Reports
Regional NSW 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Regional NSW cluster agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for Regional NSW cluster agencies. Two audits are ongoing.
What the key issues were
The Department of Regional NSW (the department) and Local Land Services (LLS) accepted changes to their office leasing arrangements managed by Property NSW.
These changes resulted in the collective derecognition of $100.6 million of rights-of-use-assets and $110.4 million of lease liabilities.
In 2021–22, the cluster agencies continued to assist communities in their recovery from recent weather emergencies, including significant flooding in New South Wales.
The Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation was established in May 2022 to rebuild communities in the Lismore and Northern Rivers region impacted by floods.
The number of matters reported to management decreased from 36 in 2020–21 to 14 in 2021–22.
Five moderate risk issues were identified and 14% of reported issues were repeat issues.
One moderate risk issue was a repeat issue related to Local Land Services' annual fair value assessment of the asset improvements on land reserves used for moving stock.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Regional NSW cluster 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 cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
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 cluster.
Section highlights
|
Health 2022
What the report is about
Result of Health cluster (the cluster) agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for the financial statements for all Health cluster agencies.
The COVID-19 pandemic continued to increase the complexity and number of accounting matters faced by the cluster. The total gross value of corrected misstatements in 2021–22 was $353.3 million, of which $186.7 million related to an increase in the impairment provision for Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs).
A qualified audit opinion was issued on the Annual Prudential Compliance Statement related to five residential aged care facilities. There were 20 instances (19 in 2020–21) of non-compliance with the prudential responsibilities within the Aged Care Act 1997.
What the key issues were
The total number of matters we reported to management across the cluster decreased from 116 in 2020–21 to 67 in 2021–22. Of the 67 issues raised, four were high risk (three in 2020-21) and 37 were moderate risk (57 in 2020–21). Nearly half of all control deficiencies reported in 2021–22 were repeat issues.
Three unresolved high-risk issues were:
-
COVID-19 inventories impairment – we continued to identify issues relating to management’s impairment model which relies on anticipated future consumption patterns. RATs had not been assessed for impairment.
-
Asset capitalisation threshold – management has not reviewed the appropriateness of the asset capitalisation threshold since 2006.
-
Forced-finalisation of HealthRoster time records – we continued to observe unapproved rosters being finalised by system administrators so payroll can be processed on time. 2.6 million time records were processed in this way in 2021–22.
What we recommended
-
COVID-19 inventories impairment – ensure consumption patterns are supported by relevant data and plans.
-
Assets capitalisation threshold – undertake further review of the appropriateness of applying a $10,000 threshold before capitalising expenditure on property, plant and equipment.
-
Forced-finalisation of HealthRoster time records – develop a methodology to quantify the potential monetary value of unapproved rosters being finalised.
This report provides Parliament and other users of Health cluster (the cluster) agencies' financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
-
financial reporting
-
audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Health cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
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 cluster.
Section highlights
|
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 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.
New South Wales COVID-19 vaccine rollout
What the report is about
The Australian Government led and implemented the Australian COVID-19 vaccine rollout, with the support of state and territory governments. As part of the Australian Government's vaccine rollout, NSW Health launched its vaccination program on 22 February 2021, with responsibility for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccine stock provided by the Australian Government.
This audit examined the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 and focused on NSW Health's contribution to the Australian Government led vaccine roll out in four Local Health Districts (LHDs), in particular the administration of two doses of vaccine to people aged 16 and over.
What we found
On 16 October 2021, NSW Health, in partnership with the Australian Government's vaccination program, achieved its first objective to fully vaccinate 80% of people in NSW aged 16 and over. Demand for the vaccine reduced in December 2021, and NSW Health did not reach its target of 95% fully vaccinated for people aged 16 and over until June 2022.
Despite challenges such as uncertain supply and changes to clinical advice affecting vaccine eligibility, NSW Health's overall delivery of vaccination services was effective and efficient.
