What the report is about

This audit examined whether the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and the Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) have effectively designed and implemented the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (‘the Scheme’) to compensate for the loss of biodiversity due to development.

Under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the Scheme enables landholders to establish in-perpetuity Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements on sites to generate credits for the unique biodiversity on that land. These credits can be sold to offset the negative impact of development on biodiversity.

What we found

DPE has not effectively designed core elements of the Scheme. DPE did not establish a clear strategic plan to guide the implementation of the Scheme.

The BCT has various roles in the Scheme but lacked safeguards against potential conflicts, creating risks to credit supply.

The effectiveness of its implementation has also been limited. Key concerns around the Scheme’s transparency, sustainability and integrity are yet to be fully resolved.

A market-based approach to biodiversity offsetting is central to the Scheme's operation but credit supply is lacking and poorly matched to growing demand. DPE has not established a clear, resourced plan to manage the shortage in credit supply. Data about the market, published by the DPE and the BCT, does not provide an adequate picture of credit supply, demand and price to readily support market participation.

These factors create a risk that biodiversity gains made through the Scheme will not be sufficient to offset losses resulting from development, and that the DPE will not be able to assess the Scheme’s overall effectiveness.

DPE is leading work with the BCT to improve the Scheme, but this is not yet guided by a long-term strategy with clear goals.

What we recommended

The audit made 11 recommendations to DPE and the BCT, focusing on:

• a long-term strategic plan for the Scheme
• improvements to the operation and transparency of the market and credit supply
• frameworks to ensure the financial and ecological sustainability of biodiversity stewardship sites
• enhanced public reporting and data management
• resolving issues in conflicting governance and oversight.

The NSW Government's Biodiversity Outlook Report 2020 estimates that, without effective management, only 50% of species and 59% of ecological communities that are listed as threatened in New South Wales will still exist in 100 years. The NSW State of the Environment 2021 report identifies habitat destruction and native vegetation clearing as presenting the single greatest threat to biodiversity in the State.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), biodiversity offsets are 'measurable conservation outcomes that result from actions designed to compensate for significant, residual biodiversity loss from development projects'. The OECD states that a feature of such schemes is that biodiversity offsets are intended to be implemented as the 'final step of a mitigation hierarchy' whereby reasonable first steps are taken to avoid and minimise the negative impacts.

The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme was established in 2017 under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to 'maintain a healthy, productive and resilient environment for the greatest well-being of the community, now and into the future, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development'.

The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) designed and manages this Scheme. Under the Act, a feature of the Scheme is a 'market-based conservation mechanism through which the impacts to biodiversity can be offset.' The Scheme enables landholders to establish in-perpetuity Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements (BSAs) on sites to generate biodiversity credits, which can be sold to offset the negative impact of development on biodiversity. BSA sites are intended to be managed over the long term to generate the biodiversity gains required to offset the impact.

The Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) monitors and supports landholders to manage BSA sites under the Scheme. This includes making payments to landholders from funds held in the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund for undertaking the required biodiversity management actions.

This Scheme was preceded by several other offsetting schemes in New South Wales, including the BioBanking scheme that started in 2008. DPE has arrangements to transition sites, credits, and offset obligations from this and other previous schemes.

The current biodiversity credit market in New South Wales consists of 1394 different types of ecosystem credits, which are approved to be traded in 364 different offset trading groups, and 867 different species credits. Trading rules, set out in the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (the Regulation), prioritise offsetting the obligations of a development with like-for-like ecosystem or species credits.

The Scheme is implemented through the planning system in New South Wales. Proposed development that involves the clearing of native vegetation, and meets certain thresholds, is required to undertake a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. These reports determine an offset obligation, in biodiversity credits, to compensate for the biodiversity loss proposed. These reports are considered by consent authorities (such as a council, for local development, or by the Minister for Planning for major projects). An offset obligation is then included in the conditions of development approval.

In addition to establishing a market for trading between developers, with offset obligations, and landholders, who sell credits from their BSA sites, the Scheme allows developers to pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund and transfer their obligations to the BCT. This allows the developer to proceed with their project. The BCT must then meet these acquired obligations by buying the required credits, or by undertaking other approved activities set out in the Regulation. The BCT has more options than developers on how and when it acquits its obligations.

This audit examined whether DPE and the BCT have effectively designed and implemented the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme to compensate for the loss of biodiversity due to development.

This section presents an overview of the status of the biodiversity credit market in New South Wales. It describes development of the market under the Scheme in the context of transitional arrangements from previous schemes, and the extent of market participation and transactions to date. It also presents information about emerging trends in credit demand and supply.

This section assesses the clarity and alignment of the goals of the Scheme to key features of its design and operations. It also examines structural elements of the Scheme that aim to maintain integrity within administering agencies, and the status of actions to address risks or issues.

