Reports
Unsolicited proposal process for the lease of Ausgrid
In October 2016, the NSW Government accepted an unsolicited proposal from IFM Investors and AustralianSuper to lease 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid for 99 years. The deal followed the Federal Government’s rejection of two bids from foreign investors, for national security reasons.
A performance audit of the lease of Ausgrid has found shortcomings in the unsolicited proposal process. Releasing the audit findings today, the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford said ‘this transaction involved a $20 billion asset owned by the people of New South Wales. As such, it warranted strict adherence to established guidelines’.
Ausgrid is a distributor of electricity to eastern parts of Sydney, the Central Coast, Newcastle and the Hunter Region.
In June 2014, the then government announced its commitment to lease components of the state's electricity network as part of the Rebuilding NSW plan. Implementation of the policy began after the government was re-elected in 2015. Between November 2015 and August 2016, the NSW Government held a competitive tender process to lease 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid for 99 years. The NSW Government abandoned the process on 19 August 2016 after the Australian Treasurer rejected two bids from foreign investors, for national security reasons. That day, the Premier and Treasurer released a media statement clarifying the government's objective to complete the transaction via a competitive process in time to include the proceeds in the 2017–18 budget.
On 31 August 2016, the state received an unsolicited proposal from IFM Investors and AustralianSuper to acquire an interest in Ausgrid under the same terms proposed by the state during the tender process. In October 2016, the government accepted the unsolicited proposal.
This audit examined whether the unsolicited proposal process for the partial long-term lease of Ausgrid was effectively conducted and in compliance with the government’s 2014 Unsolicited Proposals: Guide for Submission and Assessment (Unsolicited Proposals Guide or the Guide).
The audit focused on how the government-appointed Assessment Panel and Proposal Specific Steering Committee assessed key requirements in the Guide that unsolicited proposals must be demonstrably unique and represent value for money.
The evidence available does not conclusively demonstrate the unsolicited proposal was unique, and there were some shortcomings in the negotiation process, documentation and segregation of duties. That said, before the final commitment to proceed with the lease, the state obtained assurance that the proposal delivered value for money.
It is particularly important to demonstrate unsolicited proposals are unique, in order to justify the departure from other transaction processes that offer greater competition, transparency and certainty about value for money.
The Assessment Panel and the Proposal Specific Steering Committee determined the Ausgrid unsolicited proposal was unique, primarily on the basis that the proponent did not require foreign investment approval from the Australian Treasurer, and the lease transaction could be concluded earlier than through a second tender process. However, the evidence that persuaded the Panel and Committee did not demonstrate that no other proponent could conclude the transaction in time to meet the government’s deadline.
It is not appropriate to determine an unsolicited proposal is unique because it delivers an earlier outcome than possible through a tender process. The Panel and Committee did not contend, and it is not evident, that the unsolicited proposal was the only way to meet the government’s transaction deadline.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the proponent was the only party that would not have needed foreign investment approval to participate in the transaction. It also does not demonstrate that the requirement for foreign investment approval would have reduced the pool of foreign buyers to the degree that it would be reasonable to assume none would emerge.
The Panel, Committee and financial advisers determined that the final price represented value for money, and that retendering offered a material risk of a worse financial outcome. However, an acceptable price was revealed early in the negotiation process, and doing so made it highly unlikely that the proponent would offer a higher price than that disclosed. The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and NSW Treasury were not able to provide a documented reserve price, bargaining strategy or similar which put the negotiations in context. It is not evident that the Panel or Committee authorised, justified or endorsed negotiations in advance.
Key aspects of governance recommended by the Guide were in place. Some shortcomings relating to role segregation, record keeping and probity assurance weakened the effectiveness of the unsolicited proposal process adopted for Ausgrid.
The reasons for accepting that the proposal and proponent were unique are not compelling.
The Unsolicited Proposals Guide says the 'unique benefits of the proposal and the unique ability of the proponent to deliver the proposal' must be demonstrated.
The conclusion reached by the Panel and Committee that the proposal offered a ‘unique ability to deliver (a) strategic outcome’ was primarily based on the proponent not requiring foreign investment approval from the Australian Treasurer, and allowing the government to complete the lease transaction earlier than by going through a second tender process.
It is not appropriate to determine an unsolicited proposal is unique because it delivers an earlier outcome than possible through a tender process. The Panel and Committee did not contend, and it is not evident, that the unsolicited proposal was the only way to meet the government’s transaction deadline.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the proponent was the only party that would not have needed foreign investment approval to participate in the transaction. Nor does it demonstrate that the requirement for foreign investment approval would have reduced the pool of foreign buyers to the degree that it would be reasonable to assume none would emerge.
That said, the Australian Treasurer’s decision to reject the two bids from the previous tender process created uncertainty about the conditions under which he would approve international bids. The financial advisers engaged for the Ausgrid transaction informed the Panel and Committee that:
- it was not likely another viable proponent would emerge soon enough to meet the government’s transaction deadline
- the market would be unlikely to deliver a better result than offered by the proponent
- going to tender presented a material risk of a worse financial result.
The Unsolicited Proposals Guide says that a proposal to directly purchase or acquire a government-owned entity or property will generally not be unique. The Ausgrid unsolicited proposal fell into this category.
Recommendations:
DPC should ensure future Assessment Panels and Steering Committees considering a proposal to acquire a government business or asset:
- recognise that when considering uniqueness they should:
- require very strong evidence to decide that both the proponent and proposal are the only ones of their kind that could meet the government’s objectives
- give thorough consideration to any reasonable counter-arguments against uniqueness.
- rigorously consider all elements of the Unsolicited Proposals Guide when determining whether a proposal should be dealt with as an unsolicited proposal, and document these deliberations and all relevant evidence
- do not use speed of transaction compared to a market process as justification for uniqueness.
The Panel and Committee concluded the price represented value for money, based on peer-reviewed advice from their financial advisers and knowledge acquired from previous tenders. The financial advisers also told the Panel and Committee that there was a material risk the state would receive a lower price than offered by the unsolicited proposal if it immediately proceeded with a second market transaction.
The state commenced negotiations on price earlier than the Guide says they should have. Early disclosure of a price that the state would accept reduced the likelihood of achieving a price greater than this. DPC says the intent of this meeting was to quickly establish whether the proponents could meet the state’s benchmark rather than spending more time and resources on a proposal which had no prospect of proceeding.
DPC and NSW Treasury were not able to provide a documented reserve price, negotiation strategy or similar which put the negotiations and price achieved in context. It was not evident that the Panel or Committee authorised, justified or endorsed negotiations in advance. However, the Panel and Committee endorsed the outcomes of the negotiations.
The negotiations were informed by the range of prices achieved for similar assets and the specific bids for Ausgrid from the earlier market process.
Recommendations:
DPC should ensure any future Assessment Panels and Steering Committees considering a proposal to acquire a government business or asset:
- document a minimum acceptable price, and a negotiating strategy designed to maximise price, before commencing negotiations
- do not communicate an acceptable price to the proponent, before the negotiation stage of the process, and then only as part of a documented bargaining strategy.
The state established a governance structure in accordance with the Unsolicited Proposals Guide, including an Assessment Panel and Proposal Specific Steering Committee. The members of the Panel and Steering Committee were senior and experienced officers, as befitted the size and nature of the unsolicited proposal.
The separation of negotiation, assessment and review envisaged by the Guide was not maintained fully. The Chair of the Assessment Panel and a member of the Steering Committee were involved in negotiations with the proponent.
DPC could not provide comprehensive records of some key interactions with the proponent or a documented negotiation strategy. The absence of such records means the Department cannot demonstrate engagement and negotiation processes were authorised and rigorous.
The probity adviser reported there were no material probity issues with the transaction. The probity adviser also provided audit services. This is not good practice. The same party should not provide both advisory and audit services on the same transaction.