During the audit period, NSW Health implemented effective strategies to allocate vaccines and reduce wastage to optimise the number of vaccines available.
NSW Health implemented its own booking system after it identified that the Australian Government's system would not manage bookings. There were problems with NSW Health's interim vaccine booking system, and NSW Health fully resolved these issues by September 2021.
As at 19 October 2022, vaccination rates for Aboriginal peoples and culturally and linguistically diverse people remained below the 95% target.
What we recommended
By June 2023, NSW Health should conduct a comprehensive review of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and incorporate lessons learned into pandemic response plans.
The first three cases of COVID-19 in New South Wales were diagnosed in January 2020. By 30 June 2021, 128 people were being treated in hospital and one person was in intensive care. By the end of December 2021, 187,504 total cases and 663 deaths were reported in New South Wales. As at 27 October 2022, NSW Health reported more than three million total cases and 5,430 deaths.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact on the people and the health sector of New South Wales. The Australian, state, territory, and local governments have directed significant resources towards health responses and economic recovery.
On 13 November 2020, National Cabinet (comprised of the Australian, state, and territory governments) endorsed the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. Australia's vaccination program was launched on 21 February 2021 with the goal of providing safe and effective vaccines to the people who most needed them as quickly as possible, to support the physical, mental and economic wellbeing of the nation.
The Australian Government led and implemented the Australian vaccine rollout, with the support of state and territory governments. As part of the Australian Government's vaccine rollout, NSW Health launched its vaccination program on 22 February 2021, with responsibility for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccine stock provided by the Australian Government.
The overall objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of NSW Health’s contribution to the Australian COVID-19 vaccine rollout. It is important to note that in New South Wales, primary care providers (GPs and pharmacies) and aged care providers administered the majority of vaccines. Primary care providers and aged care providers are the responsibility of the Australian Government.
The audit had a particular focus on whether NSW Health:
- set clear vaccination targets underpinned and/or guided by evidence
- managed the rollout of the vaccination program effectively and efficiently
- managed demand of vaccines effectively and efficiently.
The audit examined the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 and focused on NSW Health's contribution to the Australian Government led vaccine rollout in four Local Health Districts (LHDs), in particular the administration of two doses of vaccine to people aged 16 and over. We did not audit the subsequent rollout for ages five to 15, or the booster rollout (third and fourth doses) as these activities mostly occurred outside the date of our review.
This audit also did not assess the Australian Government’s allocation of vaccine supplies to New South Wales because we do not audit the Australian Government's activities. On 17 August 2022, the Australian National Audit Office completed a performance audit which assessed the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care's effectiveness in the planning and implementation of Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
This audit is one of a series of audits that have been completed or are in progress regarding the New South Wales COVID-19 emergency response. This includes the planned performance audit ‘Coordination of the response to COVID-19 (June to November 2021)’, and financial audit assurance activities focusing on Local Health District processes and controls to manage the receipt, distribution and inventory management of vaccine stock. The Audit Office New South Wales '2022–25 Annual Work Program' details the ongoing focus our audits will have on providing assurance on the effectiveness of emergency responses.
Conclusion
By 12 December 2021, NSW Health had administered two doses of vaccines to one third of eligible people in New South Wales aged 16 and over – contributing significantly to the achievement of the NSW Government vaccination target of 80% fully vaccinated before 31 December 2021. Despite challenges such as uncertain supply and changes to clinical advice affecting vaccine eligibility, NSW Health's overall delivery of vaccination services was effective and efficient.
NSW Health implemented its own booking system after it identified that the Australian Government's system would not manage bookings. There were problems with NSW Health's interim vaccine booking system, and NSW Health fully resolved these issues by September 2021.
Vaccination levels in some vulnerable populations remain below the 95% double dose target currently in place. Access to quality data to regularly measure vaccination rates in some vulnerable populations remains an ongoing challenge for the NSW and Australian Governments. As a result, NSW Health is unable to fully ensure it has delivered on its shared responsibility with the Australian Government to vaccinate vulnerable people.