This section assesses how effectively components of the Scheme have been designed and are being implemented to provide assurance that the impacts of development are being avoided and minimised such that only ‘unavoidable’ impacts remain to be offset. The section also assesses whether the Scheme and its market embeds the necessary controls to ensure that obligations are offset as required.

This section assesses how effectively the supply of biodiversity credits has been supported by encouraging and enabling landholders to participate in the Scheme. It also assesses whether sufficient action is underway to address issues and risks to the establishment of BSA sites, especially in the context of known credit supply issues (section 2).

This section assesses how effectively BSA sites, which need to be managed by landholders to generate the biodiversity gains represented by credits, are regulated and supported by the Biodiversity Conservation Trust. It also assesses whether actions have been taken to address identified risks to the suitability of funds required to ensure long-term BSA site management.

Appendix one – Response from agencies 

Appendix two – Like-for-like, variation and ancillary rules

Appendix three – Detail on progress of the IIAP

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 #367 - released 30 August 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 nine agencies’ compliance with the NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) including whether, during the year to 30 June 2020, the participating agencies:

• met their reporting obligations under the CSP
• reported accurate self-assessments of their level of maturity implementing the CSP’s requirements including the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s (ACSC) Essential 8.

What we found

Key elements to strengthen cyber security governance, controls and culture are not sufficiently robust and not consistently applied. The CSP is not achieving the objectives of improved cyber governance, controls and culture because:

• the CSP does not specify a minimum level for agencies to achieve in implementing the 'mandatory requirements' or the Essential 8
• the CSP does not require agencies to report their target levels, nor does it require risk acceptance decisions to be documented or formally endorsed
• each participating agency had implemented one or more of the mandatory requirements in an ad hoc or inconsistent basis
• none of the participating agencies had implemented all of the Essential 8 controls
• agencies tended to over-assess their cyber security maturity - all nine participating agencies were unable to support all of their self-assessments with evidence
• there is no monitoring of the adequacy or accuracy of agencies' self-assessments.

What we recommended

In this report, we repeat recommendations made in the 2019 and 2020 Central Agencies reports, that Cyber Security NSW and NSW Government agencies need to prioritise improvements to cyber security resilience as a matter of urgency.

Cyber Security NSW should:

• monitor and report compliance with the CSP
• require agencies to report the target and achieved levels of maturity
• require agencies to justify why it is appropriate to target a low level of maturity
• require the agency head to formally accept the residual risk
• challenge agencies' target maturity levels.

Agencies should resolve discrepancies between their reported level of maturity and the level they are able to support with evidence.

Separately, the agencies we audited requested that we not disclose our audit findings. We reluctantly agreed to anonymise our findings, even though they are more than 12 months old. We are of the view that transparency and accountability to the Parliament of New South Wales are part of the solution, not the problem.

The poor levels of agency cyber security maturity are a significant concern. Improvement requires leadership and resourcing.

This report assesses whether state government agencies are complying with the NSW Cyber Security Policy. The audit was based on the level of compliance reported at 30 June 2020.

Our audit identified non-compliance and significant weaknesses against the government’s policy.

Audited agencies have requested that we not report the findings of this audit to the Parliament of New South Wales, even though the findings are more than 12 months old, believing that the audit report would expose their weaknesses to threat actors.

I have reluctantly agreed to modify my report to anonymise agencies and their specific failings because the vulnerabilities identified have not yet been remedied. Time, leadership and prioritised action should have been sufficient for agencies to improve their cyber safeguards. I am of the view that transparency and accountability to the Parliament is part of the solution, not the problem.

The poor levels of cyber security maturity are a significant concern. Improvement requires dedicated leadership and resourcing. To comply with some elements of the government’s policy agencies will have to invest in technical uplift and some measures may take time to implement. However, other elements of the policy do not require any investment in technology. They simply require leadership and management commitment to improve cyber literacy and culture. And they require accountability and transparency. Transparent reporting of performance is a key means to improve performance.

Cyber security is increasingly a focus of governments around Australia. The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) is the Australian Government’s lead agency for cyber security and is part of the Australian Signals Directorate, a statutory authority within the Australian Government’s Defence portfolio. The ACSC has advised that government agencies at all levels, as well as individuals and other organisations were increasingly targeted over the 2021 financial year¹. The ACSC received over 67,500 cybercrime reports, a 13 per cent increase on the previous year. This equates to one reported cyber attack every eight minutes. They also noted that attacks by cyber criminals and state actors are becoming increasingly sophisticated and complex and that the attacks are increasingly likely to be categorised as ‘substantial’ in impact.

High profile attacks in Australia and overseas have included a sustained malware campaign targeted at the health sector², a phishing campaign deploying emotet malware, spear phishing campaigns targeting people with administrator or other high-level access, and denial of service attacks. The continuing trend towards digital delivery of government services has increased the vulnerability of organisations to cyber threats.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased these risks. It has increased Australian dependence on the internet – to work remotely, to access services and information, and to communicate and continue our daily lives. Traditional security policies within an organisation’s perimeter are harder to enforce in networks made up of home and other private networks, and assets the organisation does not manage. This has increased the cyber risks for NSW Government agencies.

