Reports
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
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.
Assessment of the use of a training program
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (DFSI) and Service NSW's use of Franklin Covey's '7 Habits' program (the Program) met identified business needs according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales Margaret Crawford.
This audit assesses the effectiveness and economy of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation's, including Service NSW's, use of the Franklin Covey ‘7 Habits’ program (the Program). On 15 March 2018, the Hon. Victor Dominello MP, Minister for Finance, Services and Property, requested the Auditor General conduct this audit under section 27(B)(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 (the Act).
About the agencies
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (the Department) is the lead agency of the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster. The Department has a number of divisions and business units, including: ICT and Digital Government, Property and Advisory Group, Better Regulation, NSW Fair Trading, Government and Corporate Services, and Revenue NSW. At 30 June 2017, the Department (excluding Service NSW) had 5,239 full-time equivalent staff.
Service NSW is a central point of contact for customers accessing NSW Government Services. It is a Division of the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster and operates as an executive agency. As an executive agency, Service NSW is led by a Chief Executive Officer, who is responsible to the Minister for Finance, Services and Property but appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation. Service NSW was established in 2013 and has operated under the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster since July 2015. At 30 June 2017, Service NSW had 1,989 full-time equivalent staff.
About the Program
The Program that the Department and Service NSW are implementing, and which is the subject of this audit, is a professional development training course which focusses on organisational culture emphasising personal effectiveness, leadership development and change management. All staff in the Department and Service NSW will receive the training, which involves:
- a 360-degree assessment where every staff member receives feedback from their manager, direct reports, and peers
- a two-day training workshop, which will be delivered face to face by accredited facilitators
- 2 years of online access to all training materials created by the provider of the Program.
As part of the licensing arrangement purchased by the agencies, the Program also provides access (at no extra cost) to the full range of the provider's training and development courses that might be useful for other learning and development activities. This includes courses to improve staff capability in communication skills, leadership, productivity and customer engagement. The Department is considering using one of these courses to develop leadership capabilities. Service NSW has integrated three of these courses into its people development curriculum.
Service NSW commenced the first sessions of the Program in May 2017. At 24 April 2018, around 1,000 staff had undertaken the training. Service NSW expects all staff to complete the Program by June 2019.
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation commenced the first sessions of the Program in August 2017. At 18 April 2018, around 175 staff had undertaken the training. The Department expects all staff to complete the Program by December 2019.
Audit objective and criteria
The audit sought to assess the effectiveness and economy of the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster’s use of the Program. In making this assessment, we considered whether:
- the Program is being used effectively, including whether
- there is an identified need for the Program
- the use of the Program meets the identified need
- Finance, Services and Innovation cluster agencies evaluate the effectiveness of the Program
- the Program is economical, including whether:
- the procurement complies with all relevant policies and processes
- funding and resources allocated to the Program are reasonable.
|
Sector-wide learnings Implementing robust learning and development frameworks
|
Regional Assistance Programs
Infrastructure NSW effectively manages how grant applications for regional assistance programs are assessed and recommended for funding. Its contract management processes are also effective. However, we are unable to conclude whether the objectives of these programs have been achieved as the relevant agencies have not yet measured their benefits, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford.
In 2011, the NSW Government established Restart NSW to fund new infrastructure with the proceeds from the sale and lease of government assets. From 2011 to 2017, the NSW Government allocated $1.7 billion from the fund for infrastructure in regional areas, with an additional commitment of $1.3 billion to be allocated by 2021. The NSW Government allocates these funds through regional assistance programs such as Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads. NSW councils are the primary recipients of funding provided under these programs.
The NSW Government announced the Resources for Regions program in 2012 with the aim of addressing infrastructure constraints in mining affected communities. Infrastructure NSW administers the program, with support from the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
The NSW Government announced the Fixing Country Roads program in 2014 with the aim of building more efficient road freight networks. Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW jointly administer this program, which funds local councils to deliver projects that help connect local and regional roads to state highways and freight hubs.
This audit assessed whether these two programs (Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads) were being effectively managed and achieved their objectives. In making this assessment, we answered the following questions:
- How well are the relevant agencies managing the assessment and recommendation process?
- How do the relevant agencies ensure that funded projects are being delivered?
- Do the funded projects meet program and project objectives?
The audit focussed on four rounds of Resources for Regions funding between 2013–14 to 2015–16, as well as the first two rounds of Fixing Country Roads funding in 2014–15 and 2015–16.