NSW Health managed challenges regarding the uncertain supply of vaccines from the Australian Government and filled gaps beyond its agreed responsibilities in the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response. During the Delta outbreak of the pandemic, NSW Health sought to achieve the best possible public health outcome from limited vaccine supply by opening up additional vaccination clinics in highly affected areas and redistributing vaccine supplies from areas with fewer cases to highly affected local government areas in south west Sydney.
During the audit period, NSW Health implemented effective strategies to allocate vaccines and reduce wastage to optimise the number of vaccines available. Our financial audit report, 'Health 2022', includes additional information on vaccine supply stock held by NSW Health.
NSW Health demonstrated agility by using a range of strategies to promote vaccination, including direct engagement with communities to develop culturally appropriate services such as pop-up clinics. NSW Heath recruited prominent community members, such as faith leaders, elders and sportspeople, to promote vaccination within their communities. However, at the date of this report, there are still vulnerable populations with vaccination rates lower than the current 95% double dose vaccination target. There is also a lack of regularly updated data for some cohorts which prevents NSW Health from accurately monitoring vaccination rates in some populations it has identified as vulnerable.
In March 2021, NSW Health identified that the booking system provided by the Australian Government was an online directory of vaccine clinics and would not manage bookings. To overcome this, NSW Health amended an internal-use system to be publicly facing. This solution was not user-friendly for staff or those seeking to make an appointment. Between June to September 2021, NSW Health progressively resolved booking system related issues, by developing and rolling out a new purpose-built booking solution for NSW Health vaccination clinics.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Australian audits on the vaccine rollouts
Appendix three – Committee members
Appendix four – About the audit
Appendix five – 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 #369 - released 7 December 2022
Education 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Education cluster financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for Education cluster agencies.
An 'other matter' paragraph was included in the TAFE Commission's independent auditor's report as it did not have a delegation or sub-delegation from the Minister for Education and Early Learning to incur expenditure from cluster grants.
What the key issues were
Annual fair value assessments of land and buildings showed material differences in their carrying values. As a result, the Department of Education and the TAFE Commission completed desktop revaluations of land and buildings, collectively increasing the value of these assets by $1.2 billion and $4.7 billion respectively.
The Department of Education and the NSW Education Standards Authority accepted changes to their office leasing arrangements managed by Property NSW. These changes resulted in the collective derecognition of $270.6 million of right-of-use assets and $382.9 million in lease liabilities.
What we recommended
A high-risk matter was reported in the management letter for the TAFE Commission highlighting non-compliance with policies and procedures guiding appropriate use of purchasing cards.
We recommended cluster agencies prioritise and address internal control deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Education cluster’s 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 Education cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
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 Education cluster.
Section highlights
|
The number of findings reported to management has increased, and 31% were repeat issues
Breakdowns and weaknesses in internal controls increase the risk of fraud and error. Deficiencies in internal controls, matters of governance interest and unresolved issues were reported to management and those charged with governance of agencies. The Audit Office does this through management letters, which include observations, related implications, recommendations and risk ratings.
In 2021–22, there were 29 findings raised across the cluster (28 in 2020–21). Thirty-one per cent of all issues were repeat issues (50% in 2020–21).
The most common new and repeat issues related to internal control deficiencies in agencies’ information technology general controls, application controls, and procurement and payroll practices.
A delay in implementing audit recommendations increases the risk of intentional and accidental errors in processing information, producing management reports and generating financial statements. This can impair decision-making, affect service delivery and expose agencies to fraud, financial loss and reputational damage. Poor controls may also mean agency staff are less likely to follow internal policies, inadvertently causing the agency not to comply with legislation, regulation and central agency policies.
