Reports
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 |
Fraud controls in local councils
Many local councils need to improve their fraud control systems, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. The report highlights that councils often have fraud control procedures and systems in place, but are not ensuring people understand them and how they work. There is also significant variation between councils in the quality of their fraud controls.
Fraud can directly influence councils’ ability to deliver services, and undermine community confidence and trust. ICAC investigations, such as the recent Operation Ricco into the former City of Botany Bay Council, show the financial and reputational damage that major fraud can cause. Good fraud control practices are critical for councils and the community.
The Audit Office of New South Wales 2015 Fraud Control Improvement Kit (the Kit) aligns with the Fraud and Corruption Control Standard AS8001-2008 and identifies ten attributes of an effective fraud control system. This audit used the Kit to assess how councils manage the risk of fraud. It identifies areas where fraud control can improve.
Fraud can disrupt the delivery and quality of services and threaten the financial stability of councils.
Recent reviews of local government in Queensland and Victoria identify that councils are at risk of fraud because they purchase large quantities of goods and services using devolved decision making arrangements. The Queensland Audit Office in its 2014–15 report 'Fraud Management in Local Government' found that ‘Councils are exposed to high-risks of fraud and corruption because of the high volume of goods and services they procure, often from local suppliers; and because of the high degree of decision making vested in councils'. They also highlight some common problems faced by councils including the absence of fraud control plans and failure to conduct regular reviews of their internal controls. Also, in 2008 and 2012 the Victorian Auditor-General identified the importance of up-to-date fraud control planning, clearly documented related policies, training staff to identify fraud risks and the importance of controls such as third party management.
Investigations into councils by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), such as the recent Operation Ricco, show the impact that fraud can have on councils. These impacts include significant financial loss, and negative public perceptions about how well councils manage fraud. The findings of these investigations also show the importance of good fraud controls for councils.
|
Operation Ricco In its report on Operation Ricco, the ICAC found that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the City of Botany Bay Council and others dishonestly exercised official functions to obtain financial benefits for themselves and others by causing fraudulent payments from the Council for their benefit. It also identified the CFO received inducements for favourable treatment of contractors. The report noted that there were overwhelming failures in the council’s procedures and governance framework that created significant opportunities for corruption, of which the CFO and others took advantage. It found weaknesses across a wide variety of governance processes and functions, including those involving the general manager, the internal audit function, external audit, and the operation of the audit committee. |
The strength of fraud control systems varies significantly across New South Wales local councils, and many councils we surveyed need to improve significantly.
Most surveyed councils do not have fraud control plans that direct resources to mitigating the specific fraud risks they face. Few councils reported that they conduct regular risk assessments or health checks to ensure they respond effectively to the risks they identify.
There are sector wide weaknesses that impact on the strength of councils' fraud control practice. Less than one-third of councils that responded to the survey:
- communicate their expectations about ethical conduct and responsibility for fraud control to staff
- regularly train staff to identify and respond to suspected fraud
- inform staff or the wider community how to report suspected fraud and how reports made will be investigated.
The audit also identified a pattern of councils developing policies, procedures or systems without ensuring people understand them, or assessing that they work. This reduces the likelihood that staff will actually use them.
In general, metropolitan and regional councils surveyed have stronger fraud control systems than rural councils.
Newly amalgamated councils are operating with systems inherited from two or more pre-amalgamated councils. These councils are developing new systems for their changed circumstances.
Five councils surveyed reported that they did not comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.
Observations for the sector:
Councils should improve their fraud controls by:
- tailoring fraud control plans to their circumstances and specific risks
- systematically and regularly reviewing their fraud risks and fraud control systems to keep their plans up to-date
- effectively communicating fraud risks, and how staff and the community can report suspected fraud
- ensuring that they comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.
Recommendation:
That the Office of Local Government:
- work with councils to ensure they comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.
That the Office of Local Government:
- work with state entities and councils to develop a common approach to how fraud complaints and incidences are defined and categorised so that they can:
- better use data to provide a clearer picture of the level of fraud within councils
- measure the effectiveness of, and drive improvement in councils' fraud controls systems
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #303 - released 22 June 2018
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
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
Council reporting on service delivery
New South Wales local government councils’ could do more to demonstrate how well they are delivering services in their reports to the public, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. Many councils report activity, but do not report on outcomes in a way that would help their communities assess how well they are performing. Most councils also did not report on the cost of services, making it difficult for communities to see how efficiently they are being delivered. And councils are not consistently publishing targets to demonstrate what they are striving for.
I am pleased to present my first local government performance audit pursuant to section 421D of the Local Government Act 1993.
