Reports
Actions for Local Government 2023
Local Government 2023
What this report is about
Results of the local government sector financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
Findings
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 85 councils, eight county councils and 12 joint organisations.
Qualified audit opinions were issued for 36 councils due to non-recognition of rural firefighting equipment vested under section 119(2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997.
The audits of seven councils, one county council and one joint organisation remain in progress at the date of this report due to significant accounting issues.
Fifty councils, county councils and joint organisations missed the statutory deadline of submitting their financial statements to the Office of Local Government, within the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, by 31 October.
Audit management letters included 1,131 findings with 40% being repeat findings and 91 findings being high-risk. Governance, asset management and information technology continue to represent 65% of the key areas for improvement.
Fifty councils do not have basic governance and internal controls to manage cyber security.
Recommendations
To improve quality and timeliness of financial reporting, councils should:
- adopt early financial reporting procedures, including asset valuations
- ensure integrity and completeness of asset source records
- perform procedures to confirm completeness, accuracy and condition of vested rural firefighting equipment.
To improve internal controls, councils should:
- track progress of implementing audit recommendations, and prioritise high-risk repeat issues
- continue to focus on cyber security governance and controls.
Pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993 I am pleased to present my Auditor-General’s report on Local Government 2023. My report provides the results of the 2022–23 financial audits of 121 councils, eight county councils and 12 joint organisations. It also includes the results of the 2021–22 audits for two councils and two joint organisations which were completed after tabling of the Auditor-General’s report on Local Government 2022. The 2022–23 audits for eight councils, one county council and one joint organisation remain in progress due to significant accounting issues.
This will be my last consolidated report on local councils in NSW as my term as Auditor-General ends in April. Without a doubt, the change in mandate to make me the auditor of the local government sector has been the biggest challenge in my term. Challenging for councils as they adjust to consistent audit arrangements and for the staff of the Audit Office of NSW as they learn about the issues facing NSW councils.
The change in mandate aimed to improve the quality of financial management and reporting across the sector. This will take time. But this report does show some ‘green shoots’ with more councils submitting financial reports to the Office of Local Government by 31 October and more councils having Audit, Risk and Improvement Committees.
I also want to acknowledge that councils face significant challenges responding to and recovering from emergency events whilst cost and resourcing pressures have been persistent.
The findings from our audits identify opportunities to further improve timeliness and quality of financial reporting and integrity of systems and processes. The recommendations in this report are also intended to improve financial management and reporting capability, encourage sound governance, and boost cyber resilience.
Margaret Crawford PSM
Auditor-General for New South Wales
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in and transparency of public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines audit observations related to the financial reporting audit results of councils, county councils and joint organisations.
A strong system of internal controls enables councils to operate effectively and efficiently, produce reliable financial reports, comply with laws and regulations, and support ethical government.
This chapter outlines the overall trends in governance and internal controls across councils, county councils and joint organisations in 2022–23.
Financial audits focus on key governance matters and internal controls supporting the preparation of councils’ financial statements. Breakdowns and weaknesses in internal controls increase the risk of fraud and error. Deficiencies in internal controls, matters of governance interest and unresolved issues are reported to management and those charged with governance through audit management letters. These letters include our observations with risk ratings, related implications, and recommendations.
Appendix two – NSW Crown Solicitor’s advice
Appendix three – Status of previous recommendations
Appendix four – Status of audits
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Actions for Regulation insights
Regulation insights
What this report is about
In this report, we present findings and recommendations relevant to regulation from selected reports between 2018 and 2024.
This analysis includes performance audits, compliance audits and the outcomes of financial audits.
Effective regulation is necessary to ensure compliance with the law as well as to promote positive social and economic outcomes and minimise risks with certain activities.
The report is a resource for public sector leaders. It provides insights into the challenges and opportunities for more effective regulation.
Audit findings
The analysis of findings and recommendations is structured around four key themes related to effective regulation:
- governance and accountability
- processes and procedures
- data and information management
- support and guidance.
The report draws from this analysis to present insights for agencies to promote effective regulation. It also includes relevant examples from recent audit reports.
In this report, we also draw out insights for agencies that provide a public sector stewardship role.
The report highlights the need for agencies to communicate a clear regulatory approach. It also emphasises the need to have a consistent regulatory approach, supported by robust information about risks and accompanied with timely and proportionate responses.
The report highlights the need to provide relevant support to regulated parties to facilitate compliance and the importance of transparency through reporting of meaningful regulatory information.
I am pleased to present this report, Regulation insights. This report highlights themes and generates insights about effective regulation from the last six years of audit.
Effective regulation is necessary to ensure compliance with the law. Effective regulation also promotes social, economic, and environmental outcomes, and minimises risks or negative impacts associated with certain activities. But regulation can be challenging and costly for governments to implement. It can also involve costs and impact on the regulated parties, including other public sector and private entities, and individuals. As such, effective regulation needs to be administered efficiently, and with integrity.
Having a clearly articulated and communicated regulatory approach is essential to achieving this outcome, particularly when this promotes voluntary compliance and sets performance standards that are informed by community expectations. A consistent approach to exercising regulatory powers is important: it should be supported by robust information about regulatory risks and issues, and accompanied with timely, proportionate responses. Providing relevant support to the regulated parties and coordinating activities to facilitate compliance and performance can generate efficiencies.
Finally, transparency matters. It matters so that government has oversight of and can be held accountable for its leadership of public sector compliance, and in regulating the activities of third parties. Transparency also matters because it can provide insights into the effective exercise of government power. To achieve this, meaningful regulatory information needs to be reported.
While these issues are most pertinent for government agencies that exercise traditional regulatory functions, they are also relevant to lead government agencies that provide a stewardship role in promoting compliance and performance by other government agencies in relation to particular areas of risk.
Over the past six years, our audit work has found many common and repeat performance gaps, creating risks, inefficiencies, and limiting outcomes of regulatory activities. In considering these gaps, this report provides public sector leaders with insights into the challenges and opportunities they may encounter when aiming for more effective regulation, including the good governance of regulatory activities. This includes insights for lead agencies that provide a public sector stewardship role. Through applying these insights and maximising regulatory effectiveness, unintended impacts on the people and sectors government serves and protects can be avoided or at the very least minimised.
Margaret Crawford PSM
Auditor-General for NSW
This report brings together key findings and recommendations relevant to regulation from selected performance and compliance audits between 2018 and early 2024 (19 in total), and from two reports that summarise results of financial audits during the same period. It aims to provide insights into the challenges and opportunities the public sector may encounter when aiming to enhance regulatory effectiveness.
The report is structured in two sections, each setting out insights from relevant audits and providing summaries as illustrative examples.
Section 3 is focused on insights from audits of agencies that administer regulatory powers and functions over other entities or activities (typically known as 'regulators'). The powers and functions of regulators are defined in law, and often relate to issuing approvals (e.g., licensing) for certain activities, and/or monitoring allowable activities within certain limits. Regulators often have compliance and enforcement powers that can be exercised in particular circumstances, such as when a regulated entity has not complied with relevant requirements.
Agencies may be primarily established as regulators or perform regulatory activities alongside other functions. Depending on the context, the regulated activity may relate to other state agencies, local government entities, non-government entities or individuals.
Section 4 summarises insights from a selection of audits of agencies that provide a stewardship role in promoting compliance by and performance of other state agencies and local government entities in relation to specific regulations or policies. These policies may or may not be mandatory and, unlike a more traditional regulator, the coordinating agency may not have enforcement powers to ensure compliance.
These policies, and accompanying guidelines and frameworks, are typically issued by ‘central agencies’ such as the Premier's Department that have a public sector stewardship role. They can also be issued by agencies with a leadership role in particular policy areas ('lead agencies'). While individual agencies and local government entities implementing these policies are responsible for their own compliance and performance, lead and central agencies have an oversight role including by promoting accountability and coordinating activities towards achieving compliance and performance outcomes across the public sector.
