Reports
Acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, has today released a report on Transport for NSW’s (TfNSW) acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue in Camellia.
This audit, which was requested on 17 November 2020 by the Hon. Andrew Constance MP, the Minister for Transport and Roads, examined:
- whether TfNSW conducted an effective process to purchase 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia
- whether TfNSW has effective processes and procedures to identify and acquire property required to deliver the NSW Government’s major infrastructure projects.
The audit found that TfNSW conducted an ineffective process when it purchased 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia. The audit also found that TfNSW’s internal policies and procedures to guide the transaction were, and continue to be, insufficient.
The Auditor-General has made seven recommendations to address the issues identified in the report.
On 17 November 2020, the Hon. Andrew Constance MP, the Minister for Transport and Roads, requested this audit under section 27B(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.
On 15 June 2016, Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) acquired 6.3 hectares of land at 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia, by agreement from Grand 4 Investments Pty Ltd. Grand 4 Investments was a business entity established by the owners of Billbergia Pty Ltd, a property development and investment company.
TfNSW paid Grand 4 Investments $53.5 million and assumed liability for addressing environmental issues and contamination associated with the site. This took place seven months after the vendor acquired the land as part of a competitive Expression of Interest process, in which TfNSW also participated, for $38.15 million.
TfNSW is the NSW Government agency responsible for most major transport infrastructure projects in New South Wales. TfNSW acquired the Camellia site for use as a stabling and maintenance depot to support the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) project.
Consistent with the minister’s request, this audit assessed:
- whether TfNSW conducted an effective process to purchase 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia
- whether TfNSW has effective processes and procedures to identify and acquire property required to deliver the NSW Government’s major infrastructure projects.
In considering the effectiveness of the processes for this purchase, the audit considered:
- the requirements of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Act)
- the application of sound processes to manage risk to the NSW Government and to achieve value for money
- the application of disciplines associated with complex procurement, such as probity, in a NSW Government context.
The acquisition of the 4–6 Grand Avenue site in Camellia was consistent with a 2014 feasibility study for the PLR, but occurred before the completion of detailed project planning or an acquisition strategy.
TfNSW made two attempts to acquire the 4–6 Grand Avenue site in Camellia, and was successful on the second attempt. TfNSW recognised the risks associated with early acquisition and had high-level strategies in place should the site not be required.
The specific site had been identified in a feasibility study for the PLR commissioned by TfNSW in 2014 as one of several options in Camellia for a stabling and maintenance depot. However, TfNSW had not done any substantive analysis of the various options to identify a preferred location before the two opportunities to acquire 4–6 Grand Avenue were brought to TfNSW’s attention by the landowners (or their agents). On both occasions, TfNSW chose to actively pursue acquisition in advance of any such analysis.
The acquisition was also not informed by a Property Acquisition Strategy, which TfNSW policy recommends in order to guide the process and manage acquisition specific risks.
In 2015, TfNSW identified that it would require a stabling and maintenance depot in the Camellia area for the Parramatta Light Rail
In 2014, TfNSW commissioned an external engineering consultancy to undertake a feasibility design study for the Parramatta Light Rail - the Parramatta Transport Corridor Strategy Feasibility Design study (herein referred to as ‘the feasibility study’). In early 2015, TfNSW received the feasibility study, which was one of several key sources that informed the development of business cases for the PLR.
The feasibility study recommended that TfNSW should consolidate the maintenance and cleaning operations with overnight stabling facilities on one site. The study noted that the optimal location for any such site would be in close proximity to the proposed network, and noted that the site must have access to road connections to accommodate access for cars and trucks.
The study found that a centrally located stabling and maintenance facility would be required for all routes serving the Parramatta CBD, and that the Camellia industrial area was a preferred location for such a facility. The study noted that the Camellia area was contaminated.
The feasibility study notes that its conclusions were based on assumptions about the light rail system adopted and decisions made by the future operator of the system, who had not yet been selected or appointed.
TfNSW's decision to progress a potential acquisition in 2015 considered the risk that the site may not be required
TfNSW's FIC was responsible for making decisions on funding allocations at a whole of program level within TfNSW. FIC was also responsible for approving ‘high-risk/high-value’ variations to program budgets. Members of the FIC included:
- Secretary of Transport for NSW
- Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services
- Deputy Secretary, Freight, Strategy and Planning
- Deputy Secretary, Customer Services
- Deputy Secretary Finance and Investment
- Deputy Secretary People and Corporate Services.
An April 2015 submission, from the then Deputy Director-General to the agency’s FIC, sought authorisation and funding approval to participate in an Expression of Interest sale process. It noted the risk that the project may not go ahead. The submission advised that:
By acquiring a strategic site now, it reduces the risk of having to pay an improved value or a value that may be subject to rapidly improving land values due to changes in land use and rezoning.
The property can be acquired for the project, held strategically and income generated by leasing the site as hardstand 1 space until the project requires the land for the Parramatta Light Rail project.
If the project does not proceed in the medium to longer term, the property can be sold at a premium to what has been paid today as property fundamentals improve.
This submission acknowledged the risks associated with environmental contamination and proposed that these risks would be managed by negotiating a contract where the remediation and associated expenses would be at the landowner’s cost.
TfNSW assessed the 4–6 Grand Avenue site as one of several sites in Camellia that was a feasible location for a stabling and maintenance facility
The Departmental feasibility study assessed six potential sites for a stabling and maintenance facility, including 4–6 Grand Avenue, noting strengths and weaknesses of each site. A different site on Grand Avenue was assessed as the ‘base case’ option (1 Grand Avenue). The study’s comments on the 4–6 Grand Avenue site included the following:
With an area of approximately 63,000m2, this site has sufficient space for a depot with the required stabling yard and maintenance facilities. The location allows for good road access and LRT [light rail transit] access would be from Grand Avenue, which may require a road crossing or signalised intersection. The site has been used for general industrial uses; however the land has been cleared and is currently undergoing remediation 2. The site is not affected by flooding based on one in 100-year flood data.
In early 2015, once the opportunity to acquire 4–6 Grand Avenue emerged, TfNSW commissioned a specific feasibility study of the 4–6 Grand Avenue site. The feasibility studies clearly documented the existence of environmental contamination. In April 2015, the report concluded:
Given the limitations of this report and within the parameters that have been set it is concluded that from a spatial and geographic perspective the site at 6 Grand Avenue would be suitable as a stabling and maintenance depot for the Parramatta light rail project. There are few engineering and environmental constraints that would affect the feasibility level analysis of this site and all issues identified, within this desk study, are considered to be resolvable. However this being said there is a significant amount of work necessary to reach the final layout and definition of the stabling and maintenance depot. There are numerous items which require further consideration and conformation; planning approvals could impose restrictions on building heights, noise mitigation measures, light and visual impact requirements all of which can have significant impacts on the spatial requirements of any stabling and maintenance depot.
The acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue was not informed by a Property Acquisition Strategy
For major projects, TfNSW typically requires the project team to complete a Property Acquisition Strategy, which is intended to guide both process as well as specific acquisition issues expected to be faced during the project. The Property Acquisition Strategy is not a mandated document but is a recommended tool to support property acquisition as part of major projects.
TfNSW did not have a Property Acquisition Strategy in place to guide the 2015 Expression of Interest process. On 6 November 2015, the then Project Director for the PLR project emailed the property team, noting a need to develop a Property Acquisition Strategy to close off the scoping design and preliminary business case.
In January 2016, TfNSW developed a draft Property Acquisition Strategy for the Parramatta Light Rail Project, although it was silent on the potential sites for the stabling and maintenance facility.
TfNSW focussed on 4–6 Grand Avenue because it was available and aligned to TfNSW's strategic interests
In early 2015, officials commenced monitoring the market for industrial real estate in the Camellia area and surrounds for possible sites for a stabling and maintenance facility.
In March 2015, then owner of the site, Akzo Nobel Pty Limited released the 4–6 Grand Avenue site through an Expression of Interest process managed by CBRE.
TfNSW’s then Deputy Director-General, Planning, sought approval from FIC to lodge an Expression of Interest up to $30.0 million. Approval was sought on the basis that it would ‘provide certainty for the Parramatta Light Rail project by allowing for a depot site in a suitable location and potentially avoid higher costs or longer timeframes associated with compulsory acquisition following completion of the project’s business case’. FIC approved the request at its meeting on 9 April 2015.
At this time, TfNSW had not conducted any analysis of financial or operational benefits and costs of the potential sites identified in earlier feasibility studies. TfNSW staff advised us that the decision to participate in the Expression of Interest process for 4–6 Grand Avenue was because it was available. There is no documentation substantiating this statement, which TfNSW staff provided verbally as part of this audit.
In November 2015, TfNSW was advised that it was unsuccessful in the Expression of Interest process and that Grand 4 Investments (a related entity of Billbergia) had purchased 4–6 Grand Avenue. TfNSW did not conduct any further analysis of alternative potential sites in Camellia between this date and commencing discussions with Grand 4 Investments in April 2016. In that time there had been some movement on other properties that were included in the feasibility study, including 37–39a Grand Avenue being under offer in September 2015.
In March 2016, TfNSW approached CBRE to organise a meeting with Grand 4 Investments. On 1 April 2016, TfNSW met with Grand 4 Investments.
TfNSW advises that a perceived benefit of the 4–6 Grand Avenue site was that it was not subject to other uses or leaseholds that would increase the cost of compulsory acquisition. Officers involved in the acquisition advised that other nominated sites in the feasibility study were subject to other uses or leaseholds.
2 Officers familiar with the acquisition could not confirm the nature of remediation being undertaken, but noted that the previous landowner had cleared buildings from the site, which may have been considered part of remediation.
