What this report is about

Workers compensation schemes in NSW provide compulsory workplace injury insurance. The effective management of workers compensation is important to ensure injured workers are provided with prompt support to ensure timely, safe and sustainable return to work.

Insurance and Care NSW (icare) manages workers compensation insurance. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) regulates workers compensation schemes. NSW Treasury has a stewardship role but does not directly manage the schemes.

This audit assessed the effectiveness and economy of icare’s management of workers compensation claims, and the effectiveness of SIRA’s oversight of workers compensation claims.

Findings

icare is implementing major reforms to its approach to workers compensation claims management - but it is yet to demonstrate if these changes are the most effective or economical way to improve outcomes.

icare’s planning and assurance processes for its reforms have not adequately assessed existing claims models or analysed other reform options.

icare's activities have not focused enough on its core responsibilities of improving return to work and maintaining financial sustainability.

SIRA has improved the effectiveness of its workers compensation regulatory activities in recent years. Prior to 2019, SIRA was mostly focussed on developing regulatory frameworks and was less active in its supervision of workers compensation schemes.

NSW Treasury's role in relation to workers compensation has been unclear, which has limited its support for performance improvements.

Recommendations

icare should:

• Ensure that its annual Statement of Business Intent clearly sets out its approach to achieving its legislative objectives.
• Monitor and evaluate its workers compensation scheme reforms.
• Develop a quality assurance program to ensure insurance claim payments are accurate.

NSW Treasury should:

• Work with relevant agencies to improve public sector workers compensation scheme outcomes.
• Engage with the icare Board to ensure icare's management is in line with relevant NSW Treasury policies.

SIRA should:

• Address identified gaps in its fraud investigation.
• Develop a co-ordinated research strategy.

Read the PDF report

Parliamentary reference - Report number #393 - released 2 April 2024

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.

Image

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.

Appendix one – Included reports 2018–2024 Regulation insights

Appendix two – About this report- Regulation insights

What this report is about

WestInvest is a $5 billion funding program announced in September 2021 to provide ‘local infrastructure to help communities hit hard by COVID-19’ in 15 local government areas (LGAs) selected by the government. It was divided into three parts: $3 billion for NSW government agency projects; $1.6 billion for competitive grants to councils and community groups; and $400 million for non-competitive grants to councils.

Following the change of government at the 2023 election, the program was renamed the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program. Funding decisions made for the community and local government grants were retained, but multiple funding decisions for the NSW government projects were changed.

The audit objective was to assess the integrity of the design and implementation of the program and the award of program funding.

Findings

The design of the program lacked integrity because it was not informed by robust research or analysis to justify the commitment of public money to a program of this scale.

The then government did not have sufficient regard to the implications for the state's credit rating. A risk to the credit rating arose because the government may have been perceived to be using proceeds from major asset sales to fund new expenditure, rather than pay down its debt.

Decisions about program design were made by the then Treasurer's office without consultation with affected communities. The rationale for these decisions was not documented or made public.

For the NSW government projects, funding allocations did not follow advice from departments. Many funded projects did not meet the objectives of the program.

The two other rounds of the program were administered effectively, except for some gaps in documentation and quality assurance. The program guidelines did not require an equitable or needs-based distribution of funding across LGAs and there was a significant imbalance in funding between the 15 LGAs.

Recommendations

Our recommendations for the administration of future funding programs included:

• considering whether competitive grants are the best way to achieve the program's purpose
• completing program design and guidelines before announcements
• ensuring adequate quality assurance.

We also recommended that when providing advice for submissions by Ministers to Cabinet, agencies should ensure that departmental advice is clearly identified and is distinct from other advice or political considerations. 

WestInvest is a $5 billion funding program that was announced in September 2021. The program was established with the stated aim of building ‘new and improved facilities and local infrastructure to help communities hit hard by COVID-19’.

WestInvest was divided into three funding streams:

• $3 billion NSW government projects round open to NSW government agencies
• $1.6 billion community projects competitive round administered as a competitive grant program that was open to local councils, non-government organisations, Local Aboriginal Land Councils, and educational institutions in the 15 eligible LGAs
• $400 million local government projects round administered as a non-competitive grant round only open to the 15 eligible councils, with each council receiving a pre-determined share of the $400 million.

The WestInvest program was administered by NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department (previously the Department of Premier and Cabinet). Decisions about funding allocations were made by the former Treasurer in his role as the statutory decision-maker and announced by the former government in the lead up to the March 2023 NSW State election, but no funding was paid prior to the election.

Following the change of government, the funding decisions for the community projects competitive round and local government projects round were confirmed and negotiation of funding deeds commenced. The current government reviewed the decisions for the NSW government projects round and made changes to multiple decisions as part of the 2023–24 NSW Budget process. The current government has also changed the name of the program to the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program.

The objective of the audit was to assess the integrity of the design and administration of the WestInvest program. This included assessing the processes used in the design and implementation of the program and award of funding.

The audit did not re-assess the merits of individual projects that were submitted for funding consideration and did not examine the implementation of projects that were allocated funding.

Decisions about the objectives and focus areas for the program were made without advice or analysis from the agencies that administered the program

The WestInvest program involved the commitment of $5 billion as a stimulus measure linked to economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there was no business case or other economic analysis conducted to support consideration of the potential benefits and costs of the program. Media releases and the public guidelines for WestInvest stated that western Sydney was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic more severely than other parts of Sydney and regional NSW. These assertions were not supported by evidence or analysis.