The project selection criteria are consistent with the program objectives set by the NSW Government, and the RIAP applied the criteria consistently. Probity and record keeping practices did not fully comply with the probity plans.
The assessment methodology designed by Infrastructure NSW is consistent with2 the program objectives and criteria. In the rounds that we reviewed, all funded projects met the assessment criteria.
Infrastructure NSW developed probity plans for both programs which provided guidance on the record keeping required to maintain an audit trail, including the use of conflict of interest registers. Infrastructure NSW and Transport for NSW did not fully comply with these requirements. The relevant agencies have taken steps to address this in the current funding rounds for both programs.
NSW Procurement Board Directions require agencies to ensure that they do not engage a probity advisor that is engaged elsewhere in the agency. Infrastructure NSW has not fully complied with this requirement. A conflict of interest arose when Infrastructure NSW engaged the same consultancy to act as its internal auditor and probity advisor.
While these infringements of probity arrangements are unlikely to have had a major impact on the assessment process, they weaken the transparency and accountability of the process.
Some councils have identified resourcing and capability issues which impact on their ability to participate in the application process. For both programs, the relevant agencies conducted briefings and webinars with applicants to provide advice on the objectives of the programs and how to improve the quality of their applications. Additionally, Transport for NSW and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have developed tools to assist councils to demonstrate the economic impact of their applications.
The relevant agencies provided feedback on unsuccessful applications to councils. Councils reported that the quality of this feedback has improved over time.
Recommendations
- By June 2018, Infrastructure NSW should:
- ensure probity reports address whether all elements of the probity plan have been effectively implemented.
- By June 2018, Infrastructure NSW and Transport for NSW should:
- maintain and store all documentation regarding assessment and probity matters according to the State Records Act 1998, the NSW Standard on Records Management and the relevant probity plans
Infrastructure NSW is responsible for overseeing and monitoring projects funded under Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads. Infrastructure NSW effectively manages projects to keep them on track, however it could do more to assure itself that all recipients have complied with funding deeds. Benefits and outcomes should also start to be measured and reported as soon as practicable after projects are completed to inform assessment of future projects.
Infrastructure NSW identifies projects experiencing unreasonable delays or higher than expected expenses as 'at‑risk'. After Infrastructure NSW identifies a project as 'at‑risk', it puts in place processes to resolve issues to bring them back on track. Infrastructure NSW, working with Public Works Advisory regional offices, employs a risk‑based approach to validate payment claims, however this process should be strengthened. Infrastructure NSW would get better assurance by also conducting annual audits of compliance with the funding deed for a random sample of projects.
Infrastructure NSW collects project completion reports for all Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads funded projects. It applies the Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework to Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads at a program level. This means that each round of funding (under both programs) is treated as a distinct program for the purposes of benefits realisation. It plans to assess whether benefits have been realised once each project in a funding round is completed. As a result, no benefits realisation assessment has been done for any project funded under either Resources for Regions or Fixing Country Roads. Without project‑level benefits realisation, future decisions are not informed by the lessons from previous investments.
Recommendations
- By December 2018, Infrastructure NSW should:
- conduct annual audits of compliance with the funding deed for a random sample of projects funded under Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads
- publish the circumstances under which unspent funds can be allocated to changes in project scope
- measure benefits delivered by projects that were completed before December 2017
- implement an annual process to measure benefits for projects completed after December 2017
- By December 2018, Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW should:
- incorporate a benefits realisation framework as part of the detailed application.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix two - Maps of funded projects
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #300 - released 17 May 2018
Managing risks in the NSW public sector: risk culture and capability
The Ministry of Health, NSW Fair Trading, NSW Police Force, and NSW Treasury Corporation are taking steps to strengthen their risk culture, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford. 'Senior management communicates the importance of managing risk to their staff, and there are many examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities', the Auditor-General said.
We did find that three of the agencies we examined could strengthen their culture so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. To support innovation, senior management could also do better at communicating to their staff the levels of risk they are willing to accept.
Effective risk management is essential to good governance, and supports staff at all levels to make informed judgements and decisions. At a time when government is encouraging innovation and exploring new service delivery models, effective risk management is about seizing opportunities as well as managing threats.
Over the past decade, governments and regulators around the world have increasingly turned their attention to risk culture. It is now widely accepted that organisational culture is a key element of risk management because it influences how people recognise and engage with risk. Neglecting this ‘soft’ side of risk management can prevent institutions from managing risks that threaten their success and lead to missed opportunities for change, improvement or innovation.
