiting determination, which cover about 1.12 million hectares of Crown land.

The 2017 report on the statutory review of the Act noted that the land claims ‘backlog’ was one of the ‘Top 5’ priorities identified by LALCs during consultations. The importance of this issue is consistent with findings from our consultations with LALCs in 2021 (see Exhibit 7).

Delays in delivering on the statutory requirement to determine land claims, and limited use of other mechanisms to process claims in consultation or agreement with NSWALC and LALCs, undermines the beneficial and remedial intent of Aboriginal land rights under the Act. It also:

• impacts negatively on DPE’s ability to comply with the statutory requirement to determine land claims, because often the older a claim becomes the more difficult it can be to gather the evidence required to assess it
• creates uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land, which can have financial impacts on Aboriginal Land Councils, government agencies, local councils and developers.

Risks that arise in the context of undetermined claims are discussed further in section 3.3.

NSW Treasury describes public sector governance as providing strategic direction, ensuring objectives are achieved, and managing risks and the use of resources responsibly with accountability.

Consistent with the NSW Treasury’s Risk Management Toolkit (TPP-12-03b), governance arrangements for Aboriginal land claim processes should ensure their effective facilitation and administration. That is, arrangements are expected to contribute to and oversee the performance of administrative processes and service delivery towards outcomes, and ensure that legal and policy compliance obligations are met consistent with community expectations of accountability and transparency.

DPC and DPE are responsible for governance and, in partnership with NSWALC, operational and information-sharing activities required to coordinate Aboriginal land claim processes. LALCs, statutory officers, government agencies, local councils, and other parties (such as native title groups and those with an interest in development on Crown land) need to be engaged so that these processes are coordinated effectively with risks managed – consistent with the intent of the Act, and other legislative requirements.

Policy commitments to Aboriginal people and communities made by the NSW Government in the OCHRE Plan and Closing the Gap priority reforms establish an expectation for culturally informed governance.

The Crown Lands Minister, supported by DPE, is required to determine whether Aboriginal land claims meet the criteria to be ‘claimable Crown lands’ under section 36(1) of the Act. DPE staff within its Crown Lands division are responsible for assessing land claims and preparing recommendation briefs to the Crown Lands Minister, or their delegate, on determination outcomes. That is, on whether to grant or refuse the claim.³⁸ DPE staff also make decisions about which land claims within the large number of undetermined claims should be processed first.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

Banner image used with permission.
Title: Forces of Nature
Artist: Lee Hampton – Koori Kicks Art

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #365 - released 28 April 2022.

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

This audit assessed whether the NSW Police Force has effective systems, processes, resources, and capability to respond to domestic and family violence events in New South Wales.

What we found

The NSW Police Force has almost doubled its domestic violence specialist workforce in the past five years and is conducting higher levels of risk monitoring to check that frontline police comply with domestic and family violence policing procedures.

However, a lack of workload monitoring at a whole of agency level is limiting the ability of the NSW Police Force to assess whether specialist and frontline police are sufficient to manage domestic and family violence demands across all 57 local commands.

Rates of compliance checking of domestic violence events vary across local commands, and there is a lack of system level policy or oversight to guide this activity.

While the NSW Police Force has structured training for probationary constables on domestic and family violence policing practices, it does not monitor training or skill levels of the broader workforce to understand levels of expertise in domestic violence policing.

The NSW Police Force does not have regular or consistent methods for seeking feedback and it has a limited understanding of its service quality from the perspective of victim survivors of domestic and family violence.

Performance reporting on domestic and family violence is limited, with most measures focused on activity counts rather than service quality or outcomes.

What we recommended

Improve workforce and workload data collections, analysis and reporting on domestic and family violence workload volumes and allocations of specialist and frontline police to meet demands.

Structure and resource the domestic and family violence strategic policy function to a level commensurate with workload volumes and risks associated with domestic violence policing.

Review debriefing protocols, procedures, and resources for police after domestic and family violence incidents.

Improve databases and information systems for recording domestic violence events so that related events and individuals are automatically connected.

Design a procedure to collect, collate, and analyse service user and stakeholder feedback about police responses to domestic and family violence.

Review existing activity measures and targets for domestic and family violence and expand to include performance measures, service quality measures and outcomes reporting.

Review the process for investigating allegations of domestic and family violence against current and former serving police personnel and implement procedures to ensure processes are independent of interested parties and mitigate conflicts of interest.

The NSW Police Force describes domestic and family violence as a significantly under-reported and complex crime that is mainly perpetrated by men in intimate partner relationships. It is a crime that can include one or more of the following behaviours: emotional and psychological abuse, intimidation, harassment, stalking, physical and sexual assault.