Evidence from NSW Treasury provided for this audit indicates that it was asked to prepare the initial proposal for the WestInvest program within a very short timeframe. This limited its ability to conduct research, analysis and consultation that could have informed the development of the program. This is particularly important for the integrity of decisions involving large-scale spending. Staff from NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department advised the audit team that the areas of focus for WestInvest were decided by Ministers and their staff without advice from the audited agencies. There is no documented analysis justifying the decision to focus the program on community infrastructure, or the six ‘areas of focus’ that were selected. The Premier's Department commissioned research from Western Sydney University after the areas of focus for the program had been decided. This did not inform decisions about the program focus but aimed to provide baseline information about community infrastructure in the 15 eligible LGAs which could be used in program evaluation.

The rationale for making 15 LGAs eligible for the program was not clear

It is not clear how the government decided which LGAs would be eligible for WestInvest funding. Public communication about the program referred to the western Sydney region and commented on areas that had been ‘hit hard’ by the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific factors that were used to decide which LGAs were eligible were not explained publicly or documented.

In the 2019–20 NSW Budget papers, "western Sydney" was defined as 12 LGAs. All of these were included as eligible for the WestInvest program. The additional three LGAs that were made eligible for the WestInvest program (Burwood, Canterbury-Bankstown, and Strathfield) were not within the NSW Budget papers definition but were designated "areas of concern" during the COVID-19 pandemic, which meant they were subject to more restrictions than other LGAs at certain points.

Georges River and Bayside LGAs both made public statements that drew attention to the fact that they were not made eligible for the WestInvest program despite being designated areas of concern. Several of the 15 LGAs that were made eligible for WestInvest had not been designated areas of concern during the pandemic, including Penrith, The Hills, and Blue Mountains. 

There was no consultation with eligible councils or other key stakeholders before the program design was decide

The program design had not been subject to consultation with councils or other relevant organisations in western Sydney. This meant that the views of eligible councils and community organisations on strategic priorities in their respective communities were not considered before decisions on program design were made.

Staff from some councils interviewed by the audit team indicated that while funding for community infrastructure is welcome, some councils had other priority areas for infrastructure development that were at least as high as new community infrastructure. As independent entities, each council has its own strategic planning processes to identify and plan for infrastructure projects and other areas of need. These were not considered in the design of the WestInvest program.

Staff at several councils we spoke to highlighted delivery risks to the projects for which they had been allocated funding. These included:

• the short timetable set by the then government (considering the amount of funding available and the requirements for applications) meant that full project development and assurance processes were not completed for most applications when they were submitted
• difficulty complying with the government’s administrative and assurance requirements for funding recipients, such as detailed planning and reporting.

When early planning for WestInvest was being done, both NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department identified the risk that applicants may not be able to deliver funded projects on time or within budget. The absence of consultation, research and analysis before the program design was finalised meant that these factors were not considered before the government had committed to the program. We did not see evidence that the then government had considered the cumulative impact of an additional $5 billion in infrastructure projects on the costs of materials and skilled labour concentrated in the eligible LGAs.

The Premier's Department conducted an online survey (WestInvest 'Have Your Say'), between 23 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. This was open to the public and asked questions about which of the six ‘areas of focus’ were most important to them and what type of community infrastructure projects they would like to see. This found higher levels of community support for two of the six areas (community infrastructure and green and open space).

On 18 April 2022, the Premier's Department released a summary report on the findings of the WestInvest ‘Have Your Say’ Survey. The Premier's Department noted that the survey was for consultation purposes only and did not form part of the application process for the WestInvest program. The Premier's Department stated in its summary report that the survey results 'will feed into the assessment process across the WestInvest Program'.

However, the Premier's Department staff interviewed by the audit team told us that the survey results did not play any formal role in the assessment process or funding recommendations for projects. The survey did not provide data that could be used to inform assessment decisions because:

• responses could be submitted by any member of the public who accessed the survey, not just those living in the LGAs that were eligible for the program, so the data could not be taken as representative of the views of the residents of eligible LGAs
• many survey responses were ruled ineligible as they were deemed to be associated with a community campaign that related to projects outside the focus areas of WestInvest.

The government did not have sufficient regard to risks to the State's credit rating when establishing the WestInvest program

The NSW Government has a policy of maintaining a AAA credit rating for the State of New South Wales. This is codified in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012. The NSW Government did not have sufficient regard to the implications and risks of committing $5 billion of funding to the WestInvest program to its credit rating. A risk to the State's credit rating arose because the government may have been perceived to be using proceeds from major asset sales to fund new expenditure, rather than paying down State debt.

The $3 billion NSW government projects round was open to NSW government agencies and administration of the round was led by NSW Treasury. Funding allocated through this round was not subject to the NSW Grants Administration Guide. This is because the funding was awarded to NSW government agencies rather than organisations external to government, so it did not meet the definition of a grant program. Projects were submitted by NSW government agencies to NSW Treasury and were assessed against program criteria by staff from NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department. Each project received a score and advice on whether it was suitable for funding or not. The WestInvest steering committee considered these and provided advice to the then Treasurer.