This audit assessed how effectively NSW Government agencies are building risk management capabilities and embedding a sound risk culture throughout their organisations. To do this we examined whether:
- agencies can demonstrate that senior management is committed to risk management
- information about risk is communicated effectively throughout agencies
- agencies are building risk management capabilities.
The audit examined four agencies: the Ministry of Health, the NSW Fair Trading function within the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, NSW Police Force and NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp). NSW Treasury was also included as the agency responsible for the NSW Government's risk management framework.
In assessing an agency’s risk culture, we focused on four key areas:
Executive sponsorship (tone at the top)
In the four agencies we reviewed, senior management is communicating the importance of managing risk. They have endorsed risk management frameworks and funded central functions tasked with overseeing risk management within their agencies.
That said, we found that three case study agencies do not measure their existing risk culture. Without clear measures of how employees identify and engage with risk, it is difficult for agencies to tell whether employee's behaviours are aligned with the 'tone' set by the executive and management.
For example, in some agencies we examined we found a disconnect between risk tolerances espoused by senior management and how these concepts were understood by staff.
Employee perceptions of risk management
Our survey of staff indicated that while senior leaders have communicated the importance of managing risk, more could be done to strengthen a culture of open communication so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. We found that senior management could better communicate to their staff the levels of risk they should be willing to accept.
Integration of risk management into daily activities and links to decision-making
We found examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities. On the other hand, we also identified areas where risk management deviated from good practice. For example, we found that corporate risk registers are not consistently used as a tool to support decision-making.
Support and guidance to help staff manage risks
Most case study agencies are monitoring risk-related skills and knowledge of their workforce, but only one agency has addressed the gaps it identified. While agencies are providing risk management training, surveyed staff in three case study agencies reported that risk management training is not adequate.
NSW Treasury provides agencies with direction and guidance on risk management through policy and guidelines. In line with better practice, NSW Treasury's principles-based policy acknowledges that individual agencies are in a better position to understand their own risks and design risk management frameworks that address those risks. Nevertheless, there is scope for NSW Treasury to refine its guidance material to support a better risk culture in the NSW public sector.
Recommendation
By May 2019, NSW Treasury should:
- Review the scope of its risk management guidance, and identify additional guidance, training or activities to improve risk culture across the NSW public sector. This should focus on encouraging agency heads to form a view on the current risk culture in their agencies, identify desirable changes to that risk culture, and take steps to address those changes.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #298 - released 23 April 2018
Detecting and responding to cyber security incidents
A report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, found there is no whole-of-government capability to detect and respond effectively to cyber security incidents. There is very limited sharing of information on incidents amongst agencies, and some agencies have poor detection and response practices and procedures.
The NSW Government relies on digital technology to deliver services, organise and store information, manage business processes, and control critical infrastructure. The increasing global interconnectivity between computer networks has dramatically increased the risk of cyber security incidents. Such incidents can harm government service delivery and may include the theft of information, denial of access to critical technology, or even the hijacking of systems for profit or malicious intent.
This audit examined cyber security incident detection and response in the NSW public sector. It focused on the role of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (DFSI), which oversees the Information Security Community of Practice, the Information Security Event Reporting Protocol, and the Digital Information Security Policy (the Policy).
The audit also examined ten case study agencies to develop a perspective on how they detect and respond to incidents. We chose agencies that are collectively responsible for personal data, critical infrastructure, financial information and intellectual property.
Some of our case study agencies had strong processes for detection and response to cyber security incidents but others had a low capability to detect and respond in a timely way.
Most agencies have access to an automated tool for analysing logs generated by their IT systems. However, coverage of these tools varies. Some agencies do not have an automated tool and only review logs periodically or on an ad hoc basis, meaning they are less likely to detect incidents.
Few agencies have contractual arrangements in place for IT service providers to report incidents to them. If a service provider elects to not report an incident, it will delay the agency’s response and may result in increased damage.
Most case study agencies had procedures for responding to incidents, although some lack guidance on who to notify and when. Some agencies do not have response procedures, limiting their ability to minimise the business damage that may flow from a cyber security incident. Few agencies could demonstrate that they have trained their staff on either incident detection or response procedures and could provide little information on the role requirements and responsibilities of their staff in doing so.