A high-risk matter was reported at the TAFE Commission highlighting instances of non-compliance with policies and procedures guiding appropriate purchasing card use
As part of our audit of the TAFE Commission, we integrated the use of data analytics into the audit approach. We performed data analytics over aspects of payroll, procurement and accounts payable activities. This helped us to highlight anomalies or risks in those data sets that are relevant to the audit of the TAFE Commission and plan testing procedures to address those risks. Data analytics also assisted us in providing an insight into the internal control environment of the TAFE Commission, highlighting areas where key controls are not in place or are not operating as management intended.
Our analysis over purchasing card data supplied by the TAFE Commission for the period July 2021 to March 2022 found deficiencies in the provisioning, use and cancellation of purchasing cards. This included identified instances of:
- controls effectively bypassed when a purchasing card surrendered by a former employee had been used by another employee
- split payments, circumventing delegation / cardholder limits
- delays in the submission and approval of purchasing card transactions.
The table below describes the common issues identified across the cluster by category and risk rating:
| Risk rating | Issue |
| Information technology | |
|
High: 0 new, 0 repeat 1 Moderate: 5 new, 3 repeat 2 Low: 2 new, 1 repeat 3 |
The financial audits identified areas for agencies to improve information technology processes and controls that support the integrity of financial data used to prepare agencies' financial statements. Of note were deficiencies identified in:
|
| Internal control deficiencies or improvements | |
|
High: 1 new, 0 repeat 1 Moderate: 5 new, 3 repeat 2 Low: 4 new, 1 repeat 3 |
The financial audits identified internal control weaknesses across key business processes relevant to financial reporting. Of note were deficiencies identified in:
|
| Financial reporting | |
|
High: 0 new, 0 repeat 1 Moderate: 1 new, 1 repeat 2 Low: 2 new, 0 repeat 3 |
The financial audits identified:
|
2 Moderate risk from the consequence and/or likelihood of an event that has had, or may have a negative impact on the entity.
3 Low risk from the consequence and/or likelihood of an event that has had, or may have a negative impact on the entity.
Recommendation
We recommend cluster agencies prioritise and action recommendations to address the internal control deficiencies outlined above.
Customer Service 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Customer Service cluster agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for Customer Service cluster agencies.
What the key issues were
The number and size of Service NSW's administered grant programs have increased significantly in response to emergency events. Improvements are required to address gaps in Service NSW's policies, systems and processes in administering and financial reporting of grant programs.
The Department of Customer Service (the department) reported a retrospective correction of a prior period error of $33.3 million understatement of the land titling database, which is a service concession asset managed by a private operator.
The 2021–22 audits identified five high-risk issues across the cluster:
- the department:
- control weaknesses in user access to GovConnect systems
- significant control deficiencies in information technology change management controls
- Rental Bond Board:
- legislation amendment required to better support the accounting treatment of rental bonds
- no delegation instrument to government officers authorising them to approve expenditures
- Service NSW:
- improvements required in the timeliness and quality of grant administration revenue assessment and controls over the recovery of grant administration costs.
Recommendations were made to address these deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Customer Service cluster's 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 Customer Service cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
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 Customer Service cluster.
Section highlights
|
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 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.
Premier and Cabinet 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Premier and Cabinet cluster financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all Premier and Cabinet cluster agencies.
The machinery of government changes within the Premier and Cabinet cluster resulted in the transfer of net assets of $1 billion from the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
The Department of Premier and Cabinet, Public Service Commission and Parliamentary Counsel's Office accepted changes to their office leasing arrangements managed by Property NSW. These changes resulted in the collective de-recognition of $167.3 million of right-of-use assets, $225.1 million in lease liabilities and recognition of $47.8 million of other gains/losses.
What the key issues were
The number of issues we reported to management decreased.
Forty per cent of issues were repeated from the prior year.
Four moderate risk issues were reported in the management letters for Department of Premier and Cabinet and New South Wales Electoral Commission. Three out of the four moderate risk issues were repeat issues.
The repeat issues related to internal control deficiencies in agencies' including lack of updated procurement policies and procedures and information technology general controls.
Fast facts
The Premier and Cabinet cluster comprises seven agencies, delivering the government's objectives and facilitating stewardship of the public service.