NSW Treasury prepared guidelines for the $3 billion NSW government projects round, but these were not approved by the then Treasurer until after the program assessment had commenced

NSW Treasury prepared guidelines for the NSW government projects round in September 2021. These were submitted to the then Treasurer for approval in December 2021 but were not approved. This meant that the process for assessing applications for NSW government projects was not agreed between government agencies and the then Treasurer, who was the statutory decision-maker of the allocations of funding. NSW Treasury subsequently prepared an assessment plan based on the unapproved guidelines, which set out more details about the process to be used for assessing applications for the NSW government projects round. The program guidelines were not published, which meant there was no public information about the process for assessing the largest component of the WestInvest program.

In May 2022, the then Treasurer’s Office requested that NSW Treasury make changes to the unapproved guidelines so that projects that delivered 'business as usual' state government infrastructure such as schools, roads, and health infrastructure were no longer considered ineligible for the program. These revised guidelines were approved in June 2022, but were not published. The changes were not consistent with the initial purpose of the WestInvest program which was to fund ‘transformational’ community infrastructure.

The funding advice from the WestInvest steering committee was not followed by the then Treasurer and the justifications for the funding allocation decisions were not documented

One-third of the projects that were allocated funding (9 out of 27) had been assessed by the WestInvest steering committee as having low or moderate merit. These projects were allocated combined funding of $1.1 billion. Reasons that the steering committee gave for assessing these projects as not suitable for funding through the WestInvest program included the absence of completed business cases, incomplete project development, and poor alignment to the objectives and criteria for the WestInvest program as outlined in the original program guidelines.

Staff from NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department put considerable resources into preparing guidelines and assessing and providing advice on the merits and eligibility of applications against these guidelines, but in most cases the advice was not followed by the then Treasurer. There was no documentation of reasons for the departures from steering committee advice. The NSW government projects round was not subject to the NSW Grants Administration Guide, so the requirement under those guidelines for documenting reasons for departures from advice on funding decisions did not apply. However, when the WestInvest program was established, it was noted that any departures from the funding advice from the steering committee would be documented by the then Treasurer. This applied to the entire WestInvest program. None of the projects that were allocated funding through the NSW government projects round were actually given funding, as only allocations of funding were approved by the then Treasurer.

Most of the funding was allocated to projects that did not align with the purpose of WestInvest or meet the assurance requirements of the program

Of the 27 projects that were allocated funding (Exhibit 3), 12 were from the Department of Education and seven from Transport for NSW. This resulted in over $2 billion, or 69% of the funding available through the NSW government projects round, being allocated to state school and road projects. Most of these projects were not aligned with any of the six focus areas of the WestInvest program. In addition, these projects were examples of ‘business as usual’ activities of NSW government agencies that did not clearly align with the initial purpose of the program to deliver transformational community infrastructure that would improve liveability in the 15 eligible LGAs.

Source: NSW Treasury documents.

Conditions were attached to the approval of funding allocations for 21 of the 27 projects. Most of these conditions related to the completion of a business case and other project assurance requirements, which were required under the program guidelines.

Projects approved through the WestInvest program were to receive funding from the Community Services and Facilities Fund (CSFF), which is a legislative fund created under the NSW Generations Funds Act 2018 (the Act). The Act states that the purpose of the CSFF is to provide funding for ‘cost-effective facilities and services’ (s.12(1)). The absence of business cases and other assurance requirements from most of the projects approved created the risk of legislative non-compliance, as many of the projects that had been allocated funding could not clearly demonstrate that they would be cost-effective.

NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department’s assessment of the first group of projects submitted for the NSW government projects round indicated that agencies applying for funding did not understand the purpose or requirements of the program. NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department received 153 applications after the first call for proposals. Most did not align with the stated purpose of WestInvest or meet the assurance requirements that had been set for the program. For example:

• 90 project proposals (59% of those submitted) were assessed as ineligible. Thirty-five of the 90 did not include any infrastructure, which was the main purpose of the WestInvest program. The other 55 proposed infrastructure projects were not consistent with any of six areas of focus for the program.
• 118 proposals (77% of proposals submitted) did not have a business case, which was a requirement of the WestInvest program guidelines.

As the first request for project proposals did not generate enough suitable applications, the then Treasurer made a second request to NSW government agencies in August 2022 seeking additional project proposals. This occurred after the guidelines for the NSW government projects round had been broadened to allow more projects to be considered for funding (discussed above).

Multiple state school projects were allocated funding after being assessed by the WestInvest steering committee as ineligible or unsuitable for funding

The Westmead Education Campus project, valued at $308 million, was rated as ineligible by NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department because it did not address any of the six specified focus areas for the WestInvest program. This meant it did not go through a full assessment against the program criteria and was not submitted to the then Treasurer for funding consideration.

The project was later re-submitted and the then Treasurer subsequently approved it for funding allocation. This occurred after the guidelines for the NSW government projects round had been broadened (discussed above). NSW Treasury's advice on this submission noted that the project had not been fully developed, with key decisions about the delivery model not made, and it did not have a final business case.

The Box Hill (Terry Road) new school project, valued at $112 million was rated as ‘moderate – not suitable for funding consideration at this time’ by the WestInvest steering committee. It was subsequently approved for funding by the then Treasurer.