TfNSW's independent valuation, which it commissioned and received after the acquisition, specifically excluded consideration of environmental contamination risk. As a result, TfNSW is exposed to the risk that the acquisition was not fully compliant with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Act) because it did not use an accurate estimate of market value during negotiations. That said, the acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue by agreement was consistent with preferred processes described in the Act.
TfNSW acquired the site from the landowner by agreement, and this is consistent with provisions in the Act. Obtaining approval for compulsory acquisition should negotiations for agreement break down is also consistent with the Act. That said, TfNSW did not at any time assess whether a compulsory acquisition could have resulted in acquisition at a lower cost than what was negotiated by agreement.
Despite the high risks associated with the acquisition, TfNSW did not commission a formal valuation in time to inform the negotiation and purchase. Instead, TfNSW relied on internal advice to estimate market value, but did not obtain a formal valuation from those advisors. For high-risk transactions, the greater expertise and arm's-length independence of an external specialist valuer should be preferred over an agency's own staff.
On 15 June 2016, the settlement date for the acquisition, TfNSW commissioned a formal independent valuation of the site. On 23 November 2016, TfNSW received the final formal valuation report. By not obtaining a formal independent valuation of the property in advance of acquisition to inform the acquisition value, TfNSW exposed itself to non-compliance with the Act by not establishing the market value as the basis for the acquisition price. TfNSW also breached its own internal policies.
TfNSW instructed the valuer to conduct its valuation within the following parameters:
- Market valuation on an ‘as is’ basis – market value based on the methodology described in the Act. This approach valued the site at $25.0 million.
- Market valuation on a speculative development basis – market value based on the financial value of the vendor's intended use of the site which, in this case, involved leasing the site for industrial use. This approach valued the site at $52.0 million, and TfNSW advised us this valuation supported the purchase price.
- Disregard the impact of environmental contamination – TfNSW specifically instructed the independent valuer to disregard any known (or unknown) site contamination. As TfNSW knew of the significant environmental contamination affecting the site, this parameter resulted in a valuation that overstated the value of the site as it did not consider the cost of environmental remediation. The valuer applied this assumption for both market valuation approaches.
Additionally, as the independent valuer completed the valuation after the purchase was finalised, there is a risk that the valuation may have been influenced by the known purchase price.
TfNSW's failure to acquire a formal valuation and an assessment of the financial impact of environmental remediation before it purchased 4–6 Grand Avenue represents ineffective administration and governance.
TfNSW acquired the site at a time when there was demand and increasing prices for industrial property in the area. However, TfNSW did not effectively assess and manage the risks associated with the acquisition, and gaps in process led to increased risk. Briefings to decision-makers did not contain important information, and we found no evidence that gaps in advice were queried or explored by decision-makers.
TfNSW did not have plans or advice in place to assist in managing risk, such as:
- a property acquisition plan
- a comprehensive and up-to-date risk management plan
- a negotiation strategy, or any authorisation limit or minimal acceptable position
- an independent professional evaluation
- external expert advice (with the exception of legal advice relating to the contract of sale).
TfNSW was aware of contamination issues affecting the land and had access to considerable information about the environmental conditions, such as site environmental audit reports and information on the NSW Environment Protection Authority's contaminated land register. However, TfNSW had not analysed specific technical information about the contamination and therefore was not aware of the risk implications and cost for remediation. Despite this, TfNSW changed its position from not accepting the risks and costs of contamination, to acquiring the site unconditionally. The basis for this decision is unclear and undocumented.
Briefing to senior leaders on the acquisition was silent on a number of important matters that would have been important for approvers to consider, including:
- an explanation of the 40 per cent increase in purchase price between November 2015 and May 2016, and a 165 per cent increase from TfNSW’s offer in April 2015
- the contamination risks associated with the site and an evidence-based estimate of potential costs to remediate the site
- advice that an independent valuation had not been obtained, inconsistent with TfNSW policy.
Consideration of the acquisition by FIC was based on a summary business paper and was managed out-of-session, thereby removing the ability for comprehensive consideration of the acquisition proposal and its risks.
The probity management controls and assurances in place for the acquisition of the 4–6 Grand Avenue site were insufficient. These insufficiencies were exacerbated by the probity risk profile of the transaction.
The 4–6 Grand Avenue acquisition was a high-risk/high-value transaction, undertaken in a volatile property market in a short timeframe under pressure from Grand 4 Investments. TfNSW was engaging in a direct negotiation in advance of detailed planning for the acquisition, or the PLR as a whole. These circumstances contribute to heightened probity risk.
TfNSW did not establish a probity plan and sought no probity support throughout the acquisition. Also, with one exception, the staff involved in the acquisition did not complete conflict of interest declarations.
TfNSW was aware of the potential for probity or integrity issues with the transaction when it commissioned an internal audit in connection with the transaction in 2019. Internal discussions considered whether a misconduct investigation may be more appropriate, however no such investigation was undertaken.
TfNSW's insufficient probity practices, in addition to its failure to keep complete or comprehensive records of negotiations or decisions, reduce transparency of the process and its outcome and expose TfNSW to a greater risk of misconduct, corruption and maladministration.
At the time of the transaction, the TfNSW policy framework was not sufficiently risk-focussed and did not provide clarity on when officers ought to apply specific guidance or procedures. TfNSW's policies and procedures are more focussed on acquiring land to meet project needs and timeframes, and less on assuring value for money and managing risks.
At the time of its acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue, TfNSW had property acquisitions policies and procedures in place. Each of these were broadly sound in their content and intent. However, they lacked specificity on how or when to apply guidance, and when risk levels should elevate the importance of recommended guidance.
TfNSW's key guidance was principles based and relied on agency staff using their experience and expertise to apply guidance according to the circumstances of an individual transaction. This guidance was not duly applied in the acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia. In addition, TfNSW does not have quality or control assurance to identify when TfNSW officers did not apply important policies or processes.
The primary focus of the TfNSW’s property acquisition guidance is to achieve vacant possession of land in a timeframe that meets the need of the relevant transport project. There is less specific focus on the need to meet the requirements of the NSW Government financial management framework.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright Notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #349 - released (18 May 2021).
Delivering school infrastructure
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today examining the planning and delivery of new, redeveloped and upgraded public schools.
School Infrastructure NSW has identified the need to accommodate an additional 180,000 enrolments in public schools by 2039 with a large portion of this growth expected in metropolitan Sydney. It has also identified that around 34,000 teaching spaces will require upgrading to be fit-for-purpose.
Although School Infrastructure NSW has developed a long-term strategic plan that advises government of ongoing funding requirements, it has not presented a list of priorities to meet those needs. Developing a longer-term list of priorities would help signal the areas of greatest need and allow more time to develop the best options to meet those needs.
The audit found that School Infrastructure NSW has focused on delivering existing projects, election commitments and other government announcements. This has diverted attention from identifying and delivering projects that would have better met present and future needs.
The report makes eight recommendations to improve long-term planning for future needs, strengthen the quality of estimated project costs and benefits, and embed a continuous improvement program.
In 2016, the Department of Education prepared a School Assets Strategic Plan (2016 SASP) which outlined long-term funding needs to support the expected growth in enrolments to 2031. Following the release of the 2016 SASP, the NSW Government substantially increased funding for new and upgraded schools from $2.4 billion in the 2016–17 State Budget to $4.2 billion in 2017–18.
In 2017, the Department of Education established School Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) to lead the delivery of the 2016 SASP and the 123 new projects announced in the 2017–18 Budget. This significantly larger program of work required rapid development of internal capacity, governance arrangements, and project management systems. This needed to be done at the same time as scoping and planning for the list of announced projects.
As there are limited funds available to meet growing needs across the State, it is important that SINSW has effective methods to prioritise projects to communities with the greatest need. To ensure that projects deliver value for money, business cases need to have robust estimates of project costs and benefits. Business cases also need to account for the inherent risks in delivering infrastructure projects. Unplanned cost escalations can reduce the number of new or modernised classrooms SINSW can deliver. Unforeseen delays may also impact families who make significant life choices based on their expectations that a school will open at the beginning of the school year.
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of planning and delivery of new, upgraded and redeveloped schools to meet demand for public school education in New South Wales. To address this objective, the audit examined whether the Department:
- has effective procedures for planning and prioritising school capital works to meet present and future demands
- develops robust business cases for school capital works that reliably inform decision-making
- has effective program/project governance and management systems that support delivering projects on-time, within budget and achievement of intended benefits.
The audit examined business cases for 12 projects as case studies. These include a mix of projects initiated before and after the establishment of SINSW.
This audit commenced in June 2020 and examined strategies and demographic projections developed prior to the emergence of COVID-19. This audit did not examine potential longer-term impacts of COVID-19 on future demands for public school education.