Readers are encouraged to view the full reports for further information. Links to versions published on our website are provided throughout this document, and a full list is in Appendix one. An overview of the rationale for selecting these audits and the approach to developing this report is in Appendix two.
The status of agencies' responses to audit recommendations
Findings from the audits referred to in this report were current at the time each respective report was published. In many cases, agencies accepted audit recommendations, as reflected in the letters from agency heads that are included in the appendix of each audit report.
The Public Accounts Committee of the NSW Parliament has a role in reporting on and ensuring that agencies respond appropriately to audit recommendations. Readers are encouraged to review the Public Accounts Committee's inquiries on agencies' implementation of audit recommendations, which can be found on the Committee's website.
Actions for Effectiveness of SafeWork NSW in exercising its compliance functions
Effectiveness of SafeWork NSW in exercising its compliance functions
What this report is about
This report assesses how effectively SafeWork NSW, a part of the Department of Customer Service (DCS), has performed its regulatory compliance functions for work health and safety in New South Wales.
The report includes a case study examining SafeWork NSW's management of a project to develop a realtime monitoring device for airborne silica in workplaces.
Findings
There is limited transparency about SafeWork NSW's effectiveness as a regulator. The limited performance information that is available is either subsumed within DCS reporting (or other sources) and is focused on activity, not outcomes.
As a work health and safety (WHS) regulator, SafeWork NSW lacks an effective strategic and data-driven approach to respond to emerging WHS risks.
It was slow to respond to the risk of respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone.
SafeWork NSW is constrained by an information management system that is over 20 years old and has passed its effective useful life.
While it has invested effort into ensuring consistent regulatory decisions, SafeWork NSW needs to maintain a focus on this objective, including by ensuring that there is a comprehensive approach to quality assurance.
SafeWork NSW's engagement of a commercial partner to develop a real-time silica monitoring device did not comply with key procurement obligations.
There was ineffective governance and process to address important concerns about the accuracy of the real-time silica monitoring device.
As such, SafeWork NSW did not adequately manage potential WHS risks.
Recommendations
The report recommended that DCS should:
- ensure there is an independent investigation into the procurement of the research partner for the real-time silica detector
- embed a formal process to review and set its annual regulatory priorities
- publish a consolidated performance report
- set long-term priorities, including for workforce planning and technology uplift
- improve its use of data, and start work to replace its existing complaints handling system
- review its risk culture and its risk management framework
- review the quality assurance measures that support consistent regulatory decisions
Read the PDF report.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #390 - released 27 February 2024
Actions for Health 2023
Health 2023
What this report is about
Results of the Health portfolio of agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
The audit found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all Health portfolio agencies' financial statements.
The number of monetary misstatements increased in 2022–23, driven by key accounting issues, including the first-time recognition of paid parental leave and plant and equipment fair value adjustments.
The key audit issues were
NSW Health identified errors regarding the recognition and calculation of long service leave entitlements for employees with ten or more years of service that had periods of part time service in the first ten years, resulting in prior period restatements.
Comprehensive revaluation of buildings at the Graythwaite Charitable Trust found errors in the previous year's valuation, resulting in prior period restatements.
New parental leave legislation increased employee liabilities for portfolio agencies. The Ministry of Health corrected the consolidated financial statements to record parental leave liabilities for all agencies within the Health portfolio.
A repeat high-risk issue relates to processing time records by administrators that have not been reviewed prior to running the pay cycle.
Thirty per cent of reported issues were repeat issues.
The audit recommended
Portfolio agencies should ensure any changes to employee entitlements are assessed for their potential financial statements impact under the relevant Australian Accounting Standards.
Portfolio agencies should address deficiencies that resulted in qualified reports on:
- the design and operation of shared service controls
- prudential non-compliance at residential aged care facilities.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Health portfolio of agencies’ financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Health portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all portfolio agencies required to prepare general purpose financial statements.
- The total number of errors (including corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased compared to the prior year.
- The Ministry of Health retrospectively corrected an $18.9 million adjustment in its financial statements relating to long service leave entitlements for certain employees.
- Graythwaite Charitable Trust retrospectively corrected a $4.2 million adjustment in its financial statements related to prior period valuations.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Health portfolio.
Section highlights
- The 2022–23 audits identified one high-risk and 57 moderate risk issues across the portfolio.
- The high-risk matter related to the forced-finalisation of time records.
- The total number of findings increased from 67 to 111 in 2022–23.
- Thirty per cent of the issues were repeat issues. Most repeat issues related to internal control deficiencies or non-compliance with key legislation and/or central agency policies.
- Forced-finalisation of time records, accounting for the new paid parental leave provision and user access review deficiencies were the most commonly reported issues.
- Qualified Assurance Practitioner's reports were issued on:
- the design and operation of controls as documented by HealthShare NSW
- the Ministry's Annual Prudential Compliance Statements in relation to residential aged care facilities.
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting
Appendix four – Financial data
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Actions for State heritage assets
State heritage assets
What the report is about
This audit assessed how effectively the Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) is overseeing and administering heritage assets of state significance.
Heritage that is rare, exceptional or outstanding to New South Wales may be listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977. This provides assets with legal recognition and protection. Places, buildings, works, relics, objects and precincts can be listed, whether in public or private ownership.
Heritage NSW has administrative functions and regulatory powers, including under delegation from the Heritage Council of NSW, relevant to the listing, conservation and adaptive re-use of heritage assets of state significance.
In summary, the audit assessed whether Heritage NSW:
- is effectively administering relevant advice and decisions
- is effectively supporting and overseeing assets
- has established clear strategic priorities and can demonstrate preparedness to implement these.
What we found
Heritage NSW does not have adequate oversight of state significant heritage assets, presenting risks to its ability to promote the objects of the Heritage Act.
Information gaps and weaknesses in quality assurance processes limit its capacity to effectively regulate activities affecting assets listed on the State Heritage Register.
Heritage NSW has adopted a focus on customer service and recently improved its timeliness in providing advice and making decisions about activities affecting listed assets. But Heritage NSW has not demonstrated how its customer-focused priorities will address known risks to its core regulatory responsibilities.
Listed assets owned by government entities are often of high heritage value. Heritage NSW could do more to promote effective heritage management among these entities.
What we recommended
The report made eight recommendations to Heritage NSW, focusing on:
- improving quality assurance over advice and decisions
- improving staff guidance and training
- defining and maintaining data in the State Heritage Register
- clarifying its regulatory intent and approach
- sector engagement and interagency capability to support heritage outcomes.
The Heritage Act 1977 (the Heritage Act) and accompanying regulation provide the legal framework for the identification, conservation and adaptive re-use of heritage assets in New South Wales.
The Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) has responsibility for policy, legislative and program functions for state heritage matters, including supporting the Minister for Heritage to administer the Heritage Act.
Heritage assets that are rare, exceptional or outstanding beyond a local area or region may be listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act. These assets include places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects and precincts, and assets that have significance to Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. Assets nominated for and listed on the State Heritage Register ('listed assets') may be owned privately or publicly, including by local councils and state government entities.
The Heritage Act establishes the Heritage Council of NSW (the Heritage Council) to undertake a range of functions in line with its objectives. Heritage NSW provides administrative support to the Heritage Council, for example providing advice on assets that have been nominated for listing on the State Heritage Register. Many of Heritage NSW’s core activities also relate to exercising functions and powers under delegation from the Heritage Council. These include making administrative decisions about works affecting listed assets, and exercising powers to regulate asset owners’ compliance with requirements under the Heritage Act.
Heritage NSW states that heritage:
…gives us a sense of our history and provides meaningful insights into how earlier generations lived and developed. It also enriches our lives and helps us to understand who we are. |
According to Heritage NSW, an effective heritage system will facilitate the community in harnessing the cultural and economic value of heritage.
The objective of this audit was to assess how effectively the Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) is overseeing and administering heritage assets of state significance.
For this audit, ‘heritage assets of state significance’ refers to items (including a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct) listed on the State Heritage Register ('listed assets'), and those which have been nominated for listing.