Most agencies’ incident procedures contain limited information on how to report an incident, who to report it to, when this should occur and what information should be provided. None of our case study agencies’ procedures mentioned reporting to DFSI, highlighting that even though reporting is mandatory for most agencies their procedures do not require it.
Case study agencies provided little evidence to indicate they are learning from incidents, meaning that opportunities to better manage future incidents may be lost.
Recommendations
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
- assist agencies by providing:
- better practice guidelines for incident detection, response and reporting to help agencies develop their own practices and procedures
- training and awareness programs, including tailored programs for a range of audiences such as cyber professionals, finance staff, and audit and risk committees
- role requirements and responsibilities for cyber security across government, relevant to size and complexity of each agency
- a support model for agencies that have limited detection and response capabilities
- revise the Digital Information Security Policy and Information Security Event Reporting Protocol by
- clarifying what security incidents must be reported to DFSI and when
- extending mandatory reporting requirements to those NSW Government agencies not currently covered by the policy and protocol, including State owned corporations.
DFSI lacks a clear mandate or capability to provide effective detection and response support to agencies, and there is limited sharing of information on cyber security incidents.
DFSI does not currently have a clear mandate and the necessary resources and systems to detect, receive, share and respond to cyber security incidents across the NSW public sector. It does not have a clear mandate to assess whether agencies have an acceptable detection and response capability. It is aware of deficiencies in agencies and across whole‑of‑government, and has begun to conduct research into this capability.
Intelligence gathering across the public sector is also limited, meaning agencies may not respond to threats in a timely manner. DFSI has not allocated resources for gathering of threat intelligence and communicating it across government, although it has begun to build this capacity.
Incident reporting to DFSI is mandatory for most agencies, however, most of our case study agencies do not report incidents to DFSI, reducing the likelihood of containing an incident if it spreads to other agencies. When incidents have been reported, DFSI has not provided dedicated resources to assess them and coordinate the public sector’s response. There are currently no formal requirements for DFSI to respond to incidents and no guidance on what it is meant to do if an incident is reported. The lack of central coordination in incident response risks delays and increased damage to multiple agencies.
DFSI's reporting protocol is weak and does not clearly specify what agencies should report and when. This makes agencies less likely to report incidents. The lack of a standard format for incident reporting and a consistent method for assessing an incident, including the level of risk associated with it, also make it difficult for DFSI to determine an appropriate response.
There are limited avenues for sharing information amongst agencies after incidents have been resolved, meaning the public sector may be losing valuable opportunities to improve its protection and response.
Recommendations
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
- develop whole‑of‑government procedure, protocol and supporting systems to effectively share reported threats and respond to cyber security incidents impacting multiple agencies, including follow-up and communicating lessons learnt
- develop a means by which agencies can report incidents in a more effective manner, such as a secure online template, that allows for early warnings and standardised details of incidents and remedial advice
- enhance NSW public sector threat intelligence gathering and sharing including formal links with Australian Government security agencies, other states and the private sector
- direct agencies to include standard clauses in contracts requiring IT service providers report all cyber security incidents within a reasonable timeframe
- provide assurance that agencies have appropriate reporting procedures and report to DFSI as required by the policy and protocol by:
- extending the attestation requirement within the DISP to cover procedures and reporting
- reviewing a sample of agencies' incident reporting procedures each year.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - ISMS maturity model
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #297 - released 2 March 2018
Internal Controls and Governance 2017
Agencies need to do more to address risks posed by information technology (IT).
Effective internal controls and governance systems help agencies to operate efficiently and effectively and comply with relevant laws, standards and policies. We assessed how well agencies are implementing these systems, and highlighted opportunities for improvement.