ConclusionSchool Infrastructure NSW has been focused on delivering existing projects, election commitments and other government announcements. This has diverted attention from identifying and delivering projects that would have better met present and future student and classroom needs. While it has developed a long-term strategic plan that advises government of ongoing funding requirements, it has not presented a list of priorities to meet these needs. In its first years of operation, SINSW has focused on delivering existing projects and the 123 new projects announced in the 2017–18 Budget. Further NSW Government announcements in the 2018–19 Budget, election commitments in the 2019–20 Budget, and announcements in the 2020–21 Budget, made up the majority of new projects, rather than projects prioritised by SINSW. In early 2020, SINSW advised the NSW Government that the currently funded infrastructure program would not meet forecast classroom requirements for 2023 and beyond. The School Asset Strategic Plan 2020 estimates the annual level of investment needed over the next 20 years to meet growth, update and upgrade facilities to meet compliance obligations. However, SINSW’s ten-year Capital Investment Plans for 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 only identified priorities over a two-year horizon. Developing a longer-term pipeline of priorities would signal the areas of greatest need and allow greater scope to consider a range of options to best meet those needs. SINSW has made progress in planning across geographic areas but needs to better prioritise which projects move forward. Given the current and projected needs for new classrooms, it is vital that SINSW provides long-term advice based on thorough state-wide analysis to help prioritise projects that best meet this demand. SINSW has improved its capabilities, processes, and systems to support planning in ‘School Community Groups’, which are clusters of between 5 to 15 schools in a geographic area. This addresses a key direction identified in the School Assets Strategic Plan 2016. It has developed a planning tool which allows it to prioritise School Community Groups based on weighted criteria. It has also developed an approach to identify potential projects within School Community Groups but has not yet put in place a structured process to prioritise which projects move to the business case stage to seek funding for delivery. Business cases we examined established service needs, but several had shortcomings in scope definition, cost estimation and risk identification. Most business cases we examined demonstrated the service need and consultation with stakeholders helped to incorporate educational requirements. Common templates and specific cost-benefit guidance developed in partnership with NSW Treasury has helped to promote consistency across business cases. However, there were shortcomings in several business cases we reviewed. Business cases for projects already announced by government presented a limited number of options, and the process for eliminating other options was not transparent. Cost increases and contingency drawdowns for several projects indicate that scoping, costing and risk assessments could be improved, especially for complex projects. Standard program management systems and governance arrangements support project delivery, however, there is scope for better ongoing oversight of benefits. SINSW applies standard governance arrangements to projects based on their size. Higher value projects have executive oversight while lower value projects are overseen on a regional basis. SINSW has improved its project management systems to provide more consistent data and greater transparency to senior management over project status, cost and use of contingencies. SINSW has worked with NSW Treasury to define a consistent set of benefits for new and redeveloped schools. Estimated benefits are currently based on international contexts but SINSW advises it is undertaking further research to improve the evidence base in this area. The current approach to ongoing monitoring, reporting and evaluation of project benefits places responsibility on the infrastructure delivery team. This team is not the most appropriate area to monitor ongoing benefits, which are expected to accrue many years after delivery and depend on actions in other areas of the Department. |
1. Key findings
SINSW delivered projects against an established program of works in its first years of operation
At establishment, SINSW inherited a portfolio of existing projects and 123 new projects announced as part of the 2017–18 Budget (to commence over 2017–18 and 2018–19). It has progressively worked through individual project planning to deliver against these projects.
The 2018–19 Budget funded two new projects that had not already been announced. Both projects were identified by SINSW as a priority. The 2018–19 Budget also allocated funding for 'planning' 22 new projects. Seventeen of the 22 projects had been identified by SINSW as a priority.
SINSW identified 31 new priority projects in its Capital Investment Plan for 2019–20. Thirteen of these projects were funded in that year with a further 27 projects included as election commitments. SINSW identified 20 new projects in its Capital Investment Plan for 2020–21 but only two of these were funded. SINSW advised this was due to a constrained budget environment.
There is an anticipated shortfall of classrooms based on the current funded program
Despite increased funding since 2017–18, SINSW advised the NSW Government in early 2020 that the currently funded infrastructure program would not meet forecast classroom requirements for 2023 and beyond. Accordingly, it is vital that new funding is prioritised to projects which best meet demand.
SINSW only identified specific priorities over a two-year horizon in its Capital Investment Plans for 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21. The School Assets Strategic Plan 2016 and the 2020 update make the case for sustained funding for school building and redevelopment. These plans estimate annual funding requirements and show geographic areas with increasing forecast enrolments. Detailing how priorities over a ten-year timeframe fit within a ten-year capital planning limit would create more certainty about meeting growth demands.
There has been progress in formalising prioritisation frameworks, data tools and supporting governance arrangements
SINSW committed to planning for new and redeveloped schools in 'School Community Groups' in the School Assets Strategic Plan 2016. This is a new way of planning which considers the educational needs over a defined geographical area. It has developed a planning tool to prioritise School Community Groups based on weighted criteria. It has also established governance frameworks to improve transparency over decisions to reprioritise this list.
SINSW has refined its approach to planning in School Community Groups over the past four years. It now prepares Service Needs Reports to investigate needs, identify projects, prioritise, determine scope and timing, and assess non-capital options. SINSW has yet to finalise arrangements for how needs identified in Service Needs Reports progress to the strategic business case stage.
Projects announced prior to developing a business case have less opportunity to consider a range of options to meet the service needs
Business cases for projects already announced by government (or announced for planning) go through the same process of determining the service need and impacts on surrounding schools. However, for some announced projects, the range of options considered in the business case is influenced by the parameters of the announcement. This makes it more difficult to genuinely pursue alternate options that could better meet the identified service need.
Projects identified by SINSW have a more rigorous process of considering options. Service Needs Reports explore a wide range of asset and non-asset interventions across the School Community Group. Options are narrowed as the projects move through the strategic and final business case stages. SINSW uses its Investment Review Committee to engage key stakeholders early in the process so that they are informed about how non-asset solutions have been considered and why SINSW is progressing the business case for a capital solution for particular projects.
Several business cases underestimated project costs and risks, leading to scope and budget increases
Several business cases we reviewed did not adequately identify the initial scope requirements, project-specific risks or the likely project cost. For two business cases, this appeared to be due to an attempt to fit the project within a predetermined amount. Announcing a project’s scope, budget and timeframe before proper planning increases risks to successful delivery against expectations.
Several of the projects we examined required drawdowns on contingency funds due to inadequate consideration of scope, costs and project risks at the planning stage. Contingency funds are intended for unanticipated extra costs rather than those that could have or should have been identified at the planning stage.
Guidance on benefit calculations has provided a consistent framework for business cases
Business cases we examined presented a consistent set of benefits based on guidance developed in partnership with NSW Treasury. Following this guidance helps to compare cost-benefit analyses across business cases. However, the evidence for the estimated benefits is based on contexts outside of NSW. SINSW has the tools and data sources to calculate benefits more suited to the context of particular schools. Doing so would improve the accuracy of cost-benefit analyses. SINSW advised that it is currently updating the guidance in partnership with NSW Treasury.
SINSW involves school principals, executives and teaching staff in developing education rationales when commencing projects. These documents help align projects with education outcomes. They also provide a baseline for post-occupancy evaluation, which is important to determine whether the new school infrastructure is being used in the ways that were anticipated in the business case.
SINSW could elevate its existing assurance review process to consolidate lessons learned
SINSW engages external peer reviewers to conduct assurance reviews on its projects at multiple stages of planning and delivery. It has established a Community of Practice for external reviewers to keep them up to date on new developments and requirements. Higher value projects are also subject to review by Infrastructure NSW under the Investor Assurance Framework.
By looking at all projects at all stages, assurance reviews can identify systematic issues across the full portfolio of projects. A recent assurance review analysed common findings from reviews of strategic and final business cases. This provides a helpful way to improve internal processes. SINSW advised that it is implementing a continuous improvement program, which will be able to take findings from assurance reviews to build organisational capabilities.
2. Recommendations
By September 2021, the Department of Education should:
- finalise the investment prioritisation approach with agreement from key stakeholders
- finalise and update on an ongoing basis a ten-year list of priorities to meet the forecast demand for new classrooms and contemporary fit for purpose learning environments, which identifies individual projects and programs in the short-term and priority geographic areas and programs in the medium-term
- seek a ten-year Capital Planning Limit from NSW Treasury to ensure the needs identified in the ten-year list of priorities are met and are coordinated with the forward capital programs of other agencies
- improve the quality of data on cost benchmarks that underpin the annual ten-year Capital Investment Plan and updates to the School Assets Strategic Plan
- embed an evidence-based cost benefit analysis framework for school investment, in consultation with NSW Treasury, by:
- validating benefits estimated in previous business cases with actual results
- building the evidence base in relation to contemporary learning environments
- regularly share data on forecast needs with relevant planning agencies to promote strategic opportunities for servicing education needs
- implement the continuous improvement program for service planning, options assessment, business case development, project delivery and handover. The program should be informed by findings from assurance reviews, post-occupancy evaluations and project lessons learned
- establish benefits realisation processes and practices that:
- ensure business cases set baselines and targets for benefits
- review benefits during delivery, prior to handover and as part of Post Occupancy Evaluations
- identify which part(s) of the Department are best placed to develop, manage and evaluate benefits on an ongoing basis.
|
Note: The Department's formal response to this report at Appendix one states that while it 'supports the recommendations, it considers the proposed six-month timeframe to be an unreasonably short period for a large and complex organisation to effectively implement many of these recommendations'. It suggests 12 months would be needed to implement the recommendations. The recommendations stemming from this audit are core business for SINSW. The Audit Office considers it important for SINSW to place priority on implementing the recommendations in time to inform the 2022–23 budget cycle. Extending the deadline to April 2022 would place action outside of that budget cycle. |
There have been significant increases in funding for education infrastructure since the 2017–18 Budget and further growth in demand for places in schools is forecast. SINSW has the challenge, not only of meeting the need for new classrooms due to population growth, but also upgrading facilities to enable modern teaching techniques. In addition, community expectations of what constitutes a vibrant and successful school community continues to increase.
Given growing demand and budget constraints, projects must be selected to best meet the needs of the community and planning and prioritisation are vital. SINSW has been progressing planning for announced projects as well as implementing a new type of strategic state-wide planning and prioritisation, cluster planning, where options are developed for School Community Groups.
The primary role of a business case is to reliably inform an investment and/or policy decision. Over the period of review, the NSW Government's guidelines for business cases have established this requires recommendations based on convincing arguments, sufficient evidence, and accurate costing of alternatives and expected benefits. Business case guidelines are underpinned by guides for economic appraisal and cost-benefit analysis.
As SINSW moves to prioritise business cases for interventions in School Community Groups, it will increasingly need to demonstrate rigour in its assessment of all options. It will also need to ensure that scope identification, cost and risk planning and the setting of contingencies are accurate. This will help decision-makers better understand, plan for and manage the investment required to meet the demand for school infrastructure.