ConclusionThe Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) does not have adequate oversight of state significant heritage assets. Information gaps and weaknesses in certain assurance processes limit its capacity to effectively regulate activities affecting assets listed on the State Heritage Register. These factors also constrain its ability to effectively support voluntary compliance and promote the objects of the Heritage Act, which include encouraging conservation and adaptive re-use.Heritage NSW has adopted a focus on customer service and recently improved the timeliness of its advice and decisions on activities affecting listed assets. But Heritage NSW has not demonstrated how its customer service priorities will address known risks to its regulatory responsibilities. It could also do more to enable and promote effective heritage management among state government entities that own listed assets.The information that Heritage NSW maintains about assets listed on the State Heritage Register ('listed assets') is insufficient for its regulatory and owner engagement purposes. Data quality and completeness issues have arisen since the register was established in 1999. But Heritage NSW's progress to address important gaps in the register, and its other information systems, has been limited in recent years. These gaps limit Heritage NSW’s capacity to detect compliance breaches early and implement risk-based regulatory responses, and to strategically target its owner engagement activities to promote conservation and re-use. Heritage NSW makes decisions on applications for works on listed assets, requiring technical skills and professional judgement. But Heritage NSW does not provide its staff with adequate guidance to ensure that consistent approaches are used, and it lacks sufficient quality assurance processes. There are similar weaknesses in Heritage NSW's oversight of decisions on applications that are delegated to other government entities. Heritage NSW has prioritised the implementation of customer service-focused activities, policies, and programs to reduce regulatory burdens on asset owners since 2017. For example, Heritage NSW has refreshed its website, introduced new information management systems, and implemented new regulation for the self-assessment of exemptions for minor works. However, Heritage NSW has not taken steps to mitigate oversight and quality risks introduced with the reduced regulatory burdens. Heritage NSW has made some, but to date insufficient, progress on a key project to update its publications. These documents (over 150 publications) are intended to play an important role in promoting voluntary compliance and supporting heritage outcomes. Heritage NSW started a new project to update relevant publications in April 2023. Heritage NSW has recently implemented processes to improve its efficiency, such as screening new nominations for listing on the State Heritage Register. Heritage NSW has also reported improvements in the time it takes to decide on applications for works affecting listed assets. In the third quarter of 2022–23, 87% of decisions were made within the statutory timeframes. This compares to 48% in 2021–22. Heritage NSW has similarly improved how quickly it provides heritage advice on major projects, with 90% of advice reported as delivered on time in the third quarter of 2022–23, compared to 44% in 2020–21. Assets owned by state government entities comprise a large proportion of State Heritage Register listings. These assets are often of high heritage value or situated within large and complex precincts or portfolios. But Heritage NSW does not implement targeted capability building activities to support good practice heritage management among state government entities and to promote compliance with their obligations under the Heritage Act. The expected interaction between Heritage NSW's strategic plans and activities, and the priorities of the Heritage Council of NSW, is unclear. Actions to clarify the relevant governance arrangements have also been slow following a review in 2020 but this work re-commenced in late 2022. Heritage NSW has been progressing work to draft reforms to the Heritage Act. This follows recommendations made in a 2021 Upper House Inquiry into the Heritage Act. To build preparedness for future reforms, Heritage NSW will need to do more to address the risks and opportunities identified in this audit report. In particular, it will need to ensure it has sufficient information and capacity to implement a risk-based regulatory approach; clear and effective governance arrangements with the Heritage Council of NSW; and enhanced engagement with government entities to promote the conservation and adaptive re-use of listed assets in public ownership. |
This chapter assesses the effectiveness of Heritage NSW's oversight of state heritage assets, including its visibility of listed assets, and its oversight of regulatory decision-making. It also assesses Heritage NSW's activities to engage with owners to meet their obligations under the Heritage Act and to support heritage outcomes.
This chapter assesses the timeliness of Heritage NSW’s provision of advice, recommendations, and decisions on heritage issues to support heritage management outcomes with respect to listed assets.
This chapter assesses whether the Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) has established clear strategic priorities to effectively oversee and administer activities related to listed assets, and its preparedness to implement reforms. It also assesses the adequacy of planning activities and governance arrangements to support the achievement of strategic directions.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #384 - released 27 June 2023
Actions for Management of the Critical Communications Enhancement Program
Management of the Critical Communications Enhancement Program
What the report is about
Effective radio communications are crucial to NSW's emergency services organisations.
The Critical Communications Enhancement Program (CCEP) aims to deliver an enhanced public safety radio network to serve the five emergency services organisations (ESOs), as well as a range of other users.
This report assesses whether the NSW Telco Authority is effectively managing the CCEP.
What we found
Where it has already been delivered (about 50% of the state), the enhanced network meets most of the requirements of ESOs.
The CCEP will provide additional infrastructure for public safety radio coverage in existing buildings agreed to with ESOs. However, radio coverage inside buildings constructed after the CCEP concludes will be at risk because building and fire regulations do not address the need for in-building public safety radio coverage.
Around 98% of radios connected to the network can be authenticated to protect against cloning, though only 42% are.
The NSW Telco Authority has not settled with ESOs on how call encryption will be used across the network. This creates the risk that radio interoperability between ESOs will not be maximised.
When completed, the public safety radio network will be the only mission critical radio network for ESOs. It is unclear whether governance for the ongoing running of the network will allow ESOs to participate in future network operational decisions.
The current estimated capital cost for the NSW Telco Authority to complete the CCEP is $1.293 billion. This is up from an estimated cost of $400 million in 2016. The estimated capital cost was not publicly disclosed until $1.325 billion was shown in the 2021–22 NSW Budget Papers.
We estimate that the full cost to government, including costs to the ESOs, of implementing the enhanced network is likely to exceed $2 billion.
We made recommendations about
- The governance of the enhanced Public Safety Network (PSN) to support agency relationships.
- The need to finalise a Traffic Mitigation Plan for when the network is congested.
- The need to provide advice to the NSW Government about the regulatory gap for ensuring adequate network reach in future buildings.
- The need to clarify how encryption and interoperability will work on the enhanced network.
- The need for the NSW Telco Authority to comply with its policy on Infrastructure Capacity Reservation.
- Expediting measures to protect against the risk of cloning by unauthenticated radios.
Public safety radio networks are critical for operational communications among Emergency Services Organisations (ESOs), which in New South Wales include:
- NSW Ambulance
- Fire and Rescue NSW
- NSW Police Force
- NSW Rural Fire Service
- NSW State Emergency Service.1
Since 1993, these five ESOs have had access to a NSW Government owned and operated radio communications network, the Public Safety Network (PSN), to support their operational communications. Around 60 to 70 other entities also have access to this network, including other NSW government entities, Commonwealth government entities, local councils, community organisations, and utility companies.
Pursuant to the Government Telecommunications Act 2018 ('the Act'), the New South Wales Government Telecommunications Authority ('NSW Telco Authority') is responsible for the establishment, control, management, maintenance and operation of the PSN.2
Separate to the PSN, all ESOs and other government entities have historically maintained their own radio communication capabilities and networks. Accordingly, the PSN has been a supplementary source of operational radio communications for these entities.
These other radio networks maintained by ESOs and other entities are of varying size and capability, with many ageing and nearing their end-of-life. There was generally little or no interoperability between networks, infrastructure was often co-located and duplicative, and there were large gaps in geographic coverage.
In 2016, the NSW Telco Authority received dedicated NSW Government funding to commence the Critical Communications Enhancement Program (CCEP).
According to NSW Telco Authority's 2021–22 annual report, the CCEP is a transformation program for operational communications for NSW government agencies. The CCEP '…aims to deliver greater access to public safety standard radio communications for the State’s first responders and essential service agencies'. The objective of CCEP is to consolidate the large number of separate radio networks that are owned and operated by various NSW government entities and to enhance the state’s existing shared PSN. The program also aims to deliver increased PSN coverage throughout New South Wales.