Nine school upgrade projects with a total value of $478 million were allocated funding by the then Treasurer. Each of these had been assessed as ineligible by NSW Treasury and the Premier's Department against the original program guidelines because they did not meet any of the WestInvest focus areas and were not considered 'transformational'. There were a further 14 similar proposals for school upgrades that were also assessed as ineligible but were not allocated funding.

Funding allocations from the WestInvest program were changed after the 2023 NSW State election

Following the change of government at the 2023 NSW state election, most of the funding decisions announced by the former government were changed. The new government had announced during the election campaign that, if elected, it would redirect some WestInvest funding 'to rebuild Western Sydney schools and Western Sydney hospitals'. Eleven of the 27 projects that had been announced by the former government were not funded by the new government. The combined value of these projects was at around $1.5 billion (Exhibit 4). The seven roads projects that had been allocated funding through WestInvest, valued at $1 billion, were also removed from the WestInvest funding allocation but these still received funding from a different source.

Source: NSW Treasury documents.

The funding was reallocated to 17 projects that the new government had announced as election commitments during the 2023 State election campaign. This comprised ten school infrastructure projects, five health infrastructure projects, and two transport infrastructure projects. All of these projects had a cost of more than $10 million each, which means they are subject to NSW Government business case and gateway assurance requirements. Business cases had been completed for the two transport projects. The other 15 projects did not have business cases.

Source: NSW Treasury documents.

After these changes, the $3 billion NSW government projects round funding distribution was:

• Nine school upgrades, valued at $478 million, that had been allocated funding by the former government (see Exhibit 3).
• 17 new projects, with a total value of around $2.3 billion, that had been announced as election commitments by the new government (Exhibit 5). All of these are state school, health, or transport infrastructure.
• Three projects that covered administrative costs associated with the WestInvest program, with a total value of around $230 million (not previously announced).

The $1.6 billion community project grants - competitive round was open to local councils, NGOs, Local Aboriginal Land Councils, and educational institutions, across 15 eligible LGAs in western Sydney. Exhibit 6 shows a timeline of key dates for the community project grants - competitive round.

The $400 million local government projects round was administered as a non-competitive grant round that was only open to the 15 eligible councils. Each council was allocated a portion of the $400 million funding via a formula that provided a base allocation and an additional amount based on the population of each LGA. Each council received between $21 million and $35 million.

Applications for funding were submitted to the Premier's Department for assessment. Proposed projects were required to be eligible for the program and be rated as having merit against the published program criteria, which were the same as those for the competitive round. Exhibit 12 shows a timeline of key dates for the Local government projects competitive round.

Appendix one – Responses from audited agencies

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 #391 - released 28 February 2024.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

What the report is about

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) and local councils in planning and managing equipment for bushfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression.

What we found

The RFS has focused its fleet development activity on modernising and improving the safety of its firefighting fleet, and on the purchase of new firefighting aircraft.

There is limited evidence that the RFS has undertaken strategic fleet planning or assessment of the capability of the firefighting fleet to respond to current bushfire events or emerging fire risks.

The RFS does not have an overarching strategy to guide its planning, procurement, or distribution of the firefighting fleet.

The RFS does not have effective oversight of fleet maintenance activity across the State, and is not ensuring the accuracy of District Service Agreements with local councils, where maintenance responsibilities are described.

What we recommended

1. Develop a fleet enhancement framework and strategy that is informed by an assessment of current fleet capability, and research into appropriate technologies to respond to emerging fire risks.
2. Develop performance measures to assess the performance and capabilities of the fleet in each RFS District by recording and publicly reporting on fire response times, fire response outcomes, and completions of fire hazard reduction works.
3. Report annually on fleet allocations to RFS Districts, and identify the ways in which fleet resources align with district-level fire risks.
4. Develop a strategy to ensure that local brigade volunteers are adequate in numbers and appropriately trained to operate fleet appliances in RFS Districts where they are required.
5. Establish a fleet maintenance framework to ensure regular update of District Service Agreements with local councils.
6. Review and improve processes for timely recording of fleet asset movements, locations, and maintenance status.

This audit assessed how effectively the NSW Rural Fire Service (the RFS) plans and manages the firefighting equipment needed to prevent, mitigate, and suppress bushfires. This audit also examined the role of local councils in managing bushfire equipment fleet assets. Local councils have vested legal ownership of the majority of the land-based firefighting fleet, including a range of legislated responsibilities to carry out fleet maintenance and repairs. The RFS has responsibilities to plan and purchase firefighting fleet assets, and ensure they are ready for use in response to fires and other emergencies.

This report describes the challenges in planning and managing the firefighting fleet, including a confusion of roles and responsibilities between the RFS and local councils in relation to managing certain land-based rural firefighting fleet – a point that has been made in our Local Government financial audits over several years. This role confusion is further demonstrated in the responses of the RFS and local councils to this audit report – included at Appendix one.

The lack of cohesion in roles and responsibilities for managing rural firefighting vehicles increases the risk that these firefighting assets are not properly maintained and managed, and introduces a risk that this could affect their readiness to be mobilised when needed.

While the audit findings and recommendations address some of the operational and organisational inefficiencies in relation to rural firefighting equipment management, they do not question the legislative arrangements that govern them. This is a matter for the NSW Government to consider in ensuring the fleet arrangements are fit for purpose, and are clearly understood by the relevant agencies.