For this audit, we examined business cases and related documentation for 12 projects. Several of these projects were developed before School Infrastructure NSW was established in mid-2017.
Over the period of review, NSW Government policies for business case development and submission have emphasised that effective governance arrangements are critical to a proposal's successful implementation.
SINSW's guidance similarly highlight the importance of effective governance and project management for achieving good outcomes. It prescribes a general governance structure managed by SINSW that can be tailored to the planning and delivery of school infrastructure projects.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright Notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #347 - released (8 April 2021).
Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament on Delivering School Infrastructure
This corrigendum has been prepared to amend the following text within my Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament on Delivering School Infrastructure, dated 8 April 2021.
On page two, the original text was as follows:
Further NSW Government announcements in the 2018–19 Budget and election commitments in the 2019–20 Budget made up the majority of new projects, rather than projects prioritised by SINSW.
The original text has now been changed to
Further NSW Government announcements in the 2018–19 Budget, election commitments in the 2019–20 Budget, and announcements in the 2020–21 Budget, made up the majority of new projects, rather than projects prioritised by SINSW.
On page three, the original text was as follows:
The 2018–19 Budget funded three new projects that had not already been announced. One of the three projects was identified by SINSW as a priority.
The original text has now been changed to:
The 2018–19 Budget funded two new projects that had not already been announced. Both projects were identified by SINSW as a priority.
On page three the original text was as follows:
SINSW identified 33 priority projects in its Capital Investment Plan for 2019–20.
The original text has now been changed to
SINSW identified 31 new priority projects in its Capital Investment Plan for 2019–20.
On page eleven, in Exhibit 4, the original text was as follows:
The 2018–19 NSW Budget announced funding for an additional 43 new and upgraded schools to commence works in 2018–19. Of the 43 projects:
• 1 was identified by SINSW as a priority in its Capital Investment Plan (SINSW requested funding for one new project)
• 40 had already been announced
• 2 were new announcements (not identified as a priority by SINSW in its Capital Investment Plan).
The original text has now been changed to:
The 2018–19 NSW Budget announced funding for an additional 42 new and upgraded schools to commence works in 2018–19. Of the 42 projects:
• 2 were identified by SINSW as a priority in its Capital Investment Plan (SINSW requested funding for two new projects)
• 40 had already been announced.
On page eleven, the original text was as follows:
The 2019–20 NSW Budget announced funding for an additional 40 new and upgraded schools as election commitments. Of the 40 election commitment projects:
• 13 were identified by SINSW as priorities in its Capital Investment Plan (SINSW requested funding for a total of 33 new projects)
• 27 were new announcements (not identified as a priority by SINSW in its Capital Investment Plan).
The original text has now been changed to:
The 2019–20 NSW Budget announced funding for an additional 40 new and upgraded schools as election commitments. Of the 40 election commitment projects:
• 13 were identified by SINSW as priorities in its Capital Investment Plan (SINSW requested funding for a total of 31 new projects)
• 27 were new announcements (not identified as a priority by SINSW in its Capital Investment Plan).
The above changes will be reflected in the version of the report published on the Audit Office website and should be considered the true and accurate version.
Central Agencies 2020
This report analyses the results of our audits of the financial statements of the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet, Customer Service cluster agencies (central agencies), and the Legislature for the year ended 30 June 2020. The table below summarises our key observations.
1. Financial reporting
| Audit opinions and timeliness of reporting |
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the 2019–20 financial statements of central agencies and the Legislature. The audit opinion on the Social and Affordable Housing NSW Fund's compliance with the payment requirements of the Social and Affordable Housing NSW Fund Act 2016 was qualified. All agencies met statutory deadlines for submitting |
| Agencies were financially impacted by recent emergency events | The NSW Government allocated $1.4 billion to provide small business support and bushfire recovery relief, support COVID-19 quarantine compliance management, recruit more staff to respond to increased customer demand, and meet additional COVID-19 cleaning requirements. Agencies spent $901 million (64 per cent of the allocated funding) for the financial year ended 30 June 2020. NSW Self Insurance Corporation reported an increase of $850 million in its liability for claims related to emergency events. |
| AASB 16 'Leases' resulted in significant changes to agencies' financial position | The implementation of new accounting standards was challenging for many agencies. The New South Wales Government Telecommunications Authority was not well-prepared to implement AASB 16 'Leases' and had not completely assessed contracts that contained leases. This resulted in understatements of leased assets and liabilities by $56 million which were subsequently corrected. |
| Implementation of new revenue standards | NSW Treasury did not adequately implement the new revenue standard AASB 1058 ‘Income of Not-for-Profit Entities’ for the Crown Entity. This resulted in understatements of $274 million in opening equity and $254 million to current year revenue, which have been corrected in the final financial statements. |
2. Audit observations
| Management letter findings and repeat issues | Our 2019–20 audits identified nine high risk and 122 moderate risk issues across central agencies and the Legislature. The high risk issues were identified in the audits of:
High risk findings include:
Of the 122 moderate risk issues, 36 per cent were repeat issues. The most common repeat issue related to weaknesses in controls over information technology user access administration, which increases the risk of inappropriate access to systems and records. |
| Grants administration for disaster relief | Service NSW delivers grants responding to emergency events on behalf of other NSW Public Sector agencies. Since the first grant program commenced in January 2020, Service NSW processed approximately $791 million to NSW citizens and businesses impacted by emergency events for the financial year ended 30 June 2020. A performance audit of grants administration for disaster relief is planned for 2020–21. It will assess whether grants programs administered under the Small Business Support Fund were effectively designed and implemented to provide disaster relief. |
| Internal controls at GovConnect NSW service providers require enhancement |
GovConnect NSW provides transactional and information technology services to central agencies. It engages an independent service auditor (service auditor) from the private sector to perform annual assurance reviews of controls at service providers, namely Infosys, Unisys and the Department of Customer Service (DCS). The service auditor issued:
These may impact on the ability of agencies to detect and respond to a cyber incident. Recommendation: We recommend DCS work with GovConnect service providers to resolve the identified control deficiencies as a matter of priority. |
| The NSW Public Sector's cyber security resilience needs to improve |
The NSW Cyber Security Policy requires agencies to provide a maturity self-assessment against the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) Essential 8 to the head of the agency and Cyber Security NSW annually. Completed self-assessment returns highlighted limited progress in implementing the Essential 8. Repeat recommendation: Cyber Security NSW and NSW government agencies need to prioritise improvements to their cyber security resilience as a matter of urgency |
| Three Insurance and Care NSW (icare) entities had net asset deficiencies at 30 June 2020 | The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer, NSW Self Insurance Corporation and the Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW all had negative net assets at 30 June 2020. These icare entities did not hold sufficient assets to meet the estimated present value of all of their future payment obligations at 30 June 2020. The deterioration in net assets was largely due to increases in outstanding claims liabilities. Notwithstanding the overall net asset deficiencies, the financial statements for these entities were prepared on a going concern basis. This is because future payment obligations are not all due within the next 12 months. Settlement is instead expected to occur over years into the future, depending on the nature of the benefits provided by each scheme. |
| icare has not been able to demonstrate that its allocation of costs reflects the actual costs incurred by the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer and other schemes |
Costs are incurred by icare as the 'service entity' of the statutory scheme it administers, and then subsequently recovered from the schemes through 'service fees'. In the absence of documentation supported by robust supporting analysis, there is a risk of the schemes being overcharged, and the allocation of costs being in breach of legislative requirements. Recommendation: icare should ensure its approach to allocating service fees to the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer and the other schemes it manages, is transparent and reflects actual costs. |
| icare did not comply with GIPA requirements | icare did not comply with the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) contract disclosure requirements in 2019–20 and has not complied for several years. A total of 417 contracts were identified by management as not having been published on the NSW Government’s eTendering website. The final upload of these past contracts occurred on 20 August 2020. |
| Implementation of Machinery of Government (MoG) changes | MoG changes impacted the governance and business processes of some agencies. Our audits identified and reported areas for improvement in the consolidation of corporate functions following MoG implementation processes at Infrastructure NSW and in the Customer Service cluster. |
This report provides Parliament and other users of NSW Government central agencies' financial statements and the Legislature's financial statements with the results of our financial audits, observations, analyses, conclusions and recommendations.
Emergency events, such as bushfires, floods and the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted agencies in 2019–20. Our findings on nine agencies that were most impacted by recent emergency events are included throughout this report.
Refer to Appendix one for the names of all central agencies and Appendix four for the nine agencies most impacted by emergency events.
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. This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial reporting of central agencies and the Legislature for 2020, including the financial implications from recent emergency events.
Section highlights
|
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 the financial statement audits of agencies in the central agencies and the Legislature
- our assessment of how well agencies adapted their systems, policies, procedures and governance arrangements in response to recent emergencies.