Recommendations:
DPC should ensure any future Assessment Panels and Steering Committees considering a proposal to acquire a government entity or asset:
• maintain separation between negotiation, assessment and review in line with the Unsolicited Proposals Guide
• keep an auditable trail of documentation relating to the negotiation process
• maintain separation between any probity audit services engaged and the probity advisory and reporting services recommended in the current Guide.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - NSW Government’s summary of assessment of the Ausgrid unsolicited proposal
Appendix three - The definition and nature of unsolicited proposals
Appendix four - Ausgrid unsolicited proposal process
Appendix five - About the audit
Appendix six - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #309 - released 11 December 2018
Family and Community Services 2018
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford released her report today on the Family and Community Services cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial audits of agencies in the cluster. Cluster entities received unqualified audit opinions for their 30 June 2018 financial statements. Opportunities to improve the quality of financial reporting were identified and reported to management.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the Family and Community Services cluster for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key observations.
This report provides NSW Parliament and other users of the financial statements of Family and Community Services' agencies with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations
- service delivery.
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 Family and Community Services cluster for 2018.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' financial statements. | Conclusion: Sufficient audit evidence was obtained to conclude the financial statements were free of material misstatement. |
| Agencies complied with NSW Treasury’s mandatory early close requirements. Completing other early close procedures was inconsistent and not always supported by adequate evidence. |
Conclusion: There are opportunities for agencies to improve the quality of financial reporting by:
|
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Agencies completed revaluations of property, plant and equipment and submitted 31 March 2018 financial statements by the due date as required by NSW Treasury. Agencies submitted year-end financial statements by the statutory deadline. |
Conclusion: Early revaluations of property, plant and equipment contributes to agencies meeting the year-end statutory reporting deadline. |
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 Family and Community Services cluster for 2018
- the areas of focus identified in the Audit Office annual work program.
The Audit Office Annual Work Program provides a summary of all audits to be conducted within the proposed time period as well as detailed information on the areas of focus for each NSW Government cluster.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
| 3.1 Internal controls | |
| The 2017–18 audits reported 47 internal control weaknesses. While none were high risk, there were 15 repeat issues. |
Conclusion: Management accepted audit findings and advised they are actioning recommendations. Timely action is important to ensure internal controls operate effectively. |
| Twenty-two of these internal control weaknesses related to information technology processes and control environment. | Conclusion: Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting. Recommendation: Agencies should strengthen user access administration to prevent inappropriate access to key IT systems by:
|
| The Department, NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) and three other cluster agencies’ contract registers are incomplete and/or inaccurate. | Recommendation: Agencies should ensure their contract registers are complete and accurate so they can more effectively govern contracts and manage compliance obligations. |
| 3.2 Audit Office annual work program | |
| Financial impact of the commissioning approach. The transfer of disability services to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other commissioning of service delivery has contributed to a 36 per cent decrease in frontline employee numbers since 2015–16. Similarly, corporate services’ employee numbers reduced by 34 per cent. The Department’s salary costs have reduced by $232 million or 18 per cent from 2016–17. |
Conclusion: The ratio of corporate services employee numbers to support frontline and support services has remained at 1:10 since 2015–16, which indicates restructures have been planned to align with the transfer of disability services. |
| Impact of the new social housing maintenance contract Maintenance expenses have increased by about 40 per cent since the new maintenance contract commenced in April 2016. LAHC measures the benefits of the new maintenance contract such as improved tenant satisfaction. |
Conclusion: The new maintenance contract has contributed to some positive social outcomes such as tenants being employed by the contractors to conduct maintenance, as call centre operators and in administration. However, more can be done to ensure value for money is being achieved. |
| ChildStory IT Project Whilst phase one of the ChildStory IT project went 'live' in 2017–18, the planned timetable has not been met and the revised date for full implementation is end of 2018. According to the 2014–15 NSW Budget, the budget for ChildStory was $100 million over a four-year period. During the design and implementation stage, this amount was revised to $128 million, with approval of the Expenditure Review Committee. The actual cost incurred over the four years until 30 June 2018, is approximately $131 million. We identified issues with the data migration from the legacy systems to ChildStory. |
Conclusion: To inform future IT projects, we understand the Department is capturing our findings, along with the findings from the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation’s ‘Healthchecks’. |
This chapter outlines certain service delivery outcomes for 2017–18. The data on activity levels and performance is provided by Cluster agencies. The Audit Office does not have a specific mandate to audit performance information. Accordingly, the information in this chapter is unaudited.
In our recent performance audit, Progress and measurement of Premier's Priorities, we identified 12 limitations of performance measurement and performance data. We recommended that the Department of Premier and Cabinet ensure that processes to check and verify data are in place for all agency data sources.
Internal Controls and Governance 2018
The Auditor-General for New South Wales Margaret Crawford found that as NSW state government agencies’ digital footprint increases they need to do more to address new and emerging information technology (IT) risks. This is one of the key findings to emerge from the second stand-alone report on internal controls and governance of the 40 largest NSW state government agencies.
This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 40 largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2018.
This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2017–18 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at the 40 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector.
This report offers insights into internal controls and governance in the NSW public sector
This is our second report dedicated to internal controls and governance at NSW State Government agencies. The report provides insights into the effectiveness of controls and governance processes in the NSW public sector by:
- highlighting the potential risks posed by weaknesses in controls and governance processes
- helping agencies benchmark the adequacy of their processes against their peers
- focusing on new and emerging risks, and the internal controls and governance processes that might address those risks.
Without strong governance systems and internal controls, agencies increase the risks associated with effectively managing their finances and delivering services to citizens. The way agencies deliver services increasingly relies on contracts and partnerships with the private sector. Many of these arrangements deliver front line services, but others provide less visible back office support. For example, an agency may rely on an IT service provider to manage a key system used to provide services to the community. The contract and service level agreements are only truly effective where they are actively managed to reduce risks to continuous quality service delivery, such as interruptions caused by system outages, cyber security attacks and data security breaches.
Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present heightened risks for agencies to mitigate. This report divides these into the following five areas:
- Internal control trends
- Information technology (IT), including IT vendor management
- Transparency and performance reporting
- Management of purchasing cards and taxis
- Fraud and corruption control.
The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2018 cluster financial audit reports, which will be tabled in Parliament from November to December 2018.
The focus of the report has changed since last year
Last year's report topics included asset management, ethics and conduct, and risk management. We are reporting on new topics this year. We plan to introduce new topics and re-visit our previous topics in subsequent reports on a cyclical basis. This will provide a baseline against which to measure the NSW public sectors’ progress in implementing appropriate internal controls and governance processes to mitigate existing, new and emerging risks in the public sector.