1. Overall trends
|
New and repeat findings |
The number of reported financial and IT control deficiencies has fallen, but many previously reported findings remain unresolved. |
|
High risk findings |
Poor systems implementations contributed to the seven high risk internal control deficiencies that could affect agencies. |
|
Common findings |
Poor IT controls are the most commonly reported deficiency across agencies, followed by governance issues relating to cyber security, capital projects, continuous disclosure, shared services, ethics and risk management maturity. |
2. Information Technology
|
IT security |
Only two-thirds of agencies are complying with their own policies on IT security. Agencies need to tighten user access and password controls. |
|
Cyber security |
Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
|
Other IT systems |
Agencies can improve their disaster recovery plans and the change control processes they use when updating IT systems. |
3. Asset Management
|
Capital investment |
Agencies report delays delivering against the significant increase in their budgets for capital projects. |
|
Capital projects |
Agencies are underspending their capital budgets and some can improve capital project governance. |
|
Asset disposals |
Eleven per cent of agencies were required to sell their real property through Property NSW but didn’t. And eight per cent of agencies can improve their asset disposal processes. |
4. Governance
|
Governance arrangements |
Sixty-four per cent of agencies’ disclosure policies support communication of key performance information and prompt public reporting of significant issues. |
|
Shared services |
Fifty-nine per cent of agencies use shared services, yet 14 per cent do not have service level agreements in place and 20 per cent can strengthen the performance standards they set. |
5. Ethics and Conduct
|
Ethical framework |
Agencies can reinforce their ethical frameworks by updating code‑of‑conduct policies and publishing a Statement of Business Ethics. |
|
Conflicts of interest |
All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
6. Risk Management
|
Risk management maturity |
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity. |
|
Risk management elements |
Many agencies can improve risk registers and strengthen their risk culture, particularly in the way that they report risks to their lead agency. |
This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2016–17 financial audits related to the internal controls and governance of the 39 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. These agencies represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW agencies and were considered to be a large enough group to identify common issues and insights.
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 2017 cluster financial audit reports tabled in Parliament from October to December 2017.
This new report offers strategic insight on the public sector as a whole
In previous years, we have commented on internal control and governance issues in the volumes we published on each ‘cluster’ or agency sector, generally between October and December. To add further value, we then commented more broadly about the issues identified for the public sector as a whole at the start of the following year.
This year, we have created this report dedicated to internal controls and governance. This will help Parliament to understand broad issues affecting the public sector, and help agencies to compare their own performance against that of their peers.
Without strong control measures and governance systems, agencies face increased risks in their financial management and service delivery. If they do not, for example, properly authorise payments or manage conflicts of interest, they are at greater risk of fraud. If they do not have strong information technology (IT) systems, sensitive and trusted information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.
These problems can in turn reduce the efficiency of agency operations, increase their costs and reduce the quality of the services they deliver.
Our audits do not review every control or governance measure every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present the most significant risks that agencies should mitigate. This report divides these into the following six areas:
- Overall trends
- Information technology
- Asset management
- Governance
- Ethics and conduct
- Risk management.
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations.
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 then illustrates this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
|
Issues |
Recommendations |
|
1.1 New and repeat findings |
|
|
The number of internal control deficiencies reduced over the past three years, but new higher-risk information technology (IT) control deficiencies were reported in 2016–17. Deficiencies repeated from previous years still make up a sizeable proportion of all internal control deficiencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should focus on emerging IT risks, but also manage new IT risks, reduce existing IT control deficiencies, and address repeat internal control deficiencies on a more timely basis. |
|
1.2 High risk findings |
|
|
We found seven high risk internal control deficiencies, which might significantly affect agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should rectify high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority |
|
1.3 Common findings |
|
|
The most common internal control deficiencies related to poor or absent IT controls. We found some common governance deficiencies across multiple agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should coordinate actions and resources to help rectify common IT control and governance deficiencies. |
Information technology (IT) has become increasingly important for government agencies’ financial reporting and to deliver their services efficiently and effectively. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place over their IT systems. We found that IT security remains the source of many control weakness in agencies.