- $0.2b property, plant and equipment as at 30 June 2022
- $3b total expenditure incurred in 2021–22
- 100% unqualified audit opinions issued on agencies’ 30 June 2022 financial statements
- 4 moderate risk findings identified
- 15 monetary misstatements reported in 2021–22
- 40% of reported issues were repeat issues
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Premier and Cabinet’s 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 Premier and Cabinet cluster for 2022.
Section highlights
|
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 Premier and Cabinet cluster.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – Early close procedures
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.
Student attendance
What the report is about
Poor attendance at school is related to poor student outcomes, particularly once patterns of non-attendance have been established.
This report examined how the NSW Department of Education (the department) is managing student attendance in NSW government schools.
What we found
Around a third of students in Years 1–10 attended school less than 90% of the time in semester one, 2021. Missing more than 10% of school may put a student's educational outcomes at risk.
Since 2018, the department has improved the quality of student attendance data, analysis and reporting. However, there are still gaps in understanding the reasons for absence at a system level.
The department set state-wide and school-level targets to increase the proportion of students attending school at least 90% of the time. This emphasis risks diverting attention away from students with very low attendance rates.
There are gaps in central programs to support schools in lifting student attendance. Schools are taking a variety of approaches to this work.
There is a large gap in attendance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, which has increased since 2018.
What we recommended
The Department of Education should:
- set new state-wide and school level attendance targets
- evaluate its attendance support programs
- update its attendance strategies and programs
- publish the attendance level for each school in their annual reports
- improve internal analysis and reporting of attendance data
- finalise the review of the attendance policy, procedure and codes
- review programs supporting Aboriginal student attendance and address any gaps
- review the approach to enforcing compulsory school attendance.
Fast facts
- 90% - attending school less than 90% of the time can put a student's educational outcomes at risk
- 67.9% of Year 1–10 students in NSW government schools attended at least 90% of the time in semester one, 2021
- 42.7% of Aboriginal Year 1–10 students in NSW government schools attended school at least 90% of the time in semester one, 2021.
Regular attendance at school is important for academic and other long-term outcomes. Students who do not attend regularly are less likely to complete school and more likely to experience poorer long-term health and social outcomes. A range of factors influence student attendance including student engagement and wellbeing, family and community factors and the school environment.
The NSW Department of Education's (the department's) Strategic Plan for 2018–2022 identifies improving student attendance as a priority. It has identified 95% as its expected level of attendance. It set targets to increase the proportion of students attending school at least 90% of the time, from 79.4% to 82% in primary schools and 64.5% to 70% for secondary schools.
This report focuses on attendance data for semester one of 2018, 2019 and 2021. Unless otherwise noted, attendance data refers to Years 1–10 in alignment with national reporting conventions. Changes in recording systems and definitions mean attendance data prior to 2018 is not comparable. Attendance data for semester one of 2020 and 2022 was significantly affected by COVID-related disruptions, which prevented many students across the State from attending school. Data for semester one of 2021 is considered relatively less affected by COVID-related disruptions.
The Education Act 1990 (the Act) sets out the responsibilities of students, parents and the department for ensuring students receive compulsory schooling. The department has developed policies, procedures and guidance to assist schools in managing their responsibilities to promote regular attendance. In this report, we define 'regular' attendance as at least 90% of the time. This is equivalent to missing one day of school each fortnight or four weeks of school across a school year.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether student attendance is effectively managed in NSW government schools for students from kindergarten to Year 10. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:
- there are effective systems and policies for managing student attendance
- the department effectively supports schools to manage student attendance
- schools are effectively managing student attendance.
Conclusion
There are too many students in NSW Government schools who regularly miss school. In semester one of 2021, around a third of students in Years 1–10 attended school less than 90% of the time — a level that puts their educational outcomes at risk. Attendance problems are widespread. 775 of 2,200 schools in NSW had an average attendance rate below 90% in 2021. Aboriginal student attendance is significantly below non-Aboriginal students and there is no specific strategy to address this gap. The department needs to place greater attention on supporting schools to lift student attendance.