Agencies selected for the volume account for 95 per cent of the state's expenditure
While we have covered only 40 agencies in this report, those selected are a large enough group to identify common issues and insights. They represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations
- support ethical government.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this volume presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
|---|---|
| 2.1 High risk findings | |
| We found six high risk findings (seven in 2016–17), one of which was repeated from both last year and 2015–16. | Recommendation: Agencies should reduce risk by addressing high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority. |
| 2.2 Common findings | |
| We found several internal controls and governance findings common to multiple agencies. | Conclusion: Central agencies or the lead agency in a cluster can play a lead role in helping ensure agency responses to common findings are consistent, timely, efficient and effective. |
| 2.3 New and repeat findings | |
| Although internal control deficiencies decreased over the last four years, this year has seen a 42 per cent increase in internal control deficiencies. | The increase in new IT control deficiencies and repeat IT control deficiencies signifies an emerging risk for agencies. |
| IT control deficiencies feature in this increase, having risen by 63 per cent since last year. The number of repeat IT control deficiencies has doubled and is driven by the increasing digital footprint left by agencies as government prioritises on-line interfaces with citizens, and the number of transactions conducted through digital channels increases |
Recommendation: Agencies should reduce IT risks by:
|
Government agencies’ financial reporting is now heavily reliant on information technology (IT). IT is also increasingly important to the delivery of agency services. These systems often provide the data to help monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of agency processes and services they deliver. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place to manage both key financial systems and IT service contracts.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
|---|---|
| 3.1 Management of IT vendors | |
| Contract management framework Although 87 per cent of agencies have a contract management policy to manage IT vendors, one fifth require review. |
Conclusion: Agencies can more effectively manage IT vendor contracts by developing policies and procedures to ensure vendor management frameworks are kept up to date, plans are in place to manage vendor performance and risk, and compliance with the framework is monitored by:
|
| Contract risk management Forty-one per cent of agencies are not using contract management plans and do not assess contract risks. Half of the agencies that did assess contract risks, had not updated the risk assessments since the commencement of the contract. |
Conclusion: Instead of applying a 'set and forget' approach in relation to management of contract risks, agencies should assess risk regularly and develop a plan to actively manage identified risks throughout the contract lifecycle - from negotiation and commencement, to termination. |
|
Performance management Only 24 per cent of agencies sought assurance about the accuracy of vendor reporting against KPIs, yet sixty-seven per cent of the IT contracts allow agencies to determine performance based payments and/or penalise underperformance. |
Conclusion: Agencies are monitoring IT vendor performance, but could improve outcomes and more effectively manage under-performance by:
|
|
Transitioning services Where IT vendor contracts do make provision for transitioning-out, only 28 per cent of agencies have developed a transitioning-out plan with their IT vendor. |
Conclusion: Contract transition/phase out clauses and plans can mitigate risks to service disruption, ensure internal controls remain in place, avoid unnecessary costs and reduce the risk of 'vendor lock-in'. |
| Contract Registers Eleven out of forty agencies did not have a contract register, or have registers that are not accurate and/or complete. |
Conclusion: A contract register helps to manage an agency’s compliance obligations under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act). However, it also helps agencies more effectively manage IT vendors by:
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure their contract registers are complete and accurate so they can more effectively govern contracts and manage compliance obligations. |
| 3.2 IT general controls | |
| Governance Ninety-five per cent of agencies have established policies to manage key IT processes and functions within the agency, with ten per cent of those due for review. |
Conclusion: Regular review of IT policies ensures risks are considered and appropriate strategies and procedures are implemented to manage these risks on a consistent basis. An absence of policies can lead to ad-hoc responses to risks, and failure to consider emerging IT risks and changes to agency IT environments. |
|
User access administration
|
Recommendation: Agencies should strengthen the administration of user access to prevent inappropriate access to key systems. |
| Privileged access Forty per cent of agencies do not periodically review logs of the activities of privileged users to identify suspicious or unauthorised activities. |
Recommendation: Agencies should:
|
| Password controls Twenty-three per cent of agencies did not comply with their own policy on password parameters. |
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure IT password settings comply with their password policies. |
| Program changes Fifteen per cent of agencies had deficient IT program change controls mainly related to segregation of duties and authorisation and testing of IT program changes prior to deployment. |
Recommendation: Agencies should maintain appropriate segregation of duties in their IT functions and test system changes before they are deployed. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations from our review of how agencies reported their performance in their 2016–17 annual reports. The Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Regulation 2015 and Annual Reports (Departments) Regulation 2015 (annual reports regulation) currently prescribes the minimum requirements for agency annual reports.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 4.1 Reporting on performance | |
|
Only 57 per cent of agencies linked reporting on performance to their strategic objectives. The use of targets and reporting performance over time was limited and applied inconsistently. |
Conclusion: There is significant disparity in the quality and consistency of how agencies report on their performance in their annual reports. This limits the reliability and transparency of reported performance information. Agencies could improve performance reporting by clearly linking strategic objectives to reported outcomes, and reporting on performance against targets over time. NSW Treasury may need to provide more guidance to agencies to support consistent and high-quality performance reporting in annual reports. |
|
There is no independent assurance that the performance metrics agencies report in their annual reports are accurate. Prior performance audits have noted issues related to the collection of performance information. For example, our 2016 Report on Red Tape Reduction highlighted inaccuracies in how the dollar-value of red tape reduction had been reported. |
Conclusion: The ability of Parliament and the public to rely on reported information as a relevant and accurate reflection of an agency's performance is limited. The relevance and accuracy of performance information is enhanced when:
|
| 4.2 Reporting on reports | |
|
Agency reporting on major projects does not meet the requirements of the annual reports regulation. Forty-seven per cent of agencies did not report on costs to date and estimated completion dates for major works in progress. Of the 47 per cent of agencies that reported on major works, only one agency reported detail about significant cost overruns, delays, amendments, deferments or cancellations. |
NSW Treasury produce an annual report checklist to help agencies comply with their annual report obligations. Recommendation: Agencies should comply with the annual reports regulation and report on all mandatory fields, including significant cost overruns and delays, for their major works in progress. |
|
The information the annual reports regulation requires agencies to report deals only with major works in progress. There is no requirement to report on completed works. Sixteen of 30 agencies reported some information on completed major works. |
Conclusion: Agencies could improve their transparency if they reported, or were required to report:
|
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency preventative and detective controls over purchasing card and taxi use for 2017–18.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 5.1 Management of purchasing cards | |
| Volume of credit card spend Purchasing card expenditure has increased by 76 per cent over the last four years in response to a government review into the cost savings possible from using purchasing cards for low value, high volume procurement. |
Conclusion: The increasing use of purchasing cards highlights the importance of an effective framework for the use and management of purchasing cards. |
| Policy framework We found all agencies that held purchasing cards had a policy in place, but 26 per cent of agencies have not reviewed their purchasing card policy by the scheduled date, or do not have a scheduled revision date stated within their policy. |
Recommendation: Agencies should mitigate the risks associated with increased purchasing card use by ensuring policies and purchasing card frameworks remain current and compliant with the core requirements of TPP 17–09 'Use and Management of NSW Government Purchasing Cards'. |
| Preventative controls We found that:
|
Agencies have designed and implemented preventative controls aimed at deterring the potential misuse of purchasing cards. Conclusion: Further opportunities exist for agencies to better control the use of purchasing cards, such as:
|
|
Detective controls Major reviews, such as data analytics (29 per cent of agencies) and independent spot checks (49 per cent of agencies) are not widely used. |
Agencies have designed and implemented detective controls aimed at identifying potential misuse of purchasing cards. Conclusion: More effective monitoring using purchasing card data can provide better visibility over spending activity and can be used to:
|
| 5.2 Management of taxis | |
| Policy framework Thirteen per cent of agencies have not developed and implemented a policy to manage taxi use. In addition:
|
Conclusion: Agencies can promote savings and provide more options to staff where their taxi use policies:
|
| Detective controls All agencies approve taxi expenditure by expense reimbursement, purchasing card and Cabcharge, and have implemented controls around this approval process. However, beyond this there is minimal monitoring and review activity, such as data monitoring, independent spot checks or internal audit reviews. |
Conclusion: Taxi spend at agencies is not significant in terms of its dollar value, but it is significant from a probity perspective. Agencies can better address the probity risk by incorporating taxi use into a broader purchasing card or fraud monitoring program. |
Fraud and corruption control is one of the 17 key elements of our governance lighthouse. Recent reports from ICAC into state agencies and local government councils highlight the need for effective fraud control and ethical frameworks. Effective frameworks can help protect an agency from events that risk serious reputational damage and financial loss.
Our 2016 Fraud Survey found the NSW Government agencies we surveyed reported 1,077 frauds over the three year period to 30 June 2015. For those frauds where an estimate of losses was made, the reported value exceeded $10.0 million. The report also highlighted that the full extent of fraud in the NSW public sector could be higher than reported because:
- unreported frauds in organisations can be almost three times the number of reported frauds
- our 2015 survey did not include all NSW public sector agencies, nor did it include any NSW universities or local councils
- fraud committed by citizens such as fare evasion and fraudulent state tax self-assessments was not within the scope of our 2015 survey
- agencies did not estimate a value for 599 of the 1,077 (56 per cent) reported frauds.