| Issues | Recommendations |
2.1 IT security |
|
|
User access administration While 95 per cent of agencies have policies about user access, about two-thirds were compliant with these policies. Agencies can improve how they grant, change and end user access to their systems. |
Recommendation Agencies should strengthen user access administration to prevent inappropriate access to sensitive systems. Agencies should:
|
|
Privileged access Sixty-eight per cent of agencies do not adequately manage who can access their information systems, and many do not sufficiently monitor or restrict privileged access. |
Recommendation Agencies should tighten privileged user access to protect their information systems and reduce the risks of data misuse and fraud. Agencies should ensure they:
|
|
Password controls Forty-one per cent of agencies did not meet either their own standards or minimum standards for password controls. |
Recommendation Agencies should review and enforce password controls to strengthen security over sensitive systems. As a minimum, password parameters should include:
|
2.2 Cyber Security |
|
|
Cyber security framework Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
Recommendation The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should revisit its existing framework to develop a shared cyber security terminology and strengthen the current reporting requirements for cyber incidents. |
|
Cyber security strategies While 82 per cent of agencies have dedicated resources to address cyber security, they can strengthen their strategies, expertise and staff awareness. |
Recommendations The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
Agencies should ensure they adequately resource staff dedicated to cyber security. |
2.3 Other IT systems |
|
|
Change control processes Some agencies need to improve change control processes to avoid unauthorised or inaccurate system changes. |
Recommendation Agencies should consistently perform user acceptance testing before system upgrades and changes. They should also properly approve and document changes to IT systems. |
|
Disaster recovery planning Agencies can do more to adequately assess critical business systems to enforce effective disaster recovery plans. This includes reviewing and testing their plans on a timely basis. |
Recommendation Agencies should complete business impact analyses to strengthen disaster recovery plans, then regularly test and update their plans. |
Agency service delivery relies on developing and renewing infrastructure assets such as schools, hospitals, roads, or public housing. Agencies are currently investing significantly in new assets. Agencies need to manage the scale and volume of current capital projects in order to deliver new infrastructure on time, on budget and realise the intended benefits. We found agencies can improve how they:
- manage their major capital projects
- dispose of existing assets.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
3.1 Capital investment |
|
|
Capital asset investment ratios Most agencies report high capital investment ratios, but one-third of agencies’ capital investment ratios are less than one. |
Recommendation Agencies with high capital asset investment ratios should ensure their project management and delivery functions have the capacity to deliver their current and forward work programs. |
|
Volume of capital spending Most agencies have significant forward spending commitments for capital projects. However, agencies’ actual capital expenditure has been below budget for the last three years. |
Conclusion The significant increase in capital budget underspends warrant investigation, particularly where this has resulted from slower than expected delivery of projects from previous years. |
3.2 Capital projects |
|
|
Major capital projects Agencies’ major capital projects were underspent by 13 percent against their budgets. |
Conclusion The causes of agency budget underspends warrant investigation to ensure the NSW Government’s infrastructure commitment is delivered on time. |
|
Capital project governance Agencies do not consistently prepare business cases or use project steering committees to oversee major capital projects. |
Conclusion Agencies that have project management processes that include robust business cases and regular updates to their steering committees (or equivalent) are better able to provide those projects with strategic direction and oversight. |
3.3. Asset disposals |
|
|
Asset disposal procedures Agencies need to strengthen their asset disposal procedures. |
Recommendations Agencies should have formal processes for disposing of surplus properties. Agencies should use Property NSW to manage real property sales unless, as in the case for State owned corporations, they have been granted an exemption. |
Governance refers to the high-level frameworks, processes and behaviours that help an organisation to achieve its objectives, comply with legal and other requirements, and meet a high standard of probity, accountability and transparency.
This chapter sets out the governance lighthouse model the Audit Office developed to help agencies reach best practice. It then focuses on two key areas: continuous disclosure and shared services arrangements. The following two chapters look at findings related to ethics and risk management.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
4.1 Governance arrangements |
|
|
Continuous disclosure Continuous disclosure promotes improved performance and public trust and aides better decision-making. Continuous disclosure is only mandatory for NSW Government Businesses such as State owned corporations. |
Conclusion Some agencies promote transparency and accountability by publishing on their websites a continuous disclosure policy that provides for, and encourages:
|
4.2 Shared services |
|
|
Service level agreements Some agencies do not have service level agreements for their shared service arrangements. Many of the agreements that do exist do not adequately specify controls, performance or reporting requirements. This reduces the effectiveness of shared services arrangements. |
Conclusion Agencies are better able to manage the quality and timeliness of shared service arrangements where they have a service level agreement in place. Ideally, the terms of service should be agreed before services are transferred to the service provider and:
|
|
Shared service performance Some agencies do not set performance standards for their shared service providers or regularly review performance results. |
Conclusion Agencies can achieve better results from shared service arrangements when they regularly monitor the performance of shared service providers using key measures for the benefits realised, costs saved and quality of services received. Before agencies extend or renegotiate a contract, they should comprehensively assess the services received and test the market to maximise value for money. |
All government sector employees must demonstrate the highest levels of ethical conduct, in line with standards set by The Code of Ethics and Conduct for NSW government sector employees.
This chapter looks at how well agencies are managing these requirements, and where they can improve their policies and processes.
