Reports
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
Driver vehicle system
What this report is about
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) uses the Driver vehicle System (DRIVES) to support its regulatory functions. The system covers over 6.2 million driver licences and over seven million vehicle registrations.
DRIVES first went live in 1991 and has been significantly extended and updated since, though is still based around the same core system. The system is at end of life but has become an important service for Service NSW and the NSW Police Force.
DRIVES now includes some services to other parts of government and non-government entities which have little or no connection to transport. There are 141 users of DRIVES in total, including commercial insurers, national regulators, and individual citizens.
This audit assessed whether TfNSW is effectively managing DRIVES and planning to transition it to a modernised system.
Audit findings
TfNSW has not effectively planned the replacement of DRIVES.
It is now working on its third business case for a replacement system but has failed to learn lessons from its past attempts.
In the meantime, TfNSW has not taken a strategic approach to managing DRIVES’ growth.
TfNSW has been slow to reduce the risk of misuse of personal information held in DRIVES. With its delivery partner Service NSW, TfNSW has also been slow to develop and implement automatic monitoring of access.
TfNSW uses recognised processes for managing most aspects of DRIVES, but has not kept the system consistently available for users. TfNSW has lacked accurate service availability information since June 2022, when it changed its technology support provider.
TfNSW needs to significantly prioritise cyber security improvements to DRIVES. TfNSW is seeking to lift DRIVES’ cyber defences, but it will not achieve its stated target safeguard level until December 2025.
Even then, one of the target safeguards will not be achieved in full until DRIVES is modernised.
Audit recommendations
TfNSW should:
- implement a service management framework including insight into the views of DRIVES users, and ensuring users can influence the service
- ensure it can accurately and cost effectively calculate when DRIVES is unavailable due to unplanned downtime
- ensure implementation of a capability to automatically detect anomalous patterns of access to DRIVES
- ensure that DRIVES has appropriate cyber security and resilience safeguards in place as a matter of priority
- develop a clear statement of the future role in whole of government service delivery for the system
- resolve key issues currently faced by the DRIVES replacement program including by:
- clearly setting out a strategy and design for the replacement
- preparing a specific business case for replacement.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #388 - released 20 February 2024
State Finances 2023
What this report is about
Results of the audit of the Consolidated State Financial Statements of the New South Wales General Government Sector (GGS) and Total State Sector (TSS) for the year ended 30 June 2023.
Findings
The audit opinion on the 2022–23 Consolidated State Financial Statements was qualified in relation to two issues and included an emphasis of matter.
The first qualification matter is a continuation of the prior year limitation of scope on the audit relating to the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT), a controlled state entity, who continued to deny access to its management, books and records for the purposes of a financial audit. As a result, the Audit Office was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the assets, liabilities, income and expenses relating to CMCT recorded in the TSS and the equity investment recognised in the GGS relating to the net assets of CMCT.
The second qualification matter relates to the limitations on the accuracy and reliability of financial information relating to Statutory Land Managers (SLMs) and Common Trust entities (CTs) controlled by the State and were either exempted from requirements to prepare financial reports, or who were required to submit financial reports and have not done so. The Audit Office was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine the impact on the value of non-land assets and liabilities, income and expenses that should be recognised in the 2022–23 Consolidated State Financial Statements and which have not been recorded in the Consolidated State Financial Statements.
The independent audit opinion also includes an emphasis of matter drawing attention to key decisions made by the NSW Government regarding the future of the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE).
Recommendations
The report includes recommendations for NSW Treasury to address several high-risk findings, including:
- ensuring accurate and reliable financial information is available to recognise the non-land balances of SLMs and CTs
- ensuring the CMCT, SLMs and CTs meet their statutory reporting obligations
- conducting a broader review of the financial reporting exemption framework
- continued monitoring of TAHE's control over its assets
- providing timely guidance to the sector relating to legislative or policy changes that impact financial reporting
- developing an accounting policy for the reimbursement of unsuccessful tender bid cost contributions.
Read the PDF report
Treasury 2023
What this report is about
Result of the Treasury portfolio of agencies’ financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
The results of the audit of the NSW Government’s consolidated Total State Sector Accounts (TSSA), which are prepared by NSW Treasury, will be reported separately in our report on ‘State Finances 2023’.
The audit found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all general purpose financial statement audits.
Qualified audit opinions were issued on two of the 24 other engagements prepared by portfolio agencies. These related to payments made from Special Deposit Accounts that did not comply with the relevant legislation.
The number of monetary misstatements identified in our audits increased from 29 in 2021–22 to 39 in 2022–23.
The new parental leave policy impacted agencies across all portfolios. NSW Treasury should perform annual assessments to identify changes in legislation and regulation and provide timely guidance to the sector.
Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro have capitalised over $300 million of tender bid costs paid to unsuccessful tender bidders relating to significant infrastructure projects. Whilst NSW Treasury policy provides clarity on the reimbursement of unsuccessful bidders’ costs, clearer guidance on how to account for these costs in agencies’ financial statements is required.