Section highlights
|
Transport 2020
1. Financial Reporting |
|
| Audit opinion | Unmodified audit opinions issued for the financial statements of all Transport cluster entities. |
| Quality and timeliness of financial reporting | All cluster agencies met the statutory deadlines for completing the early close and submitting the financial statements. Transport cluster agencies continued to experience some challenges with accounting for land and infrastructure assets. The former Roads and Maritime Services and Sydney Metro recorded prior period corrections to property, plant and equipment balances. |
| Impact of COVID-19 on passenger revenue and patronage | Total patronage and revenue for public transport decreased by approximately 18 per cent in 2019–20 due to COVID-19. The Transport cluster received additional funding from NSW Treasury during the year to support the reduced revenue and additional costs incurred such as cleaning on all modes of public transport and additional staff to manage physical distancing. |
| Completion of the CBD and South East Light Rail | The CBD and South East Light Rail project was completed and commenced operations in this financial year. At 30 June 2020, the total cost of the project related to the CBD and South East Light Rail was $3.3 billion. Of this total cost, $2.6 billion was recorded as assets, whilst $700 million was expensed. |
2. Audit Observations |
|
| Internal control | While internal controls issues raised in management letters in the Transport cluster have decreased compared to the prior year, control weaknesses continue to exist in access security for financial systems. We identified 56 management letter findings across the cluster and 43 per cent of all issues were repeat issues. The majority of the repeat issues relate to information technology controls around user access management. There were three high risk issues identified - two related to financial reporting of assets and one for implementation of TAHE (see below). |
| Agency responses to emergency events | Transport for NSW established the COVID-19 Taskforce in March 2020 to take responsibility for the overall response of planning and coordination for the Transport cluster. It also implemented the COVIDSafe Transport Plan which incorporates guidance on physical distancing, increasing services to support social distancing and cleaning. |
| RailCorp transition to TAHE | On 1 July 2020, RailCorp was renamed Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE) and converted to a for-profit statutory State-Owned Corporation. TAHE is a commercial for-profit Public Trading Entity with the intent to provide a commercial return to its shareholders. A plan was established by NSW Treasury to transition RailCorp to TAHE which covered the period 1 July 2015 to 1 July 2019. A large portion of the planned arrangements were not implemented by 1 July 2020. As at the time of this report, the TAHE operating model, Statement of Corporate Intent (SCI) and other key plans and commercial agreements are not finalised. The State Owned Corporations Act 1989 generally requires finalisation of an SCI three months after the commencement of each financial year. However, under the Transport Administration Act 1988, TAHE received an extension from the voting shareholders, the Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Small Business, to submit its first SCI by 31 December 2020. In accordance with the original plan, interim commercial access arrangements were supposed to be in place with RailCorp prior to commencement of TAHE. Under the transitional arrangements, TAHE is continuing to operate in accordance with the asset and safety management plans of RailCorp. The final operating model is expected to include considerations of safety, operational, financial and fiscal risks. This should include a consideration of the potential conflicting objectives of a commercial return, and maintenance and safety measures. This matter has been included as a high risk finding in our management letter due to the significance of the financial reporting impacts and business risks for TAHE. Recommendation: TAHE management should:
Resolution of the above matters are critical as they may significantly impact the financial reporting arrangements for TAHE for 2020–21, in particular, accounting policies adopted as well as measurement principles of its significant infrastructure asset base. |
| Completeness and accuracy of contracts registers | Across the Transport cluster, contracts and agreements are maintained by the transport agencies using disparate registers. Recommendation (repeat): Transport agencies should continue to implement a process to centrally capture all contracts and agreements entered. This will ensure:
|
This report provides parliament and other users of the Transport cluster’s 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.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Transport cluster for 2020, including any financial implications from the recent emergency events.
Section highlights
|
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 statement audits of agencies in the Transport cluster
- assessment of how well cluster agencies adapted their systems, policies and procedures, and governance arrangements in response to recent emergencies.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – List of 2020 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2019, 2018 and 2017 recommendations
Appendix three – Management letter findings
Appendix four – Financial data
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.
Education 2020
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today titled Education 2020. This report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of agencies in the Education cluster.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies’ financial statements. However, internal control deficiencies were identified across the cluster agencies, including deficiencies in the management of purchasing cards and 15 internal control issues that were repeated from the previous year.
The 2019–20 natural disasters caused widespread damage in both Northern and Southern NSW. The COVID‑19 pandemic further challenged agencies, requiring social distancing and other infection control measures which disrupted the traditional means of teaching students. Agencies have adjusted their operations to respond to these emergency events.
The TAFE Commission’s revenues 2019–20 were impacted by the pandemic. Lower enrolments and an increase in fee-free short courses offered during the year contributed to the result.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of entities within the Education cluster for the year ended 30 June 2020. The table below summarises our key observations and recommendations.
1. Financial reporting
| Audit opinions | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' 30 June 2020 financial statements audits. |
| New accounting standards |
Agencies implemented three new accounting standards during the year. Our financial statement audits of the Department of Education (the Department) and NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) identified issues with the leasing information provided by Property NSW (PNSW). Despite the outsourcing arrangement, both the Department and NESA remain ultimately responsible for the completeness and accuracy of this information, which would have benefited from a more thorough quality assurance, validation and review process before they placed reliance upon it. Recommendation: We recommend the Department and NESA:
|
| Changes were made to the financial reporting requirements this year to account for the impact of the pandemic |
Emergency legislation was enacted during the year in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislation revised the statutory reporting deadlines for agencies to submit their financial statements and allowed the Treasurer to continue authorising payments from the consolidated fund until the enactment of the 2020–21 budget. All cluster agencies prepared their financial statements on a going concern basis and submitted their financial statements within the revised statutory deadlines. The State provided $159.0 million in stimulus funding to support the operations of cluster agencies during emergency events. Nearly half of this funding was to support cleaning activities by the Department and the Technical and Further Education Commission (the TAFE Commission) during the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Quality and timeliness of financial reporting |
The number of monetary misstatements identified in agencies' financial statements decreased to 14 (23 in 2018–19). While the number of corrections made to the financial statements after the submission date increased to eight (two in 2018–19), it is important to note these corrections provide parliament and other users of the financial statements increased confidence in the accuracy and presentation of agencies' performance and financial position. |
| Sustainability of cluster agencies | The TAFE Commission's enrolments declined, and operating margins reduced, both being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. |
2. Audit observations
| Internal control deficiencies |
We identified 33 internal control issues, including 15 findings that were repeated from previous years. A high-risk issue was reported at the Department relating to the inadequate monitoring and follow up of privileged user activity in its enterprise resource planning system – SAP. Repeat findings relate to ongoing deficiencies in information technology controls and management policies, practices and procedures. Recommendation: Cluster agencies should:
|
| Agency responses to emergency events |
The Department established a separate bushfire relief directorate and COVID-19 Taskforce to assist and support school communities in response to recent emergencies. Other cluster agencies have established committees or response teams to oversee and address all aspects of the impact of COVID-19. |
| Schools review 2019 | We continue to identify instances of non-compliance in relation to cash management and procurement at schools. |
| Use of purchasing cards at the Department of Education |
Since 2015, the NSW Government has encouraged the use of purchasing cards by public sector agencies. Purchasing cards are efficient to transact low value, high volume procurement of goods and services, but the use must be effectively monitored. Our review of the Department's purchasing cards identified weaknesses in its oversight and monitoring controls, including the issue and cancellation of purchasing cards Opportunities exist for the Department to better monitor card use. Tools such as data analytics are an efficient and effective detective control to identify irregular activity or misuse by cardholders. Recommendation: The Department should:
|
This report provides parliament and other users of the Education cluster’s 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 COVID-19 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 – supporting 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 Education cluster for 2020, including any financial implications from the recent emergency events.
Section highlightsUnqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements of cluster agencies.
All cluster agencies met the revised statutory deadlines for completing early close procedures and submitting their financial statements. Emergency legislation allowing the Treasurer to continue authorising payments from the consolidated fund under the existing Appropriations Act enabled cluster agencies to prepare financial statements on a going concern basis.
|
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 statement audits of agencies in the Education cluster. It also comments on our review of elements of the financial control framework applied by schools in NSW whose financial results form part of the Department of Education's (the Department) financial statements.
- assessment of how well cluster agencies adapted their systems, policies and procedures, and governance arrangements in response to recent emergencies.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – List of 2020 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2019 and 2018 recommendations
Appendix three – Financial data
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.
State Finances 2020
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on State Finances for the year ended 30 June 2020.
‘I am pleased to once again report that I issued an unmodified audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements,’ the Auditor-General said.
The report acknowledges this has been a challenging year, with New South Wales impacted by natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The State’s Budget Result, reported in the financial statements, was a deficit of $6.9 billion. This is different to the 2019-20 budget forecast surplus of $1.0 billion and is an outcome of the government’s significant response to bushfires and COVID-19.
The report summarises a number of audit and accounting matters arising from the audit of the Total State Sector Accounts, a sector that comprises 291 entities controlled by the NSW Government with total assets of $495 billion and total liabilities of $256 billion.
Our audit opinion on the State’s 2019–20 financial statements was unmodified
An unmodified audit opinion was issued on the State’s 2019–20 consolidated financial statements.
The State extended signing its financial statements by six weeks.
Natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors impacted the State’s 2019–20 reporting timetable. The State extended signing its financial statements by six weeks, compared with 2018–19.
All agencies were also given a two-week extension to prepare their financial statements compared with 2018–19. Further extensions beyond two weeks were subsequently approved for the following 11 agencies (7 in 2018–19) to submit completed financial statements for audit:
- Department of Communities and Justice
- Department of Customer Service
- Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
- Department of Regional NSW
- Department of Transport
- Environment Protection Authority
- Infrastructure NSW
- Lord Howe Island Board
- NSW Crown Holiday Parks Land Manager
- Service NSW
- Water Administration Ministerial Corporation.
The extensions reflected that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted agencies’ work environments during the first six months of 2020. This was at a time when many were still implementing machinery of government changes and preparing to implement three significant new accounting standards:
- AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (issued December 2014, effective 1 July 2019)
- AASB 16 Leases (issued February 2016, effective 1 July 2019)
- AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-profit entities (issued December 2016, effective 1 July 2019).
These new accounting standards were issued some years before they became effective, to allow reporting entities sufficient time to prepare for implementation. Notwithstanding this, some agencies had not fully implemented the new accounting standards in time for early close procedures, and the unforeseen impact of COVID-19 further complicated the year-end financial reporting processes for the State and its agencies.
The graph below shows the number of reported errors exceeding $20 million over the past five years in agencies’ financial statements presented for audit.
In 2019–20, agency financial statements presented for audit contained 19 errors exceeding $20 million (six in 2018–19). The total value of these errors increased to $1.4 billion ($927 million in 2018–19).