We found that agencies mostly have the appropriate codes, frameworks and policies in place. But we have highlighted opportunities to improve the way they manage those systems to reduce the risks of unethical conduct.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
5.1 Ethical framework |
|
|
Code of conduct All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
Recommendation Agencies should regularly review their code-of-conduct policies and ensure they keep their codes of conduct up-to-date. |
|
Statement of business ethics Most agencies maintain an ethical framework, but some can enhance their related processes, particularly when dealing with external clients, customers, suppliers and contractors. |
Conclusion Agencies can enhance their ethical frameworks by publishing a Statement of Business Ethics, which communicates their values and culture. |
5.2 Potential conflicts of interest |
|
|
Conflicts of interest All agencies have a conflicts-of-interest policy, but most can improve how they identify, manage and avoid conflicts of interest. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage conflicts of interest, particularly by:
|
|
Gifts and benefits While all agencies already have a formal gifts-and-benefits policy, we found gaps in the management of gifts and benefits by some that increase the risk of unethical conduct. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage gifts and benefits by promptly updating registers and providing annual training to staff. |
Risk management is an integral part of effective corporate governance. It helps agencies to identify, assess and prioritise the risks they face and in turn minimise, monitor and control the impact of unforeseen events. It also means agencies can respond to opportunities that may emerge and improve their services and activities.
This year we looked at the overall maturity of the risk management frameworks that agencies use, along with two important risk management elements: risk culture and risk registers.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
6.1 Risk management maturity |
|
|
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity in their application. Agencies’ averaged a score of 3.1 out of five across five critical assessment criteria for risk management. While strategy and governance fared best, the areas that most need to improve are risk culture, and systems and intelligence. |
Conclusion Agencies have introduced risk management frameworks and practices as required by the Treasury’s:
However, more can be done to progress risk management maturity and embed risk management in agency culture. |
6.2 Risk management elements |
|
|
Risk culture Most agencies have started to embed risk management into the culture of their organisation. But only some have successfully done so, and most agencies can improve their risk culture.
|
Conclusion Agencies can improve their risk culture by:
|
|
Risk registers and reporting Some agencies do not report their significant risks to their lead agency, which may impair the way resources are allocated in their cluster. Some agencies do not integrate risk registers at a divisional and whole-of-enterprise level. |
Conclusion Agencies not reporting significant risks at the cluster level increases the likelihood that significant risks are not being mitigated appropriately. |
Effective risk management can improve agency decision-making, protect reputations and lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings. By embedding risk management directly into their operations, agencies can also derive extra value for their activities and services.
Planning and Environment 2017
The following report highlights results of financial audits of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these agencies.
The audits were completed for most agencies in the cluster and unqualified audit opinions issued. Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven small agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline, and six of these remain incomplete. Apart from these small agencies, the quality of financial reporting across the cluster remained at a high standard.
This report provides Parliament and others with the audit results, observations and recommendations for Planning and Environment cluster agencies. The report has been structured into two chapters focussing on financial reporting and controls and service delivery.
The Planning and Environment cluster plays a role in ensuring each community across New South Wales receives the services and infrastructure it needs.
This chapter outlines our audit observations and recommendations related to financial reporting and controls of Planning and Environment cluster agencies for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
2.1 Quality of financial reporting |
|
|
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 39 of the 45 cluster agencies' financial statements. |
Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven smaller agencies delayed their completion. Six audits remain incomplete at the date of this report. Apart from these seven small agency audits, the quality of financial reporting across the cluster remained at a high standard. |
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting |
|
|
Seven agencies' financial statement audits were not completed by the statutory deadline with six audits incomplete at the date of this report. |
Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven smaller agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline. These agencies would benefit from performing additional early close procedures in future reporting periods. |
2.3 Financial and sustainability analysis |
|
|
Water and Electricity utility agencies continue to operate with low liquidity ratios. |
A liquidity ratio below one is an indicator that an entity may not be able to pay its debts as and when they fall due. Whilst liquidity ratios were below one, utility agencies demonstrated they can continue to support ongoing operations due to:
|
2.5 Internal controls |
|
|
One in six internal control weaknesses reported in 2016–17 were repeat issues. |
Delays in implementing audit recommendations can prolong the risk of fraud and error. Recommendation (repeat issue): anagement letter recommendations to address internal control weaknesses should be actioned promptly, with a focus on addressing repeat issues. |