The former NSW Government intended that as the enhanced PSN was progressively rolled-out across NSW, ESOs would migrate their radio communications to the enhanced network, before closing and decommissioning their own networks.
About this Audit
This audit assessed whether the CCEP is being effectively managed by the NSW Telco Authority to deliver an enhanced PSN that meets ESOs' requirements for operational communications.
We addressed the audit objective by answering the following two questions:
- Have agreed ESO user requirements for the enhanced PSN been met under day-to-day and emergency operational conditions?
- Has there been adequate transparency to the NSW Government and other stakeholders regarding whole-of-government costs related to the CCEP?
In answering the first question, we also considered how the agreed user requirements were determined. This included whether they were supported by evidence, whether they were sufficient to meet the intent of the CCEP (including in considering any role for new or alternative technologies), and whether they met any relevant technical standards and compliance obligations (including for cyber security resilience).
While other NSW government agencies and entities use the PSN, we focused on the experience of the five primary ESOs because these will be the largest users of the enhanced PSN.
Both the cost and time required to complete the CCEP roll-out have increased since 2016. While it was originally intended to be completed in 2020, this is now forecast to be 2027. Infrastructure NSW has previously assessed the reasons for the increases in time and cost. A summary of the findings made by Infrastructure NSW is presented in Chapter 1 of this report. Accordingly, as these matters had already been assessed, we did not re-examine them in this performance audit.
The auditee for this performance audit is the NSW Telco Authority, which is a statutory authority within the Department of Customer Service portfolio.
In addition to being responsible for the operation of the PSN, section 5 of the Act also prescribes that the NSW Telco Authority is:
- to identify, develop and deliver upgrades and enhancements to the government telecommunications network to improve operational communications for government sector agencies
- to develop policies, standards and guidelines for operational communications using telecommunications networks.
The NSW Telco Authority Advisory Board is established under section 10 of the Act. The role of the board is to advise the NSW Telco Authority and the minister on any matter relating to the telecommunications requirements of government sector agencies and on any other matter relating to the functions of the Authority. As of 2 June 2023, the responsible minister is the Minister for Customer Service and Digital Government.
The five identified ESOs are critical stakeholders of the CCEP and therefore they were consulted during this audit. However, the ESOs were not auditees for this performance audit.
ConclusionIn areas of New South Wales where the enhanced Public Safety Network has been implemented under the Critical Communications Enhancement Program, the NSW Telco Authority has delivered a radio network that meets most of the agreed requirements of Emergency Services Organisations for routine and emergency operations.In April 2023, the enhanced Public Safety Network (PSN) was approximately 50% completed. In areas where it is used by Emergency Services Organisations (ESOs), the PSN generally meets agreed user requirements. This is demonstrated through extensive performance monitoring and reporting, which shows that agreed performance standards are generally achieved. Reviews by the NSW Government and the NSW Telco Authority found that the PSN performed effectively during major flood events in 2021 and 2022.Where it is completed, PSN coverage is generally equal to or better than each ESO's individual pre-existing coverage. The NSW Telco Authority has a dedicated work program to address localised coverage gaps (or 'blackspots') in those areas where coverage has otherwise been substantively delivered. Available call capacity on the network far exceeds demand in everyday use. Any operational issues that may occur with the PSN are transparent to ESOs in real time. The NSW Telco Authority consulted extensively with ESOs on requirements for the enhanced PSN, with relatively few ESO requirements not being included in the specifications for the enhanced PSN. Lessons from previous events, including the 2019–20 summer bushfires, have informed the design and implementation of the enhanced PSN (such as the need to ensure adequate backup power supply to inaccessible sites). The network is based on the Project 25 technical standards for mission-critical radio communications, which is widely-accepted in the public safety radio community throughout Australia and internationally. There is no mechanism to ensure adequate radio coverage within new building infrastructure after the CCEP concludes, but the NSW Telco Authority and ESOs have agreed an approach to prioritise existing in-building sites for coverage for the duration of the CCEP.The extent to which the PSN works within buildings and other built structures (such as railway tunnels) is of crucial importance to ESOs, especially the NSW Police Force, NSW Ambulance, and Fire and Rescue NSW. This is because a large proportion of their operational communications occurs within buildings.There is no mechanism to ensure the adequacy of future in-building coverage for the PSN in new or refurbished buildings after the CCEP concludes. Planning, building, and fire regulations are silent on this issue. We note there are examples in the United States of how in-building coverage for public safety radio networks can be incorporated into building or fire safety codes. In regard to existing buildings, it is not possible to know whether a building requires its own in-building PSN infrastructure until nearby outside radio sites, including towers and antennae, have been commissioned into the network. Only then can it be determined whether their radio transmissions are capable of penetrating inside nearby buildings. Accordingly, much of this work for in-building coverage cannot be done until outside radio sites are finished and operating. In March 2023, the NSW Telco Authority and ESOs agreed on a list of 906 mandatory and 7,086 non-mandatory sites for in-building PSN coverage. Most of these sites will likely be able to receive radio coverage via external antennae and towers, however this cannot be confirmed until those nearby external PSN sites are completed. The parties also agreed on an approach to prioritising those sites where coverage is needed but not provided by antennae and towers. Available funding will likely only extend to ensuring coverage in sites deemed mandatory, which is nonetheless expected to meet the overall benchmark of achieving 'same or better' coverage than what ESOs had previously. There is a risk that radio interoperability between ESOs will not be maximised because the NSW Telco Authority has not settled with ESOs how encryption will be used across the enhanced PSN.End-to-end encryption of radio transmissions is a security feature that prevents radio transmissions being intercepted or listened to by people who are not meant to. The ability of the PSN to provide end-to-end encryption of operational communications is of critical importance to the two largest prospective users of the PSN: the NSW Police Force and NSW Ambulance. Given that encryption excludes other parties that do not have the requisite encryption keys, its use creates an obstacle to achieving a key intended benefit of the CCEP, that is a more interoperable PSN, where first responders are better able to communicate with other ESOs.Further planning and collaboration between PSN participants are necessary to consider how these dual benefits can be achieved, including in what operational circumstances encrypted interoperability is necessary or appropriate. The capital cost to the NSW Telco Authority of the CCEP, originally estimated at $400 million in 2016, was not made public until the 2021–22 NSW Budget disclosed an estimate of $1.325 billon.The estimated capital cost to complete all stages of the CCEP increased over time. This increasing cost was progressively disclosed to the NSW Government through Cabinet processes between 2015–16 and 2021–22.In 2016, the full capital cost to the NSW Telco Authority of completing the CCEP was estimated to be $400 million. This estimated cost was not publicly disclosed, nor were subsequent increases, until the cost of $1.325 billion was publicly disclosed in the 2021–22 NSW Budget (revised down in the 2022–23 NSW Budget to $1.293 billion). There has been no transparency about the whole-of-government cost of implementing the enhanced PSN through the CCEP.In addition to the capital costs incurred directly by the NSW Telco Authority for the CCEP, ESOs have incurred costs to maintain their own networks due to the delay in implementing the CCEP. The ESOs will continue to incur these costs until they are able to fully migrate to the enhanced PSN, which is expected to be in 2027. These costs have not been tracked or reported as part of transparently accounting for the whole-of-government cost of the enhanced PSN. This is despite Infrastructure NSW in 2019 recommending to the NSW Telco Authority that it conduct a stocktake of such costs so that a whole-of-government cost impact is available to the NSW Government. |
1 The definition of 'emergency services organisation' is set out in the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (NSW). In addition to the five ESOs discussed in this report, the definition also includes: Surf Life Saving New South Wales; New South Wales Volunteer Rescue Association Inc; Volunteer Marine Rescue NSW; an agency that manages or controls an accredited rescue unit; and a non-government agency that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.
2 Section 15(1) of the Government Telecommunications Act 2018 (NSW).
The NSW Telco Authority established and tracked its own costs for the CCEP
Over the course of the program from 2016, the NSW Telco Authority prepared a series of business cases and program reviews that estimated its cost of implementing the program in full, including those shown in Exhibit 6 below.