The NSW Police Force responds to over 140,000 domestic and family violence calls for assistance every year. This equates to one call every four minutes. According to NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research statistics, the number and volume of domestic and family violence crime types have increased from October 2016 to September 2021.

The NSW Police Force's responses to domestic and family violence are prescribed in legislation and its own procedural guidance. Principally, the NSW Police Force is required to:

• investigate incidents of domestic and family violence
• take out Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders on behalf of victims and children
• provide safety and support to victims, including taking offenders away from victims
• place alleged perpetrators before the courts
• investigate breaches of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders and target repeat offenders
• work with local service providers to reduce incidents of domestic and family violence.

Domestic and family violence incident dispatches are attended by general duties police – also described in this report as frontline police.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the NSW Police Force in responding to domestic and family violence. To do this, we assessed whether the NSW Police Force:

• conducts capability planning to ensure its workforce can effectively respond to domestic and family violence incidents and support victim-survivors
• resources its workforce with the required systems, skills, knowledge, and administrative support to monitor, record and respond to domestic and family violence events
• assesses the effectiveness of police responses to domestic and family violence events and the effectiveness of support for victim-survivors.

Where to get help

If you or someone you know is experiencing violence or abuse, you can contact 1800 RESPECT (1800respect.org.au or 1800 737 732).

Appendix one – Response from agency 

Appendix two – Workload and workforce numbers in 2020–21 supporting Exhibits 4, 6 and 7 

Appendix three – Key NSW Police Force initiatives, July 2016–present 

Appendix four – About the audit 

Appendix five – 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 #363 - released 4 April 2022.

What the report is about

Natural disaster events, including bushfires and floods, have directly impacted some local councils in New South Wales over recent years. It is important for local councils to effectively plan so that they can continue operations through natural disasters and other disruptions.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of Bega Valley Shire Council and Snowy Valleys Council’s approaches to business and service continuity arrangements for natural disasters.

What we found

Bega Valley Shire Council has a documented approach to planning for business and service continuity that provides for clear decision making processes and accountability.

Bega Valley Shire Council has prepared for identified natural disaster risks to business and service continuity but can do more to monitor how it has implemented controls responding to these risks.

Bega Valley Shire Council did not follow all aspects of its business continuity plan in responding to the 2019–20 bushfires.

Bega Valley Shire Council can do more to ensure its business continuity management approach is regularly reviewed and updated, and that staff are regularly trained in its implementation.

Snowy Valleys Council did not have a finalised approach to ensure business and service continuity until October 2020. Now in place, this approach identifies governance, assigns roles and responsibilities, and includes procedures to retain or resume services. That said, the Council has not adequately documented key elements of its business continuity management approach.

Snowy Valleys Council's strategic risk register identifies that natural disasters may impact its ability to deliver services, but the Council has not identified controls to respond to these risks.

During the 2019–20 bushfires, in the absence of a business continuity plan, Snowy Valleys Council relied on the local knowledge of its staff to manage service continuity in line with directions from the Local Emergency Operations Controller and the combat agency (the Rural Fire Service).

Both councils advised that, during the 2019–20 bushfires, services were maintained, sometimes with adaptation and sometimes with support from other councils, NSW Government and Australian Government agencies.

What we recommended

Bega Valley Shire Council should update and regularly review its business continuity plans, provide business continuity training, and improve its monitoring of risk controls and actions, including for natural disaster impacts.

Snowy Valleys Council should document and monitor all disruption-related risks and controls, regularly review and update its business continuity plans, and progress planned actions to increase staff awareness of business continuity plans.

Across both councils, we recommended that recordkeeping relating to service delivery during natural disasters should be adequate to inform post incident reviews and future updates to business continuity.

Natural disaster events, including bushfires and floods, have directly impacted some local councils in New South Wales over recent years. Given their important role in delivering essential services to their communities, it is important for local councils to effectively plan so that they can continue operations through natural disasters and other disruptions.

Business continuity plans are a widespread mechanism used by governments and private sector organisations to ensure they are prepared to respond effectively to disruptions. In New South Wales, business continuity plans are widely used by local councils to help ensure continuity of service delivery, safety and availability of staff, availability of information technology systems and other systems, financial management and governance. There are no current sector-wide requirements or policies for business continuity management issued by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)¹ for NSW councils. As such, councils can develop their own business continuity management frameworks.

Our 'Report on Local Government 2020' considered the financial and governance impacts from recent natural disaster events on local councils in New South Wales. It also considered sector-wide trends in business continuity planning, including how many councils enacted or updated their business continuity plans in 2019–20.

The report found that all councils were impacted by emergency events, and that some councils changed their governance, policies, systems, and processes to respond to the emergency events. Sixty-five per cent of councils updated their business continuity plan as a response to recent emergency events, and 43 per cent of councils updated their disaster recovery plan.