The errors resulted from:
- incorrectly applying Australian Accounting Standards and Treasury Policies
- incorrect judgements and assumptions when valuing noncurrent physical assets and liabilities
- incorrectly interpreting the accounting treatment for unspent stimulus funding.
Errors in agency financial statements exceeding $20m (2016–2020)
$4.1 billion in stimulus funding was allocated in 2019–20
The government implemented an economic stimulus package primarily to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on New South Wales.
The COVID-19 pandemic and bushfires had a significant impact on the State’s finances, reducing its revenue and increasing its expenses especially in sectors directly responsible for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as Health.
The government announced a $4.1 billion health and economic stimulus package in 2019–20. This primarily included:
- $2.2 billion in health measures including purchases of essential medical equipment and increasing clinical health capacity (like intensive care spaces)
- $1.0 billion in small business and land tax relief
- $355 million in extra cleaning services and quarantine costs.
Cluster agencies had spent $3.0 billion (just under 75 per cent) of the COVID-19 stimulus package by 30 June 2020.
The Health cluster incurred most of this expenditure.
Total spend relating to bushfires was $1.3 billion in 2019–20.
The graph below shows the total allocation and spend by cluster to 30 June 2020.
Economic stimulus allocation and spend by cluster to 30 June 2020
Deficit of $6.9 billion compared with a budgeted surplus of $1.0 billion
An outcome of the government’s overall activity and policies is its net operating balance (Budget Result). This is the difference between the cost of general government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors.
The General Government Sector, which comprises 199 entities, generally provides goods and services funded centrally by the State.
The Non-General Government Sector, which comprises 92 government businesses, generally provides goods and services, such as water, electricity and financial services that consumers pay for directly.
The Budget Result for the 2019–20 financial year was a deficit of $6.9 billion. The original budget forecast, set before the COVID-19 pandemic and bushfires, was a $1.0 billion surplus. The main driver of the change in result was:
- $1.3 billion of higher employee costs, mainly due to:
- increased workers compensation claims
- additional personnel required (mainly in the Health sector) to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic
- $2.3 billion of higher operating expenses, mainly due to:
- $828 million from first time recognition of a child abuse claim liability
- $507 million from additional insurance claims from the NSW bushfires
- $343 million from COVID-19 claims by agencies for loss of revenue.
- $1.8 billion in higher grants and subsidy expenses, mainly due to:
- small business grants
- COVID-19 quarantine compliance measures
- costs incurred in response to the 2019–20 bushfires, drought and disaster relief payments
- third party-controlled assets that were subsequently transferred to councils and utility providers, mainly arising from construction of the CBD and South East Light Rail.
The deficit was further driven by:
- $1.9 billion less taxation revenue, mainly resulting from:
- $1.3 billion less in payroll tax due to relief measures introduced by the government as part of its COVID-19 economic stimulus
- $424 million less in gambling and betting taxes, due to venue closures required by COVID-19 public health orders
- $523 million less in dividends and income tax revenue from the Non-General Government Sector, due to lower dividends received from NSW Treasury Corporation and from the State’s other commercial government businesses
- lower fines, regulatory fees and other revenue, due to a $305 million decrease in mining royalties, largely driven by lower coal prices.
Main drivers of the 2019–20 actual vs. budget variance
Revenues increased $209 million to $86.3 billion
In 2019–20, the State’s total revenues increased by $209 million to $86.3 billion, 0.2 per cent higher than in 2018–19. COVID-19 impacted taxation revenue, which fell by $1.1 billion and revenue from the sale of goods and services, which fell by $1.1 billion. These falls were offset by a $2.5 billion (7.7 per cent) increase in grants and subsidies from the Australian Government, mainly in the form of additional stimulus funding.
Taxation revenue fell 3.5 per cent
Taxation revenue fell by $1.1 billion, mainly due to a:
- $861 million fall in payroll tax as a result of COVID-19 relief (reduced payroll tax payments for eligible small businesses)
- $430 million fall in stamp duty collections, driven by lower than expected growth in the property market
- $427 million decline in gambling and betting taxes, mainly due to venue closures driven by COVID-19 public health orders.
Stamp duties of $8.8 billion were the largest source of taxation revenue, $473 million higher than payroll tax, the second-largest source of taxation revenue.
Australian Government grants and subsidies
The State received $34.2 billion in grants and subsides which are mainly from the Australian Government, $2.4 billion more than in 2018–19.
The increase was driven by a $1.1 billion increase in Commonwealth Specific Purpose Payments to support the Health cluster respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Commonwealth National Partnership Payments increased by a similar amount to provide the State with Natural Disaster relief.
Sales of goods and services
In 2019–20, sales of goods and services fell $1.1 billion. This was due to the COVID-19 pandemic reducing:
- patronage and related transport passenger revenue
- health billing activities with elective surgery being put on hold
Fines, regulatory fees and other revenues
Fines, regulatory fees and other revenues fell $505 million. This was mainly due to a $409 million decrease in mining royalties attributed to a drop in thermal coal prices during 2019–20.
Other dividends and distributions
Other dividends and distributions rose by $616 million due to higher distributions received from the State’s investments. This was due to an additional $1.3 billion held in the State’s investment portfolio compared with last year.
Expenses increased $8.2 billion to $96.0 billion
The State’s expenses increased 9.3 per cent compared with 2018–19. Most of the increase was due to higher employee expenses, other operating costs and grants and subsidies.
Employee expenses, including superannuation, increased 5.7 per cent to $42.6 billion.
Salaries and wages increased to $42.6 billion from $40.3 billion in 2018–19. This was mainly due to increases in staff numbers and a 2.5 per cent increase in pay rates across the sector. Salaries and wages for the Education and Health sectors increased by $659 million and $732 million in each sector respectively.
The Health sector employed an additional 2,763 full time staff in 2019–20. It also incurred more overtime in response to COVID-19. Education increased staff numbers by 4,866 full time equivalents and paid a one off 11 per cent pay rise to school administration staff in 2019–20. Historically, the government wages policy aims to limit growth in employee remuneration and other employee related costs to no more than 2.5 per cent per annum.
Operating expenses increased 8.7 per cent to $27.0 billion.
Operating expenses increased to $27.0 billion in 2019–20 ($24.8 billion in 2018–19) due to higher operating activities in Health. The higher level of activities and related costs is attributed to a full year of operations at the Northern Beaches Hospital (opened November 2018), and responding to COVID-19. The response to COVID-19 involved the State providing viability payments to private hospitals, higher visiting medical officer costs due to additional overtime hours and spending more on equipment to set up COVID-19 testing clinics.
Insurance claims increased by $2.0 billion. This was mainly due to NSW Self Insurance Corporation (SiCorp) recognising a liability for child abuse claims incurred but not reported for the first time, and claims for the 2019–20 bushfires, floods and COVID-19.
Health costs remain the State’s highest expense.
Total expenses of the State were $96 billion ($87.8 billion in 2018–19). Traditionally, the following clusters have the highest expenses as a percentage of total government expenses:
- Health – 24.3 per cent (25.8 per cent in 2018–19)
- Education – 17.6 per cent (19.3 per cent in 2018–19)
- Transport - 12.8 per cent (12.6 per cent in 2018–19).
General public service expenses as a percentage of total State expenses is higher due to a $2.0 billion increase in SiCorp’s accrued claim expenses.
Other expenses increased due to additional grant funding by the State for drought relief and COVID-19 stimulus spend.
Health expenses increased by $632 million compared with 2018–19 but fell as a proportion of total State expenses.
Education expenses remained stable compared with last year due to savings in student transportation costs primarily driven by COVID-19. This led to a decrease in the proportion of the State’s costs relating to education activities.
Grants and subsidies increased $2.5 billion to $14.1 billion.
The increase in grants and subsidies was due to payments the State made to support businesses and local communities in the face of COVID-19 and bushfires. In addition, the State transferred CBD and South East Light Rail assets to councils and utility providers during 2019–20 as it no longer controlled these.
Depreciation expense increased $1.0 billion to $9.2 billion.
Depreciation increased to $9.2 billion from $8.0 billion in 2018–19. At 1 July 2019, the State implemented the new leases standard recognising a right of use (ROU) asset and related lease liability in its financial statements. The value of ROU assets are amortised over the term of the lease. This contributed to $980 million of the increase in 2019–20 depreciation expense. Last year, these costs were previously reported within other operating expenses.
Assets grew by $28.0 billion to $495 billion
The State’s assets primarily include physical assets such as land, buildings and infrastructure, and financial assets such as cash, and other financial instruments and equity investments. The value of total assets increased by $28.0 billion to $495 billion. This was a six per cent increase compared with 2018–19, mostly due to changes in asset carrying values.
Of the State’s $28.0 billion increase in asset values, $9.3 billion was due to a new accounting standard requirement for operating leases to be valued and recorded on balance sheet for the first time.
AASB 16 Leases requires entities recognise values for right-ofuse assets (ROU) for the first time. An ROU asset is a lessee’s right to use an asset, the value of which is amortised over the term of the lease. This standard came into effect from 1 July 2019.
Valuing the State’s physical assets
| State’s physical assets valued at $365 billion. |
The value of the State’s physical assets increased by $14.1 billion to $365 billion in 2019–20. The assets include land and buildings ($168 billion), infrastructure ($180 billion) and plant and equipment ($16.7 billion). A prior period error relating to the valuation of RMS infrastructure assets reduced the reported values by $1.0 billion from $352 billion to $351 billion at 30 June 2019.
The movement in physical asset values between years includes additions, disposals, depreciation and valuation adjustments. Other movements include reclassification of physical assets leased under finance leases to right of use assets upon adoption of AASB 16 Leases on 1 July 2019.
Movements in physical asset values
Liabilities increased $38.4 billion to $256 billion
The State borrowed additional funds in response to natural disasters and COVID-19.