The NSW Rural Fire Service (hereafter the RFS) is the lead combat agency for bushfires in New South Wales, and has the power to take charge of bushfire prevention and response operations anywhere in the State. The RFS has responsibilities to prevent, mitigate and suppress bushfires across 95% of the State, predominantly in the non-metropolitan areas of New South Wales. Fire and Rescue NSW is responsible for fire response activity in the cities and large townships that make up the remaining five per cent of the State.

The RFS bushfire fleet is an integral part of the agency's overall bushfire risk management. The RFS also uses this fleet to respond to other emergencies such as floods and storms, motor vehicle accidents, and structural fires. Fleet planning and management is one of a number of activities that is necessary for fire mitigation and suppression.

The Rural Fires Act 1997 (Rural Fires Act) imposes obligations on all landowners and land managers to prevent the occurrence of bushfires and reduce the risk of bushfires from spreading. Local councils have fire prevention responsibilities within their local government areas, principally to reduce fire hazards near council owned or managed assets, and minor roads.

The RFS is led by a Commissioner and is comprised of both paid employees and volunteer rural firefighters. Its functions are prescribed in the Rural Fires Act and related legislation such as the State Emergency Rescue Management Act 1989. The RFS functions are also described in Bush Fire Risk Management Plans, the State Emergency Management Plan, District Service Agreements, and RFS procedural documents. Some of the core responsibilities of the RFS include:

• preventing, mitigating, and suppressing fires across New South Wales
• recruiting and managing volunteer firefighters in rural fire brigades
• purchasing and allocating firefighting fleet assets to local councils
• establishing District Service Agreements with local councils to give the RFS permissions to use the fleet assets that are vested with local councils
• carrying out fleet maintenance and repairs when authorised to do so by local councils
• inspecting the firefighting fleet
• supporting land managers and private property owners with fire prevention activity.

In order to carry out its legislated firefighting functions, the RFS relies on land-based vehicles, marine craft, and aircraft. These different firefighting appliance types are referred to in this report as the firefighting fleet or fleet assets.

RFS records show that in 2021 there were 6,345 firefighting fleet assets across NSW. Most of the land-based appliances commonly associated with firefighting, such as water pumpers and water tankers, are purchased by the RFS and vested with local councils under the Rural Fires Act. The vesting of firefighting assets with local councils means that the assets are legally owned by the council for which the asset has been purchased. The RFS is able to use the firefighting assets through District Service Agreements with local councils or groups of councils.

In addition to the land-based firefighting fleet, the RFS owns a fleet of aircraft with capabilities for fire mitigation, suppression, and reconnaissance during fire events. The RFS hires a fleet of different appliances to assist with fire prevention and hazard reduction works. These include aircraft for firefighting and fire reconnaissance, and heavy plant equipment such as graders and bulldozers for hazard reduction. Hazard reduction works include the clearance of bush and grasslands around major roads and protected assets, and the creation and maintenance of fire trails and fire corridors to assist with fire response activity.

The RFS is organised into 44 RFS Districts and seven Area Commands. The RFS relies on volunteer firefighters to assist in carrying out most of its firefighting functions. These functions may include the operation of the fleet during fire response activities and training exercises, and the routine inspection of the fleet to ensure it is maintained according to fleet service standards. Volunteer fleet inspections are supervised by the RFS Fire Control Officer.

In 2021 there were approximately 73,000 volunteers located in 1,993 rural fire brigades across the State, making the RFS the largest volunteer fire emergency service in Australia. In addition to brigade volunteers, the RFS has approximately 1,100 salaried staff who occupy leadership and administrative roles at RFS headquarters and in the 44 RFS Districts.

Local councils have legislative responsibilities relating to bushfire planning and management. Some of the core responsibilities of local councils include:

• establishing and equipping rural fire brigades
• contributing to the Rural Fire Fighting Fund
• vested ownership of land-based rural firefighting equipment
• carrying out firefighting fleet maintenance and repairs
• conducting bushfire prevention and hazard reduction activity.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the RFS and local councils in planning and managing equipment for bushfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression. From the period of 2017 to 2022 inclusive, we addressed the audit objective by examining whether the NSW RFS and local councils effectively:

• plan for current and future bushfire fleet requirements
• manage and maintain the fleet required to prevent, mitigate, and suppress bushfires in NSW.

This audit did not assess:

• the operational effectiveness of the RFS bushfire response
• the effectiveness of personal protective equipment and clothing
• the process of vesting of rural firefighting equipment with local councils
• activities of any other statutory authorities responsible for managing bushfires in NSW.

As the lead combat agency for the bushfire response in NSW, the RFS has primary responsibility for bushfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression.

Three local councils were selected as case studies for this audit, Hawkesbury City Council, Wagga Wagga City Council and Uralla Shire Council. These case studies highlight the ways in which the RFS and local councils collaborate and communicate in rural fire districts.

The RFS has not made significant changes to the size or composition of the firefighting fleet in the past five years and does not have an overarching strategy to drive fleet development

Since 2017, the RFS has made minimal changes to its firefighting fleet volumes or vehicle types. The RFS is taking a fleet renewal approach to fleet planning, with a focus on refurbishing and replacing ageing firefighting assets with newer appliances and vehicles of the same classification and type. While the RFS has adopted a fleet renewal approach, driven by its Appliance Replacement Program Guide, it does not have a strategy or framework to guide its future-focused fleet development. There is no document that identifies and analyses bushfire events and risks in NSW, and matches fleet resources and fleet technologies to meet those risks. The RFS does not have fleet performance measures or targets to assess whether the size and composition of the fleet is meeting current or emerging bushfire climate hazards, or fuel load risks across its 44 NSW Fire Districts.