This audit follows on from the 'Report on Local Government 2020' with a detailed examination of the effectiveness of business and service continuity arrangements for natural disasters in two councils.

The selected councils for this audit were Bega Valley Shire Council and Snowy Valleys Council. They were selected because they had been heavily impacted by the 2019–20 bushfires and other natural disaster events, such as storms and floods between December 2018 to December 2020.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the effectiveness of the councils' approaches to business and service continuity arrangements for natural disasters. In making this assessment, we considered whether the selected councils:

• had documented approaches for identifying, mitigating, and responding to disaster-related risks to business and service continuity
• effectively implemented strategies to prepare for identified disaster-related impacts
• responses during selected disasters were effective in managing business and service continuity.

Appendix one – Responses from councils and the Department of Planning and Environment 

Appendix two – Emergency management arrangements for local councils 

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 #362 - released 17 February 2022.

What the report is about

This report assessed the integrity of the assessment and approval processes for two grant programs:

• Stronger Communities Fund Round 2 (tied grants round), which was administered by the former Office of Local Government (OLG) and provided $252 million to newly amalgamated councils and other councils that had been subject to a merger proposal during 2017–18 and 2018–19.
• Regional Cultural Fund, which was administered by Create NSW (now within the Department of Premier and Cabinet) and awarded $100 million for cultural projects in regional NSW.

What we found

The assessment and approval process for Round 2 of the Stronger Communities Fund lacked integrity. The government decided to prioritise funds for councils that had worked constructively with the government through the 2016 merger process. 

However, this information was not included in the program guidelines. The program guidelines were not published and did not contain details of selection and assessment processes. Councils and projects were instead identified by the former Premier, Deputy Premier and Minister for Local Government and communicated to OLG with little or no information about the basis for the council or project selection. There was no merit assessment of identified projects. This process resulted in 96 per cent of funds allocated to coalition state seats.

The assessment process that Create NSW used for the Regional Cultural Fund was robust and produced transparent and defensible recommendations to the minister. However, the former Minister for the Arts, in consultation with the former Deputy Premier, did not follow the recommendations of the independent assessment panel in 22 per cent of cases. Reasons for these changes were not documented by Create NSW.

What we recommended

The Department of Premier and Cabinet should develop a model for grant administration that must be used for all grant programs administered in NSW that:

• is based on ethical principles such as impartiality, equity and transparency 
• ensures assessments and decisions can be made against clear eligibility criteria
• ensures accountability for decisions and actions of all those who are involved in the program 
• includes minimum mandatory administration and documentation standards
• requires any ministerial override of recommendations to be documented. 

The Department of Planning and Environment should ensure that guidelines prepared for all grant programs are published and include a governance framework that includes accountabilities and key assessment steps.

Grants are frequently used by the state government to deliver funds to councils and community organisations to provide infrastructure and services important to their local communities. Grant programs are administered by NSW Government agencies in line with priorities and objectives set by the government.

Guidance for agencies administering grant programs is available in the Good Practice Guide to Grants Administration (the 'DPC Guide') which is maintained by the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). In addition to this guide, some agencies maintain their own grant program policies and guidelines. More broadly, public servants are required to comply with financial legislation and the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 which include requirements to be transparent, fiscally responsible and focus on the efficient, effective and prudent use of resources.

The objective of this performance audit is to assess the integrity of the assessment and approval processes for NSW Government grant programs.

The audit focuses on two grant programs, both administered during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years. The Stronger Communities Fund (round two tied grants round) was administered by the former Office of Local Government (OLG), now referred to as the Local Government Group within the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). The fund awarded $252 million to 24 councils that had amalgamated in 2016 or which had been the subject of a merger proposal. The Regional Cultural Fund was administered by Create NSW, now within the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). The fund awarded $100 million to organisations in regional New South Wales to support the development of cultural infrastructure in regional areas.

The audit comments upon the role played by the then Premier, Deputy Premier, ministers and their staff in the audited grant programs to provide context. The Audit Office of NSW cannot compel those individuals to participate in the audit or provide documents. In all cases, reference to the Premier, Deputy Premier, ministers, MPs and their staff refers to the individuals who were in those roles at the time the grant programs were administered unless otherwise noted.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – List of funded projects - Stronger Communities Fund Round 2

Appendix three – List of funded projects - Regional Cultural Fund

Appendix four – About the audit

Appendix five – 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 #361 - released 8 February 2022.

What the report is about

This audit examined a state-wide program to provide small-group tuition to students disadvantaged by the move to learning from home during 2020.

The audit assessed the design and implementation of the program.

What we found

The program design was based on research and data showing learning loss during 2020. 

The department rapidly planned and developed the policy design and guidelines for schools. 

Governance arrangements matured during program delivery.

The department changed the models for funding schools but did not clearly explain the reasons for doing so.