The key audit issues were
Five high-risk issues were reported in 2022–23. Three were new findings on contract management, accounting treatments for workers compensation renewal premium adjustments and the management and oversight of a Special Deposit Account. Two repeat issues referred to the need to improve quality review processes over financial reporting and the timely approval of administration costs.
Portfolio agencies should prioritise and action recommendations to address internal control deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Treasury 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 Treasury portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all Treasury portfolio agencies’ 2022–23 financial statements.
- Two qualified audit opinions were issued on special purpose financial reports, relating to whether payments from the Electricity Retained Interest Corporation – Ausgrid (ERIC-A) Fund and the Electricity Retained Interest Corporation – Endeavour (ERIC-E) Fund, complied with the relevant legislation.
- The total number of errors (both corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased from 29 in 2021–22 to 39 in 2022–23.
Reported corrected misstatements increased from 15 in 2021–22 to 25 with a gross value of $7.1 billion in 2022–23. Reported uncorrected misstatements increased from 13 in 2021–22 to 14 in 2022–23, with a gross value of $277.6 million in 2022–23.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Treasury portfolio.
Section highlights
- Five high-risk issues were reported in 2022–23. Three were new findings on contract management, accounting treatments for workers compensation renewal premium adjustments and the management and oversight of a Special Deposit Account.
- A further 35 moderate risk findings were reported in 2022–23, of which ten were repeat findings.
- Some agencies have again spent monies without an authorised delegation.
- The quality of information provided for audit purposes needs to improve.
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting
Appendix four – Financial data
Appendix five – Acquittals and other opinions
© 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.
Transport 2023
What this report is about
Result of the Transport portfolio of agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
The audit found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all Transport portfolio agencies.
An 'emphasis of matter' paragraph was included in the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales' (TAHE) independent auditor's report, which draws attention to management's disclosure regarding proposed changes to TAHE's operating model.
Government's decision to convert TAHE into a non-commercial Public Non-Financial Corporation may impact the future valuation and the control of TAHE's assets.
Transport for NSW's valuation of roads and bridges resulted in a net increase to its asset value by $15.7 billion.
Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro have capitalised over $300 million of tender bid costs paid to unsuccessful tender bidders relating to significant infrastructure projects. Whilst NSW Treasury policy provides clarity on the reimbursement of unsuccessful bidders' costs, clearer guidance on how to account for these costs in agency's financial statements is required.
The key audit issues were
The number of issues reported to management decreased from 53 in 2021–22 to 49 in 2022–23.
High-risk findings include:
- gaps in how Sydney Metro manages its contractors and how conflicts of interest are recorded and managed
- future financial reporting implications to account for government's proposed changes to TAHE's future operating model, including asset valuations and control assessments of assets and operations
- Parramatta Park Trust's tree assets' valuation methodology needs to be addressed.
Recommendations were made to address the identified deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Transport 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 Transport portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all the portfolio agencies’ 30 June 2023 financial statements.
- An 'Emphasis of Matter' paragraph was included in the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales’ (TAHE) Independent Auditor's Report to draw attention to management's disclosure regarding the proposed changes to TAHE's future operating model.
- The total number of errors (including corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased by 59% compared to the prior year.
- The recent government's decision to convert TAHE into a non-commercial Public Non-Financial Corporation may impact the future valuation and the control of TAHE’s assets.
- Transport for NSW needs to further improve its quality assurance processes over comprehensive valuations, in particular, ensuring key inputs used in the valuations are properly supported and verified.
- Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro capitalised over $300 million of bid costs paid to unsuccessful bidders. NSW Treasury’s Bid Cost Contributions Policy does not contemplate how these costs should be recognised in agency’s financial statements. Transport agencies should work with NSW Treasury to develop an accounting policy for the bid cost contributions to ensure consistent application across the sector.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Transport portfolio.
Section highlights
- The 2022–23 audits identified four high risks and 28 moderate risk issues across the portfolio. Thirty-nine per cent of issues were repeat findings.
- Four high risk findings include:
- TAHE’s asset valuations (new)
- TAHE’s control of assets and operations (new)
- Sydney Metro’s management of contractors and conflicts of interest (new)
- Parramatta Park Trust’s valuation of trees (repeat).
- The total number of findings decreased from 53 in 2021–22 to 49 in 2022–23. Many repeat findings related to control weaknesses over the asset valuation, payroll processes, conflicts of interest and information technology user access administration.
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.
Planning and Environment 2023
What this report is about
Results of the Planning and Environment portfolio financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
The audit found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all completed Planning and Environment portfolio agencies. Seven audits are ongoing.
The Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT) did not comply with its obligations under the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act) to prepare and submit financial statements for audit.
The Department of Planning and Environment (the department) has not yet provided their assessment of the financial reporting requirements for the 579 Category 2 Statutory Land Managers (SLMs) for 2022–23.
One-hundred-and-nineteen Commons Trusts are non-compliant with the GSF Act as they have not submitted their financial statements for audit.
We issued unqualified opinions on the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation's 2020–21, 2021–22 and 2022–23 financial statements.
