This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 25 largest agencies in the NSW public sector, excluding state owned corporations and public financial corporations, for the year ended 30 June 2021.

Our preferred approach is to table the ‘Report on State Finances’ in Parliament before any other cluster report. This is because the ‘Report on State Finances’ focuses on the audit results and observations relating to the Total State Sector Accounts, in effect a consolidation of all government agencies. This year the ‘Report on State Finances’ has been delayed due to significant accounting issues being considered in the Total State Sector Accounts and which may impact the Treasury and Transport clusters.

As there are no matters in this report impacting the Total State Sector Accounts we have decided to break with normal practice and table this report ahead of the ‘Report on State Finances’.

What the report is about

This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 25 largest agencies in the NSW public sector, excluding state owned corporations and public financial corporations, for the year ended 30 June 2021.

What we found

Internal control trends

The proportion of control deficiencies identified as high risk this year increased to 2.8 per cent (2.5 per cent in 2019–20). Six high risk findings related to financial controls while three related to IT controls. Two were repeat findings from the previous year.

Repeat findings of control deficiencies now represent 49 per cent of all findings (42 per cent in 2019–20).

Information technology

We continue to see a high number of deficiencies relating to IT general controls, particularly around user access administration and privileged user access which affected 82 per cent of agencies.

Cyber security

Agencies' self-assessed maturity levels against the NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) mandatory requirements are low. Although agencies are required to demonstrate continuous improvement against the CSP, 20 per cent have not set target levels and of those that have set target levels, 40 per cent have not met their target levels.

Policies, processes and definition around security incidents and data breaches lack consistency. Improvement is required to ensure breaches are recorded in registers and action taken to address the root cause of incidents.

Conflicts of interest

Agencies' policies generally meet the minimum requirements of the Ethical Framework set out in the Government Sector Employment Act 2013. However, few meet the Independent Commission Against Corruption's best practice guidelines. Policies could be strengthened in relation to requirements around annual declarations of interests from employees and contractors.

Masterfile management

Policies governing the management of supplier masterfiles and employee masterfiles existed in 79 per cent and 54 per cent of agencies respectively.

Weaknesses were identified in those policies. Access restriction, segregation of duties and record keeping were the most common opportunities for improvement.

Tracking recommendations

Most agencies do not maintain a register to monitor recommendations from performance audits and public inquiries. Registers of recommendations could be improved to include risk ratings and record revisions to due dates. While recommendations can take several years to fully address, the oldest open items were originally due for completion by June 2016.

What we recommended

Agencies should:

• prioritise actions to address repeat control deficiencies, particularly those that have been repeated findings for a number of years
• prioritise improvements to their cyber security and resilience as a matter of urgency
• formalise and implement policies on tracking and monitoring the progress of implementing recommendations from performance audits and public inquiries.

Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:

• operate effectively and efficiently
• produce reliable financial reports
• comply with laws and regulations
• support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of audit findings, the degree of risk those deficiencies pose to the agency, and a summary of the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this report presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

The scope of this year's report covers 25 general government sector agencies. Last year's report covered 40 agencies within the total state sector. For consistency and comparability, we have adjusted the 2020 results to include only the agencies remaining within scope of this year's report. Therefore, the 2020 figures will not necessarily align with those reported in our 2020 report.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agency controls to manage key financial systems.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agencies' cyber security planning and governance arrangements.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agencies' conflicts of interest management processes.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agency's management of supplier and employee masterfiles.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agencies' processes to track and monitor the implementation of recommendations from performance audits and public inquiries.

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 assessed how effectively the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and NSW Treasury have supported state agencies to manage climate risks to their assets and services.

Climate risks that can impact on state agencies' assets and services include flooding, bushfires, and extreme temperatures. Impacts can include damage to transport, communications and energy infrastructure, increases in hospital admissions, and making social housing or school buildings unsuitable.

NSW Treasury estimates these risks could have significant costs.

What we found

DPIE and NSW Treasury’s support to agencies to manage climate risks to their assets and services has been insufficient.

In 2021, key agencies with critical assets and services have not conducted climate risk assessments, and most lack adaptation plans.

DPIE has not delivered on the NSW Government commitment to develop a state-wide climate change adaptation action plan. This was to be complete in 2017.

There is also no adaptation strategy for the state. These have been released in all other Australian jurisdictions. The NSW Government’s draft strategic plan for its Climate Change Fund was also never finalised.

DPIE’s approach to developing climate projections is robust, but it hasn’t effectively educated agencies in how to use this information to assess climate risk.

NSW Treasury did not consistently apply dedicated resourcing to support agencies' climate risk management until late 2019.

In March 2021, DPIE and NSW Treasury released the Climate Risk Ready NSW Guide and Course. These are designed to improve support to agencies.