Government schools with over 900 students were disadvantaged by the funding model compared to smaller schools. 

Guidelines, resources and professional learning helped schools implement the program.

Staff eligibility for the program was expanded after reported difficulties in recruiting qualified teachers in some areas. 

Online tuition and third-party provider options were developed throughout the program.

There were issues with the quality and timeliness of data used to monitor school progress. 

Evaluation arrangements were developed early in the program.

Data limitations mean the evaluation will not be able to fully assess all program objectives.

What we recommended

1. Distributing funds between schools more equitably and improving communication of the funding methods. 
2. Clearer communication about the intended targeted group of students.
3. Reviewing the time needed to administer the program.
4. Improve support for educators other than qualified teachers.
5. Offer the online tuition program to more schools.
6. Analysis of the effects of learning from home during 2021 across equity groups and geographic areas.
7. Working with universities to increase use of pre-service teachers in the program.

The report also identifies lessons learned for future programs.
 

The NSW Government announced the COVID Intensive Learning Support Program on 10 November 2020, as part of the 2020–21 NSW Budget. The primary goal of the $337 million program was to deliver intensive small group tuition for students who were disadvantaged by the move to remote and/or flexible learning, helping to close the equity gap. It included:

• $306 million to provide small-group tuition for eligible students across every NSW Government primary, secondary and special purpose school
• $31.0 million for around 400 non-government schools to provide small-group tuition to students with the greatest levels of need.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the design and implementation of the COVID Intensive Learning Support Program (the program). To address this objective, the audit assessed whether the Department of Education (the department):

• effectively designed the program and supporting governance arrangements
• is effectively implementing the program.

This audit focuses on activities between October 2020 and August 2021, which aimed to address the first session of learning from home in New South Wales. From August to October 2021, students in many areas of New South Wales were learning from home again, but this second period has not been a focus of this audit. On 18 October 2021, the NSW Government announced the program would be extended into 2022.

This chapter considers how effectively the COVID Intensive Learning Support Program (the program) was designed and planned for implementation.

This chapter considers how effectively the COVID Intensive Learning Support Program was implemented over our period of review (Terms 1 and 2, 2021).

Appendix one – Response from agency

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 #358 - released (15 December 2021).

What the report is about

The movement of freight contributes $66 billion annually to the NSW economy. Two thirds of all freight in NSW moves through Greater Sydney, and the volume of freight moving through Greater Sydney is expected to increase by 48 per cent by 2036.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of transport agencies in improving the use of rail freight capacity in Greater Sydney, and to meet current and future freight demand.

What we found

Transport agencies do not have strategies or targets in place to improve the efficiency or capacity of the metropolitan shared rail network for freight.

The transport agencies acknowledge that they do not have sufficient information to achieve the most efficient freight outcomes and they do not know how to use the shared rail network to maximise freight capacity without compromising passenger rail services.

The Freight and Ports Plan 2018-2023 contains one target for rail freight - to increase the use of rail at Port Botany to 28 per cent by 2021. However, Transport for NSW (TfNSW)'s data indicates this target will not be met.

Sydney Trains records data on train movements and collects some data on delays and incidents. TfNSW collects data for the construction of the Standard Working Timetable and third-party contracts.

However, a lack of clarity around what data is gathered and who has ownership of the data makes data sharing difficult and limits its analysis and reporting.

The Freight and Ports Plan 2018-2023 includes the goal of 'Reducing avoidable rail freight delays', but the transport agencies do not have any definition for an avoidable delay and, as a result, do not measure or report them.

TfNSW and Sydney Trains are appointed to manage and deliver the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE)'s obligations to allow rail freight operators to use the shared rail network. There are no performance measures in rail freight operator contracts or inter-agency agreements. This limits transport agencies' ability to improve performance.

TfNSW’s Freight Branch is working on four freight-specific strategies; a review of the Plan, a freight rail strategy, a port efficiency strategy and a freight data strategy.

TfNSW has not yet determined the timeframes or intended outcomes of these strategies.

What we recommended

Transport agencies should:

• commit, as part of the review of Future Transport 2056, to delivering the freight-specific strategies currently in development and develop whole-of-cluster accountability for this work including timeframes, specific targets and clear roles and responsibilities 
• improve the collection and sharing of freight data
• develop a plan to reduce avoidable freight delays
• systematically collect data on the management of all delays involving and/or impacting rail-freight
• develop and implement key performance indicators for the agreements between the transport agencies.

The movement of freight contributes $66.0 billion annually to the New South Wales economy — or 13 per cent of the Gross State Product. Two thirds of all freight in New South Wales moves through Greater Sydney, and the volume of freight moving through Greater Sydney is expected to increase by 48 per cent by 2036. This increasing demand is driven by increasing population and economic growth.