The number of monetary misstatements identified in our audits decreased from 59 in 2021–22 to 51 in 2022–23, however the gross value of misstatements increased.
The key audit issues were
The former Resilience NSW and NSW Reconstruction Authority (the Authority) re-assessed the accounting implications arising from contractual agreements relating to temporary housing assets associated with the Northern Rivers Temporary Homes Program. This resulted in adjustments to recognise the associated assets and liabilities.
We continue to identify significant deficiencies in NSW Crown land information records.
The department has not been effective in addressing the differing practices for the financial reporting of rural firefighting equipment vested to councils under section 119 (2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997.
The number of findings across the portfolio reported to management increased from 132 in 2021–22 to 140 in 2022–23. Thirty per cent of issues were repeated from the prior year.
Seven high-risk issues were identified. These related to the findings outlined above, deficiencies in quality reviews of asset valuations, internal control processes and IT general controls.
The audit recommended
Recommendations were made to the department and portfolio agencies to address these deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Planning and Environment 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 Planning and Environment portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
-
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all completed 30 June 2023 financial statements audits of portfolio agencies. Seven audits are ongoing.
-
We have been unable to commence audits of the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT). NSW Treasury's position remains that the Catholic CMCT is a controlled entity of the State for financial reporting purposes. This means CMCT is a Government Sector Finance (GSF) agency and is obliged under Section 7.6 of the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act) to prepare financial statements and submit them to the Auditor-General for audit. To date, CMCT has not met its statutory obligations under the GSF Act.
-
The Department of Planning and Environment has not yet provided their assessment against the reporting exemption requirements in the Government Sector Finance Regulation 2018 (GSF Regulation) for the estimated 579 Category 2 Statutory Land Managers (SLMs) or 119 Commons Trusts for 2022–23 and no Category 2 SLM or Commons Trust has submitted its 2022–23
financial statements for audit. Consequently, the lack of compliance with reporting requirements by these 698 agencies presents a challenge to obtaining reliable financial data for these agencies for the purposes of consolidation to the Total State Sector Accounts.
-
The audits of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation's (WAMC) financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2021 and 30 June 2022 were completed in June 2023 and unqualified audit opinions issued. The 30 June 2023 audit was completed and an unqualified audit opinion was issued on 12 October 2023.
-
The number of reported corrected misstatements decreased from 46 in 2021–22 to 36, however the gross value of misstatements increased from $73 million in 2021–22 to $491.8 million in 2022–23.
-
Portfolio agencies met the statutory deadline for submitting their 2022–23 early close financial statements and other mandatory procedures.
-
A change to the NSW paid parental leave scheme, effective October 2023, created a new legal obligation that needed to be recognised by impacted government agencies. Impact to the agencies' financial statements were not material.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the portfolio.
Section highlights
-
The number of findings across the portfolio reported to management increased from 132 in 2021–22 to 140 in 2022–23 and 30% were repeat issues (34% in 2021–22).
-
The 2022–23 audits identified seven high-risk and 76 moderate risk issues across the portfolio. Four of the high-risk issues were repeat issues, one was a repeat issue with the risk rating reassessed to high-risk in the current year and two were new findings in 2022–23.
-
The former Resilience NSW and NSW Reconstruction Authority had previously assessed that they did not control the temporary housing assets associated with the administration of the Northern Rivers Temporary Homes Program, under relevant accounting standards. A re-assessment of the agreements was made subsequent to the submission of the Authority’s 2022–23 financial statements for audit, which determined that the Authority was the appropriate NSW Government agency to recognise these assets and associated liabilities not previously recognised by the Authority or the former Resilience NSW.
-
There continues to be significant deficiencies in Crown land records. The department should continue to implement their data strategy and action plan to ensure the Crown land database is complete and accurate.
-
Since 2017, the Audit Office has recommended that the department, through OLG should address the differing practices for the financial reporting of rural firefighting equipment vested to councils under section 119 (2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The department has not been effective in resolving this issue. In 2023, twenty-six of 108 completed audits of councils received qualified audit opinions on their 2023 financial statements (43 of 146 completed audits in 2022). Six councils had their qualifications for not recognising vested rural firefighting equipment removed in 2022–23.
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.
Regional NSW 2023
What this report is about
Results of the Regional NSW financial statements audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
What we found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all completed audits in the Regional NSW portfolio agencies.
The number of monetary misstatements identified in our audits increased from 28 in 2021–22 to 30 in 2022–23.
What the key issues were
Effective 1 July 2023, staff employed in the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation Division of the Department of Regional NSW transferred to the NSW Reconstruction Authority Staff Agency.
The Regional NSW portfolio agencies were migrated into a new government wide enterprise resourcing planning system.
The total number of audit management letter findings across the portfolio of agencies decreased from 36 to 23.
A high risk matter was raised for the NSW Food Authority to improve the internal controls in the information technology environment including monitoring and managing privilege user access.
What we recommended
Local Land Services should prioritise completing all mandatory early close procedures.