Commissioning and outsourcing of services to the private sector and the advancement of digital technology are changing the fraud and corruption risks agencies face. Fraud risk assessments should be updated regularly and in particular where there are changes in agency business models. NSW Treasury Circular TC18-02 NSW Fraud and Corruption Control Policy now requires agencies develop, implement and maintain a fraud and corruption control framework, effective from 1 July 2018.
Our Fraud Control Improvement Kit provides guidance and practical advice to help organisations implement an effective fraud control framework. The kit is divided into ten attributes. Three key attributes have been assessed below; prevention, detection and notification systems.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency fraud and corruption controls for 2017–18.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 6.1 Prevention systems | |
|
Prevention systems Only 54 per cent of agencies have an employment screening policy and all agencies have IT security policies, but gaps in IT security controls could undermine their policies. |
Conclusion: Most agencies have implemented fraud prevention systems to reduce the risk of fraud. However poor IT security along with other gaps in agency prevention systems, such as employment screening practices heightens the risk of fraud and inappropriate use of data. Agencies can improve their fraud prevention systems by:
|
| Twenty-three per cent of agencies were not performing fraud risk assessments and some agency fraud risk assessments may not be as robust as they could be. | Conclusion: Agencies' systems of internal controls may be less effective where new and emerging fraud risks have been overlooked, or known weaknesses have not been rectified. |
| 6.2 Detection systems | |
| Detection systems Several agencies reported they were developing a data monitoring program, but only 38 per cent of agencies had already implemented a program. |
Studies have shown data monitoring, whereby entire populations of transactional data are analysed for indicators of fraudulent activity, is one of the most effective methods of early detection. Early detection decreases the duration a fraud remains undetected thereby limiting the extent of losses. Conclusion: Data monitoring is an effective tool for early detection of fraud and is more effective when informed by a comprehensive fraud risk assessment. |
| 6.3 Notification systems | |
| Notification system All agencies have notification systems for reporting actual or suspected fraud and corruption. Most agencies provide multiple reporting lines, provide training and publicise options for staff to report actual or suspected fraud and corruption. |
Conclusion: Training staff about their obligations and the use of fraud notification systems promotes a fraud-aware culture |
Mobile speed cameras
The primary goal of speed cameras is to reduce speeding and make the roads safer. Our 2011 performance audit on speed cameras found that, in general, speed cameras change driver behaviour and have a positive impact on road safety.
Transport for NSW published the NSW Speed Camera Strategy in June 2012 in response to our audit. According to the Strategy, the main purpose of mobile speed cameras is to reduce speeding across the road network by providing a general deterrence through anywhere, anytime enforcement and by creating a perceived risk of detection across the road network. Fixed and red-light speed cameras aim to reduce speeding at specific locations.
Roads and Maritime Services and Transport for NSW deploy mobile speed cameras (MSCs) in consultation with NSW Police. The cameras are operated by contractors authorised by Roads and Maritime Services. MSC locations are stretches of road that can be more than 20 kilometres long. MSC sites are specific places within these locations that meet the requirements for a MSC vehicle to be able to operate there.
This audit assessed whether the mobile speed camera program is effectively managed to maximise road safety benefits across the NSW road network.
The mobile speed camera program requires improvements to key aspects of its management to maximise road safety benefits. While camera locations have been selected based on crash history, the limited number of locations restricts network coverage. It also makes enforcement more predictable, reducing the ability to provide a general deterrence. Implementation of the program has been consistent with government decisions to limit its hours of operation and use multiple warning signs. These factors limit the ability of the mobile speed camera program to effectively deliver a broad general network deterrence from speeding.
Many locations are needed to enable network-wide coverage and ensure MSC sessions are randomised and not predictable. However, there are insufficient locations available to operate MSCs that meet strict criteria for crash history, operator safety, signage and technical requirements. MSC performance would be improved if there were more locations.
A scheduling system is meant to randomise MSC location visits to ensure they are not predictable. However, a relatively small number of locations have been visited many times making their deployment more predictable in these places. The allocation of MSCs across the time of day, day of week and across regions is prioritised based on crash history but the frequency of location visits does not correspond with the crash risk for each location.
There is evidence of a reduction in fatal and serious crashes at the 30 best-performing MSC locations. However, there is limited evidence that the current MSC program in NSW has led to a behavioural change in drivers by creating a general network deterrence. While the overall reduction in serious injuries on roads has continued, fatalities have started to climb again. Compliance with speed limits has improved at the sites and locations that MSCs operate, but the results of overall network speed surveys vary, with recent improvements in some speed zones but not others.
There is no supporting justification for the number of hours of operation for the program. The rate of MSC enforcement (hours per capita) in NSW is less than Queensland and Victoria. The government decision to use multiple warning signs has made it harder to identify and maintain suitable MSC locations, and impeded their use for enforcement in both traffic directions and in school zones.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #308 - released 18 October 2018
Progress and measurement of the Premier's Priorities
The Premier’s Implementation Unit uses a systematic approach to measuring and reporting progress towards the Premier’s Priorities performance targets, but public reporting needed to improve, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General of NSW, Margaret Crawford.
The Premier of New South Wales has established 12 Premier’s Priorities. These are key performance targets for government.
| The 12 Premier's Priorities | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Department of Premier and Cabinet, Premier’s Priorities website.
Each Premier’s Priority has a lead agency and minister responsible for achieving the performance target.
The Premier’s Implementation Unit (PIU) was established within the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) in 2015. The PIU is a delivery unit that supports agencies to measure and monitor performance, make progress toward the Premier’s Priorities targets, and report progress to the Premier, key ministers and the public.
This audit assessed how effectively the NSW Government is progressing and reporting on the Premier's Priorities.
The Premier’s Implementation Unit (PIU) is effective in assisting agencies to make progress against the Premier’s Priorities targets. Progress reporting is regular but transparency to the public is weakened by the lack of information about specific measurement limitations and lack of clarity about the relationship of the targets to broader government objectives.The PIU promotes a systematic approach to measuring performance and reporting progress towards the Premier’s Priorities’ performance targets. Public reporting would be improved with additional information about the rationale for choosing specific targets to report on broader government objectives.
The PIU provides a systematic approach to measuring performance and reporting progress towards the Premier's Priorities performance targets. Public reporting would be improved with additional information about the rationale for choosing specific targets to report on broader government objectives. The data used to measure the Premier’s Priorities comes from a variety of government and external datasets, some of which have known limitations. These limitations are not revealed in public reporting, and only some are revealed in progress reported to the Premier and ministers. This limits the transparency of reporting.
The PIU assists agencies to avoid unintended outcomes that can arise from prioritising particular performance measures over other areas of activity. The PIU has adopted a collaborative approach to assisting agencies to analyse performance using data, and helping them work across organisational silos to achieve the Premier’s Priorities targets.
Data used to measure progress for some of the Premier’s Priorities has limitations which are not made clear when progress is reported. This reduces transparency about the reported progress. Public reporting would also be improved with additional information about the relationship between specific performance measures and broader government objectives.
The PIU is responsible for reporting progress to the Premier, key ministers and the public. Agencies provide performance data and some play a role in preparing progress reports for the Premier and ministers. For 11 of the Premier's Priorities, progress is reported against measurable and time-related performance targets. For the infrastructure priority, progress is reported against project milestones.
Progress of some Priorities is measured using data that has known limitations, which should be noted wherever progress is reported. For example, the data used to report on housing completions does not take housing demolitions into account, and is therefore overstating the contribution of this performance measure to housing supply. This known limitation is not explained in progress reports or on the public website.
Data used to measure progress is sourced from a mix of government and external datasets. Updated progress data for most Premier’s Priorities is published on the Premier’s Priorities website annually, although reported to the Premier and key ministers more frequently. The PIU reviews the data and validates it through fieldwork with front line agencies. The PIU also assists agencies to avoid unintended outcomes that can arise from prioritising single performance measures. Most, but not all, agencies use additional indicators to check for misuse of data or perverse outcomes.