Good quality data on attendance patterns is critical to developing strategies to address the underlying reasons for absence. The quality of the department's data on student attendance has improved from 2018. This has allowed it to monitor attendance more closely throughout the year, rather than relying on a yearly collection. However, there are still gaps in capturing and analysing the reasons for absence.
The improved data collection allowed the department to begin reporting on the 'attendance level' for the first time in 2018. This measures the proportion of students attending more than 90% of the time. The department has set state-wide and school-level targets to improve the attendance level. The new targets have influenced the focus of strategies to lift attendance. There is now a greater focus on lifting students above the reportable benchmark of 90% rather than addressing more serious attendance concerns.
The School Success Model formalises the focus on achieving school-level targets. When introduced, the department stated that schools would receive targeted support as part of the rollout of the model. Targeted support for attendance was initially planned to be delivered in late 2021 but was delayed due to the impact of COVID. The two main attendance support programs do not cater to schools with fewer than 100 students and there are gaps in support due to two different methodologies being used to select schools.
The Home School Liaison Program is a longstanding program to support students with low attendance. Requests for support are rationed pending availability of case officers, which leads to younger students being prioritised. Older students are not supported because there is a lower chance of prosecution in the legal system if attendance is not restored by the program. There is insufficient monitoring of the adequacy of resources, activities and long-term outcomes of this program.
The department's Aboriginal Education Policy aims to have Aboriginal students matching or exceeding outcomes of non-Aboriginal students. In semester one, 2021 42.7% of Aboriginal students attended school regularly (at least 90% of the time) compared with 70.3% of non-Aboriginal students. The gap in attendance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students has grown since 2018. There are relatively new programs supporting Aboriginal students in secondary school to attain their Higher School Certificate, but greater attention should be placed on supporting attendance for Aboriginal students in primary schools.
Schools are using a wide range of strategies to improve student attendance depending on their local contexts. Schools we spoke with told us of allocating responsibility to key staff members, closer monitoring of data, community engagement, rewards and incentives, before school sporting and breakfast programs, and partnerships with external agencies. The school planning and annual reporting process prompts schools to evaluate the impact of their strategies on progress towards their targets. The department could do more to promote evidence-based programs, showcase better practice examples from schools in NSW and identify the circumstances where these approaches are most effective.
This chapter considers the effectiveness of systems to accurately collect, analyse and report student attendance data. It also considers the effectiveness of policies and procedures to support attendance and central oversight of attendance issues.
This chapter considers the effectiveness of the department's strategies to improve student attendance and the support it provides to schools to achieve this. It also considers the effectiveness of school-level strategies and actions for students with low attendance.
Appendix one – Response from agency
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 #368 - released 27 September 2022
Effectiveness of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme
What the report is about
This audit examined whether the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and the Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) have effectively designed and implemented the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (‘the Scheme’) to compensate for the loss of biodiversity due to development.
Under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the Scheme enables landholders to establish in-perpetuity Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements on sites to generate credits for the unique biodiversity on that land. These credits can be sold to offset the negative impact of development on biodiversity.
What we found
DPE has not effectively designed core elements of the Scheme. DPE did not establish a clear strategic plan to guide the implementation of the Scheme.
The BCT has various roles in the Scheme but lacked safeguards against potential conflicts, creating risks to credit supply.
The effectiveness of its implementation has also been limited. Key concerns around the Scheme’s transparency, sustainability and integrity are yet to be fully resolved.
A market-based approach to biodiversity offsetting is central to the Scheme's operation but credit supply is lacking and poorly matched to growing demand. DPE has not established a clear, resourced plan to manage the shortage in credit supply. Data about the market, published by the DPE and the BCT, does not provide an adequate picture of credit supply, demand and price to readily support market participation.