Source | Capital cost ($ million) | Operating cost ($ million) |
Completion date |
March 2016 business case | 400 | 37.3 | 2020 |
November 2017 internal review | 476.7 | 41.7 | 2022 |
March 2020 business case | 950–1,050 | -- | 2025 |
October 2020 business case | 1,263.1 | 56.1 | 2026 |
In response to the 2016 CCEP business case, the then NSW Government approved the NSW Telco Authority implementing the CCEP in full, with funding provided in stages. The NSW Telco Authority tracked its costs against approved funding, with monthly reports provided to the multi-agency Program Steering Committee
Throughout the program, the NSW Government was informed of increasing costs being incurred by the NSW Telco Authority for the CCEP
The various business cases, program updates, and program reviews prepared by the NSW Telco Authority were provided to the NSW Government through the required Cabinet process when seeking approval for the program proceeding and requests for both capital and operational funding. These provided clear indication of the changing overall cost of the CCEP to the NSW Telco Authority, as well as the delays that were being experienced.
There was no transparency to the Parliament and community about changes in the capital cost of the CCEP until the 2021–22 NSW Budget
As the business cases for the CCEP were not publicly available, the only sources of information about capital cost were NSW Budget papers and media releases. The information provided in the annual Budget papers prior to the 2021–22 NSW Budget provided no visibility of the estimated full capital cost to complete all stages of the CCEP. As shown in Exhibit 7 below, this information was fragmented and complex.
Media releases about the progress of the CCEP did not provide the estimated total cost to the NSW Telco Authority of $1.325 billion to complete all stages of the CCEP until June 2021. Prior to this date, media releases only provided funding for the initial stages of the program or for the stages subject to a funding announcement.
Even during the September 2019 and March 2020 Parliamentary Estimate Committee hearings where the costings and delays to the CCEP were raised, the estimated full cost of the CCEP was not revealed.
Financial year | Type of major work | Description of expenditure | Forecast estimate to complete ($ million) | Estimated duration |
2015–16 | New work | Infrastructure Rationalisation Program: Planning and Pilot | 18.3 | 2015–16 |
2016–17 | Work in progress | CCEP Planning and Pilot | 18.3 | 2015–17 |
New work | CCEP | 45 | 2016–17 | |
2017–18 | New work | CCEP | 190.75 | 2017–21 |
2018–19 | Work in progress | CCEP North Coast and State-wide Detailed Design | 190.75 | 2017–21 |
New work | CCEP Greater Metropolitan Area | 236 | 2018–22 | |
2019–20 | Work in progress | CCEP | 426.9 | 2018–22 |
2020–21 | Work in progress | CCEP | 664.8 | 2018–22 |
2021–22 | Work in progress | CCEP | 1,325 | 2018–26 |
2022–23 | Work in progress | CCEP | 1,292.8 | 2018–26 |
The original business case for the CCEP included estimated ESO costs, though these costs were not tracked throughout the program
Estimates for ESO costs for operating and maintaining their own radio networks over the four years from 2016–17 were included in the original March 2016 business case. They included $75.2 million for capital expenditure and $95 million for one-off operating costs. These costs, as well as costs incurred by ESOs due to the delay in the program, were not subsequently tracked by the NSW Telco Authority.
In January 2017, Infrastructure NSW reviewed the CCEP business case of March 2016. In this review, Infrastructure NSW recommended that the NSW Telco Authority identify combined and apportioned costs and cashflow for all ESOs over the CCEP funding period reflecting all associated costs to deliver the CCEP. These to include additional incidental capital costs accruing to ESOs, transition and migration to the new network and the cost (capital and operational) of maintaining existing networks. This recommendation was implemented in the November 2017 program review, with ESO capital costs estimated as $183 million.
In 2019, Infrastructure NSW conducted a Deep Dive Review on the progress of the CCEP. In this review, Infrastructure NSW made what it described as a 'critical recommendation' that the NSW Telco Authority:
…coordinate a stocktake of the costs of operational bridging solutions implemented by PSAs [ESOs] as a result of the 18-month delay, so that a whole-of-government cost impact is available to the NSW Government. |
It should be noted that the delay to CCEP completion now is seven years and that further ‘operational bridging solutions’ have been needed by the ESOs.
'Stay Safe and Keep Operational' costs incurred by ESOs will be significantly higher than originally estimated
Stay Safe and Keep Operational (SSKO) funding was established to provide funding to ESOs to maintain their legacy networks while the CCEP was refreshing and enhancing the PSN. This recognised that much of the network infrastructure relied on by ESOs had reached – or was reaching – obsolescence and would either require extensive maintenance or replacement before the PSN was available for ESOs to migrate to it. ESOs may apply to NSW Treasury for SSKO funding, with their specific proposals being reviewed (and endorsed, where appropriate) by the NSW Telco Authority. Accordingly, SSKO expenditure does not fall within the CCEP budget allocation.
As shown in the table below, extracted from the March 2016 CCEP business case, the total expected cost for SSKO purposes over the course of the CCEP was originally $40 million, assuming the enhanced PSN would be fully available by 2020.
Year | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Total |
SSKO forecast ($ million) | 12.5 | 15 | 10 | 2.5 | 40 |
In October 2022, the expected completion date for the CCEP was re-baselined to August 2027. Accordingly, ESOs will be required to continue to maintain their radio networks using legacy equipment for seven years longer than the original 2020 forecast. This will likely become progressively more expensive and require additional SSKO funding. For example, NSW Telco Authority endorsed SSKO bids for 2022–23 exceeded $35 million for that year alone.
Compared to the original forecast made in the March 2016 CCEP business case of $40 million, we found ESOs had estimated SSKO spending to 2027 will be $292.5 million.
A refresh of paging network used by ESOs and the decommissioning of redundant sites were both removed from the original 2016 scope of the CCEP
Paging
A paging network is considered an important user requirement by the Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, and NSW State Emergency Service. The 2016 CCEP business case included a paging network refresh within the program scope of works. This was reiterated in the November 2017 internal review of the program. These documents did not estimate a cost for this refresh. The March 2020 and October 2020 business cases excluded paging from the program scope. The audit is unable to identify when, why or by whom the decision was made to remove paging from the program scope, something that was also not well communicated to the affected ESOs.
In 2021, after representations from the affected ESOs, the NSW Telco Authority prepared a separate business case for a refresh of the paging network at an estimated capital cost of $60.31 million. This program was subsequently approved by the NSW Government and included in the 2022–23 NSW Budget.
In determining an estimated full whole-of-government cost of delivering the enhanced PSN, we have included the budgeted cost of the paging network refresh on the basis that:
- it was expressly included in the original approved March 2016 business case
- the capability is deemed essential to the needs of three ESOs.
Decommissioning costs
The 2016 CCEP business case included cost estimates for decommissioning surplus sites (whether ‘old’ GRN sites or sites belonging to ESOs’ own networks). These estimates were provided for both the NSW Telco Authority ($38 million) and for the ESOs ($55 million). However, while these estimates were described, they were not included as part of the NSW Telco Authority's estimated capital cost ($400 million) or (more relevantly) operating cost ($37.3 million) for the CCEP. This is despite decommissioning being included as one of eight planned activities for the rollout of the program.
In the October 2020 business case, an estimate of $201 million was included for decommissioning agency networks based on a model whereby:
- funding would be coordinated by the NSW Telco Authority
- scheduling and reporting through an inter-agency working group and
- where appropriate, agencies would be appointed as the most appropriate decommissioning party.
This estimated cost is not included in the CCEP budget.
In determining an estimated full whole-of-government cost of the enhanced PSN, we have included the estimated cost of decommissioning on the basis that:
- decommissioning was included in the 2016 CCEP business case as one of eight 'planned activities for the rollout of the program'
- effective decommissioning of surplus sites and equipment (including as described in the business case as incorporating asset decommissioning, asset re-use, and site make-good) is an inherent part of the program management for an enhanced PSN
- costs incurred in decommissioning are entirely a consequence of the CCEP program.