Portfolio agencies should:
- ensure any changes to employee entitlements are assessed for their potential financial statements impact under the relevant Australian Accounting Standards
- prioritise and address internal control deficiencies identified in audit management letters.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Regional NSW 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 Regional NSW portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all completed 30 June 2023 financial statements audits of the portfolio agencies. Two audits are ongoing.
- The total number of errors (including corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased compared to the prior year.
- Portfolio agencies met the statutory deadline for submitting their 2022–23 early close financial statements and other mandatory procedures.
- Portfolio agencies continue to provide financial assistance to communities affected by natural disasters.
- A change to the NSW paid parental leave scheme, effective October 2023, created a new legal obligation that needed to be recognised by impacted government agencies. Impact to the agencies' financial statements were not material.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Regional NSW portfolio.
Section highlights
- The 2022–23 audits identified one high risk and nine moderate risk issues across the portfolio. Of these, one was a moderate risk repeat issue.
- The total number of findings decreased from 36 to 23 which mainly related to deficiencies in internal controls.
- The high risk matter relates to the monitoring and managing of privilege user access at NSW Food Authority.
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.
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
|
NSW government agencies' use of consultants
What the report is about
This audit assessed how effectively NSW government agencies procure and manage consultants. It examined the role of the NSW Procurement Board and NSW Procurement (a unit within NSW Treasury) in supporting and monitoring agency procurement and management of consultants.
The audit used four sources of data that contain information about spending on consultants by NSW government agencies, including annual report disclosures and the State's financial consolidation system (Prime). It also reviewed a sample of consulting engagements from ten NSW government agencies.
What we found
Our review of a selection of consulting engagements indicates that agencies do not procure and manage consultants effectively.
We found most agencies do not use consultants strategically and do not have systems for managing or evaluating consultant performance. We also found examples of non-compliance with procurement rules, including contract variations that exceeded procurement thresholds.
NSW Procurement has made improvements to the information available about spending on consultants, including additional analysis and reporting. However, there is no single data source that accurately captures spending on consultants.
Our analysis of data on whole-of-government spending on consultants, drawn from agency annual reports, indicates that four large professional services firms accounted for about a quarter of consultancy expenditure from 2017–18 to 2021–22. This concentration increases strategic risks, including over-reliance on a limited number of providers and potential reduction in the independence of advice.
It is also highly unlikely that NSW government agencies will meet the government's 2019 policy commitment to reduce consultancy expenses by 20% each year, over four years, from 2019–20. NSW Treasury advised that to implement this commitment, agency budgets were reduced in Prime in line with the savings targets. However, actual spending on consulting in NSW Treasury's Reports on State Finances 2020–21 and 2021–22 was almost $100 million higher than the savings targets over the first three years since 2019–20.
What we recommended
The report made seven recommendations which aim to improve:
- the quality and transparency of data on spending on consultants
- monitoring of strategic risks and agency compliance with procurement and recordkeeping rules
- agencies' strategic use of consultants, including evaluation and knowledge retention.
Between 2017–18 and 2021–22, NSW government agency annual reports disclosed total spending of around $1 billion on consultants across more than 10,000 engagements. More than 1,000 consulting firms provided services to NSW government agencies during this period. Consulting is a classification of professional services that is characterised by giving advice or recommendations on a specific issue. The NSW Procurement Board Direction PBD-2021-03 defines a consultant as a person or organisation that provides 'recommendations or professional advice to assist decision-making by management'. PBD-2021-03 notes that the advisory nature of the work of consultants is the main factor that distinguishes them from other providers of professional services.
The NSW Procurement Board is responsible for setting procurement policy, issuing directions to support policies, and monitoring and reporting on agency compliance with policies and directions. NSW Procurement, a division within NSW Treasury, supports agencies to comply with the NSW Procurement Board’s policies and directions. A 'devolved governance model' is used for procurement in New South Wales. This means the heads of government entities that are covered by the NSW Procurement Board’s directions are responsible for managing the entity's procurement, including managing risks, reporting and ensuring compliance, in line with procurement laws and policies.
This audit assessed how effectively NSW government agencies procure and manage consultants. It assessed the role of the NSW Procurement Board and NSW Procurement in supporting and monitoring agency procurement and management of consultants. It also reviewed a sample of consulting engagements from ten NSW government agencies to examine how agencies procured, managed and reported on their use of consultants. The ten NSW government agencies were:
- NSW Treasury
- Department of Communities and Justice
- Department of Customer Service
- Department of Education
- Department of Planning and Environment
- Department of Premier and Cabinet
- Department of Regional NSW
- Infrastructure NSW
- Sydney Metro
- Transport for NSW
There are four different sources of data that contain information about spending on consultants by NSW government agencies: the State's financial consolidation system (Prime), disclosures of spending on consultants in agency annual reports, and two systems operated by NSW Procurement (the Business Advisory Services (BAS) dashboard and Spend Cube). Each of these data sources serves a different purpose, and collects and categorises information differently. None of these provide a complete source of data on spending on consultants, either in their own right or collectively.