The sequence of activities required to move goods from their point of origin to the eventual consumer (the supply chain) is what matters most to shippers and consumers. Road can provide a single-mode door-to-door service, whereas conveying goods by rail typically involves moving freight onto road at some point. In Greater Sydney, 80 per cent of all freight is moved on road. Freight often passes through intermodal terminals (IMTs) as it transitions from one mode of transport to the next.

In 2016, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) released Future Transport 2056 - the NSW Government's 40-year vision for transport in New South Wales, which is intended to guide investment over the longer term. In Future Transport 2056, TfNSW noted that New South Wales will struggle to meet increasing demand for freight movements unless rail plays a larger role in the movement of freight.

Sydney Trains manages the metropolitan shared rail network, which is made up of rail lines that are used by both passenger and freight trains. The Transport Administration Act 1988 requires that, for the purposes of network control and timetabling, NSW Government transport agencies give ‘reasonable priority’ to passenger trains on shared lines. As the Greater Sydney population and rail patronage continue to grow, so too will competition for access to the shared rail network. See Appendix two for details of the area encompassed by Greater Sydney.

Freight operators can also use dedicated rail freight lines operated by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC - an Australian Government statutory-owned corporation). As the metropolitan shared rail network connects with dedicated freight lines, freight operators often use both to complete a journey.

TfNSW, Sydney Trains and the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) work in conjunction with other rail infrastructure owners and private sector entities, including port operators, privately operated IMTs and freight-shipping companies. TfNSW and Sydney Trains are responsible for managing the movement of freight across the metropolitan shared rail network. TAHE is the owner of the rail infrastructure that makes up the metropolitan shared rail network. The NSW Government established TAHE, a NSW Government state-owned corporation, on 1 July 2020 to replace the former rail infrastructure owner - RailCorp. The Auditor-General for New South Wales has commenced a performance audit on TAHE which is expected to table in 2022.

On 1 July 2021, TAHE entered into new agreements with TfNSW and Sydney Trains to operate, manage and maintain the metropolitan shared rail network. Until 30 June 2021, and in accordance with TAHE's Implementation Deed, TAHE operated under the terms of RailCorp's existing arrangements and agreements.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of TfNSW, Sydney Trains and TAHE in improving the use of rail freight capacity in Greater Sydney, and to meet current and future freight demand.

The audit focused on:

• the monitoring of access to shared rail lines
• the management of avoidable delays of rail freight movements
• steps to increase the use of rail freight capacity in Greater Sydney.

Appendix one - Response from agencies

Appendix two - The Greater Sydney region

Appendix three - TfNSW strategic projects 

Appendix four - Sydney Trains path priority principles 

Appendix five - Sydney Trains delay management

Appendix six - About the audit 

Appendix seven - 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 #357 - released (19 October 2021).

What the report is about

This audit assessed whether adults in custody have effective access to health services. The audit examined the activities of Justice Health and Corrective Services NSW.

What we found

The majority of custodial patients receive timely health care, but a small proportion of patients are not receiving care within target timeframes.

Eleven per cent of scheduled health appointments are not attended, and agencies can do more to understand the reasons for non-attendance.

Demand for mental health care exceeds service capacity and some patients are held in environments not appropriate for their needs.

Justice Health's information systems do not support the effective transfer of medical records as patients move around the prison network.

Not all patients are released from custody with a discharge plan.

Justice Health's system managers do not receive sufficiently detailed reports to understand strategic risks or opportunities to improve access to health services.

Public and private prison health operators do not report against consistent performance measures.

Justice Health is mandated to assess health services in private prisons. This conflicts with its role as a contracted provider of health services in the private prison system.

What we recommended

Enhanced reporting on patient access to health services, to identify risks and challenges across key service areas.

Identification and implementation of the improvements required for information to be shared across the custodial network and with external health providers.

Development of a framework to govern and monitor costs for patient health escorts and movements.

Development of a framework to govern responsibilities for mental health services.

Progression of infrastructure plans that address the lack of specialist accommodation for mental health patients and aged and frail patients.

Collaboration to align the performance measures to enable benchmarking between public and private prison health services.

Action to remediate the conflicting monitoring arrangements of public and private prison health operators.

Access to health services in custody

This audit examined whether adults in the New South Wales public prison system have effective access to health services. In making this assessment, we considered whether Justice Health and Corrective Services NSW effectively cooperate and coordinate so that patients have timely access to health services, systems and practices support continuity of care, and access to health services is monitored and reviewed.

As part of this audit, we assessed actions undertaken by Justice Health and Corrective Services NSW in managing the first COVID-19 outbreak in 2020. However, due to the timing of this audit report, this audit does not report on the agencies’ response to managing the current outbreak of COVID-19 in September 2021.