In March 2020, Service NSW suffered two cyber security incidents in short succession. Technical analysis undertaken by the Department of Customer Service (DCS) concluded that these cyber breaches resulted from a phishing exercise through which external threat actors gained access to the email accounts of 47 staff members. These attacks resulted in the breach of a large amount of personal customer information contained in these email accounts. These attacks were the subject of the Auditor-General's report on Service NSW's handling of personal information tabled on 18 December 2020.

This audit also follows two significant performance audits. Managing cyber risks, tabled on 13 July 2021 found Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains were not effectively managing their cyber security risks. Integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register, tabled 7 April 2020 found that although there are controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the register, there were significant gaps in these controls.

The NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) was issued by Cyber Security NSW, a business unit within the Department of Customer Service, and took effect from 1 February 2019. It applies to all NSW Government departments and public service agencies, including statutory authorities. Of the 104 agencies in the NSW public sector that self-assessed their maturity implementing the mandatory requirements, only five assessed their maturity at level three or above (on the five point maturity scale). This means that, according to their own self-assessments, 99 agencies practiced requirements within the framework in what the CSP’s maturity model describes as an ad hoc manner, or they did not practice the requirement at all. Cyber Security NSW and NSW Government agencies need to prioritise improvements to their cybersecurity and resilience as a matter of priority.

This audit looks specifically at the compliance of nine key agencies with the CSP. It looks at their achievement implementing the requirements of the policy, the accuracy of their self-assessments and the attestations they made as to their compliance with the CSP.

The CSP outlines the mandatory requirements to which all NSW Government departments and public service agencies must adhere. It seeks to ensure cyber security risks to agencies’ information and systems are appropriately managed. The key areas of responsibility for agencies are:

• Lead - Agencies must implement cyber security planning and governance and report against the requirements outlined in the CSP and other cyber security measures.
• Prepare - Agencies must build and support a cyber security culture across their agency and NSW Government more broadly.
• Prevent - Agencies must manage cyber security risks to safeguard and secure their information and systems.
• Detect/Respond/Recover - Agencies must improve their resilience including their ability to rapidly detect cyber incidents and respond appropriately.
• Report - Agencies must report against the requirements outlined in the CSP and other cyber security measures.

DCS has only recommended, but not mandated the CSP for state owned corporations, local councils and universities.

NSW Government agencies must include an attestation on cyber security in their annual report and provide a copy to Cyber Security NSW by 31 August each year stating whether, for the preceding financial year, the agency has:

• assessed its cyber security risks
• appropriately addressed cyber security at agency governance forums
• a cyber incident response plan that is integrated with the security components of business continuity arrangements, and the response plan has been tested during the previous 12 months (involving senior business executives)
• certified the agency’s Information Security Management System (ISMS) or confirmed the agency’s Cyber Security Framework (CSF)
• a plan to continuously improve the management of cyber security governance and resilience.

The purpose of the attestation is to focus the agency's attention on its cyber risks and the mitigation of those risks.

Agencies assess their level of compliance in accordance with a maturity model. The CSP does not mandate a minimum maturity threshold for any requirement, including implementation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre's (ACSC) Essential 8 Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents (Essential 8).

Agencies are required to set a target maturity level based on their risk appetite for each requirement, seek continual improvement in their maturity, and annually assess their maturity on an ascending scale of one to five for all requirements (refer to Appendix two for the maturity model). Each control within the Essential 8 is assessed on an ascending scale of zero to three reflecting the agency's level of alignment with the strategy (refer to Appendix three for the maturity model).

Scope of this audit

We assessed whether agencies had provided accurate reporting on their level of maturity implementing the requirements of the CSP in a documented way and covering all their systems.

The scope of this audit covered nine agencies (the participating agencies). These agencies were selected because they are the lead agency in their cluster, or have a significant digital presence within their respective cluster. The list of participating agencies is in section 1.2. The audit aimed to determine whether, during the year to 30th June 2020, the participating agencies:

• met their reporting obligations under the CSP
• provided accurate reporting in self-assessments against the CSP’s mandatory requirements, including their implementation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s (ACSC) Essential 8
• achieved implementation of mandatory requirements at maturity levels which meet or exceed the ‘level three - defined’ threshold (i.e. are documented and practiced on a regular and consistent basis).

While the audit does assess the accuracy of agency self-assessed ratings, the audit did not assess the appropriateness of the maturity ratings.

1. Key findings

The CSP allows agencies to determine their own level of maturity to implement the 'mandatory requirements', which can include not practicing a policy requirement or implementing a policy requirement on an ad hoc basis. These determinations do not need to be justified

Agencies can decide not to implement requirements of the CSP, or they can decide to implement them only in an informal or ad-hoc manner. The CSP allows agencies to determine their desired level of maturity in implementing the requirements on a scale of one to five - level one being 'initial – not practiced' and level five being 'optimised'. The desired level of maturity is determined by the agency based on their own assessment of the risk of the services they provide and the information they hold.