The State’s borrowings rose by $33.9 billion to $113.8 billion at 30 June 2020. This accounted for most of the increase in the State’s total liabilities.
The value of TCorp bonds on issue increased by $25.2 billion to $97.0 billion to largely fund capital expenditure and costs associated with the bushfires, drought and COVID-19.
TCorp bonds are actively traded in financial markets and are guaranteed by the NSW Government.
Over 2019–20, TCorp continued to take advantage of lower interest rates, buying back short-term bonds and replacing them with longer dated debt. This lengthens the portfolio matching liabilities with the funding requirements for infrastructure assets.
With effect from 1 July 2019, AASB 16 Leases required the State to recognise liabilities for operating leases for the first time. This increased total lease liabilities from $5.3 billion at 30 June 2019 to $11.8 billion at 30 June 2020.
More than a third of the State’s liabilities relate to its employees. They include unfunded superannuation and employee benefits, such as long service and recreation leave.
Valuing these obligations involves complex estimation techniques and significant judgements. Small changes in assumptions and other variables, such as a lower discount rate, can materially impact the valuation of liability balances in the financial statements.
The State’s unfunded superannuation liability rose $300 million from $70.7 billion to $71.0 billion at 30 June 2020. This was mainly due to a lower discount rate of 0.87 per cent (1.32 per cent in 2018–19). The State’s unfunded superannuation liability represents the value of its obligations to past and present employees less the value of assets set aside to fund those obligations.
The State maintained its AAA credit rating
The object of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 is to maintain the State’s AAA credit rating.
The government manages New South Wales’ finances in accordance with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 (the Act).
The Act establishes the framework for fiscal responsibility and the strategy to maintain the State’s AAA credit rating and service delivery to the people of New South Wales.
The legislation sets out targets and principles for financial management to achieve this.
This year, the State’s credit rating from Standard & Poor’s changed from AAA/Stable to AAA/Negative. Moody’s Investors Service credit rating of Aaa/Stable did not change from the previous year.
The fiscal target for achieving this objective is that General Government annual expenditure growth should be lower than long term average revenue growth.
The State did not achieve its fiscal target of maintaining annual expenditure growth below the long-term revenue growth rate target of 5.6 per cent.
In 2019–20, General Government expenditure grew by 9.7 per cent (5.5 per cent in 2018–19).
Expenditure items that contributed most to the growth rate include:
- recurrent grants and subsidies (20.4 per cent)
- other operating expenses (9.5 per cent)
- employee costs (including superannuation) (5.6 per cent)
Recurrent grant and subsidy expenses increased by $2.8 billion in 2019–20 mainly due to the COVID-19 and natural disaster payments. Other operating expenses increased mainly due to a $2.0 billion increase in SiCorp insurance claims. This included the $828 million provision for child abuse claims incurred but not reported. The bushfires and COVID-19 pandemic also increased the number and cost of claims in 2019–20.
Superannuation funding position since inception of the Act - AASB 1056 Valuation
CBD South East Sydney Light Rail: follow-up performance audit
This is a follow-up to the Auditor-General's November 2016 report on the CBD South East Sydney Light Rail project. This follow-up report assessed whether Transport for NSW has updated and consolidated information about project costs and benefits.
The audit found that Transport for NSW has not consistently and accurately updated project costs, limiting the transparency of reporting to the public.
The Auditor-General reports that the total cost of the project will exceed $3.1 billion, which is above the revised cost of $2.9 billion published in November 2019. $153.84 million of additional costs are due to omitted costs for early enabling works, the small business assistance package and financing costs attributable to project delays.
The report makes four recommendations to Transport for NSW to publicly report on the final project cost, the updated expected project benefits, the benefits achieved in the first year of operations and the average weekly journey times.
The CBD and South East Light Rail is a 12 km light rail network for Sydney. It extends from Circular Quay along George Street to Central Station, through Surry Hills to Moore Park, then to Kensington and Kingsford via Anzac Parade and Randwick via Alison Road and High Street.
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is responsible for planning, procuring and delivering the Central Business District and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project. In December 2014, TfNSW entered into a public private partnership with ALTRAC Light Rail as the operating company (OpCo) responsible for delivering, operating and maintaining the CSELR. OpCo engaged Alstom and Acciona, who together form its Design and Construct Contractor (D&C).
On 14 December 2019, passenger services started on the line between Circular Quay and Randwick. Passenger services on the line between Circular Quay and Kingsford commenced on 3 April 2020.
In November 2016, the Auditor-General published a performance audit report on the CSELR project. The audit found that TfNSW would deliver the CSELR at a higher cost with lower benefits than in the approved business case, and recommended that TfNSW update and consolidate information about project costs and benefits and ensure the information is readily accessible to the public.
In November 2018, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) examined TfNSW's actions taken in response to our 2016 performance audit report on the CSELR project. The PAC recommended that the Auditor-General consider undertaking a follow-up audit on the CSELR project. The purpose of this follow-up performance audit is to assess whether TfNSW has effectively updated and consolidated information about project costs and benefits for the CSELR project.
Conclusion
Transport for NSW has not consistently and accurately updated CSLER project costs, limiting the transparency of reporting to the public. In line with the NSW Government Benefits Realisation Management Framework, TfNSW intends to measure benefits after the project is completed and has not updated the expected project benefits since April 2015.Between February 2015 and December 2019, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) regularly updated capital expenditure costs for the CSELR in internal monthly financial performance and risk reports. These reports did not include all the costs incurred by TfNSW to manage and commission the CSELR project.
Omitted costs of $153.84 million for early enabling works, the small business assistance package and financing costs attributable to project delays will bring the current estimated total cost of the CSELR project to $3.147 billion.
From February 2015, TfNSW did not regularly provide the financial performance and risk reports to key CSELR project governance bodies. TfNSW publishes information on project costs and benefits on the Sydney Light Rail website. However, the information on project costs has not always been accurate or current.
TfNSW is working with OpCo partners to deliver the expected journey time benefits. A key benefit defined in the business plan was that bus services would be reduced owing to transfer of demand to the light rail - entailing a saving. However, TfNSW reports that the full expected benefit of changes to bus services will not be realised due to bus patronage increasing above forecasted levels.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Governance and reporting arrangements for the CSELR
Appendix three – 2018 CSELR governance changes
Appendix four – About the audit
Appendix five – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #335 - released 11 June 2020
Destination NSW's support for major events
This report focuses on whether Destination NSW (DNSW) can demonstrate that its support for major events achieves value for money.
The audit found that DNSW’s processes for assessing and evaluating the major events it funds are mostly effective, but its public reporting does not provide enough transparency.
DNSW provides clear information to event organisers seeking funding and has a comprehensive methodology for conducting detailed event assessments. However, the reasons for decisions to progress events from the initial assessment to the detailed assessment stage are not documented in sufficient detail.
DNSW does not publish detailed information about the events it funds or the outcomes of these events. This means that members of the public are unable to see whether its activities achieve value for money. However, DNSW’s internal reporting to its key decision‑makers, including the CEO, the Board and the Minister is appropriate.
The Auditor-General made four recommendations to DNSW, aimed at improving the transparency of its activities, improving the documentation of decisions and certain compliance matters, and streamlining its approach to assessing and evaluating events that receive smaller amounts of funding.
Destination NSW (DNSW) provides funding to attract a range of major events to New South Wales, including high-profile professional sports matches and tournaments, musicals, art and museum exhibitions, and participation-focused events such as festivals and sports events that members of the public can enter. The NSW Government's rationale for providing funding is to encourage event organisers to hold events in New South Wales, and to ensure that events held in New South Wales maximise the potential for attracting overseas and interstate visitors.
This audit assessed whether DNSW can demonstrate that its support for major events achieves value for money. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:
- DNSW effectively assesses proposals to support major events
- DNSW effectively evaluates the impact of its support for major events.
This audit focused on DNSW's work to attract major events to New South Wales. It did not assess DNSW's tourism promotion or development work, which includes developing tourism strategies, marketing and advertising campaigns, national and international partnerships, and regional programs.
ConclusionDestination NSW's processes for assessing event applications and evaluating its support for major events are mostly effective. DNSW's internal systems allow it to know whether its decisions are achieving value for money. Its public reporting does not provide enough information about its activities and their outcomes, although it is consistent with that of equivalent organisations in other Australian jurisdictions. DNSW's process for assessing applications for funding from organisers of major events is mostly effective. Clear information is provided to event organisers seeking funding, and DNSW has a comprehensive methodology for conducting detailed event assessments. However, the reasons for decisions to progress events from the initial assessment to the detailed assessment stage are not documented in sufficient detail. DNSW has a framework for disclosure and monitoring staff conflicts of interest. However, its forms for staff to disclose conflicts of interest on specific events they are working on are ambiguous. DNSW's management of gifts and benefits broadly complies with the minimum standards set by the Public Service Commission, but there are some gaps in its implementation of these. DNSW conducts an evaluation of each major event it supports. DNSW articulates expected outcomes in contracts with event organisers and uses a sound methodology to evaluate events. Internal reporting to its key decision-makers, including the CEO, the Board and the Minister is appropriate. However, DNSW does not publish detailed information about the events it funds or the outcomes of these events. This means that members of the public are unable to see whether its activities achieve value for money. |
Appendix one – Response from Destination NSW
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 #332 - released 9 April 2020.
Central Agencies 2019
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on the results of the financial audits of NSW Government central agencies, namely the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury and Customer Service clusters. There are 191 agencies in these clusters, including government financial, superannuation and insurance entities.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements for all agencies in the clusters. There were two high risk and 99 moderate risk audit findings on internal controls. Of these, 31 percent were repeat issues, and most related to weaknesses in information technology access controls.