These factors create a risk that biodiversity gains made through the Scheme will not be sufficient to offset losses resulting from development, and that the DPE will not be able to assess the Scheme’s overall effectiveness.
DPE is leading work with the BCT to improve the Scheme, but this is not yet guided by a long-term strategy with clear goals.
What we recommended
The audit made 11 recommendations to DPE and the BCT, focusing on:
- a long-term strategic plan for the Scheme
- improvements to the operation and transparency of the market and credit supply
- frameworks to ensure the financial and ecological sustainability of biodiversity stewardship sites
- enhanced public reporting and data management
- resolving issues in conflicting governance and oversight.
Fast facts
- 96% – proportion of developer demand for species credits not met by current supply
- 97% – proportion of species credits that have never been traded on the biodiversity market
- 60% – proportion of the 226 Biodiversity Stewardship sites under active land management
- $90m – value of developers’ obligations paid directly into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund
- 20% – proportion of developer obligations transferred to the BCT that have been acquitted.
The NSW Government's Biodiversity Outlook Report 2020 estimates that, without effective management, only 50% of species and 59% of ecological communities that are listed as threatened in New South Wales will still exist in 100 years. The NSW State of the Environment 2021 report identifies habitat destruction and native vegetation clearing as presenting the single greatest threat to biodiversity in the State.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), biodiversity offsets are 'measurable conservation outcomes that result from actions designed to compensate for significant, residual biodiversity loss from development projects'. The OECD states that a feature of such schemes is that biodiversity offsets are intended to be implemented as the 'final step of a mitigation hierarchy' whereby reasonable first steps are taken to avoid and minimise the negative impacts.
The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme was established in 2017 under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to 'maintain a healthy, productive and resilient environment for the greatest well-being of the community, now and into the future, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development'.
The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) designed and manages this Scheme. Under the Act, a feature of the Scheme is a 'market-based conservation mechanism through which the impacts to biodiversity can be offset.' The Scheme enables landholders to establish in-perpetuity Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements (BSAs) on sites to generate biodiversity credits, which can be sold to offset the negative impact of development on biodiversity. BSA sites are intended to be managed over the long term to generate the biodiversity gains required to offset the impact.
The Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) monitors and supports landholders to manage BSA sites under the Scheme. This includes making payments to landholders from funds held in the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund for undertaking the required biodiversity management actions.
This Scheme was preceded by several other offsetting schemes in New South Wales, including the BioBanking scheme that started in 2008. DPE has arrangements to transition sites, credits, and offset obligations from this and other previous schemes.
The current biodiversity credit market in New South Wales consists of 1394 different types of ecosystem credits, which are approved to be traded in 364 different offset trading groups, and 867 different species credits. Trading rules, set out in the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (the Regulation), prioritise offsetting the obligations of a development with like-for-like ecosystem or species credits.
The Scheme is implemented through the planning system in New South Wales. Proposed development that involves the clearing of native vegetation, and meets certain thresholds, is required to undertake a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. These reports determine an offset obligation, in biodiversity credits, to compensate for the biodiversity loss proposed. These reports are considered by consent authorities (such as a council, for local development, or by the Minister for Planning for major projects). An offset obligation is then included in the conditions of development approval.
In addition to establishing a market for trading between developers, with offset obligations, and landholders, who sell credits from their BSA sites, the Scheme allows developers to pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund and transfer their obligations to the BCT. This allows the developer to proceed with their project. The BCT must then meet these acquired obligations by buying the required credits, or by undertaking other approved activities set out in the Regulation. The BCT has more options than developers on how and when it acquits its obligations.
This audit examined whether DPE and the BCT have effectively designed and implemented the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme to compensate for the loss of biodiversity due to development.
Conclusion
The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) has not effectively designed core elements of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. DPE did not establish a clear strategy to develop the biodiversity credit market or determine whether the Scheme’s operation and outcomes are consistent with the purposes of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.