The reporting template for the 2019 version of the CSP stated that level three maturity - where a policy requirement is practiced on a regular and consistent basis and its processes are documented - was required for compliance with the CSP. This requirement was removed in the 2020 revision of the reporting template.

This CSP does not require the decisions on risk tolerance, or the timeframes agencies have set to implement requirements to be documented or formally endorsed by the agency head. There is no requirement to report these decisions to Cyber Security NSW.

Some comparable jurisdictions require formal risk acceptance decisions where requirements are not implemented. The NSW CSP does not have a similar formal requirement

Some jurisdictions, with a similar policy framework to NSW, require agencies to demonstrate reasons for not implementing requirements, and require agency heads to formally acknowledge the residual risk. The NSW CSP does not require these considerations to be documented, nor does it require an explicit acknowledgement and acceptance of the residual risk by the agency head or Cyber Security NSW. The NSW CSP does not require that the records of how agencies considered and decided which measures to adopt to be documented and auditable, limiting transparency and accountability of decisions made.

All of the participating agencies had implemented one or more of the mandatory requirements in an ad hoc or inconsistent basis

All of the participating agencies had implemented one or more of the mandatory requirements at level one or two. Maturity below level three typically means not all elements of the requirement have been implemented, or the requirements have been implemented on an ad-hoc or inconsistent basis.

None of the participating agencies has implemented all of the Essential 8 controls at level one – that is, only partly aligned with the intent of the mitigation strategy

Eight of the nine agencies we audited had not implemented any of the Essential 8 strategies to level three – that is, fully aligned with the intent of the mitigation strategy. At the time of this audit the ACSC advised that:

as a baseline organisations should aim to reach to reach Maturity Level Three for each mitigation strategy³.

The Australian Signals Directorate⁴ currently advises that, with respect to the Essential 8:

[even] level three maturity will not stop adversaries willing and able to invest enough time, money and effort to compromise a target. As such, organisations still need to consider the remainder of the mitigation strategies from the Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and the Australian Government Information Security Manual

All agencies failed to reach even level one maturity for at least three of the Essential 8.

Cyber Security NSW modified the ACSC model for implementation of the Essential 8

The NSW maturity model used for the Essential 8 does not fully align with the ACSC’s model. At the time of this audit the major difference was the inclusion of level zero in the NSW CSP maturity scale. Level zero broadly means that the relevant cyber mitigation strategy is not implemented or is not applied consistently. Level zero had been removed by the ACSC in February 2019 and was not part of the framework at the time of this audit. It was re-introduced in July 2021 when the ACSC revised the detailed criteria for each element of the essential 8 maturity model. The indicators to reach level one on the new ACSC model are more detailed, specific and rigorous than those currently prescribed for NSW Government agencies. Cyber Security NSW asserted the level zero on the CSP maturity scale:

is not identical to the level zero of the ACSC’s previous Essential 8 maturity model, but is a NSW-specific inclusion designed to prevent agencies incorrectly assessing as level one when they have not achieved that level.

Attestations did not accurately reflect whether agencies implemented the requirements

Of the nine participating agencies, seven did not modify the proforma wording in their attestation to reflect their actual situation. Despite known gaps in their implementation of mandatory requirements, these agencies stated that they had 'managed cyber security risks in a manner consistent with the Mandatory Requirements set out in the NSW Government Cyber Security Policy'. Only two agencies modified the wording of the attestation to reflect their actual situation.

Attestations should be accurate so that agencies’ and the government’s response to the risk of cyber attack is properly informed by an understanding of the gaps in agency implementation of the policy requirements and the Essential 8. Without accurate information about these gaps, subsequent decisions as to prioritisation of effort and deployment of resources are unlikely to effectively mitigate the risks faced by NSW Government agencies.

Participating agencies were not able to support all of their self-assessments with evidence and had overstated their maturity assessments, limiting the effectiveness of agency risk management approaches

Seven of the nine participating agencies reported levels of maturity against both the mandatory requirements and the Essential 8 that were not supported by evidence.

Each of the nine participating agencies for this audit had overstated their level of maturity against at least one of the 20 mandatory requirements. Seven agencies were not able to provide evidence to support their self-assessed ratings for the Essential 8 controls.

Where agency staff over-assess the current state of their cyber resilience, it can undermine the effectiveness of subsequent decision making by Agency Heads and those charged with governance. It means that actions taken in mitigating cyber risks are less likely to be appropriate and that gaps in implementing cyber security measures will remain, exposing them to cyber attack.