Health services in New South Wales prisons are delivered by both public and private operators. The public prison system is made up of 33 correctional centres and the Long Bay Hospital. All health services in the public prison system are delivered by the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (Justice Health).

In the public prison system, Justice Health is responsible for the clinical care of patients with physical and mental illnesses. Clinicians provide health assessments, treatments, medication management, and some counselling services in prison health clinics. Patients are triaged by primary health nurses and if they require treatments or medication, they are referred to prison‑based doctors including specialists or other clinicians. Patients requiring complex or emergency care are transferred to hospitals or other specialty services outside the prison complex.

Private operators deliver health services in three private prisons through contract arrangements with Corrective Services NSW. Justice Health delivers health care at one correctional centre via a contract arrangement with Corrective Services NSW. In total, contracted health service operators deliver health care to approximately 25 per cent of the New South Wales prison population.

Justice Health is required by law to monitor the performance of contracted health service providers in New South Wales prisons, including services provided at the John Morony Correctional Centre. The Auditor‑General’s mandate does not permit a direct examination of information held by private sector entities, however this audit does assess the effectiveness of Justice Health's role in monitoring health services in private prisons.

Corrective Services NSW is responsible for security in public prisons, including the facilitation of patient access to health care at prison health clinics and the transfer of patients to hospitals and other health services outside of the prison environment. Corrective Services NSW also delivers behaviour‑based psychology services. Some are delivered as behaviour modification courses that aim to reduce criminal and offending activity amongst the prison population. These programs may be linked to parole or other custodial conditions. Other psychology services include counselling for people with self‑harming or suicidal behaviours.

Research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indicates that people in custody are more likely than the general population to be affected by chronic and acute illnesses, including higher rates of mental illness and communicable diseases¹. In March 2021, there were 13,063 adults in custody in New South Wales.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess whether adults in the public prison system have effective access to health services. In making this assessment, we considered whether Justice Health and Corrective Services NSW effectively cooperate and coordinate so that:

• patients have timely access to health services
• systems and practices support the continuity of health care
• access to health services is monitored, reviewed, and reported across the network. 

1. Key findings

The majority of custodial patients receive timely health care, but a small proportion of patients with priority appointments are not receiving care within target timeframes

Approximately half of all health care provided by Justice Health is immediate. It is delivered to 'walk‑in' patients as soon as they present at prison health clinics. Most of these patients are receiving daily medications, while a small proportion require urgent or immediate care for injuries or illnesses. The other half of prison health care is delivered via scheduled appointments. Patients waiting for health appointments are given a priority rating according to the time within which they should be seen by a clinician.

Patients requiring the most time‑critical care are given a Priority 1 rating. These patients should receive treatment within one to three days. In December 2020, the average wait time for Priority 1 treatment was five and a half days, almost double the target. This is an improvement on wait times in June 2019, when the average wait time was just over 13 days. Justice Health does not assess or measure the impacts of delayed care on these patients.

According to Justice Health, the high numbers of ‘walk‑ins’ contribute to increased wait times for medical appointments. In addition, some specialty health clinics operate weekly, which means that patients cannot be seen by specialists within a one to three‑day timeline. Security events such as prison lockdowns can also contribute to increased wait times, as they limit the access that patients have to prison health clinics during out‑of‑cell hours.

If patients need emergency medical treatment, they are transferred to hospitals in line with Justice Health's policy. In 2020, just over 1,000 patients were transferred to hospital for emergency medical care.

A significant proportion of prison health appointments are not attended, and not enough is being done to understand the reasons, or to improve attendance rates

In 2020, 11 per cent of all scheduled health appointments in prison clinics were not attended. This amounts to approximately 60,000 appointments over the year. Non‑attended appointments have flow‑on impacts on wait times and backlogs for scheduled health appointments. Understanding why they occur is necessary to improve efficiencies in scheduling and patient access to health services.

In 2020, the most common reason for non‑attended health appointments was: 'patient unable to attend'. Justice Health clinicians use this when patients do not arrive at the prison health clinic at the scheduled time, and clinicians lack any other information to explain the non‑attendance.

The second most common recorded reason for non‑attended appointments was: 'cancelled by Corrective Services NSW'. These cancellations are due to operational or security reasons, including prison lockdowns. Data from Justice Health indicates that in 2020, there were an average of 12 lockdowns per week across New South Wales prisons.

A range of factors can impact on patient attendance at appointments, some of which are unavoidable. That said, more can be done to understand and reduce non‑attendance. For example, there is potential for Corrective Services NSW to implement tighter protocols to update information about patient availability on the daily movement lists. This might include checking whether patients are willing to attend appointments. Similarly, there is potential for Justice Health clinicians to implement tighter protocols to check patient lists ahead of scheduled appointments, and to re‑schedule appointments where patients are unavailable.