NSW Treasury considers Prime to be the 'source of truth' on consulting expenditure across the NSW public sector. An account within Prime records recurrent spending on consultants, but this account does not include capital expenditure (that is, spending on consultants that has from a financial reporting perspective been 'capitalised' to a project on the balance sheet). As the State's financial consolidation system, Prime captures all financial information. However, capitalised consulting expenditure is recorded within various capital accounts, and is not identifiable within these accounts. While this is appropriate for accounting purposes, it means that the Prime account that records recurrent consulting expenditure does not reflect total spending on consultants by NSW government agencies. We used the data in Prime to assess whether NSW government agencies met the NSW Government's policy commitment—stated before the 2019 election and costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office—to reduce recurrent expenditure on consulting by 20% each year, over four years, from 2019–20. We did this because, while the Prime account for recurrent consulting expenditure does not reflect all spending on consultants, it does capture the recurrent spending that was subject to the policy commitment.
Most NSW government agencies are required by legislation to disclose spending on consultants (as defined in PBD-2021-03) in their annual reports. These disclosures include both recurrent and capital expenditure. For consulting engagements that cost more than $50,000, the disclosures also provide itemised information, including the names of the individual projects and the consultants used. While this data is more complete than Prime because it includes capital expenditure, it also has some gaps. Some entities are excluded from public reporting requirements on consultant use. For example, NSW Local Health Districts (LHD) are not required to produce annual reports, and the Ministry of Health does not include LHD consulting expenditure in its annual report.1 We used annual report disclosure data to report on total expenditure on consultants, and the concentration of suppliers of consulting services to NSW government agencies.
The BAS dashboard and Spend Cube are systems created by NSW Procurement to collect information about spending on suppliers of professional services. This includes consultants, but also includes other professional services providers. The systems were not designed for reporting on spending on consulting as defined in PBD-2021-03. However, we have used this data to assess specific aspects of NSW Procurement's monitoring of the use of consultants by NSW government agencies.
In 2018, we conducted an audit titled 'Procurement and reporting of consultancy services'. This assessed how 12 NSW government agencies complied with procurement requirements and how NSW Procurement supported the functions of the NSW Procurement Board. The 2018 audit found that none of the 12 agencies fully complied with NSW Procurement Board Directions on the use of consultants and that the NSW Procurement Board was not fully effective in overseeing and supporting agencies’ procurement of consultants. Specific findings from the 2018 audit included:
- Agencies applied the definition of consultant inconsistently, which affected the accuracy of reporting on consultancy expenditure.
- There was inadequate guidance from NSW Procurement for agencies implementing the procurement framework, with a need for additional tools, automated processes, and other internal controls to improve compliance.
- NSW Procurement had insufficient data for effective oversight of procurement and did not publish any data on the procurement of consultancy services by NSW government agencies.
Conclusion
Our review of a selection of consulting engagements from ten NSW government agencies indicates that these agencies do not procure and manage consultants effectively. We found that most agencies do not have a strategic approach to using consultants, or systems for managing or evaluating their performance. We also found examples of non-compliance with procurement rules, including contract variations that exceeded procurement thresholds. NSW Procurement, a division within NSW Treasury, provides frameworks and some guidance to agencies for procuring consultants. However, gaps in its data collection and analysis mean monitoring of strategic risks is limited and it does not respond to agency non-compliance consistently. There are limitations in ability of various data sources to accurately record spending on consultants. These limitations include incomplete recording of all spending, and different definitions of consulting for accounting and financial reporting purposes. Notwithstanding these limitations, and based on information in the State's financial consolidation system (Prime)—which records recurrent expenditure on consultants—it is highly unlikely that NSW government agencies will meet the government's 2019 policy commitment to reduce spending on consultants, as defined in the policy commitment and costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The use of a 'devolved governance model' for procurement means NSW government agencies are responsible for developing and implementing their own systems that align with the NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework. Agency heads are responsible for demonstrating compliance. Most agencies included in this audit did not have a clear strategic approach to how and when consultants should be used (for example, to seek advice and expertise not already available within the agency) and were using consultants in an ad hoc manner.
Our analysis of whole-of-government spending on consultants, drawn from agency annual reports, indicates that four large professional services firms account for around 27% of spending on consultants in the period from 2017–18 to 2021–22. The number of firms making up the top 50% of expenditure decreased from 11 to eight during this time, with the other 50% of expenditure spread across more than 1,000 firms. Concentration of consulting engagements within a small number of firms increases strategic risks, including that advice is not sufficiently objective and impartial, and that NSW government agencies become overly reliant on selected professional services firms.
Our review of a selection of consulting engagements by NSW government agencies found several examples of non-compliance with procurement policy. This included the use of variations to contract values which exceeded allowable limits. Record keeping was inadequate in many cases we reviewed, which limits transparency about government spending. Most agencies did not proactively manage their consulting engagements. The majority of consulting engagements that we reviewed were not evaluated or assessed by the agency for quality. Very few used any processes to ensure the transfer and retention of knowledge generated through consulting engagements. This means agencies miss opportunities to increase core staff skills and knowledge and to maximise value from these engagements.