The report notes a number of audit observations including:
- a qualified opinion on information technology internal controls at an outsourced service provider
- self-insurance losses of $1.4 billion partly due to unfavourable movements in the risk free discount rate, and increases in workers compensation claims, including psychological injury claims
- a shortfall (unfunded liability) of $637 million at 30 June 2019 in the Home Building Compensation Fund, due to premiums not being sufficient to meet costs of the scheme
- agencies self-assessed against the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s ‘Essential 8’ cyber risk mitigation strategies for the first time in 2018-19. Based on their own self assessments, more work needs to be done to improve cyber security resilience.
This report analyses the results of our financial statement audits of the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet and Customer Service clusters for the year ended 30 June 2019. Our key observations are summarised below.
This report provides parliament and other users of the NSW Government's central agencies and their cluster agencies financial statements with the results of our audits, observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations
- government financial services.
Central agency clusters were significantly impacted by Machinery of Government changes which took effect on 1 July 2019. This report is focussed on agencies now in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet and Customer Service clusters. Some of these agencies may have been in another cluster during 2018–19. Please refer to the section on Machinery of Government changes for more details.
Central agencies and their key responsibilities are set out below.
Machinery of Government (MoG) refers to how the government organises the structures and functions of the public service. MoG changes are where the government reorganises these structures and functions and they are given effect by Administrative orders.
The MoG changes announced following the NSW State election on 23 March 2019 significantly impacted Central Agencies’ clusters through Administrative Changes Orders issued on 2 April 2019 and 1 May 2019. These orders took effect on 1 July 2019.
Section highlights
Significant impacts of the 2019 MoG changes included:
- abolishing the former Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, and creating the Department of Customer Service as the principal agency within the newly established Customer Service cluster
- transferring Jobs for NSW, Destination NSW and the Western City and Aerotropolis Authority into the Treasury cluster
- transferring Arts and Culture entities and Aboriginal Affairs NSW into the Premier and Cabinet cluster
- new responsibilities, risks and challenges for each cluster
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.
This chapter outlines our audit observations on the 2019 financial reporting of agencies in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet, and Customer Service clusters.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the 30 June 2019 financial statements of all agencies within the three clusters, and the Legislature.
- The NSW Self Insurance Corporation (Corporation) 2018–19 financial statements did not include an estimate of the liability for unreported incidents of abuse that have occurred within NSW Government institutions. This is because the Corporation’s financial exposure could not be reliably measured at 30 June 2019. The exposure was instead disclosed as an unquantified contingent liability in the financial statement notes. This liability may be material to the Corporation and the Total State Sector financial statements.
- We recommend management and those charged with governance review instructions provided to management experts each year, along with other significant accounting judgements.
- Agencies will be implementing the requirements of new accounting standards shortly. These could significantly impact their financial positions and operating results. We noted instances where agencies need to do more work on their impact assessments to minimise the risk of errors in the 2019–20 financial statements.
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 statement audits of agencies in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet and Customer Service clusters.
Section highlights
- The 2018–19 audits found two high risk and 99 moderate risk issues across the agencies. Of these, 31 per cent were repeat issues. The most common repeat issue related to weaknesses in controls over information technology user access administration.
- NSW Government agency self-assessment results show that the NSW Public Sector's cyber security resilience needs urgent attention.
- GovConnect received a qualified opinion from the auditor of their service provider, Unisys, over weaknesses in information technology controls.
- Crown revenues from taxes, fines and fees continued to increase, but this was offset by decreases in stamp duty on property sales.
- The CTP reform resulted in green slip refunds of $198 million to vehicle owners. Unclaimed refunds are to be returned to motorists through a reduction in green slip premiums.
Background
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations specific to NSW Government agencies providing financial services.
Section highlights
- Last year's Auditor-General's Report to Parliament recommended Treasury consult with STC Pooled Fund and PCS Fund Trustees to prescribe prudential standards and requirements. Treasury has not taken specific action to address this recommendation.
We recommend Treasury formally assess the merits of implementing prudential standards and supervision arrangements, after considering the risks, benefits and costs to scheme members. - The NSW Self Insurance Corporation did not include an estimate of the liability for unreported incidents of abuse that have occurred within NSW Government institutions because it could not be reliably measured at 30 June 2019. The amounts involved could be material to the Corporation's and Total State Sector's financial statements.
- Insurance scheme liabilities were significantly impacted by unfavourable movements in economic assumptions, including a decrease in the risk free discount rate, and adverse changes in non-economic assumptions, such as higher medical costs.
Appendix one – Timeliness of financial reporting by agency
Appendix two – Management letter findings by agency
Appendix three – Status of 2018 recommendations
Appendix four – Cluster agencies
Appendix five – Financial data
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.
Education 2019
This report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial audits of agencies in the Education cluster. From 1 July 2019, the Technical and Further Education Commission, the NSW Skills Board and the functions and activities associated with vocational training and skills form part of the Education cluster.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies’ financial statements. However, internal control deficiencies were identified across the cluster agencies, including 14 findings that were repeated from the previous year. Control deficiencies were also identified in a sample of the state’s 2,200 schools. Schools did not always apply the guidance in the Department of Education's ‘Finance in Schools Handbook’, resulting in control weaknesses in key areas such as governance, cash management and procurement.
'In addition, we continue to observe inconsistencies in the employee leave data reported from the Department of Education’s payroll system, which impact the reliability of estimates of the Department’s liability for employee benefits. The robustness of the Department's quality assurance over leave liability data should be improved', the Auditor-General said.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of entities within the Education cluster for the year ended 30 June 2019. The table below summarises our key observations.
1. Machinery of Government changes
| The Education cluster has expanded | From 1 July 2019, the Technical and Further Education Commission, the NSW Skills Board and the functions and activities associated with vocational training and skills now form part of the Education cluster. |
2. Financial reporting
| Audit opinions |
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' 30 June 2019 financial statements audits. The number of corrections to disclosures in the financial statements, which increased this year, could have been reduced by a more thorough quality assurance over the information underpinning the financial statements. Recommendation: Cluster agencies should improve their quality assurance processes for financial reporting to improve the accuracy of financial statements presented for audit. |
| Preparedness for new accounting standards |
Agencies will implement four new accounting standards shortly. Three are effective from 1 July 2019 and the fourth is effective from 1 July 2020. Cluster agencies needed to do more work on their impact assessments to better prepare for their implementation from 1 July 2019. Recommendation: Cluster agencies should finalise their plans to implement the new accounting standards as soon as possible. |
| Timeliness of financial reporting |
All cluster agencies met the statutory deadline for completing early close procedures and submitting their financial statements for audit. The Department of Education (the Department) delays tabling its financial statements in parliament so it can report its operational outcomes, which are aligned to the calendar year, in a single report. This reduces transparency over the Department's financial statements as they are tabled more than ten months after the end of the financial year. Recommendation: The Department should table its financial statements in parliament earlier, in line with other NSW Government agencies. |
| Inconsistencies in the employee leave data | We continue to observe inconsistencies in the employee leave data reported from the Department’s payroll system, which impacts the reliability of estimates of the Department's liability for employee benefits. The robustness of the Department's quality assurance over leave liability data should be improved. |
3. Audit observations
| Internal control deficiencies |
We identified 55 internal control issues, including 14 findings that were repeated from the previous year. Issues were identified with user access administration, segregation of duties in the Department's key application system and timely preparation and review of key reconciliations. Recommendation: Cluster agencies should prioritise and action recommendations to address internal control weaknesses. |
| Schools review 2018 |
Our review of a selection of NSW schools identified deficiencies in how they applied the Department of Education's ‘Finance in Schools Handbook’, resulting in control weaknesses in key areas such as governance, cash management and procurement. Recommendation: The Department should ensure all schools apply the Department’s ‘Finance in Schools Handbook’ as it is a key internal control. |
This report provides parliament and other users of the Education cluster’s financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
This cluster was significantly impacted by the Machinery of Government changes. The Technical and Further Education Commission and the NSW Skills Board, part of the former Industry cluster, were transferred on 1 July 2019. This report focuses on agencies in the Education cluster from 1 July 2019. Please refer to the section on Machinery of Government changes for more details.
Machinery of Government refers to how the government organises the structures and functions of the public service. Machinery of Government changes are where the government reorganises these structures and functions, and the changes are given effect by Administrative Arrangements Orders.
Section highlights
The 2019 Machinery of Government changes significantly impacted the Education cluster. From 1 July 2019, the functions and activities associated with the administration of legislation allocated to the Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education were transferred from the former Industry cluster to the Education cluster. Aboriginal Affairs NSW was transferred from the Department of Education (the Department) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
The Department is the principal agency in the cluster. The Machinery of Government changes bring new responsibilities, risks and challenges to the cluster.
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.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Education cluster for 2019.
Section highlights
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements of cluster agencies. However, a more thorough quality review process of the financial statements submitted for audit would help reduce the number of corrections to those statements.
All cluster agencies met the statutory deadlines for completing the early close procedures and submitting the financial statements.
We continue to observe inconsistencies in the employee leave data reported from the Department of Education’s (the Department) payroll system. The robustness of the Department's quality assurance over leave liability data should be improved.
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 statement audits of agencies in the Education cluster. It also comments on our review of the financial control framework applied by 70 schools in NSW whose financial results form part of the Department of Education's (the Department) financial statements.
Section highlights
- Audit Office management letter recommendations to address internal control weaknesses should be actioned promptly, with a focus on addressing repeat issues. The 2018–19 financial audits of cluster agencies identified 55 internal control issues, including 14 that were carried forward from the previous year.
- Application controls are procedures that operate at a business process level designed to ensure the integrity of accounting records. The Department can mitigate the risk of fraud or error in preparing its financial statements if segregation of duties are appropriately configured in their key application system.
- Our review of a selection of schools across NSW identified deficiencies in how schools apply the Department’s financial management practices and governance arrangements.
Appendix one – List of 2019 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2018 recommendations
Appendix three – Cluster agencies
Appendix four – Financial data
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.