Demand for mental health care exceeds service capacity and some patients are held in environments that are not appropriate for their needs

There is a high demand for mental health services in New South Wales prisons. In March 2021, at least 143 mental health patients were waiting for access to an acute or sub‑acute mental health unit across the New South Wales prison system. The average wait time for a mental health facility was 43 days. Seventeen patients had wait times of over 100 days. Patients waiting for sub‑acute mental health services had longer wait times than those waiting for acute mental health services.

There are limited mental health beds for women across the New South Wales prison network. There are ten allocated beds for women at the Mental Health Screening Unit at Silverwater Correctional Complex, and no allocated beds for women at Long Bay Hospital.

A lack of bed availability in the Forensic Hospital means that, as of February 2021, 63 forensic patients were being held in mental health facilities in mainstream prisons, when they should have been accommodated in the Forensic Hospital. Some of these forensic patients have been held in mainstream prison facilities for decades.

Cross‑agency co‑operation and planning is required to identify and build infrastructure that will reduce wait times for mental health beds. Over several years, Justice Health has developed, reviewed, and worked to progress a strategic plan for NSW Forensic Mental Health that includes enhanced mental health bed capacity across the NSW system. The latest version of this strategic plan remains in draft and has yet to be approved by the NSW Ministry of Health.

In 2016, Corrective Services NSW commenced a Prison Bed Capacity Program. It was focussed on enhancing capacity across the prison system and did not include specialist health beds. More recently, Corrective Services NSW has been developing a business case to improve the provision of specialist health care facilities across the network, including mental health facilities.

Justice Health's clinical information systems do not support the effective transfer of health appointments or medication records as patients are moved to new prison locations

Justice Health's clinical information systems are multiple and complex. There are five health information systems that include a mix of electronic and paper‑based records. Information management systems contain clinical records, appointment information, medication records, dental records, and specialist health information. Corrective Services NSW maintain separate information systems relating to prison records and psychology treatment information.

The transfer of people across different correctional centres is a frequent occurrence. In 2020, there were over 41,000 movements between correctional centres. People are transferred for a range of reasons including for security purposes, or to be located closer to hospitals or specialist health services.

Justice Health receives a list of patient transfers one day prior to transfer. Nurses are required to prepare medications and clinical handovers for patients with complex health conditions. These handovers are verbal, however short timeframes mean that handover is not always possible.

While each patient's electronic health records are available across the network, transfer of appointment waitlists must be done manually. There is no automatic alert within the information systems to tell staff that a patient has been moved to another prison. There is a risk that if appointment records are not manually updated, or if staff at destination clinics are not contacted, then appointments will be overlooked.

Justice Health is working with eHealth NSW to develop an improved Electronic Medication Management (EMM) program with expected delivery in late 2021. The EMM has potential to improve the transfer of patient medication records, but it will not fully remediate all inefficiencies of the current systems.

Corrective Services NSW and Justice Health do not engage in sufficient joint planning to improve efficiencies in transports or escorts to health services

Corrective Services NSW and Justice Health do not engage in joint system‑level planning to mitigate the risks and the costs associated with transferring patients to health clinics in prisons, or non‑prison‑based health care. There are no protocols, and limited sharing of information to improve efficiencies in planning and coordinating patient transfers.

Corrective Services NSW does not collate or report on the costs of transporting patients to hospitals and specialist care. While there is data on the overall cost of medical escorts, estimated to be $19.9 million in 2020, Corrective Services NSW is not able to disaggregate this data to determine the reasons for transfers or the system‑level costs. For example, Corrective Services NSW does not know how many prison lockdowns occur when hospital transfers are required.

Medical escorts to specialist health services and hospitals increase the costs to the prison system and contribute to risks in prison management. Medical escorts contributed to 16 per cent of metropolitan prison lockdowns at the peak in 2018, though escort numbers have since been declining. Some Local Health Districts report significant concerns around safety incidents and assaults on staff during medical escorts to hospital.

Corrective Services NSW does not know if transport costs have increased since the 2016 Prison Bed Capacity Program which expanded prison beds in regional New South Wales. To date, there has been no assessment of the cost of taking patients to tertiary hospitals or specialist services. Corrective Services NSW has identified this as an area for improvement.

Justice Health's system managers do not receive sufficiently detailed reports on wait times for health care, to understand strategic risks or opportunities for system improvement

Justice Health's senior executives receive monthly reports on patient wait times for services in prison health clinics. These reports contain headline data about the numbers of days that patients wait for scheduled health appointments by their allocated priority level. Wait time data are averaged across all New South Wales prison health clinics. With some exceptions, almost all executive level reports describe system‑wide appointment wait times without offering further specific detail. For example, there is limited information which would allow managers to understand the performance of specialty health groups, or to make any comparative analysis of the performance of different prison facilities.