We examined the reporting processes and controls for five of the Premier’s Priorities. We found that there is insufficient assurance over the accuracy of the data on housing approvals.
The relationships between performance measures and broader government objectives is not always clearly explained on the Premier’s Priority website, which is the key source of public information about the Premier’s Priorities. For example, the Premier’s Priority to reduce litter volumes is communicated as “Keeping our Environment Clean.” While the website explains why reducing litter is important, it does not clearly explain why that particular target has been chosen to measure progress in keeping the environment clean.
By December 2018, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:
- improve transparency of public reporting by:
- providing information about limitations of reported data and associated performance
- clarifying the relationship between the Premier’s Priorities performance targets and broader government objectives.
- ensure that processes to check and verify data are in place for all agency data sources
- encourage agencies to develop and implement additional supporting indicators for all Premier’s Priority performance measures to prevent and detect unintended consequences or misuse of data.
The Premier's Implementation Unit is effective in supporting agencies to deliver progress towards the Premier’s Priority targets.
The PIU promotes a systematic approach to monitoring and reporting progress against a target, based on a methodology used in delivery units elsewhere in the world. The PIU undertakes internal self-evaluation, and commissions regular reviews of methodology implementation from the consultancy that owns the methodology and helped to establish the PIU. However, the unit lacks periodic independent reviews of their overall effectiveness. The PIU has adopted a collaborative approach and assists agencies to analyse performance using data, and work across organisational silos to achieve the Premier’s Priorities targets.
Agency representatives recognise the benefits of being responsible for a Premier's Priority and speak of the value of being held to account and having the attention of the Premier and senior ministers.
By June 2019, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:
- establish routine collection of feedback about PIU performance including:
- independent assurance of PIU performance
- opportunity for agencies to provide confidential feedback.
Appendix one: Response from agency
Appendix three: About the audit
Appendix four: Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #307 - released 13 September 2018
Procurement and reporting of consultancy services
NSW Government agencies engage consultants to provide professional advice to inform their decision‑making. The spend on consultants is measured and reported in different ways for different purposes and the absence of a consistently applied definition makes quantification difficult.
The NSW Government’s procurement principles aim to help agencies obtain value for money and be fair, ethical and transparent in their procurement activities. All NSW Government agencies, with the exception of State Owned Corporations, must comply with the NSW Procurement Board’s Direction when engaging suppliers of business advisory services. Business advisory services include consultancy services. NSW Government agencies must disclose certain information about their use of consultants in their annual reports. The table below illustrates the detailed procurement and reporting requirements.
| Relevant guidance | Requirements | |
|---|---|---|
| Procurement of consultancy services | PBD 2015 04 Engagement of major suppliers of consultancy and other services (the Direction) including the Standard Commercial Framework (revised on 31 January 2018, shortly before it was superseded by 'PBD 2018 01') |
Required agencies to seek the Agency Head or Chief Financial Officer's approval for engagements over $50,000 and report the engagements in the Major Suppliers' Portal (the Portal). |
| PBD 2018 01 Engagement of professional services suppliers (replaced 'PBD 2015 04' in May 2018) |
Requires agencies to seek the Agency Head or Chief Financial Officer's approval for engagements that depart from the Standard Commercial Framework and report the engagements in the Portal. Exhibit 3 in the report includes the key requirements of these three Directions. |
|
| Reporting of consultancy expenditure | Annual Reports (Departments) Regulation 2015 and Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Regulation 2015 | Requires agencies to disclose, in their annual reports, details of consultants engaged in a reporting year. |
| Premier's Memorandum 'M2002 07 Engagement and Use of Consultants' |
Outlines additional reporting requirements for agencies to describe the nature and purpose of consultancies in their annual reports. |
We examined how 12 agencies complied with their procurement and reporting obligations for consultancy services between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2018. Participating agencies are listed in Appendix two. We also examined how NSW Procurement supports the functions of the NSW Procurement Board within the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation.
This audit assessed:
- agency compliance with relevant procurement requirements for their use of consultants
- agency compliance with disclosure requirements about consultancy expenditure in their annual reports
- the effectiveness of the NSW Procurement Board (the Board) in fulfilling its functions to oversee and support agency procurement of consultancy services.
Shared services in local government
Local councils need to properly assess the performance of their current services before considering whether to enter into arrangements with other councils to jointly manage back-office functions or services for their communities. This is one of the recommended practices for councils in a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. ‘When councils have decided to jointly provide services, they do not always have a strong business case, which clearly identifies the expected costs, benefits and risks of shared service arrangements’, said the Auditor-General.
Councils provide a range of services to meet the needs of their communities. It is important that they consider the most effective and efficient way to deliver them. Many councils work together to share knowledge, resources and services. When done well, councils can save money and improve access to services. This audit assessed how efficiently and effectively councils engage in shared service arrangements. We define ‘shared services’ as two or more councils jointly managing activities to deliver services to communities or perform back-office functions.
The information we gathered for this audit included a survey of all general-purpose councils in NSW. In total 67 councils (52 per cent) responded to the survey from 128 invited to participate. Appendix two outlines in more detail some of the results from our survey.
First, not all surveyed councils are assessing the performance of their current services before deciding on the best service delivery model. Where they have decided that sharing services is the best way to deliver services, they do not always build a business case which outlines the costs, benefits and risks of the proposed shared service arrangement before entering into it.
The Office of Local Government should, by April 2019:
Develop guidance which outlines the risks and opportunities of governance models that councils can use to share services. This should include advice on legal requirements, transparency in decisions, and accountability for effective use of public resources.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Survey findings
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #302 - released 21 June 2018
HealthRoster benefits realisation
The HealthRoster system is delivering some business benefits but Local Health Districts are yet to use all of its features, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. HealthRoster is an IT system designed to more effectively roster staff to meet the needs of Local Health Districts and other NSW health agencies.
The NSW public health system employs over 100,000 people in clinical and non-clinical roles across the state. With increasing demand for services, it is vital that NSW Health effectively rosters staff to ensure high quality and efficient patient care, while maintaining good workplace practices to support staff in demanding roles.
NSW Health is implementing HealthRoster as its single state-wide rostering system to more effectively roster staff according to the demands of each location. Between 2013–14 and 2016–17, our financial audits of individual LHDs had reported issues with rostering and payroll processes and systems.
NSW Health grouped all Local Health Districts (LHDs), and other NSW Health organisations, into four clusters to manage the implementation of HealthRoster over four years. Refer to Exhibit 4 for a list of the NSW Health entities in each cluster.
- Cluster 1 implementation commenced in 2014–15 and was completed in 2015–16.
- Cluster 2 implementation commenced in 2015–16 and was completed in 2016–17.
- Cluster 3 began implementation in 2016–17 and was underway during the conduct of the audit.
- Cluster 4 began planning for implementation in 2017–18.
Full implementation, including capability for centralised data and reporting, is planned for completion in 2019.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the HealthRoster system in delivering business benefits. In making this assessment, we examined whether:
- expected business benefits of HealthRoster were well-defined
- HealthRoster is achieving business benefits where implemented.
The HealthRoster project has a timespan from 2009 to 2019. We examined the HealthRoster implementation in LHDs, and other NSW Health organisations, focusing on the period from 2014, when eHealth assumed responsibility for project implementation, to early 2018.
Business benefits identified for HealthRoster accurately reflect business needs.
NSW Health has a good understanding of the issues in previous rostering systems and has designed HealthRoster to adequately address these issues. Interviews with frontline staff indicate that HealthRoster facilitates rostering which complies with industrial awards. This is a key business benefit that supports the provision of quality patient care. We saw no evidence that any major business needs or issues with the previous rostering systems are not being addressed by HealthRoster.