My new mandate supports the Parliament’s objectives to:
- strengthen governance and financial oversight in the local government sector
- improve financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability for how councils use citizens’ funds.
Performance audits aim to help councils improve their efficiency and effectiveness. They will also provide communities with independent information on the performance of their councils.
For this inaugural audit in the local government sector, I have chosen to examine how well councils report to their constituents about the services they provide.
In this way, the report will enable benchmarking and provide improvement guidance to all councils across New South Wales.
Specific recommendations to drive improved reporting are directed to the Office of Local Government, which is the regulator of councils in New South Wales.
Councils provide a range of services which have a direct impact on the amenity, safety and health of their communities. These services need to meet the needs and expectations of their communities, as well as relevant regulatory requirements set by state and federal governments. Councils have a high level of autonomy in decisions about how and to whom they provide services, so it is important that local communities have access to information about how well they are being delivered and meeting community needs. Ultimately councils should aim to ensure that reporting performance is subject to quality controls designed to provide independent assurance.
Councils report extensively on the things they have done, but minimally on the outcomes from that effort, efficiency and performance over time.
Councils could improve reporting on service delivery by more clearly relating the resources needed with the outputs produced, and by reporting against clear targets. This would enable communities to understand how efficiently services are being delivered and how well councils are tracking against their goals and priorities.
Across the sector, a greater focus is also needed on reporting performance over time so that communities can track changes in performance and councils can demonstrate whether they are on target to meet any agreed timeframes for service improvements.
The degree to which councils demonstrate good practice in reporting on service delivery varies greatly between councils. Metropolitan and regional town and city councils generally produce better quality reporting than rural councils. This variation indicates that, at least in the near-term, OLG's efforts in building capability in reporting would be best directed toward rural councils.
Recommendation
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- assist rural councils to develop their reporting capability.
The Framework which councils are required to use to report on service delivery, is intended to drive good practice in reporting. Despite this, the Framework is silent on a number of aspects of reporting that should be considered fundamental to transparent reporting on service delivery. It does not provide guidance on reporting efficiency or cost effectiveness in service delivery and provides limited guidance on how annual reports link with other plans produced as part of the Framework. OLG's review of the Framework, currently underway, needs to address these issues.
Recommendation
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- issue additional guidance on good practice in council reporting, with specific information on:
- reporting on performance against targets
- reporting on performance against outcome
- assessing and reporting on efficiency and cost effectiveness
- reporting performance over time
- clearer integration of all reports and plans that are required by the Framework, particularly the role of End of Term Reporting
- defining reporting terms to encourage consistency.
The Framework is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reports
The guidelines produced by OLG in 2013 to assist councils to implement their Framework requirements advise that performance measures should be included in all plans. However, the Framework does not specifically state that efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators should be included as part of this process. This has been identified as a weakness in the 2012 performance audit report and the Local Government Reform Panel review of reporting by councils on service delivery.
The Framework and supporting documents provide limited guidance on reporting
Councils' annual reports provide a consolidated summary of their efforts and achievements in service delivery and financial management. However, OLG provides limited guidance on:
- good practice in reporting to the community
- how the annual report links with other plans and reports required by the Framework.
Further, the Framework includes both Annual and End of Term Reports. However, End of Term reports are published prior to council elections and are mainly a consolidation of annual reports produced during a council’s term. The relationship between Annual reports and End of Term reports is not clear.
OLG is reviewing the Framework and guidance
OLG commenced work on reviewing of the Framework in 2013 but this was deferred with work re‑starting in 2017. The revised guidelines and manual were expected to be released late in 2017.
OLG should build on the Framework to improve guidance on reporting on service delivery, including in annual reports
The Framework provides limited guidance on how best to report on service delivery, including in annual reports. It is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reporting, which are fundamental aspects of performance reporting. Councils we consulted would welcome more guidance from OLG on these aspects of reporting.
Our consultation with councils highlighted that many council staff would welcome a set of reporting principles that provide guidance to councils, without being prescriptive. This would allow councils to tailor their approach to the individual characteristics, needs and priorities of their local communities.
Consolidating what councils are required to report to state agencies would reduce the reporting burden and enable councils to better report on performance. Comparative performance indicators are also needed to provide councils and the public with a clear understanding of councils' performance relative to each other.
Recommendations
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- commence work to consolidate the information reported by individual councils to NSW Government agencies as part of their compliance requirements.
- progress work on the development of a Performance Measurement Framework, and associated performance indicators, that can be used by councils and the NSW Government in sector-wide performance reporting.