NSW Procurement oversees a detailed policy framework that provides guidance and support to NSW government agencies when they are using consultants. The policy framework provides mandatory steps and some other guidance. Our audit on the procurement and reporting of consultancy services in 2018 found that agency reporting on the use of consultants was inconsistent and recommended that NSW Procurement should improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of data collection. NSW Procurement’s guidance on how agencies should classify and report on consulting engagements remains ambiguous. This contributes to continued inconsistent reporting by and across agencies, and reduces the quality of data on the use of consultants.
NSW Procurement has made some improvements to the information available about spending on consultants since our audit in 2018, including additional analysis and reporting that is available to agencies. However, there is still no single data source that accurately captures all spending on consultants. This is despite our recommendations in 2018 that NSW Procurement improve the quality of information collected from agencies and suppliers, which NSW Procurement accepted. This makes it harder for NSW Procurement or individual agencies to track trends and identify risks or improvement opportunities in the way consultants are used.
In early 2019, the NSW Government made a policy commitment to reduce consultancy expenses by 20% each year, over four years, from 2019–20 (excluding capital-related consultancy expenses). This commitment was set out in the Parliamentary Budget Office's '2019 Coalition Election Policy Costings (Policy Costings)'. NSW Treasury subsequently advised that to implement this commitment, agency budgets were reduced in Prime in line with the savings targets. However, actual spending on consultants recorded in Prime in the first three years after the commitment was made was almost $100 million higher than the targets. We did not see any evidence that the financial data on actual expenditure was used to inform reporting on NSW government agencies' progress toward achieving the savings set out in the policy commitment.
This chapter outlines our findings on the role of NSW Procurement in overseeing the use of consultants by NSW government agencies.
This chapter outlines our findings on the use of consultants by the ten NSW government agencies that were included in this audit.
Appendix one – Responses from auditees
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #378 - released 2 March 2023
Design and implementation of the Transport Asset Holding Entity
What the report is about
The Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) is the State's custodian of rail assets. It is a state owned corporation and commenced operating on 1 July 2020.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. We audited TAHE, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and NSW Treasury.
Separate and related audits on TAHE are reported in 'State Finances 2022', 'State Finances 2021' and 'Transport and Infrastructure 2022' reports.
What we found
The design and implementation of TAHE, which spanned seven years, was not effective.
The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to support an accounting treatment to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments.
The benefits of TAHE were claimed in the 2015–16 NSW Budget before the enabling legislation was passed by Parliament in 2017. This committed the agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, regardless of any challenges that arose.
Rail safety arrangements were a priority throughout TAHE's design and implementation, and risks were raised and addressed.
Agencies relied heavily on consultants on matters related to the creation of TAHE, but failed to effectively manage these engagements. Agencies failed to ensure that consultancies delivered independent advice as an input to decision-making. A small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on the same topic. The final cost of TAHE-related consultancies was $22.6 million compared to the initial estimated cost of $12.9 million.
What we recommended
We recommended that the audited agencies should:
- improve accountability and transparency for major new fiscal transformation initiatives
- ensure entities do not reflect the financial impact of significant initiatives in the Budget when there is uncertainty, or it creates perverse incentives
- review record keeping practices, systems and policies to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998, and the NSW Government Information Classification, Labelling and Handling Guidelines
- review procurement policies to ensure that consultant use complies with all NSW Government policy requirements.
The NSW Government established the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE), a statutory State Owned Corporation (SOC), on 1 July 2020 to replace the former rail infrastructure owner – RailCorp. It is the State's custodian of rail network assets, including rail tracks and other infrastructure, rolling stock, land, train stations and facilities, retail space, and signal and power systems, within metropolitan and regional New South Wales. It is responsible for $2.8 billion of major capital projects in 2022–23.
TAHE was established under Part 2 of the Transport Administration Act 1988 and is governed by a decision-making board. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Employee Relations are the Shareholding Ministers of TAHE, and they annually agree performance expectations articulated in a Statement of Corporate Intent.
Whereas TAHE is the custodian of rail assets, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains operate public rail services. TAHE does not have responsibility for the operation of the heavy rail network or train services, nor does it have network control functions. TAHE, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains are in the Transport and Infrastructure cluster in the public sector (formerly the Transport cluster and renamed in April 2022), which also includes Sydney Metro and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).
TfNSW leads the Transport and Infrastructure cluster. Its role is to set the strategic direction for transport across the State. This involves the shaping of planning, policy, strategy, regulation, resource allocation and other service and non-service delivery functions for all modes of transport.
TAHE's Operating Licence is granted by the Portfolio Minister and authorises the entity to perform the functions required to acquire, develop, finance, divest and hold assets, pursuant to the Transport Administration Act 1988. The Portfolio Minister also issues a Statement of Expectations which outlines the government’s expectation for the business for the next three to five years.