Agencies' self-assessments across government exposed poor levels of maturity in implementing the mandatory requirements and the Essential 8 controls

We reviewed the data 104 NSW agencies provided to Cyber Security NSW. The 104 agencies includes nine audited agencies referred to in more detail in this report. Our review of the 104 agency self-assessment returns submitted to Cyber Security NSW highlighted that, consistent with previous years, there remains reported poor levels of cyber security maturity. We reported the previous years’ self-assessments in the Central Agencies 2019 Report to Parliament and the Central Agencies 2020 Report to Parliament.

Only five out of the 104 agencies self-assessed that they had implemented all of the mandatory requirements at level three or above (against the five point scale). Fourteen agencies self-assessed that they had implemented each of the Essential 8 controls at level one maturity or higher (using Cyber NSW’s four point scale). The remainder reported at level zero for implementation of one or more of the Essential 8 controls, meaning that for the majority of agencies the cyber mitigation strategy has not been implemented, or is applied inconsistently.

Where agencies had reported in both 2019 and 2020, agencies’ self-assessments showed little improvement over the previous year’s self-assessments:

• 14 agencies reported improvement across both the Essential 8 and the mandatory requirements
• 8 agencies reported a net decline in both the Essential 8 and the mandatory requirements.

The poor levels of maturity in implementing the Essential 8 over the last couple of years is an area of significant concern that requires better leadership and resourcing to prioritise the required significant improvement in agency cyber security measures.

2. Recommendations

Cyber Security NSW should:

1. monitor and report compliance with the CSP by:

• obtaining objective assurance over the accuracy of self-assessments
• requiring agencies to resolve inaccurate or anomalous self-assessments where these are apparent

2. require agencies to report:

• the target level of maturity for each mandatory requirement they have determined appropriate for their agency
• the agency head's acceptance of the residual risk where the target levels are low

3. identify and challenge discrepancies between agencies' target maturity levels and the risks of the information they hold and services they provide

4. more closely align their policy with the most current version of the ACSC model.

Participating agencies should:

5. resolve the discrepancies between their reported level of maturity and the level they are able to demonstrate with evidence, and:

• compile and retain in accessible form the artefacts that demonstrate the basis of their self-assessments
• refer to the CSP guidance when determining their current level of maturity
• ensure the attestations they make refer to departures from the CSP
• have processes whereby the agency head and those charged with governance formally accept the residual cyber risks.

Repeat recommendation from the 2019 Central Agencies report and the 2020 Central Agencies report

6. Cyber Security NSW and NSW Government agencies need to prioritise improvements to their cyber security and resilience as a matter of urgency.

The objective of the CSP is to ensure cyber security risks are appropriately managed. However, meeting this objective depends on the requirements being implemented at all agencies to a level of maturity that addresses their specific cyber security risks. Agency systems and data are increasingly interconnected. If an agency does not implement the requirements, or implements them only in an ad-hoc or informal way, an agency is more susceptible to their systems and data being compromised, which may affect the confidentiality of citizens' data and the reliability of services, including critical infrastructure services.

Agencies determine their own target level of maturity, which may mean the requirement is not addressed, or is addressed in an ad hoc or inconsistent way

While the CSP is mandatory for all agencies, it does not set a minimum maturity threshold for agencies to meet.

The reporting template issued in 2019 stated that agencies were required to reach level three maturity in order to comply with the CSP. The 2020 revision⁶ of the CSP and guidance indicates that level three maturity may not be sufficient to mitigate risks. It advises the agency may determine the level to which it believes it is suitable to implement the requirements, and allows for an agency to aim for a target level of maturity less than level three. The agency can set its optimal maturity level with reference to its risk tolerance with the objective that that aim ‘to be as high as possible’. However, ‘as high as possible’ does not necessarily mean ‘fully implemented’. The CSP contemplates that a lower level of maturity is sufficient if it aligns with the agency's risk tolerance.

The Department of Customer Service asserts that while the quotes above were part of their annual templates and policy documents, their documents were incorrect. They assert that the policy has never required a minimum level of maturity to be reached. They have responded to our enquiries that:

…a level three maturity was not a requirement of the Policy or Maturity Model’ and ‘it is misleading to suggest it was a requirement of the Policy.

This audit found that, based on the 2020 reporting template there is no established minimum baseline. Consequently, because the Department of Customer Service had not established a minimum baseline agencies are able to target lower levels (providing they were within the agency’s own risk appetite), which includes targeting to not practice a CSP policy requirement, or to practice a CSP policy requirement on an ad hoc basis.

Where requirements are not implemented, documentation of formal acceptance of the residual risks by the agency head is not required

The New Zealand Government has an approach that is not dissimilar to NSW, in that it also identifies 20 mandatory requirements and allows for a risk based approach to implementation. However, the New Zealand approach puts more rigor around risk acceptance decisions.

The New Zealand Government requires that agencies that do not implement the requirements must demonstrate that a measure is not relevant for them. It requires agencies to document the rationale for not implementing the measure, including explicit acknowledgement of the residual risk by the agency head. They require these records to be auditable.