Executive reports are also not detailed enough to indicate whether prisons with particular security classifications offer greater or lesser access to health services. It is not possible to assess whether patients in metropolitan or regional prisons have different levels of health service access. This prevents managers from identifying strategic risks across the prison network, targeting resources to the areas of greatest risk, and making strategic improvements in system performance.

Trend data on wait times for the different health specialty areas is also required to enable senior managers to compare wait times across prison facilities, security classifications, and localities.

In response to the preliminary findings of this audit, Justice Health has made some improvements to its executive‑level wait time reports. This includes additional detail on health appointment wait times by prison facilities and wait times by health specialty areas.

It is not possible to compare or benchmark the performance of public and private prison health operators or to compare prison health against community health standards

It is not possible to compare or benchmark the performance of the public and private prison health operators in New South Wales using the current Key Performance Indicator (KPI) data. KPI data do not correlate across the public and private systems.

Justice Health reports to the Ministry of Health on 44 prison health KPIs. The 44 KPIs for the public prison system do not align with the seven KPIs the private health operators report against in their contracts with Corrective Services NSW. This means that public and private operators focus on different service areas. For example, private operators have a performance measure for ensuring that custodial patients are provided with release plans. Justice Health does not have a similar measure.

The KPI specifications for the private prison health system were developed by Corrective Services NSW with input from the Ministry of Health. The KPI specifications for the public prison health system were developed by the Ministry of Health in collaboration with Justice Health. There is no rationale for the difference in performance indicators across the public and private systems.

Private providers currently deliver prison services to 25 per cent of the prison population of New South Wales. This proportion has been increasing since 2016. Public and private health operators deliver comparable health services so there is scope to compare performance across the systems.

Justice Health aligns its standard for prison health services with a 'community’ standard of health care access. However, with existing health monitoring measures, it is not possible to assess how well Justice Health is tracking against community health standards with available data from most health specialties.

There is an inherent conflict of interest in Justice Health's monitoring role of health services in private prisons, as Justice Health is also a provider of health services in a private prison

There is a legislated requirement for Justice Health to monitor the performance of private health operators in New South Wales prisons. This monitoring role is described in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

Justice Health's monitoring role includes the collection and analysis of health performance data from private health operators, and periodic site visits to assess health service performance. Justice Health reports the findings of monitoring activities to Corrective Services NSW, the contract manager for private prisons.

Justice Health's monitoring role commenced in the late 1990s. In recent years, this role has expanded as the NSW Government has increased the number of privately managed prisons across the state. Justice Health now monitors health services in four private prisons, accounting for approximately one quarter of all custodial patients in the New South Wales prison system.

In 2018, Justice Health was awarded a contract to provide health services at the John Morony Correctional Centre. Justice Health also monitors the health services this Correctional Centre. The timing of the 1999 legislation did not anticipate that Justice Health would be a provider of the services it is required to monitor.

Justice Health has taken steps to maintain independence and transparency in its monitoring role by establishing a number of arms‑length governance arrangements. Justice Health set up a Commissioning Unit that operates independently from its service delivery operations. Justice Health also established an alternative reporting chain via a Board subcommittee to oversee the performance of health providers in private prisons.

Despite all actions to establish independence, the monitoring role confers dual responsibilities on the Chief Executive of Justice Health as both an operational manager of health services in a private prison and as a manager responsible for monitoring these same services. As a result, the Chief Executive of Justice Health has access to information about the overall performance of the private prison health system in New South Wales.

As a competitor for the provision of health services in privately operated prisons, Justice Health has access to information to which other private health providers do not. This potentially gives Justice Health a competitive advantage over other private health operators.

2. Recommendations

By December 2022, Justice Health should:

1. enhance reporting on patient access to health services to ensure that system managers can identify risks, challenges, and system improvements across key areas of its service profile

2. in collaboration with the NSW Ministry of Health, identify and implement the required improvements to its health information management systems that will enable effective transfers of patient clinical records and appointment information across the custodial network and with external health providers.

By December 2022, Justice Health and Corrective Services NSW should:

3. develop a joint framework to govern and monitor the costs of their common and connected responsibilities for patient health movements across the prison network and to external health services

4. develop a joint framework to govern their common and connected responsibilities for mental health services.

By December 2022, Justice Health and Corrective Services NSW, in collaboration with the NSW Ministry of Health, should:

5. progress infrastructure plans and projects that address the lack of specialist accommodation for mental health patients and aged and frail patients

6. standardise and align the key performance indicators that monitor the performance of health operators in public and private prisons so that system‑wide benchmarking is possible.

By December 2022, the NSW Ministry of Health should:

7. take action to remediate the conflicting monitoring arrangements of public and private prison health operators.

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 #356 - released (23 September 2021).