The estimated minimum cost of building an enhanced PSN consistent with the original proposal is over $2 billion
We have derived two estimated minimum whole-of-government costs for delivering an enhanced PSN. These are:
- $2.04 billion when calculated from NSW Telco Authority data – shown as estimate A in Exhibit 9 below.
- $2.26 billion when calculated from ESO supplied data – shown as estimate B in Exhibit 9.
Both totals include:
- budgeted amounts for both CCEP capital expenditure ($1,292.8 million) and operating expenditure ($139 million)
- the NSW Telco Authority's 2020 estimated cost for decommissioning ($201 million)
- the NSW Telco Authority's approved funding for paging refresh ($60.3 million).
The two estimated totals primarily vary around the capital expenditure of ESOs (particularly SSKO funding). To determine these costs, we used ESO provided actual SSKO costs to date, as well as their estimates for maintaining their legacy radio networks through to 2027.
The equivalent cost estimates from the NSW Telco Authority were sourced from the November 2017 internal review and the October 2020 business case for CCEP. It should be noted that the amounts for both estimates are not audited, or verified, but do provide an indication of how whole-of-government costs have grown over the course of the program.
The increase in and reasons for the increase in total CCEP costs (capital and one-off operating) incurred or forecast by the NSW Telco Authority (from $437.3 million in 2016 to $1,431.8 million in 2022) have been provided to the NSW Government through various business cases and reviews prepared by the NSW Telco Authority, as well as by reviews conducted by Infrastructure NSW as part of its project assurance responsibilities.
However, the growth in ESO costs and other consequential costs, such as paging and decommissioning, from around $263 million in the 2016 CCEP business case to between $600 million and $800 million, has to a large degree remained invisible and unexplained to the NSW Government and other stakeholders
Estimated whole-of-government cost, over time | |||||
Cost type | 20161 | 20172 | 20203 | 2023–Estimate A4 | 2023–Estimate B5 |
$ million | $ million | $ million | $ million | $ million | |
CCEP capital expenditure | 400a | 476.7b | 1,263.1c | 1,292.8d | 1,292.8d |
CCEP operating expenditure | 37.3a | 41.7b | 41.5e | 139d | 139d |
CCEP total | 437.3 | 518.4 | 1,304.6 | 1,431.8 | 1,431.8 |
ESO capital expenditure | 75.2a,f | 183b,e | 75.4e | 258.4g | 292.5 |
ESO one-off operating expenditure | 93a | n.a.l | 86.5e | 86.5h | 273 |
ESO total | 168.2 | 183 | 161.9 | 344.9 | 565.5 |
Paging | n.a.i | n.a.i | n.a.j | 60.3k | 60.3k |
Decommissioning | 93 | n.a.l | 201.0 | 201h | 201 |
Paging and decommissioning total | 93 | n.a. | 201 | 261.3 | 261.3 |
Whole-of-government total | 698.5 | 701.4 | 1,667.5 | 2,038 | 2,258.6 |
- Financial year 2016 to Financial year 2020.
- Financial year 2016 to Financial year 2021.
- Financial year 2016 to Financial year 2025.
- Financial year 2016 to Financial year 2026.
- Financial year 2022 to Financial year 2025.
- Stay Safe and Keep Operational (SSKO) costs plus terminals costs.
- November 2017 internal review and October 2020 Business case.
- October 2020 Business case.
- Included in CCEP capital expenditure at that time.
- By 2020, a refresh of the paging network had been removed from the CCEP scope.
- A separate business case for a refresh of the paging network was approved by government in 2022.
- Figure not included in the source document.
- March 2016 CCEP business case.
- November 2017 Internal Review conducted by the NSW Telco Authority.
- October 2020 CCEP business case.
- Derived from business cases, with ESO costs drawn from NSW Telco Authority data.
- Derived from business cases, with ESO costs based on data provided to the Audit Office of New South Wales by each of the five ESOs.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Trunked public safety radio networks
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #383 - released 23 June 2023
Actions for Financial Management and Governance in MidCoast Council
Financial Management and Governance in MidCoast Council
Introduction
The Auditor-General's financial and performance audits of local councils aim to improve financial management, governance and public accountability across the local government sector.
Annual Local Government reports to Parliament have consistently highlighted risks and weaknesses across the sector in relation to financial management and governance. We will continue to focus on these matters as a priority area in our forward work program.
While this report focuses on MidCoast Council, the findings should be considered by all councils to better understand the challenges and opportunities when addressing financial sustainability and financial management needs.
Findings and recommendations around the effectiveness of long-term financial planning, comprehensive and timely financial reporting and financial management governance arrangements are relevant for all councils.
What this report is about
The Local Government Act 1993 requires councils to apply sound financial management principles, including sustainable expenditure, effective financial management and regard to intergenerational equity.
This audit assessed whether MidCoast Council has effective financial management arrangements that support councillors and management to fulfill their responsibilities as financial stewards.
What we found
MidCoast Council has not met all legislative and policy requirements for long-term financial planning.
From FY2019–20 to FY2020–21, the Council had financial management and governance gaps. Some gaps were addressed throughout FY2021–22.
MidCoast Council experienced significant challenges in its implementation of a consolidated financial management system following amalgamation in 2016 and the merging of MidCoast Water in 2017. This led to gaps in finance processes and data quality.
What we recommended
The report recommends that MidCoast Council should:
- ensure its long-term financial plan meets legislative and policy requirements
- undertake service reviews to better understand net costs to inform budget and financial planning decisions
- improve the quality of asset management information to inform budget and financial planning decisions
- use the financial management components of the MC1 system to its full potential
- address control and process gaps identified in audits and reviews
- ensure competency of those responsible for finance and budget
- ensure financial sustainability initiatives account for the cost of services and asset management information.
Effective financial management is important in ensuring that councils achieve their long-term objectives, remain financially viable and deliver intended benefits to the community.
Sustainable financial management has been a priority for the local government sector since 2013 and continues to be one of the highest rated risks and priorities among councils in 2023.
According to data provided by the Department of Planning and Environment, during FY2020–21, NSW local councils:
- collected $7.8 billion in rates and annual charges
- received $5.8 billion in grants and contributions
- incurred $4.8 billion of employee benefits and on costs
- held $16.8 billion of cash and investments
- managed $175.2 billion in infrastructure, property plant and equipment
- entered into $3.7 billion of borrowings.
The Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) requires local councils to apply sound financial management principles including responsible and sustainable expenditure, investment, and effective financial and asset management. Under the LG Act and the Local Government Regulation 2021 (LG Regulation) councils are required to:
- establish and monitor their budget position
- clearly establish approaches to raise revenue, including from rates and other sources
- develop and implement integrated planning to ensure financial sustainability in line with community priorities and needs
- regularly report on their financial performance through financial statements.
The objective of the audit is to assess whether MidCoast Council (the Council) has effective financial management arrangements that support councillors and management to fulfil their financial stewardship responsibilities. It considers whether:
- the Council has an effective governance framework for financial management, through the existence of governance, risk management, internal controls and provision of adequate financial management training, including whether:
- governance, risk management and internal controls are in place for financial management
- adequate financial management and governance training and support has been provided to councillors, management and operational managers.
- the Council has quality and comprehensive internal financial management reporting, including whether:
- councillors and management have identified and implemented essential internal financial management reporting elements
- council’s financial systems and data have integrity, and support identified financial management report production requirements
- council reports are relevant, consistent, reliable, understandable, and tailored towards the requirements of key users (appendix two provides more information about the characteristics of effective financial management reporting).
- the financial management governance and reporting arrangements support councillors and management to fulfil their financial stewardship responsibilities, including whether councillors and management use internal financial management reporting to:
- support budget decisions, resource allocation and cost setting (for example fees and charges)
- monitor financial sustainability
- assess operational efficiency, financial services and investments
- make improvements where necessary.
This audit completed fieldwork during November 2022 to February 2023. The audit period of review was from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2022.