What we recommended

DPIE and NSW Treasury should, in partnership:

• enhance the coordination of climate risk management across agencies
• implement climate risk management across their clusters.

DPIE should:

• update information and strengthen education to agencies, and monitor progress
• review relevant land-use planning, development and building guidance
• deliver a climate change adaptation action plan for the state.

NSW Treasury should:

• strengthen climate risk-related guidance to agencies
• coordinate guidance on resilience in infrastructure planning
• review how climate risks have been assured in agencies’ asset management plans.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2021, each of the last four decades has been successively warmer and surface temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have reported that extreme weather across Australia is more frequent and intense, and there have been longer-term changes to weather patterns. They also report sea levels are rising around Australia increasing the risk of inundation and damage to coastal infrastructure and communities.

According to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the department), in New South Wales the impacts of a changing climate, and the risks associated with it, will be felt differently across regions, populations and economic sectors. The department's climate projections indicate the number of hot days will increase, rainfall will vary across the state, and the number of severe fire days will increase.

The NSW Government is a provider of essential services, such as health care, education and public transport. It also owns and manages around $365 billion in physical assets (as at June 2020). More than $180 billion of its assets are in major infrastructure such as roads and railway lines.

In NSW, climate risks that could directly impact on state agencies' assets and services include flooding, bushfires, and extreme temperatures. In recent years, natural hazards exacerbated by climate change have damaged and disrupted government transport, communications and energy infrastructure. As climate risks eventuate, they can also increase hospital admissions when people are affected by poorer air quality, and make social housing dwellings or schools unsafe and unusable during heatwaves. The physical impacts of a changing climate also have significant financial costs. Taking into account projected economic growth, NSW Treasury has estimated that the fiscal and economic costs associated with natural disasters due to climate change will more than triple per year by 2061.

The department and NSW Treasury advise that leading practice in climate risk management includes a process that explicitly identifies climate risks and integrates these into existing risk management, monitoring and reporting systems. This is in line with international risk management and climate adaptation standards. For agencies to manage the physical risks of climate change to their assets and services, leading practice identified by the department means that they need to:

• use robust climate projection information to understand the potential climate impacts
• undertake sound climate risk assessments, within an enterprise risk management framework
• implement adaptation plans that reduce these risks, and harness opportunities.

Adaptation responses that could be planned for include: controlling development in flood-prone locations; ensuring demand for health services can be met during heatwaves; improving thermal comfort in schools to support student engagement; proactive asset maintenance to reduce disruption of essential services, and safeguarding infrastructure from more frequent and intense natural disasters.

According to NSW Treasury policy, agencies are individually responsible for risk management systems appropriate to their context. The department and NSW Treasury have key roles in ensuring that agencies are supported with robust information and timely, relevant guidance to help manage risks to assets and services effectively, especially for emerging risks that require coordinated responses, such as those posed by climate change.

This audit assessed whether the department and NSW Treasury are effectively supporting NSW Government agencies to manage climate risks to their assets and services. It focused on the management of physical risks to assets and services associated with climate change.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Timeline of key activities 

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 #355 - released (7 September 2021).

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).

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster agencies for the year ended 30 June 2020. The table below summarises our key observations.

1. Financial reporting

2. Audit observations

This report provides parliament and other users of the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster agencies’ financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

• financial reporting
• audit observations
• the impact of emergencies and the pandemic.

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

The COVID‑19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures–Treasurer) Act 2020 amended legislation administered by the Treasurer to implement further emergency measures as a result of the COVID‑19 pandemic. These amendments:

• allowed the Treasurer to authorise payments from the Consolidated fund until the enactment of the 2020–21 budget – impacting the going concern assessments of cluster agencies
• revised budgetary, financial and annual reporting time frames – impacting the timeliness of financial reporting
• exempted certain statutory bodies and departments from preparing financial statements.

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster for 2020, including any financial implications from the recent emergency events.

Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision making.

This chapter outlines our:

• observations and insights from our financial statements audits of agencies in the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster
• assessment of how well cluster agencies adapted their systems, policies and procedures, and governance arrangements in response to recent emergencies
• review of how the cluster agencies managed the increased risks associated with new programs aimed at stemming the spread of COVID-19 and stimulating the economy.

Cluster agencies experienced a range of control and governance related issues in recent years. An increased number of high risk issues and greater proportion of repeat issues were identified as part of our audits. It is important for cluster agencies to promptly address these issues.

Appendix one – List of 2020 recommendations

Appendix two – Status of 2019 recommendations

Appendix three – Financial data

Appendix four – Management letter findings

Appendix five – Timeliness of financial reporting

Appendix six – Selected agencies for review of response to emergency events

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