In the period examined in this audit since 2015, NSW Health has applied appropriate project management and governance structures to ensure that risks and issues are well managed during HealthRoster implementation.
HealthRoster has had two changes to its budget and timeline. Overall, the capital cost for the project has increased from $88.6 million to $125.6 million (42 per cent) and has delayed expected project completion by four years from 2015 to 2019. NSW Health attributes the increased cost and extended time frame to the large scale and complexity of the full implementation of HealthRoster.
NSW Health has established appropriate governance arrangements to ensure that HealthRoster is successfully implemented and that it will achieve business benefits in the long term. During implementation, local steering committees monitor risks and resolve implementation issues. Risks or issues that cannot be resolved locally are escalated to the state-wide steering committee.
NSW Health has grouped local health districts, and other NSW Health organisations, into four clusters for implementation. This has enabled NSW Health to apply lessons learnt from each implementation to improve future implementations.
NSW Health has a benefits realisation framework, but it is not fully applied to HealthRoster.
NSW Health can demonstrate that HealthRoster has delivered some functional business benefits, including rosters that comply with a wide variety of employment awards.
NSW Health is not yet measuring and tracking the value of business benefits achieved. NSW Health did not have benefits realisation plans with baseline measures defined for LHDs in cluster 1 and 2 before implementation. Without baseline measures NSW Health is unable to quantify business benefits achieved. However, analysis of post-implementation reviews and interviews with frontline staff indicate that benefits are being achieved. As a result, NSW Health now includes defining baseline measures and setting targets as part of LHD implementation planning. It has created a benefits realisation toolkit to assist this process from cluster 3 implementations onwards.
NSW Health conducted post-implementation reviews for clusters 1 and 2 and found that LHDs in these clusters were not using HealthRoster to realise all the benefits that HealthRoster could deliver.
By September 2018, NSW Health should:
- Ensure that Local Health Districts undertake benefits realisation planning according to the NSW Health benefits realisation framework
- Regularly measure benefits realised, at state and local health district levels, from the statewide implementation of HealthRoster
- Review the use of HealthRoster in Local Health Districts in clusters 1 and 2 and assist them to improve their HealthRoster related processes and practices.
By June 2019, NSW Health should:
- Ensure that all Local Health Districts are effectively using demand based rostering.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #301 - released 7 June 2018
Report on Local Government 2017
Under section 421C of the Local Government Act 1993, I am pleased to present our first report on the statutory financial audits of councils, to NSW Parliament.
My appointment as the auditor of local government in New South Wales is the most significant change to the Auditor-General's mandate in nearly three decades.
Moving to the new audit arrangements over the past 18 months has been challenging but rewarding. It has confirmed my appreciation of local government – a sector passionate about the community and focused on delivering local services.
The unique relationship each council has with its community differentiates it from other tiers of government.
Our audits
I am pleased to report that we completed 139 out of 140 financial statement audits for the 2016–17 audit cycle. The remaining council received an extension to lodge its financial statements.
We have also released a performance audit report on council reporting on service delivery. We will soon release another report on fraud controls in local councils and a report on council shared services later this year.
- While the new audit mandate brings immense responsibility, my office has embraced the challenges involved and the objectives that NSW Parliament gave us:
- strengthening governance and financial oversight in local government
- providing greater consistency in external audit
- ensuring reliable financial information is available to assess council performance
- improving financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability in how councils use citizens’ funds.
This report
This report is rich in data extracted from the results of the 2016–17 financial audits. For the first time, it presents a consistent view of financial performance across the New South Wales local government landscape. The report also provides guidance and includes recommendations to councils and the Office of Local Government aimed at strengthening financial reporting, asset management, governance and internal controls.
The report will help NSW Parliament understand the common challenges that councils face. It provides points of comparison for councils and signposts matters that will be the focus of future audits. Importantly, this report and the data visualisation that accompanies it, provides comprehensive and accessible information to citizens regarding the management and performance of their councils.
I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of councils throughout the audit process and our partnerships with the contract audit firms that helped us to deliver the audits. Together we can learn from each other and work towards improving outcomes for the community.
| 1. Introduction | |
| Local government sector | NSW has 140 councils: 128 local councils serving a geographic area and 12 county councils formed for a specific purpose. We completed audits of 139 councils' 2016–17 financial statements and eight councils' 2015–16 financial statements. Bayside Council received a lodgement extension from the Office of Local Government (OLG) and has not yet presented their 2016–17 financial statements for audit. |
| Service delivery | Each council provides a range of services, influenced by population density, demographics, the local economy, geographic and climatic characteristics. These differences influence the financial profile of councils. |
| 2. Financial reporting | |
| Quality of financial reporting |
The overall quality of financial reporting needs to improve:
OLG guidance for council year-end financial reporting needs to align with Australian Accounting Standards and be issued earlier. |
| Timeliness of financial reporting | Timeliness of financial reporting needs to improve. Forty councils required lodgement extensions past the 31 October 2017 statutory reporting deadline. |
| 3. Financial performance and sustainability | |
| Operating revenue | Eighteen councils operating expenses exceed current operating revenue. Fifty-nine councils do not meet OLG’s target of 60 per cent for own source operating revenue. |
| Liquidity and working capital | Most councils have sufficient liquidity and working capital. However, there are indicators that:
|
| Asset management measures | Reporting against OLG’s asset management performance measures highlights that councils need to consider whether spending on existing infrastructure assets is sufficient to ensure they continue to meet service delivery standards:
|
| 4. Asset management | |
| High risk issues | We reported ten high risk issues relating to councils’ asset management and accounting practices. |
| Asset reporting | The accuracy of asset registers requires improvement and all assets need to be reported in the financial statements. At 30 June 2017, 62 councils did not record all rural fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. A large proportion of rural fire-fighting equipment is not reported in either State government or local government financial statements. |
| Asset valuation | We reported seven high risk matters related to asset valuations, including two that resulted in qualified audit opinions. |
| Asset useful life estimates | We identified that accounting for the useful lives of similar assets varied across councils, resulting in variable depreciation expense for these assets. In addition, the useful lives of assets need to be reviewed annually. This review should be supported by current condition assessments. |
| Asset policy and planning | Thirteen councils do not have an asset management strategy, policy and plan, as required by the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. |
| 5. Governance and internal controls | |
| High risk issues | We reported 17 high risk issues relating to governance, financial accounting, purchasing and payables and payroll matters. |
| Governance | There is currently no requirement for councils to have an audit, risk and improvement committee and internal audit function. Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee and 52 councils do not have an internal audit function. The Office of Local Government has incomplete information on the number of entities established by councils. There is no financial reporting framework for the variety of entities established by councils. Councils can strengthen policies and procedures to support critical business processes, practices for risk management and compliance with key laws and regulations. |
| Internal controls | Councils can improve internal controls over manual journals, reconciliations, purchasing and payables and payroll. |
| 6. Information technology | |
| High risk issues | We reported nine high risk issues relating to information technology. |
| Access to IT systems | Controls over user access to IT systems need to be strengthened. |
| Information Technology governance | IT governance benefits from appropriate policies, standards and guidelines across all critical IT processes. We identified that:
|
Accurate and timely financial statements are an important element of sound financial management. They bring accountability and transparency to the way councils use public resources. Our financial audits assessed the following aspects of councils’ financial reporting:
- quality of financial reporting
- timeliness of financial reporting.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
|
Qualified audit opinions
|
The councils that received unmodified audit opinions prepared financial statements that fairly present their financial position and results. |
|
We issued modified (qualified) opinions on the:
|
Councils with modified opinions should address the issues that give rise to the audit qualification. |
| Significant audit matters We reported 39 significant matters in 29 councils. They included material accounting issues and significant deficiencies in internal controls. Seventy-seven per cent of the matters related to assets. |
Significant issues with the quality of financial reporting delayed the completion of a number of audits. Improving the reporting on assets should be a priority. |
| Prior period errors We found 33 material errors worth $9.1 billion in the previous audited financial statements of 22 councils. These all required prior-year audited balances to be corrected. Eighty eight per cent of these were asset related. |
The high number of asset-related prior-period errors reinforces the need for councils to improve the way they value and account for assets. |
| Financial statements We reported 43 moderate risk findings where councils can improve the way they complete their financial statements. |
Recommendation Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by reviewing their financial statements close processes to identify areas for improvements. |
| Of the councils that had an audit, risk and improvement committee, 55 per cent of these did not review the financial statements before audit. | Recommendation Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by involving an audit, risk and improvement committee in the review of financial statements. |
| OLG guidance To support councils in preparing 30 June 2017 financial statements, OLG issued guidance documents in June 2017 and September 2017. This limited the time councils had to prepare financial statements in the prescribed form and resolve financial reporting and audit issues. |
Recommendation The Office of Local Government should release the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and the End of Year Financial Reporting Circular earlier in the audit cycle, ideally by 30 April each year. |
| The Code applicable for the 2016–17 financial reporting period provided options and guidance that in some instances did not fully align with Australian Accounting Standards. | Recommendation The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting should align with Australian Accounting Standards. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Statutory deadlines One hundred councils submitted audited financial statements to OLG by the statutory deadline of 31 October 2017. Thirty-nine councils received reporting extensions up to 28 February, including 16 of the 20 newly amalgamated councils. Bayside Council received a reporting extension to 31 May 2018 and has not yet presented their financial statements for audit. |
Councils need to improve their financial reporting processes in order to lodge their financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline. |
| Early close procedures Councils currently do not use early close procedures to resolve accounting issues before the end of the financial year. |
Recommendation The Office of Local Government should introduce early close procedures with an emphasis on asset valuations. |
3 The Auditor‑General was appointed statutory auditor of eight councils for the 2015–16 reporting period at the specific request of councils, due to the failure by councils to appoint an auditor, or the inability of the previous auditor to complete the audit due to external investigation or auditor retirement.