The RFS fleet currently comprises approximately 4,000 frontline, operational firefighting assets such as tankers, pumpers, and air and marine craft, and approximately 2,300 logistical vehicles, such as personnel transport vehicles and specialist support vehicles. Of the land-based firefighting vehicles, the RFS has maintained a steady number of approximately 3,800 tankers and 65 pumpers, year on year, for the past five years. This appliance type is an essential component of the RFS land-based, firefighting fleet with capabilities to suppress and extinguish fires.

Since 2017, most RFS fleet enhancement activity has been directed to upgrades and the modernisation of older fleet assets with new safety features. There is limited evidence of research into new fleet technologies for modern firefighting. The RFS fleet volumes and fleet types have remained relatively static since 2017, with the exception of the aerial firefighting fleet. Since 2017, the RFS has planned for, and purchased, six additional aircraft to add to the existing three aircraft in its permanent fleet.

While the RFS has made minimal changes to its fleet since 2017, in 2016 it reduced the overall number of smaller transport vehicles, by purchasing larger vehicles with increased capacity for personnel transport. The consolidation of logistical and transport vehicles accounts for an attrition in fleet numbers from 7,058 in 2016, to 6,315 in 2017 as shown in Exhibit 2.

The firefighting fleet management system is not always updated in a timely manner due to insufficient RFS personnel with permissions to make changes in the system

The RFS uses a fleet management system known as SAP EAM to record the location and status of firefighting fleet assets. The system holds information about the condition of the firefighting fleet, the home location of each fleet asset, and the maintenance, servicing, and inspection records of all assets. The RFS uses the system for almost all functions related to the firefighting fleet, including the location of vehicles so that they can be dispatched during operational exercises or fire responses.

Staff at RFS Headquarters are responsible for creating and maintaining asset records in the fleet management system. RFS District staff have limited permissions in relation to SAP EAM. They are able to raise work orders for repairs and maintenance, upload evidence to show that work has been done, and close actions in the system.

RFS District staff are not able to enter or update some fleet information in the system, such as the location of vehicles. When an RFS District receives a fleet appliance, it cannot be allocated to a brigade until the location of the asset is accurately recorded in the system. The location of the asset must be updated in the SAP EAM system by staff at RFS Headquarters. District staff can request system support from staff at RFS Headquarters to enter this information. At the time of writing, the position responsible for updating the fleet management system at RFS Headquarters was vacant, and RFS District personnel reported significant wait times in response to their service requests.

The RFS conducts annual audits of SAP EAM system information to ensure data is accurate and complete. RFS staff are currently doing data cleansing work to ensure that fleet allocations are recorded correctly in the system.

Communication between brigades, local councils and the RFS needs improvement to ensure that fleet information is promptly updated in the fleet management system

RFS brigade volunteers do not have access to the fleet management system. When fleet assets are used or moved, volunteers report information about the location and condition of the fleet to RFS District staff using a paper-based form, or by email or phone. Information such as vehicle mileage, engine hours, and defects are all captured by volunteers in a logbook which is scanned and sent to RFS District staff. RFS District staff then enter the relevant information into the fleet management system, or raise a service ticket with RFS Headquarters to enter the information.

Brigade volunteers move fleet assets for a range of reasons, including for fire practice exercises. If volunteers are unable to report the movement of assets to RFS District staff in a timely manner, this can lead to system inaccuracies. Lapses and backlogs in record keeping can occur when RFS staff at district offices or at Headquarters are not available to update records at the times that volunteers report information. A lack of accurate record keeping can potentially impact on RFS operational activities, including fire response activity.

Brigade volunteers notify RFS District staff when fleet appliances are defective, or if they have not been repaired properly. District staff then enter the information into the fleet management system. The inability of volunteers to enter information into the system means they have no visibility over their requests, including whether they have been approved, actioned, or rejected.

Local councils are responsible for servicing and maintaining the firefighting fleet according to the Rural Fires Act, but this responsibility can be transferred to the RFS through arrangements described in local service agreements. Council staff record all fleet servicing and maintenance information in their local systems. The types of fleet information that is captured in local council records can vary between councils. RFS staff described the level of council reporting, and the effectiveness of this process, as 'mixed'.

Councils use different databases and systems to record fleet assets, and some councils are better resourced for this activity than others

Firefighting fleet information is recorded in different asset management systems across NSW. Each council uses its own asset management system to record details about the vested fleet assets. All three councils that were interviewed for this audit had different systems to record information about the fleet. In addition, the type of information captured by the three councils was varied.

Local councils have varying levels of resources and capabilities to manage the administrative tasks associated with the firefighting fleet. Some of the factors that impact on the ability of councils to manage administrative tasks include: the size of the council; the capabilities of the information management systems, the size of the staff team, and the levels of staff training in asset management.