Streamlining the reporting burden would help councils improve reporting
The NSW Government does not have a central view of all local government reporting, planning and compliance obligations. A 2016 draft IPART ‘Review of reporting and compliance burdens on Local Government’ noted that councils provide a wide range of services under 67 different Acts, administered by 27 different NSW Government agencies. Consolidating and coordinating reporting requirements would assist with better reporting over time and comparative reporting. It would also provide an opportunity for NSW Government agencies to reduce the reporting burden on councils by identifying and removing duplication.
Enabling rural councils to perform tailored surveys of their communities may be more beneficial than a state-wide survey in defining outcome indicators
Some councils use community satisfaction survey data to develop outcome indicators for reporting. The results from these are used by councils to set service delivery targets and report on outcomes. This helps to drive service delivery in line with community expectations. While some regional councils do conduct satisfaction surveys, surveys are mainly used by metropolitan councils which generally have the resources needed to run them.
OLG and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have explored the potential to conduct state-wide resident satisfaction surveys with a view to establishing measures to improve service delivery. This work has drawn from a similar approach adopted in Victoria. Our consultation with stakeholders in Victoria indicated that the state level survey is not sufficiently detailed or specific enough to be used as a tool in setting targets that respond to local circumstances, expectations and priorities. Our analysis of reports and consultation with stakeholders suggest that better use of resident survey data in rural and regional areas may support improvements in performance reporting in these areas. Rural councils may benefit more from tailored surveys of groups of councils with similar challenges, priorities and circumstances than from a standard state-wide survey. These could potentially be achieved through regional cooperation between groups of similar councils or regional groups.
Comparative reporting indicators are needed to enable councils to respond to service delivery priorities of their communities
The Local Government Reform Panel in 2012 identified the need for ‘more consistent data collection and benchmarking to enable councils and the public to gain a clear understanding of how a council is performing relative to their peers’.
OLG commenced work in 2012 to build a new performance measurement Framework for councils which aimed to move away from compliance reporting. This work was also strongly influenced by the approach used in Victoria that requires councils to report on a set of 79 indicators which are reported on the Victorian 'Know your council' website. OLG’s work did not fully progress at the time and several other local government representative bodies have since commenced work to establish performance measurement frameworks. OLG advised us it has recently recommenced its work on this project.
Our consultation identified some desire amongst councils to be able to compare their performance to support improvement in the delivery of services. We also identified a level of frustration that more progress has not been made toward establishment of a set of indicators that councils can use to measure performance and drive improvement in service delivery.
Several councils we spoke with were concerned that the current approaches to comparative reporting did not adequately acknowledge that councils need to tailor their service types, level and mix to the needs of their community. Comparative reporting approaches tend to focus on output measures such as number of applications processed, library loans annually and opening hours for sporting facilities, rather than outcome measures. These approaches risk unjustified and adverse interpretations of performance where councils have made a decision based on community consultation, local priorities and available resources. To mitigate this, it is important to
- adopt a partnership approach to the development of indicators
- ensure indicators measure performance, not just level of activity
- compare performance between councils that are similar in terms of size and location.
It may be more feasible, at least in the short term, for OLG to support small groups of like councils to develop indicators suited to their situation.
Based on our consultations, key lessons from implementing a sector-wide performance indicator framework in Victoria included the benefits of:
- consolidation of the various compliance data currently being reported by councils to provide an initial platform for comparative performance reporting
- adopting a partnership approach to development of common indicators with groups of like councils.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Service delivery categorisation
Appendix three - Reporting targets and performance over time
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Appendix five - About the audit
Parliamentary reference - Report number #296 - released 1 February 2018
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.
Volume Seven 2012 focusing on Law, Order and Emergency Services
Since the Victims’ Compensation Scheme started in 1989, $1.6 billion has been paid to victims of crime, but only $57.4 million or nearly four per cent has been recovered from convicted offenders. The remaining 96 per cent has been funded by the taxpayer.
Monitoring Local Government
The Division of Local Government (DLG) has helped many NSW councils improve their long-term financial planning and asset management practice. Many councils are serving their communities well. However, because DLG lacks the power, it finds it difficult to respond effectively when things go wrong.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #225 - released 26 September 2012
Volume One 2012 focusing on themes from 2011
The following overview of audits from 2011 found agency restructures significantly impacted agency financial reporting processes, agencies are having difficulty establishing and enforcing compliance with their own policies and procedures, agencies experienced problems complying with regulations and providing adequate documentation to support their financial statements, the poor quality of some financial statements with 1,256 misstatements identified, 540 so significant they had to be corrected, deficiencies in information security exist across many agencies, computer system disaster recovery plans for financial systems not existing or outdated, do not align with agencies’ business recovery requirements, do not properly identify and assess critical systems and processes and testing is incomplete.