A security measure with a ‘must’ or ‘must not’ compliance requirement is mandatory. You must implement or follow mandatory security measures unless you can demonstrate that a measure is not relevant in your context.

Not using a security measure without due consideration may increase residual risk for your organisation. This residual risk needs to be agreed and acknowledged by your organisation head.

A formal auditable record of how you considered and decided which measures to adopt is required as part of the governance and assurance processes within your organisation.

The NSW CSP does not require these considerations to be documented or auditable and does not require an explicit acknowledgement or acceptance of the residual risk by the agency head.

None of the participating agencies achieved level three implementation for all mandatory risk prevention and mitigation requirements

Maturity level three is the minimum level whereby an agency has implemented documented processes that are practiced on a regular basis across their environment. An agency has not reached level three if the requirement is implemented on an ad-hoc or inconsistent basis, or if not all elements of the requirement have been implemented.

None of the participating agencies achieved level three implementation for all mandatory requirements.

The requirements of the CSP are organised into five sections. Agency implementation of these requirements is discussed in the next five sections of this report.

• Lead: Planning and governance requirements. Section 2.1
• Prepare: Cyber security culture requirements. Section 2.2
• Prevent: Managing cyber incident prevention requirements. Section 2.3
• Detect/Respond/Recover: Resilience requirements. Section 2.4
• Report: Reporting requirements. Section 2.5.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – The maturity model for the mandatory requirements

Appendix three – Essential 8 maturity model

Appendix four – About the audit

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.

What the report is about

This report examines the effectiveness of the Fast-tracked Assessment Program, administered by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) between April 2020 and October 2020. 

The program aimed to support the construction industry during the COVID-19 crisis by accelerating the final assessment stages for planning proposals and development applications. 

DPIE selected projects and planning proposals for fast tracked assessment that demonstrated the potential to:

• deliver jobs
• progress to the next stage of development within six months of determination
• deliver public benefit.

The audit assessed whether the Fast-tracked Assessment Program achieved its objectives while complying with planning controls.

What we found

Through tranches three to six of the program, DPIE successfully accelerated the final stages of 53 assessments. DPIE reported that 89 per cent of these proceeded to the next stage of development within six months.

Assessment of projects and planning proposals was compliant with legislation and other requirements. However, the audit found gaps in DPIE's management of conflicts of interest.

DPIE has not evaluated or costed the program and is not able to demonstrate the extent to which it provided support to the construction industry during COVID-19. 

Aspects of the program have been incorporated into longer term reforms to create a new level of transparency over the progress and status of planning assessments. 

What we recommended

DPIE should:

• strengthen controls over conflicts of interest 
• evaluate the Fast-tracked Assessment Program.

In April 2020, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) introduced programs aimed at providing immediate support to the construction industry during the COVID-19 crisis. One of these was the Fast-tracked Assessment Program. This program identified planning proposals and development applications (DAs), across six tranches, that were partially-assessed and could be accelerated to determination.

In accordance with the program objectives, the planning proposals and DAs selected for fast-tracked assessment had to:

• deliver jobs – particularly in the construction industry
• be capable of progressing to the next stage of development within six months of determination
• deliver public benefit.

At the same time, the Fast-tracked Assessment Program was to lay a foundation for future reform of the planning system by piloting changes in the assessment process that could be adopted in the medium to long term.

This audit assessed whether the Fast-tracked Assessment Program achieved its objectives while complying with planning controls. The audit focused on tranches three to six of the program, which were determined between July 2020 and October 2020. The rationale for focusing on these four tranches was that the program design had been slightly modified after the first two tranches to address identified risks.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – Planning determination pathways

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #354 - released (27 July 2021).

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today that examined the effectiveness of the waste levy and grants for waste infrastructure in minimising the amount of waste sent to landfill and increasing recycling rates.  

The audit found that the waste levy has a positive impact on diverting waste from landfill. However, while the levy rates increase each year in line with the consumer price index, the EPA has not conducted a review since 2009 to confirm whether they are set at the optimal level. The audit also found that there were no objective and transparent criteria for which local government areas should pay the levy, and the list of levied local government areas has not been reviewed since 2014. 

Grant funding programs for waste infrastructure administered by the EPA and the Environmental Trust have supported increases in recycling capacity. However, these grant programs are not guided by a clear strategy for investment in waste infrastructure. 

The Auditor-General made six recommendations aimed at ensuring the waste levy is as effective as possible at meeting its objectives and ensuring funding for waste infrastructure is contributing effectively to recycling and waste diversion targets.

Overall, waste generation in New South Wales (NSW) is increasing. This leads to an increasing need to manage waste in ways that reduce the environmental impact of waste and promote the efficient use of resources. In 2014, the NSW Government set targets relating to recycling rates and diversion of waste from landfill, to be achieved by 2021–22. The NSW Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy 2014–21 identifies the waste levy, a strong compliance regime, and investment in recycling infrastructure as key tools for achieving these waste targets.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the NSW Government in minimising waste sent to landfill and increasing recycling rates. The audit focused on the waste levy, which is paid by waste facility operators when waste is sent to landfill, and grant programs that fund infrastructure for waste reuse and recycling.