Conclusion
MidCoast Council has not effectively carried out long-term financial planning to address its identified long-term financial sustainability challenges.
MidCoast Council has not met all legislative and policy requirements to effectively carry out long-term financial planning. It has not effectively considered and communicated how it will achieve financial sustainability goals and has not identified options to achieve such goals through its long-term financial plan.
Since 2020, and throughout 2021 and 2022, MidCoast Council has identified a need to focus on developing strategies for financial sustainability following the projected operating deficit for its general fund over the next ten years.
In September 2022, the Council took early steps to implement plans that aim to address the identified financial sustainability issues, but the Council has not yet established effective processes to analyse the true cost of services and address its unreliable asset condition data. Both are required to accurately inform its long-term resourcing strategy.
Between FY2019–20 and FY2020–21, MidCoast Council had gaps in its financial management and governance arrangements. The Council has taken some actions to address the gaps throughout FY2021–22.
Between FY2019–20 and FY2020–21, MidCoast Council did not ensure effective financial management governance and reporting arrangements. Over that time, the Council did not perform monthly reconciliation and reporting processes that would provide timely information and assurance to management and councillors over the Council's finances. It did not ensure that all financial management reporting met statutory deadlines for submission to councillors.
During this period, reviews, financial audits and internal audits identified risks to, and gaps in, finance processes, systems and controls. The consequences of these gaps were increased use of manual processes, and risks to the integrity of financial data and information used by management.
During FY2021–22, MidCoast Council implemented actions and processes that have increased transparency and led to improved financial governance. These include addressing and implementing some audit recommendations, and implementing monthly financial management reporting and month-end reconciliations.
MidCoast Council has commenced a $21 million program to improve its customer experience, asset management, ICT and back office business processes. The Council advises that this program has a five-year implementation timeframe and it expects to achieve financial benefits over the ten years following commencement.
MidCoast Council experienced significant challenges in its implementation of a consolidated financial management system following amalgamation in 2016 and the merging of MidCoast Water functions in 2017. This has led to gaps in finance processes and data quality within the system.
In 2016, following amalgamation, MidCoast Council commenced work to procure and implement an enterprise resource planning system which included a consolidated financial management system. In 2017, Council further merged with MidCoast Water and arrangements were made to implement the system (MC1) after the functions of MidCoast water were incorporated. The Council continued to use four separate financial management systems until it commenced a progressive implementation of MC1 from 2019 to 2021. Across MC1's implementation, the Council experienced significant challenges relating to change management, user functionality and configuration.
This meant that the Council did not ensure that all of its staff were using MC1 effectively and efficiently, which led to gaps in finance processes and data quality, and delays in delivering integrated and automated financial processes across the amalgamated Council.
Since implementation, MidCoast Council has used MC1 to carry out finance processes required to collect rates, prepare budgets, monitor expenditure and income and prepare financial statements.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Characteristics of effective financial management reporting
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #381 - released 16 June 2023
Actions for Local Government 2022
Local Government 2022
This report is about
Results of the local government sector financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 83 councils, 11 joint organisations and nine county councils' financial statements.
The financial audits for two councils and two joint organisations are in progress due to accounting issues.
Fifty-seven councils and joint organisations (2021: 41) required extensions to submit their financial statements to the Office of Local Government (OLG), within the Department of Planning and Environment (the department).
The audit opinion on Kiama Municipal Council's 30 June 2021 financial statements was disclaimed due to deficient books and records.
Qualified audit opinions were issued on 43 councils' financial statements due to non-recognition of rural firefighting equipment vested under section 119 (2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997. Forty-seven councils appropriately recognised this equipment.
What we recommended
Consistent with the NSW Government's accounting position and the department's role of assessing councils' compliance with legislative responsibilities, standards or guidelines, the department should intervene where councils do not recognise vested rural firefighting equipment.
The key issues
There were 1,045 audit findings reported to councils in audit management letters, with 52% being unresolved from prior years.
What we recommended
Councils need to track progress of implementing audit recommendations, giving priority to high-risk and repeat issues.
Ninety-three high-risk matters were identified across the sector mainly relating to asset management, information technology, financial accounting and council governance procedures.
Asset valuations
Audit management letters reported 267 findings relating to asset management. Fifty-three councils had deficiencies in processes that ensure assets are fairly stated.
What we recommended
Councils need to complete timely asset valuations (repeat recommendation).
Integrity and completeness of asset source records
Fifty-two councils had weak processes over the integrity of fixed asset registers.
What we recommended
Councils need to improve controls that ensure integrity of asset records (repeat recommendation).
Cybersecurity
Our audits found that 47% of councils did not have a cyber security plan.
What we recommended
All councils need to prioritise creation of a cyber security plan to ensure data and assets are safeguarded.
Pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993 I am pleased to present my Auditor-General's report on Local Government 2022. My report provides the results of the 2021–22 financial audits of 126 councils, 11 joint organisations and nine county councils. The audits for two councils and two joint organisations are in progress due to significant accounting issues.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 83 councils, 11 joint organisations and nine county councils' 2021–22 financial statements. The statements for 43 councils were qualified due to non-recognition of rural firefighting equipment vested under section 119 (2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997. And the audit opinion on Kiama Municipal Council's 30 June 2021 financial statements was disclaimed due to deficiencies in books and records.
This year has again been challenging for many New South Wales local councils still recovering from the impact of emergency events and facing cost and resourcing pressures. We appreciate the efforts of council staff and management in meeting their financial reporting obligations. We share a mutual interest in raising the standard of financial management in this sector, and the importance of accurate and transparent reporting.
Disappointingly, accounting for the value of rural firefighting equipment vested in councils continued to be an unnecessary distraction and resulted in 43 councils having their financial statements qualified. We continue to recommend that the Office of Local Government should intervene where councils fail to comply with Australian Accounting Standards by not recognising assets vested to them under section 119(2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997.
Sound financial management is critical to councils' ability to instil trust and properly serve their communities. The recommendations in this report are intended to further improve their financial management and reporting capability, and encourage sound governance arrangements and cyber resilience. I am committed to continuing this work with councils in the 2022–23 year and beyond.
Margaret Crawford PSM
Auditor-General for New South Wales
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in and transparency of public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines audit observations related to the financial reporting audit results of councils and joint organisations.
Section highlights
|
A strong system of internal controls enables councils to operate effectively and efficiently, produce reliable financial reports, comply with laws and regulations, and support ethical government.
This chapter outlines the overall trends in governance and internal controls across councils and joint organisations in 2021–22.
Financial audits focus on key governance matters and internal controls supporting the preparation of councils’ financial statements. Breakdowns and weaknesses in internal controls increase the risk of fraud and error. Deficiencies in internal controls, matters of governance interest and unresolved issues are reported to management and those charged with governance through audit management letters. These letters include our observations, related implications, recommendations and risk ratings.
Section highlights
|
Total number of findings reported in audit management letters decreased
The following shows the overall findings of the 2021–22 audits reported in management letters compared with the previous year.
Appendix two – Status of audits
Appendix three – Councils received qualified audit opinions
Appendix four – Common reasons for council extensions
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Actions for Natural disasters
Natural disasters
What this report is about
This report draws together the financial impact of natural disasters on agencies integral to the response and impact of natural disasters during 2021–22.
What we found
Over the 2021–22 financial year $1.4 billion from a budget of $1.9 billion was spent by the NSW Government in response to natural disasters.
Total expenses were less than the budget due to underspend in the following areas:
- clean-up assistance, including council grants
- anticipated temporary accommodation support
- payments relating to the Northern Rivers Business Support scheme for small businesses.
Natural disaster events damaged council assets such as roads, bridges, waste collection centres and other facilities used to provide essential services. Additional staff, contractors and experts were engaged to restore and repair damaged assets and minimise disruption to service delivery.
At 30 June 2022, the estimated damage to council infrastructure assets totalled $349 million.
Over the first half of the 2022–23 financial year, councils experienced further damage to infrastructure assets due to natural disasters. NSW Government spending on natural disasters continued with a further $1.1 billion spent over this period.