Uralla Shire Council is a small rural council in northern NSW. This council uses financial software to record information about the firefighting fleet. While staff record information about the condition of the asset, its replacement value, and its depreciation, staff do not record the age of the asset, or its location. Staff manually enter fleet maintenance information into their systems. Uralla Shire Council would like to purchase asset maintenance software that generates work orders for fleet repairs and maintenance. However, the council does not have trained staff in the use of asset management software, and the small size of the fleet may not make it financially worthwhile.

The Hawkesbury City Council uses a single system to capture financial and asset information associated with the firefighting fleet. Hawkesbury is a large metropolitan council located north-west of Sydney, with a relatively large staff team in comparison with Uralla Shire Council. The Hawkesbury City Council has given RFS District staff access to their fleet information system. RFS District staff can directly raise work orders for fleet repairs and maintenance through the council system, and receive automated notifications when the work is complete.

Two of the three audited councils report that they conduct annual reviews of fleet assets to assess whether the information they hold is accurate and up-to-date.

More than half of the fleet maintenance service agreements between the RFS and local councils have not been reviewed in ten years, and some do not reflect local practices

Local councils have a legislated responsibility to service, repair, and maintain the firefighting fleet to service standards set by the RFS. Councils may transfer this responsibility to the RFS through District Service Agreements. The RFS Districts are responsible for ensuring that the service agreements are current and effective.

The RFS does not have monitoring and quality control processes to ensure that service agreements with local councils are reviewed regularly. The RFS has 73 service agreements with local councils or groups of councils. Sixty-three per cent of service agreements had not been reviewed in the last ten years. Only four service agreements specify an end date and, of those, one agreement expired in 2010 and had not been reviewed at the time of this audit.

The RFS does not have a framework to ensure that service agreements with local councils reflect actual practices. Of the three councils selected for audit, one agreement does not describe the actual arrangements for fleet maintenance practices in RFS Districts. The service agreement with Hawkesbury City Council specifies that the RFS will maintain the firefighting fleet on behalf of council when, in fact, council maintains the firefighting fleet. The current agreement commenced in 2012, and at the time of writing had not been updated to reflect local maintenance practices.

When District Service Agreements are not reviewed periodically, there is a risk that neither local councils nor the RFS have clear oversight of the status of fleet servicing, maintenance, and repairs.

RFS District Service Agreements set out a requirement that RFS and local councils establish a liaison committee. Liaison committees typically include council staff, RFS District staff, and RFS brigade volunteers. While service agreements state that liaison committees must meet periodically to monitor and review the performance of the service agreement, committee members determine when and how often the committee meets.

RFS District staff and staff at the three audited councils are not meeting routinely to review or update their service agreements. At Wagga Wagga City Council, staff meet with RFS District staff each year to report on activity to fulfil service agreement requirements. Uralla Shire Council staff did not meet routinely with RFS District staff before 2021. When liaison committees do not meet regularly, there is a risk that the RFS and local councils have incorrect or outdated information about the location, status, or condition of the firefighting fleet. Given that councils lack systems to track and monitor fleet locations, regular communication between the RFS and local councils is essential.

The RFS has not established processes to ensure that local councils and RFS District personnel meet and exchange information about the fleet. Of the three councils selected for this audit, one council had not received information about the number, type, or status of the fleet for at least five years, and did not receive an updated list of appliances until there was a change in RFS District personnel. This has impacted on the accuracy of council record keeping. Councils do not always receive notification about new assets or information about the location of assets from the RFS, and therefore cannot reflect this information in their accounting and reporting.

RFS area commands audit system records to ensure fleet inspections occur as planned, but central systems are not always updated, creating operational risks

RFS District staff are required by the Rural Fires Act to ensure the firefighting fleet is inspected at least once a year. Regular inspections of the fleet are vital to ensure that vehicles are fit-for-purpose and safe for brigade volunteers. Inspections are also fundamental to the operational readiness and capability of RFS to respond to fire incidents.

RFS Area Command personnel conduct audits of fleet maintenance data to ensure that fleet inspections are occurring as planned. These inspections provide the RFS with assurance that the fleet is being maintained and serviced by local council workshops, or third-party maintenance contractors.

Some RFS Districts run their own fleet management systems outside of the central management system. They do this to manage their fleet inspection activity effectively. Annual fleet inspection dates are programmed by staff at RFS Headquarters. Most of the inspection dates generated by RFS Headquarters are clustered together and RFS Districts need to separate inspection times to manage workloads over the year. Spreading inspection dates is necessary to avoid exceeding the capacity of local council workshops or third party contractors, and to ensure that fleet are available during the bushfire season.

The fleet inspection records at RFS Headquarters are not always updated in a timely manner to reflect actual inspection and service dates of vehicles. District staff are not able to change fleet inspection and service dates in the central management system because they do not have the necessary permissions to access the system. The usual practice is for RFS District staff to notify staff at RFS Headquarters, and ask them to retrospectively update the system. As there is a lag in updating the central database, at a point in time, the actual inspection and service dates of vehicles can be different to the dates entered in the central fleet management system.

Fleet inspection and maintenance records must be accurately recorded in the central RFS management system for operational reasons. RFS Headquarters personnel need to know the location and maintenance status of fleet vehicles at all times in order to dispatch vehicles to incidents and fires. The RFS fleet management system is integrated with a new Computer Aided Dispatch System. The Computer Aided Dispatch System assigns the nearest and most appropriate vehicles to fire incidents. The system relies on accurate fleet locations and fleet condition information in order to dispatch these vehicles.