The waste levy is regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and is generally paid when waste is disposed in landfill. The waste levy rates are set by the NSW Government and prescribed in the Protection of Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014. As part of its broader role in reviewing the regulatory framework for managing waste and recycling, the EPA can provide advice to the government on the operation of the waste levy.

The purpose of the waste levy is to act as an incentive for waste generators to reduce, re-use or recycle waste by increasing the cost of sending waste to landfill. In 2019–20, around $750 million was collected through the waste levy in NSW. The government spends approximately one third of the revenue raised through the waste levy on waste and environmental programs.

One of the waste programs funded through the one third allocation of the waste levy is Waste Less, Recycle More (WLRM). This initiative funds smaller grant programs that focus on specific aspects of waste management. This audit focused on five grant programs that fund projects that provide new or enhanced waste infrastructure such as recycling facilities. Four of these programs were administered by the Environmental Trust and one by the EPA.

Achievement of the 2014–21 state targets for waste and resource recovery (WARR targets) is reliant in part on the availability of infrastructure that supports waste diversion and recycling. The state WARR targets dependent on waste infrastructure are:

• Increase recycling rates to 70 per cent for municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste, and 80 per cent for construction and demolition waste.
• Increase waste diverted from landfill to 75 per cent.

A further target — manage problem waste better by establishing or upgrading 86 drop-off facilities or services for managing household problem wastes state-wide — is dependent on accessible community waste drop-off facilities across NSW.

Exhibit 7 identifies the five grant programs that provide funding for new or enhanced waste infrastructure to increase capacity for reuse or recycling of waste. All five of these programs were examined in the audit.
In addition to the grant programs shown in Exhibit 7, other programs provide funding for infrastructure, but at a smaller scale. Examples of these include:

• Bin Trim which provides rebates to small businesses for small scale recycling equipment such as cardboard and soft plastic balers.
• Litter grants which provide funding for litter bins.
• Weighbridges grants for installation of a weighbridge at waste facilities.
• Landfill consolidation and environmental improvement grants for rural councils to replace old landfills with transfer stations or to improve the infrastructure at landfill sites.

Appendix one – Responses from audited 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 #343 - released 26 November 2020

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

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

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

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

Read full report (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key

Image

Yes

Image

Not Fully

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key

Yes

Not Fully

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service NSW allowed sufficient time for cost-efficient media placement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 8: Campaign objectives and results

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

Key

Yes

No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – About the campaigns

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #342 - released 19 November 2020

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today on how well four councils managed their local infrastructure contributions during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years. 

Local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions, are collected from developers to pay for local infrastructure such as drainage, local roads, open space and community facilities. Controls over local infrastructure contributions help to ensure that all contributions owed are collected, funds are spent as intended, and any contributions paid in the form of works-in-kind or dedicated land are correctly valued.

The audit found that Blacktown City Council and City of Sydney Council provided effective governance over their local infrastructure contributions whereas Central Coast and Liverpool City Councils’ governance arrangements require improvement.

The audit found that three councils had spent local infrastructure contributions in accordance with approved contributions plans. Central Coast Council and the former Gosford City Council had spent $13.2 million on administration costs in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These funds were repaid into the council’s local infrastructure fund during the course of the audit.

The Auditor-General made a number of recommendations for each council relating to improving controls over contributions and increasing transparency. 

Read full report (PDF)
 

This audit examined the effectiveness of governance and internal controls over local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions, held by four councils during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years.

This performance audit was conducted with reference to the legislative and regulatory planning framework that was in place during that period.

Our work for this performance audit was completed at the end of March 2020 when we issued the final report to the four audited councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. We received their respective formal responses to the report’s recommendations during April and May 2020.

Concurrently to this audit, we sought Crown Solicitor’s advice (the ‘Advice’) regarding the use of local infrastructure contributions collected by local councils under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘the EPA Act’) for our financial audit work. The Advice clarified the applicable legislative requirements with reference to the application, investment and pooling of local infrastructure contributions. The Advice is included in Appendix 2 of this report. The Advice has not impacted on the findings and recommendations of this report.

Councils collect Local Infrastructure Contributions (LICs) from developers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979), the Local Government Act (1993) and the City of Sydney Act (2000) (EP&A Act, LG Act and City of Sydney Act) to fund infrastructure required to service and support new development. At 30 June 2018, councils across NSW collectively held more than $3.0 billion in LICs collected from developers. Just over $1.37 billion in total was held by ten councils. Councils collecting LICs must prepare a contributions plan, which outlines how LICs will be calculated and apportioned across different types of infrastructure. Councils that deliver water and sewer services prepare a development servicing plan (DSP) which allows them to collect contributions for water and sewer infrastructure.