|
Nine of these internal control weaknesses related to the creation, modification, deletion and review of user access to financial systems. |
These control weaknesses may compromise the integrity and security of financial data. Recommendation (repeat issue): Management of user administration over financial systems should be strengthened to prevent inappropriate access to financial information. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations relating to service delivery for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
3.1 Premier's and State priorities |
|
| The Planning and Environment cluster is responsible for delivering five Premier's and State priorities. |
One priority target was achieved in 2016–17, two targets are on track to be achieved and progress towards one target slowed. Progress against one target cannot be determined. |
3.2 Planning |
|
|
Housing Completion |
|
| There were 63,506 housing completions in 2016–17. This was 4.1 per cent above the Premier’s priority target of delivering 61,000 housing completions per year. |
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the housing completions target was achieved in 2016–17. |
|
Housing supply |
|
| The number of approvals for new houses in 2016–17 was 72,472 against the State priority target of more than 50,000 approvals per year. |
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates the housing approvals target was achieved in 2016–17. |
|
Major project assessment |
|
| State significant developments are not clearly defined for the purposes of reporting against the State priority target. | The Department of Planning and Environment will clarify with the Department of Premier and Cabinet which developments are captured by the State priority target. |
| The Department of Planning and Environment’s data shows the time taken to assess complex State significant developments increased by 16 per cent in 2016–17 while the time taken to assess less complex developments reduced by 20 per cent. | The Department of Planning and Environment considers it is on track to meet the State priority target of halving the time taken to assess State significant developments, despite uncertainty over the target measure. |
|
Housing acceleration fund |
|
|
Program business cases were not developed for projects in Housing Acceleration Fund Rounds 1 to 4. The Department advised a program business case will be developed for Housing Acceleration Fund Round 5 projects. |
A program business case is necessary to ensure related projects are evaluated, managed and coordinated effectively. |
|
A benefit realisation review process has not yet been approved for Housing Acceleration Fund projects. The Department of Planning and Environment advised it is developing a benefit realisation review process. |
A benefit realisation review process is necessary to determine whether funded projects achieved intended outcomes. |
|
Greater Sydney Commission |
|
| The Greater Sydney Commission forecasts a further 725,000 dwellings in the greater Sydney region will be required up to 2036 to meet housing demand. | In response to population growth, the Commission has set a five-year housing supply target of 189,100 houses across the five Greater Sydney Commission districts. |
|
ePlanning system |
|
| The Department of Planning and Environment did not perform a benefit realisation review for phase one of the ePlanning project. It has committed to performing a benefit realisation review after completion of phase two in 2018. | It cannot be determined if phase one of the project delivered expected outcomes as a benefit realisation review was not performed. |
3.3. Environment and Heritage |
|
| Litter volume in New South Wales was 6.6 litres per 1,000 square metres in 2016–17, an increase of 16 per cent from the prior year. This is above the Premier's priority litter volume target of 4.2 litres per 1,000 square metres by 2020. | The Environment Protection Authority's data indicates the progress towards the target of reducing the volume of litter by 40 per cent by 2020 has slowed. |
| The NSW Government plans to invest $240 million to facilitate strategic biodiversity conservation on private land. | Performance measures have not yet been developed for the private land conservation program. |
3.4 Water |
|
| IPART reduced water usage charges for most Sydney Water Corporation customers in 2016–17. | Water usage prices in New South Wales compare favourably to larger water utilities in other jurisdictions. |
|
Hunter Water Corporation's water recycling and water conservation performance has been stable over recent years. The volume of Sydney Water Corporation’s recycled water reduced by 12 per cent in 2016–17 compared to the previous year. |
Sydney Water Corporation experienced reduced industry demand for recycled water. Several large industrial customers relocated away from Sydney. |
3.5 Arts and culture |
|
| A State priority target is to increase overall attendance at cultural venues and events in New South Wales by 15 per cent from 2014–15 levels by 2019. | The Department of Planning and Environment's data indicates overall attendance increased by 16 per cent in 2015–16, although attendance fluctuated across individual venues and events. This indicates progress towards achieving the overall target by 2019. |
Transport 2017
The following report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial statement audits of agencies in the Transport cluster.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements. However, the report notes the agencies can improve their asset revaluation processes.
Agency compliance with NSW Government travel policies
Overall, agencies materially complied with NSW Government travel policies.
However, the Auditor-General found some agencies:
- did not always book official travel through the approved supplier
- had weaknesses in their travel approval processes
- had travel policies that were inconsistent with the NSW Government policy
- did not adequately manage their travel records.
We asked the 15 participating agencies to complete a self assessment of the processes they have implemented to comply with the new policy. The key observations are summarised below.