Thirty-six councils did not identify climate change or natural disaster as a strategic risk despite 22 of these having at least one natural disaster during 2021–22.
Section highlights
|
Section highlights
|
Actions for Regulation and monitoring of local government
Regulation and monitoring of local government
What the report is about
The Office of Local Government (OLG) in the Department of Planning and Environment is responsible for strengthening the local government sector, including through its regulatory functions.
This audit assessed whether the OLG is effectively monitoring and regulating the sector under the Local Government Act 1993. The audit covered:
- the effectiveness of departmental arrangements for the OLG to undertake its regulatory functions
- whether the OLG has effective mechanisms to monitor and respond to risks and issues relating to council compliance and performance.
What we found
The OLG does not conduct effective, proactive monitoring to enable timely risk-based responses to council performance and compliance issues.
The OLG has not clearly defined and communicated its regulatory role to ensure that its priorities are well understood.
The OLG does not routinely review the results of its regulatory activities to improve its approaches.
The department lacks an adequate framework to define, measure and report on the OLG's performance, limiting transparency and its accountability.
The OLG's new strategic plan presents an opportunity for the OLG to better define, communicate, and deliver on its regulatory objectives.
What we recommended
The OLG should:
- publish a tool to support councils to self-assess risks and report on their performance and compliance
- ensure its council engagement strategy is consistent with its regulatory approach
- report each year on its regulatory activities and performance
- publish a calendar of its key sector support and monitoring activities
- enhance processes for internally tracking operational activities
- develop and maintain a data management framework
- review and update frameworks and procedures for regulatory responses.
The Local Government Act 1993 (the LG Act) provides the legal framework for the system of local government in New South Wales. The LG Act describes the functions of councils, county councils and joint organisations which should be exercised consistent with the guiding principles and requirements of the LG Act. Councils also have functions and responsibilities under other Acts.
There are 128 local councils, nine county councils and 13 joint organisations of councils in the New South Wales local government sector. Each council is unique in size and location, owns and manages assets, and delivers services for their communities. According to 2021–22 data provided by the Department of Planning and Environment (the department), local councils managed $175.2 billion in infrastructure, property plant and equipment, held $16.8 billion of cash and investments, collected $7.8 billion in rates and charges and entered into $3.7 billion of borrowings. Councils' decision-making responsibilities directly impact the communities they serve, including responsibilities relevant to financial management, economic development, environmental sustainability and community wellbeing.
Under the LG Act, each elected council is accountable to the community they serve. In addition to Auditor-General reports, issues relating to council performance and compliance have been identified in public inquiries commissioned by the Minister for Local Government and investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, NSW Ombudsman and Office of Local Government (OLG). Challenges and opportunities related to the operations and sustainability of the local government sector have also been reported by the sector and identified in reports by NSW government agencies such as the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.
The department is the primary state government agency with responsibility for policy, legislative, regulatory and program functions for local government matters. The Office of Local Government (OLG) is a business unit within the department that advises the Minister for Local Government and exercises delegated functions of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under the LG Act.
Key departmental planning documents state that the OLG is responsible for strengthening the sustainability, performance, integrity, transparency and accountability of the local government sector. As the state regulator of the local government sector, the OLG aims to promote voluntary compliance, build councils' capacity for high performance, and intervene only when 'warranted and appropriate'. Relevant regulatory activities include issuing guidelines, investigating councils and councillors, and supporting the Minister for Local Government's discretionary intervention powers. The OLG's other functions include developing policy, administering grants and programs, supporting local government election processes, and issuing certain approvals.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether the OLG is effectively monitoring and regulating the local government sector under the LG Act. The assessment included:
- the effectiveness of departmental arrangements for the OLG to undertake its regulatory functions
- whether the OLG has effective mechanisms to monitor and respond to risks and issues relating to council compliance and performance.
This report focuses on the OLG’s activities relevant to powers under Chapter 13 of the LG Act, and related regulatory activities, such as monitoring risks, issuing guidance and engaging with councils. It also examines strategic and operational planning for these activities in the context of the OLG's other activities, and departmental arrangements to oversee and enable the OLG's regulatory effectiveness.
Other OLG activities were not in scope of the audit but are commented on in this report where contextually relevant. This includes the OLG's responsibilities under the LG Act with respect to councillor misconduct, and the 2022 review of the councillor misconduct framework commissioned by the former Minister for Local Government.
ConclusionThe Office of Local Government (OLG) in the Department of Planning and Environment (the department) does not conduct effective, proactive monitoring to enable timely risk-based responses to council performance and compliance issues. Council performance and compliance varies and a range of issues continue across the local government sector – some significant – that can impact on councils' operations and sustainability. The department recognises that an effective and efficient sector is 'crucial to the economic and social wellbeing of communities across the State,' but the OLG does not routinely review the results of its regulatory activities to improve its approaches. The OLG has also not clearly defined and communicated its regulatory role to ensure that its priorities are well understood. Inadequate performance measurement and reporting on its regulatory activities is a significant transparency and accountability issue, and the OLG cannot demonstrate that it is effectively regulating the local government sector. The department lacks an adequate framework to define, measure and report on the OLG's performance as the state regulator of the sector under the Local Government Act 1993 (the LG Act). The OLG's various council engagement activities are not well structured and coordinated towards delivering on a clearly defined regulatory role and its regulatory priorities are not well understood. In 2022, the OLG identified, in its new strategic plan, that there is a need for it to define its role in the sector. It would be expected that a clearly defined role already underpins its aim to 'strike the right mix of monitoring, intervention, capability improvement and engagement activities'. The OLG collects various sources of information about council compliance and performance but its systems and processes do not enable structured, proactive sector monitoring to enable timely, risk-based responses. Ineffective sector monitoring is a particular issue in the context of compliance, financial management and governance risks that have been identified in inquiries and reviews by other government agencies including integrity bodies and reported by the sector. Audit Office data for 2021–22 shows that 62 councils did not have or regularly update key corporate governance policies, and 63 do not have basic controls to manage cyber security risks. Further, 31 councils or joint organisations did not meet the statutory requirement to have an audit, risk and improvement committee by 30 June 2022.1 Overall, the OLG has made limited progress on projects that have been identified since 2019 to improve its sector monitoring, such as updating its performance measurement framework for councils. These factors limit its capacity to identify and act on issues early. In early 2023, the OLG started to implement a new council risk assessment tool. The OLG's two main frameworks to guide its sector improvement and intervention activities were last updated in 2014 and 2017. The OLG considered relevant statutory criteria when advising the Minister on the use of powers to issue performance improvement and suspension orders under the LG Act. But the OLG lacks complete and approved procedures to guide staff when preparing advice and recommendations related to interventions, and other response options. This creates risks to the consistency and transparency of relevant processes. The department and the OLG have identified that resourcing issues present a risk to the OLG's regulatory functions. Projects since 2021 to review the OLG's budget did not progress. The OLG does not routinely review the costs or evaluate the effectiveness of its regulatory activities. The OLG's 2022–2026 strategic plan sets out a vision to be, 'A trusted regulator and capability builder enabling councils to better serve their communities'. Implementing the strategic plan presents an opportunity for the OLG to better define, communicate, and deliver on its regulatory objectives towards strengthening the sector. The OLG advises that a delivery plan and performance indicators for its new strategy are being developed, alongside work resulting from the 2022 review of the councillor misconduct framework. |
This chapter considers the effectiveness of departmental arrangements for the OLG to undertake its regulatory functions.
This chapter assesses whether the OLG has effective mechanisms to monitor and respond to risks and issues relating to council compliance and performance.
The OLG’s 2017 Improvement and Intervention Framework is intended to guide appropriate responses to council compliance or performance risks and issues. The publicly available framework states that generally, the OLG will encourage councils to meet their obligations before a more formal intervention will be considered. It also states that any intervention or improvement response will be proportionate to the circumstances.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Statutory powers relevant to council accountability under the Local Government Act
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #380 - released 23 May 2023