Strong and sustainable financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to the needs of their community. This chapter outlines our audit observations on the performance of councils against the Office of Local Government's (OLG) performance indicators, grouped in three areas:
- operating revenue performance measures
- liquidity and working capital performance measures
- asset management performance measures.
Our analysis indicates that some councils face challenges in meeting these performance and sustainability measures.
| Observations | Conclusions |
| 3.1 Operating revenue performance measures | |
|
Operating performance Another 20 councils would not have met OLG’s operating performance benchmark without the receipt of 2017–18 financial assistance grants which was recorded as revenue during 2016–17. Eleven councils have not met OLG’s operating performance benchmark for the last three years. |
It is important that councils have financial management strategies that support their financial sustainability and ability to meet OLG’s operating performance benchmark over the long term. |
| Operating performance measures how well councils contain operating expenses within operating revenue. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than zero. | |
|
Own source operating revenue |
Rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets that cover large areas with smaller populations and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources compared with metropolitan councils. |
| Own source operating revenue measures a council’s fiscal flexibility and the degree to which it can generate revenue from own sources compared with total revenue from all sources. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of more than 60 per cent of total revenue. | |
| 3.2 Liquidity and working capital performance measures | |
|
Unrestricted current ratio |
Most councils can meet short-term obligations as they fall due. |
| The unrestricted current ratio represents a council’s ability to meet its short-term obligations as they fall due. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 1.5 times. | |
|
Debt service cover ratio Regional councils have 56 per cent of the value of all borrowings in the sector. |
Most councils have sufficient operating cash available to service their borrowings. Regional councils borrow more heavily than metropolitan councils to deliver water and sewerage infrastructure. Metropolitan councils do not have the responsibility to provide water and sewerage infrastructure. |
| The debt service cover ratio measures the operating cash available to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than two times. | |
|
Rates and annual charges outstanding These councils also did not meet the infrastructure backlog ratio. |
Most councils are collecting rates and annual charges levied. Councils with higher levels of uncollected rates and charges can experience increased pressure on the working capital available to fund operations. |
| The rates and annual charges outstanding measure assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on a council’s liquidity and the adequacy of debt recovery efforts. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of less than five per cent for metropolitan and less than ten per cent for other councils. | |
|
Cash expense cover ratio |
Most councils have the capacity to cover more than three months of operating expenses. |
| The cash expense cover ratio indicates the number of months a council can continue paying its expenses without additional cash inflows. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than three months. | |
|
This measure does not exclude externally and internally restricted funds. If externally restricted funds are excluded, all councils would still meet OLG’s benchmark. If both externally and internally restricted funds are excluded:
|
Councils with a higher proportion of restricted funds may have less flexibility to pay operational expenses than the cash expense cover ratio suggests. However, councils can resolve to lift internal restriction if required. |
|
3.3. Asset management performance measures (not audited) |
|
|
Building and infrastructure renewals ratio Most councils included expenditure related to work-in-progress in calculating this ratio. OLG are of the view that work-in-progress should be excluded and as a result identified that a further 23 councils do not meet the benchmark. |
These councils appear to not be renewing assets in line with the rate they are depreciating them. This raises questions as to whether council asset management plans are adequate to determine whether assets are being kept up to agreed standards. Uncertainty on the inclusion of work-in-progress assets does need to be is clarified in order to ensure consistency in determining whether councils are adequately renewing their assets. |
| The building and infrastructure renewals ratio represents the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 100 per cent. | |
|
Infrastructure backlog ratio |
These councils may not be maintaining their infrastructure backlog at a manageable level. |
| The infrastructure backlog ratio represents the proportion of infrastructure backlog relative to the total net book value of a council's infrastructure assets. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of less than two per cent. | |
|
Asset maintenance ratio |
These councils’ maintenance expenditure may be insufficient to sustain their assets in a functional state so they reach their predicted useful life. |
| The asset maintenance ratio represents the rate at which assets are being maintained relative to the rate at which they are required to be maintained. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 100 per cent. | |
|
Costs to bring assets to agreed service level |
There is variability between councils in the amount of outstanding renewal works to be completed. |
| This ratio represents the estimated cost to renew or rehabilitate existing infrastructure assets that have reached the condition-based interval level adopted by a council, relative to the gross replacement cost of all infrastructure assets. OLG has not prescribed a benchmark for this performance measure. | |
OLG’s benchmarks for financial performance and sustainability
Each local council has unique characteristics such as its size, location and services provided to their communities. These differences affect the nature of each council's assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses, and in turn the financial performance measures against which it reports.
The Office of Local Government prescribes performance indicators for council reporting
The analysis in this chapter is based on performance measures prescribed in OLG’s Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (the Code). Councils report against these measures in their annual report, which includes the audited financial statements and other unaudited information. In the audited financial statements, councils report performance against six financial sustainability measures:
- operating performance
- own source operating revenue
- unrestricted current ratio
- debt service cover ratio
- rates and annual charges outstanding percentage
- cash expense cover ratio.
Councils also include the unaudited Special Schedule 7 'Report on Infrastructure Assets' in their annual reports. In this schedule, councils report to OLG on performance against four further measures:
- building and infrastructure renewals ratio
- infrastructure backlog ratio
- asset maintenance ratio
- cost to bring assets to agreed service level.
Each audited measure and three of the four unaudited measures has a prescribed benchmark. OLG’s benchmarks are the same for metropolitan, regional, rural and county councils, with the exception of the rates and annual charges outstanding percentage. Regional, rural and county councils have a different benchmark to metropolitan councils for this measure.
Three rural councils did not meet three of the audited OLG benchmarks
Most councils met OLG’s benchmarks for at least five or all of the six audited performance measures. Eight rural, four regional, four metropolitan and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmarks for two out of the six audited performance measures. Three rural councils did not meet OLG’s benchmarks for three out of the six audited performance measures.