There is a risk that RFS Headquarters' systems do not contain accurate information about the location and status of vehicles. Some may be in workshops for servicing and repair, while the system may record them as available for dispatch. As there are many thousands of fleet vehicles, all requiring an annual service and inspection, a lack of accurate record keeping has wide implications for State fire operations.

RFS is currently exploring ways to improve the ways in which fleet inspections are programmed into the fleet management system.

RFS provides funds to councils to assist with maintaining the firefighting fleet, but does not receive fleet maintenance cost information from all local councils

Each year the RFS provides local councils with a lump sum to assist with the cost of repairing and maintaining the firefighting fleet. This lump sum funding is also used for meeting the costs of maintaining brigade stations, utilities, and other miscellaneous matters associated with RFS business.

In 2020–21, the RFS provided NSW local councils with approximately $23 million for maintenance and repairs of appliances, buildings, and utilities. Ninety councils were provided with lump sum funding in 2021, receiving on average $257,000. The amounts received by individual councils ranged from $56,200 to $1,029,884.

Some councils provide itemised repairs and maintenance reports to RFS District staff, showing the work completed and the cost of that work. However, not all councils collect this information or provide it to the RFS. Local councils collect fleet maintenance information in their local council systems. In some cases, the responsibility for fleet maintenance is shared across a group of councils, and not all councils have oversight of this process.

The RFS has not taken steps to require local councils to provide itemised maintenance costings for the firefighting fleet. Thus, the RFS does not have a clear understanding of how local councils are spending their annual fleet maintenance funding allocations. The RFS does not know if the funding allocations are keeping pace with the actual cost of repairing and maintaining the fleet.

RFS District staff report that funding shortfalls are impacting on the prioritisation of fleet servicing and maintenance works in some council areas. When fleet servicing and maintenance is not completed routinely or effectively, there is a risk that it can negatively impact the overall condition and lifespan of the vehicle. Poor processes in relation to fleet maintenance and repair risk impacting on the operational capabilities of the fleet during fire events.

The timeliness and effectiveness of fleet servicing and maintenance is affected by resource levels in RFS Districts and local councils

Local councils have a legislated responsibility to service and maintain the firefighting fleet to the service standards set by the RFS. Fleet maintenance is usually done by the entity with the appropriate workshops and resources, and the maintenance arrangements are described in District Service Agreements. RFS District staff conduct annual inspections to ensure that the firefighting fleet has been serviced and maintained appropriately, and is safe for use by brigade volunteers. If the fleet has not been maintained to RFS service standards or timelines, RFS District staff may work with local councils to support or remediate these works.

The effectiveness of this quality control activity is dependent on relationships and communication between the RFS Districts and local councils. While some RFS staff reported having positive relationships with local councils, others said they struggled to get fleet maintenance work done in a timely manner. Some councils reported that funding shortfalls for fleet maintenance activity was impacting on the prioritisation of RFS fleet maintenance works. When fleet maintenance work is not completed routinely or effectively, it can negatively impact on the overall condition and lifespan of the vehicle. It can also reduce the capacity of the RFS to respond to fire events.

Fleet quality control activities are carried out by RFS District staff. In some of the smaller RFS Districts, one person is responsible for liaising with local councils and brigade volunteers about fleet maintenance and repairs. In the regions where resources are limited, there is less ability to maintain ongoing communication. This is impacting on fleet service and maintenance timelines and the timeliness of fleet monitoring activity.

The RFS has mutual support arrangements with agencies in NSW and interstate, though shared fleet levels are yet to be quantified

The RFS has arrangements with state, federal, and international fire authorities to provide mutual support during fire incidents. In NSW, the RFS has agreements with the three statutory authorities – Fire and Rescue NSW, the Forestry Corporation of NSW, and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. The agreement with Fire and Rescue NSW provides a framework for cooperation and joint operations between the agencies. The agreements with the Forestry Corporation of NSW and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service describe the control and coordination arrangements for bush and grass fires across NSW. These arrangements are set out in legislation and incorporated into local Bush Fire Risk Management Plans.

The RFS has agreements with fire authorities in three of the four Australian states and territories that share a border with NSW – the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, and South Australia. Each agreement sets out the arrangements for mutual assistance and joint operations, including arrangements for sharing aircraft. The agreement between the RFS and Victoria had lapsed. The RFS told the NSW Bushfire Inquiry that the agreement with Victoria would be finalised by June 2020. In June 2022, the RFS reported that the agreement was in the process of being finalised.

The arrangements for mutual aid from Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania, are managed by the National Resource Sharing Centre. These agreements set out the arrangements for interstate assistance between Australian fire services, emergency services, and land management agencies in those states and territories.

These mutual support arrangements may assist during state-based fire events. However, when there are competing demands for resources, such as during the bushfires of 2019–2020, there can be limits on fleet availability. During the 2019–2020 fires, resources were stretched in all jurisdictions as these fires affected NSW, Victoria, and Queensland.

There are opportunities for the RFS and other NSW agencies to quantify fleet resources across the State and identify assets that can be mobilised for different fire activities. This form of fleet planning may be used to enhance surge capabilities during times of high fire activity. There are also opportunities for the RFS and other agencies to match the levels of shared assets to projected bushfire risks.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies 

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 #376 - released 27 February 2023