Development timeframes are such that there is often several years between when LICs are collected and the infrastructure is required. Good governance and internal controls are needed over these funds to ensure they are available when needed and spent appropriately.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of governance and internal controls over LICs collected by four councils during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years: Blacktown City Council, Central Coast Council, City of Sydney Council and Liverpool City Council. As at June 2018 these councils held the four highest LIC balances, each in excess of $140 million.

A strong governance framework is important at each council to ensure that the funds are managed well, available when needed and spent as intended. The audit examined the following features of each council's governance framework as they apply to LICs:

• decision-making by councillors and council officers relating to LICs
• monitoring delivery of contributions plans and DSPs including:
  • reviewing assumptions underlying the plans
  • monitoring projected status of plans.

Internal controls over LICs are important to promote accountability, prevent fraud and deliver infrastructure to the required standard at the best possible price. If financial controls are weak or are not implemented well, there is a risk that LICs are misspent or that councils pay too much for infrastructure.

Not all councils' internal controls adequately addressed risks associated with the administration of LICs

The audit examined a number of internal controls that manage risks related to LICs. These included:

• financial controls over receipt and expenditure of LIC funds
• management of conflicts-of-interest when dealing with developers
• independent valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
• ensuring delivery and quality of works-in-kind, and obtaining security from developers in the event of non-delivery or poor quality work
• management of variations to VPAs and works-in-kind agreements.

We reviewed controls included in policies and procedures and then checked samples of work to ensure that controls were implemented. We found variation in the controls that councils implemented, and some weaknesses in controls. It is a matter for each council to assess their financial risk and develop internal controls that support the collection, management, and expenditure of LICs. However, councils must be able to assure their communities and developers that they are doing everything possible to collect all LICs owing and that work conducted by developers in lieu of cash payments is properly valued and carried out to the required standard.

Further information about audit findings in relation to internal controls for each council are included in chapters five to eight. The exhibit below demonstrates variation in several controls implemented in the audited councils.

In a 2018 report, the Independent Commission Against Corruption noted that 'the appetite for transparency is expanding in both the public and private sectors'.

The Practice Note and S64 Guidance refer to transparency, including the importance of transparency over:

• calculation and apportionment of LICs
• funding of infrastructure, including where and when infrastructure is delivered
• arrangements made with developers through VPAs.

The LIC system is largely transparent for community members who know where to look

Contributions plans and DSPs are public documents, exhibited to the public before being adopted by council. Councils included in the audit publish their contributions plans and DSPs on their websites and meet statutory requirements with regard to reporting and accessibility of information.

However, other public information relating to the LIC system is fragmented across different websites and reports and varies in detail across councils.

The Practice Note states that councils are accountable for providing the infrastructure for which contributions are collected. Demonstrating that infrastructure has been provided is difficult with fragmented information. As an example of transparent reporting, Blacktown City Council's 2018–19 annual report includes information about infrastructure that has been delivered for every contributions plan, providing transparency over how LICs have been spent.

Use of LICs collected under VPAs is not always transparent

Contributions collected under VPAs are not required to demonstrate the same relationship to a development as LICs collected under section 7.11 of the EP&A Act. VPAs are often negotiated because a developer requests a change to a planning instrument, and it is important that these arrangements, and their outcomes, are transparent to the community.

The EP&A Regulation includes mechanisms to ensure that VPAs are partially transparent. VPAs are exhibited to the public and approved by the elected council. Councils must maintain a VPA Register and make the VPA Deeds of Agreement available on request. However, there is no obligation on council to report on the outcomes or delivery of developers' obligations under VPAs. The four audited councils vary in transparency and accessibility of information available about VPAs.

The Practice Note suggests that councils incorporate the intended use of LICs collected under VPAs in the Deed of Agreement, but there is no guidance relating to transparency over where and when funds have actually been spent. There is merit in councils providing greater transparency over public benefits delivered through VPAs to give communities confidence in VPAs as a planning tool.

Credit arrangements with developers are not always well documented or monitored

When levying LICs, section 7.11(6) of the EP&A Act requires councils to take into account land, money, or works-in-kind that the developer has contributed on other development sites over and above their LIC obligations. This section of the EP&A Act allows a developer to offset a LIC owed on one site against land or works contributed on another. This leads to some developers carrying 'credits' for work delivered to councils, to be paid back by reduced LICs on a future development. Blacktown City Council and Central Coast Council allow developers to carry credits. Liverpool City Council and City of Sydney Council do not permit credits and instead pay the developers for any additional work undertaken.

Councils should formally document credit arrangements and have a robust process to validate and keep track of credit balances and report on them. Central Coast Council does not keep good track of credit arrangements and neither Blacktown City Council or Central Coast Council aggregate or report on outstanding credit balances.

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

Appendix two – Advice from the Crown Solicitor

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 #339 - released 17 August 2020