The following table summarises how the councils performed across the six audited performance measures.
| Number of OLG benchmarks met by councils | Number of councils | |||
| Metropolitan | Regional | Rural | County | |
| 6 | 12 | 12 | 29 | 5 |
| 5 | 17 | 21 | 17 | 5 |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 2 |
| 3 | -- | -- | 3 | -- |
| Not available* | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| Total | 34 | 37 | 57 | 12 |
Source: Audited Financial Statements for 2016–17.
Appendix ten lists the performance of each council against all performance measures.
NSW councils own and manage a significant range of assets, including infrastructure, property, plant and equipment with a total value of $136 billion.
Many of the issues that our local government audits identified related to asset management. This chapter discusses some of the asset accounting issues we found, focusing on five areas:
- overall asset management issues
- asset registers
- asset valuation
- recognition and asset useful life estimates
- asset policy and planning.
| Observations | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 4.1 High risk issues | |
|
Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance |
High risk issues affect council’s ability to maintain their assets in the condition required to deliver essential services. |
| 4.2 Asset reporting | |
|
Accuracy of asset registers |
Maintaining accurate asset records is important as it enables councils to manage their assets effectively and report on finances appropriately. |
|
Unrecorded land and infrastructure assets |
Assets not captured in council records is at risk of not being subject to their care and control, nor recorded in the financial statements. |
|
Rural fire-fighting equipment |
Recommendation In doing so, the Office of Local Government should work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole‑of‑government approach. |
|
4.3 Asset valuation |
|
|
Restricted assets Nine councils corrected the land values in their 2016–17 financial statements, reducing the reported value of community land and land under roads by $12.1 billion. |
The valuation of community land and land under roads should reflect the physical and legislative restrictions on these assets as required by Australian Accounting Standards. The impact of restrictions can be significant. Councils should consider engaging experts to assist with the determination of asset fair values, as necessary. |
| Asset revaluations Our audits found many cases where councils did not review valuation results, comply with applicable codes, or work effectively with valuers to obtain accurate asset valuations. |
Valuing large infrastructure assets is a complex process. Councils would benefit if the process is started earlier and there is a clear plan to ensure valuations are appropriately managed and documented. |
|
4.4 Asset useful life estimates |
|
|
Asset useful life estimates In some cases, the useful lives of assets are not reviewed annually or supported by regular condition assessment. |
Depreciation is a significant expense for councils and therefore impacts on reported financial results and key performance indicators. To comply with Australian Accounting Standards, councils need to reassess the useful lives of all assets annually. Regular condition assessments are essential to identify maintenance requirements and maintain service delivery. |
|
4.5 Asset policy and planning |
|
| Asset management strategy Thirteen councils do not have an asset management policy, strategy and plan, as required by OLG's Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. Newly amalgamated councils have until 30 June 2018 to implement this. |
An effective asset management strategy, policy and plan helps councils to manage their assets appropriately over their life cycle and to make informed decisions on the allocation of resources. |
Asset overview
NSW councils own and manage a significant range of assets, including infrastructure, property, plant and equipment.
At 30 June 2017, the combined carrying value of NSW council assets was as follows.
Good governance systems help councils to operate effectively and comply with relevant laws and standards. Internal controls assist councils to operate reliably and produce effective financial statements.
This chapter highlights the high risk issues we found and reports on a range of governance and control areas. Governance and control issues relating to asset management and information technology are covered in separate chapters.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 5.1 High risk issues | |
| Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance | |
| Our 2016–17 audits identified 36 high risk governance and internal control deficiencies across 17 councils. | Asset practices accounted for the highest number of high risk issues and information technology accounted for the largest overall number of control deficiencies. These matters are covered in chapters four and six respectively. |
We reported:
|
High risk issues affect council’s ability to achieve their objectives and increase the risk of fraud and error. |
| 5.2 Governance | |
| Audit committees | |
| Councils are currently not required to have an audit, risk and improvement committee. Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee. |
Proposed legislative changes will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021. Recommendation |
|
Internal audit |
Recommendation |
|
Council entities |
Recommendation |
| The Local Government Act 1993 does not stipulate a financial reporting framework for council entities. |
Recommendation |
|
Policies and procedures |
It is important there are current policies, standards and guidelines available to staff and contractors across all critical business processes. |
|
Legislative compliance frameworks |
Councils can improve practices in monitoring compliance with key laws and regulations. This includes implementing a legislative compliance framework, register and policy. |
|
Risk management |
Council risk management practices are enhanced when there is a fit-for-purpose risk management framework, register and policy to outline how risks are identified, managed and monitored. |
| 5.3 Internal controls | |
|
Financial accounting We identified 51 high and moderate risk issues across 39 councils where reconciliation processes need to improve to support the preparation of accurate financial statements |
Sound financial accounting processes include controls to ensure:
|
| Purchasing and payables We found 102 high and moderate risk deficiencies in purchasing and payable controls across 64 councils. Sound purchasing controls are important to minimise error, unauthorised purchases, fraud and waste. |
As councils spend a substantial amount each year to procure goods and services, strong controls over purchasing and payment practices are critical. These include:
|
|
Payroll Managing excess annual leave balances was a challenge for 32 councils. |
Effective payroll controls are important because employee expenses represent a large portion of council expenditure. These controls include segregation of duties in the review of payroll master file data, timesheets, leave forms, payroll exception reports and termination payments. Excessive annual leave balances can have implications on employee costs, disrupts service delivery and affect work, health and safety. Excess annual leave balances should be continuously monitored and managed. |
Like most public sector agencies, councils increasingly rely on information technology (IT) to deliver services and manage sensitive information. While IT delivers considerable benefits, it also presents risks that councils need to address.
Our review of council IT systems focused on understanding the processes and controls that support the integrity, availability and security of the data used to prepare financial statements. This chapter outlines issues in three broad areas:
- high risk issues
- access to IT systems
- IT governance.
| Issues | Conclusion |
| 6.1 High risk issues | |
| Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance | |
| Our 2016–17 audits identified nine high risk IT control deficiencies across seven councils. The issues related to user access controls, privileged access controls and user developed applications. | High risk issues affect council’s ability to achieve their objectives and increase the risk of fraud and error. |
| 6.2 Access to IT systems | |
| User access controls We identified 107 issues across 56 councils where user access controls could be strengthened. |
Inadequate IT policies and controls around user access, including privileged access, increases the risk of individuals having excessive or unauthorised access to critical financial systems and data. |
|
Privileged access |
|
|
User developed applications Our audits found 22 councils using spreadsheets for business operations, decision making and financial reporting that were not adequately secured, with changes that were not tracked, tested or reviewed. We also identified five councils where finance staff and senior management use database query tools to directly modify financial data, circumventing system-based business process controls. |
It is important councils are aware of all circumstances they are relying on UDAs to limit the risk of errors and potential misuse. This allows councils to:
|
| 6.3 IT Governance | |
|
Strategy, policies and procedures Sixty-six councils do not have an adequate information security policy. |
IT governance is enhanced where there is:
|
|
Disaster recovery and business continuity The ability to restore data from backups is critical to ensure business continuity in the face of a system disaster. We also found that 15 councils do not periodically test their ability to restore backups of data relevant to financial reporting. |
Sound management of disaster recovery and business continuity includes:
We expect to focus on these areas in our future audits. |
Appendix one - Response from the Office of Local Government
Appendix two - List of recommendations
Appendix three - Sources of information and council classifications
Appendix four - Councils amalgamated in 2016
Appendix five - Status of audits
Appendix seven - OLG’s performance indicators from the audited financial statement - Descriptions
Appendix eight - OLG’s performance indicators from the unaudited special schedule 7 - Descriptions
Appendix nine - Financial information
Volume Eleven 2012 focusing on Health
One in three ambulance crews were delayed for longer than 30 minutes at hospital. Over the year these delays totalled 84,680 hours of lost time, up from 78,224 last year and 58,399 the year before. The longer ambulance crews are at hospitals the less time they are available to respond to the next emergency.