TAHE's original Portfolio Minister was the Minister for Transport who approved, on 30 June 2020, the issuing of an interim 12-month Operating Licence to enable TAHE to commence operating on 1 July 2020. The Portfolio Minister then granted TAHE's current Operating Licence in 2021. After TAHE requested a 12-month extension to its current Operating Licence, its next Operating Licence is due on 1 July 2024. The current Portfolio Minister is the Minister for Infrastructure, Cities and Active Transport.
About this audit
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. In making this assessment, we considered whether:
- the process of designing and implementing TAHE was cohesive and transparent, and delivered an effective outcome
- agencies' roles and responsibilities were clear in the planning of TAHE
- agencies effectively identified and managed certain risks.
Conclusion
The design and implementation of TAHE was not effective. The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments to sustain TAHE through continuing investment, and funding of the state owned rail operators. The ineffective process to design TAHE delivered a model that entails significant uncertainty as to whether the anticipated longer-term financial improvements to the Budget position can be achieved or sustained.
NSW Treasury and TfNSW had different objectives for TAHE
Up to June 2013, RailCorp had been the owner and operator of rail services and maintainer of the metropolitan rail network for almost a decade. It had been operating as a not-for-profit Public Non-Financial Corporation (PNFC).
In 2012, NSW Treasury (hereafter Treasury) decided there was a risk that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) would reclassify RailCorp to the General Government Sector (GGS), meaning depreciation expenses of approximately $870 million would be reflected in the GGS Budget. Treasury wanted to avoid this impact on the GGS Budget, and considered the establishment of a transport asset holding entity as a means to do so. Capital grants to RailCorp were being treated as an expense to the GGS Budget.
TfNSW also wanted an asset holding entity – but one that would be a non-trading ‘shell’ company with no staff that would hold and manage all public transport assets. TfNSW's concept envisaged the entity would have a structure that would enable future public transport reforms and strategic directions while ensuring vertical integration of operations between asset owners and the rail operators to maintain rail safety.
However, Treasury pursued its objective to improve the GGS Budget result, and sought to expand on TfNSW's 'shell' asset holding entity concept. Treasury wanted an entity that could generate a return on investment, as this meant that government investment in transport assets could be treated as equity investments, rather than a Budget expense, and in turn improve the GGS Budget position. As an example of the potential impact of creating this new entity, capital grants of $2.3 billion were paid to RailCorp in 2013–14. If Treasury's objective was met, grants of this significance would then be treated as an equity investment, rather than an expense in the GGS Budget.
In 2017, Treasury's preferred option was progressed through legislation, but both agencies' central objectives for the proposed asset holding entity would continue to prove difficult to reconcile. To achieve Treasury's objective to improve the Budget result, the entity would need to generate a return on investment (this is further discussed below). However, TfNSW expressed concerns that the prioritisation of rail safety, and the effective management of governance, regulation and operations would be more complex in an entity with commercial imperatives.
Asset holding entities are a common approach to the management of transport assets in Australia and internationally, and there are a range of approaches to how they are structured and used. Such structures should be driven by the goal of improved asset management. Ultimately, TfNSW's objectives could have been delivered through a simpler entity structure. However, reconciling TfNSW's objectives with Treasury's imperative to deliver and justify a Budget improvement in the short-term resulted in an overly lengthy process and an unnecessarily complex outcome that places an obligation on future governments to sustain. There is still significant uncertainty as to whether the short-term improvements to the Budget can continue to be realised in the longer-term.
The Budget benefits of TAHE were claimed before the entity was legislated, committing the agencies to deliver, regardless of the complexities that subsequently arose
The 2015–16 GGS Budget treated the government's investment in TAHE (still known at this time as RailCorp) as an equity contribution. This had the immediate impact of improving the Budget result by $1.8 billion per annum. However, the legislation to enable the establishment of TAHE had not yet been passed by Parliament, key elements of the operating model were still under development, and imminent changes in accounting standards had the potential to impact TAHE's financial model. The decision to book the benefits in the Budget early committed the involved agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, irrespective of the challenges that arose.
TAHE's financial structure requires circular government investment to work
For the NSW Government to continue to treat its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution, rather than an expense to the Budget, there must be a reasonable expectation that TAHE will generate a sufficient rate of return as required by the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) framework. In doing so, it needs to recover a revaluation loss created by a $20.3 billion reduction in the value of its assets which was incurred in its first full year of operation. This loss occurred as a result of a revaluation of TAHE's assets when RailCorp (a not-for profit entity) became TAHE (a for-profit commercial entity) – and is discussed further in the 'Key findings' below.
TAHE generates a small portion of its income from transactions with the private sector but, as noted in our report 'State Finances 2021', TAHE receives the majority of its revenue (more than 80%) from access and licence fee agreements with Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. Both of these entities are funded by grants (a Budget expense) to TfNSW from the GGS Budget.
Based on Treasury’s correspondence with the ABS in 2015, TAHE was initially expected to pay a return on equity of 7% in 2016–17. The assumption of a 7% return persisted through to 2018, after the legislation enabling the establishment of TAHE was passed by Parliament. However, when the initial access and licence fees were agreed on 1 July 2020, this figure had been revised to an expected rate of return of 1.5% excluding the revaluation loss. This was below the long-term inflation target and did not include the recovery of the revaluation loss – risking the government's ability to treat its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution. Importantly, as TAHE is primarily reliant on fees paid by the state owned rail operators that, in turn, are funded by the GGS Budget (as an expense), the decision to change the returns model from 7% to 1.5% would in its own right have had a positive impact on the GGS Budget. However, the decision to use a 1.5% return would ultimately be problematic as it made it difficult to treat the government's contributions to TAHE as an equity investment, as discussed below.
On 14 December 2021, to avoid a qualified audit opinion, the NSW Government made the decision to increase TAHE's expected rate of return to 2.5%, equal to the Reserve Bank’s long-term inflation target.
In 2021-22, TAHE needed to start charging rail operators higher access and licence fees in order to generate a return of 2.5%, so as to support the government's treatment of its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution in the GGS Budget. This meant the government needed to provide additional grant (expense) funding to the state owned rail operators so they could pay the increased access and licence fees to TAHE. Based on current projections, TAHE is not expected to recover the revaluation loss until 2046.
There remains a risk that TAHE will not be able to generate a sufficient return on the NSW Government's investment without relying on increased funding to state owned rail operators so that they can in turn pay the higher access and licence fees. TAHE's ability to generate returns on government investment from other sources are uncertain and may not be achievable or sustainable. Current modelling highlights that TAHE remains largely reliant, through to 2046, on increasing fees (which are assumed to increase at 2.5% per annum from 2031 onwards when the current 10 year contracts with rail operators expire) paid by the state owned rail operators that remain principally reliant on GGS Budget grants.
The process of designing and implementing TAHE was not transparent to independent scrutiny
Our report 'State Finances 2021' commented that Treasury did not always provide this Office with information relating to TAHE on a timely basis. Similarly, during this performance audit, there were also multiple instances where auditees were unable to provide documentation regarding key activities in the process to deliver TAHE. Agencies also applied higher sensitivity classifications to large tranches of documents than was justified or required by policy. Of particular concern is the incorrect classification of documents as Cabinet sensitive information. The incorrect or over-classification of documentation as Cabinet sensitive delayed this Office's ability to provide scrutiny or independent assurance.
There was a lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of governance structures set up to oversee the design and implementation of TAHE
From 2014, multiple workstreams and advisory committees were established to progress the design and implementation of TAHE. For some of these committees and workstreams, there is limited information on what they were tasked to do and what they achieved. Most had ceased meeting by 2018, before significant work needed to deliver TAHE was completed.
The lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of these governance structures reduced opportunities for TfNSW and Treasury to reconcile their differing objectives for TAHE, and resolve key questions earlier in the process.
There was a heavy reliance on consulting firms throughout the process to establish TAHE, and the management of consultant engagements failed to ensure that agencies received independent advice to support objective decision-making
In 2020, Treasury and TfNSW failed to prevent, identify, or adequately manage a conflict of interest when they engaged the same 'Big 4' consulting firm to work on separate TAHE-related projects. Both agencies used the firm's work to further their respective views with regard to the financial implications of TAHE's operating model. At this time those views were still unreconciled.
Treasury engaged the firm to provide a fiscal risk management strategy and advice on the impact of changes to accounting standards. TfNSW engaged the same firm to develop operating and financial models for TAHE, which raised concerns regarding the viability of TAHE. Disputes arose around the findings of these reports. Treasury disagreed with some of the outcomes of the work commissioned by TfNSW, relating to accounting treatment and fiscal advice.
The management of this conflict (real or perceived) was left to the 'Big 4' consulting firm when it was more appropriate for it to be managed by Treasury and TfNSW. If these agencies had communicated more effectively, used available governance structures consistently, and shared information openly about their use of the firm and the nature of their respective engagements, these disputes might have been avoided. This issue, coupled with deficiencies in procurement by both agencies, reflected and further perpetuated the lack of cohesion in the design and implementation of TAHE.
More broadly, over the period 2014 – 2021, 16 separate consulting firms were employed to work on 36 contracts, valued at over $22.56 million, relating to TAHE ranging from accounting and legal advice, project management, and the provision of administrative support and secretariat services.
Consultants are legitimately used by agencies to provide advice on how to achieve the outcomes determined by government, including advising agencies on the risks and challenges in achieving those outcomes. Similarly, consultants can provide expert knowledge in the service of achieving those outcomes and managing the risks. However, the heavy reliance on consulting firms during the design and implementation of TAHE heightened the risk that agencies were not receiving value for money, were outsourcing tasks that should be performed by the public service, and did not mitigate the risk that the advice received was not objective and impartial. The risk that the role of consultants could have been blurred between providing independent advice to government on options and facilitating a pre-determined outcome was not effectively treated or mitigated. This risk was amplified because a small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on one topic. The effective procurement and management of consultants is an obligation of government agencies.
Appendix two – Classification of government entities
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 #372 - released 24 January 2023