The effectiveness of the Scheme's implementation by DPE and the BCT has been limited. A market-based approach to biodiversity offsetting is central to the Scheme's operation but credit supply is lacking and poorly matched to growing demand: this includes a potential undersupply of in-demand credits for numerous endangered species. Key concerns around the Scheme’s integrity, transparency, and sustainability are also yet to be fully resolved. As such, there is a risk that biodiversity gains made through the Scheme will not be sufficient to offset losses resulting from the impacts of development, and that DPE will not be able to assess the Scheme’s overall effectiveness.
DPE developed the Scheme following a 2014 review of the State's biodiversity legislation and building on previous offsetting arrangements in New South Wales. At the time the Scheme commenced in 2017, DPE lacked a strategic plan to guide its implementation, set clear outcomes and performance measures, and respond effectively to risks. DPE did establish a detailed scientific method for assessing biodiversity impacts under the Scheme and a system for accrediting assessors to undertake this technical work. These are important foundations for the robustness of the Scheme.
The Scheme has been in place for five years, but the biodiversity credit market is not well developed. Most credit types have never been traded. Also, according to DPE data, around 90% of demand cannot be matched to credit supply – and there is likely to be a substantial credit undersupply for at least seven endangered flora species, three endangered fauna species, and eight threatened ecological communities. Credit demand is projected to grow – especially in relation to the NSW Government’s $112.7 billion four-year infrastructure pipeline.
As with any market, potential participants need information about demand and price in order to understand risks and opportunities. But information about the biodiversity credit market, published by DPE and the BCT, does not provide an adequate picture of credit supply, demand and price to support market participation. This can create uncertainty for landholders who may be weighing the costs and benefits of establishing Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) sites, and for development proponents who need to know whether they can purchase sufficient credits and at what price. Development proponents who lack market information are being incentivised to meet their offset obligations by paying into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund, which is managed by the BCT. This option provides developers with more certainty that enables them to progress their projects, but does not result in the development being offset until the BCT later acquits the obligation.
The BCT has multiple roles in the Scheme. These include setting-up and administering BSAs which generate credits, acquiring offset obligations from developers who pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund, and purchasing credits to meet its acquired obligations. There have been inadequate safeguards to mitigate the potential for conflicts between these roles. As the BCT directs its efforts towards facilitating BSA sites and purchasing credits to meet its obligations, there is a risk that government is insufficiently focused on supporting overall credit supply.
DPE has begun developing a credit supply strategy. Its absence, and a lack of clarity around responsibility for credit supply under the Scheme, has contributed to the significant risk of insufficient and poorly matched credits to meet the growing demand. The BCT's acquired obligations from developers have been increasing year-on-year, and are likely to continue to grow.
There is a risk that the BCT will not have sufficient funds to acquit its growing obligations with like-for-like credits, which could result in sub-optimal biodiversity outcomes. The Scheme rules allow the BCT to acquit its obligations with measures other than like-for-like credits. DPE has not provided clear guidance to the BCT on when or how to do so, or how this would fulfil the 'no net loss' of biodiversity standard.
There are transparency and integrity risks to the Scheme. DPE does not maintain a public register of biodiversity credits with complete information, including credits' transaction histories, consistent with the legislative intent for a single register. DPE also does not have ready access to information to check that developments have been acquitted with the required credits.
Risks to the sustainability of the Scheme and its outcomes remain. DPE and the BCT have not yet implemented a decision-making and intervention framework to ensure adequate initial and ongoing funding for the long-term management of new and existing BSA sites. DPE also did not collect ecological data from sites under previous schemes before they were transitioned, and BCT only introduced ecological monitoring requirements for new BSA sites in March 2021. The lack of monitoring requirements creates a risk that the biodiversity gains, which BSA sites are required to generate to offset biodiversity losses, will not be measured and achieved under the Scheme.
This section presents an overview of the status of the biodiversity credit market in New South Wales. It describes development of the market under the Scheme in the context of transitional arrangements from previous schemes, and the extent of market participation and transactions to date. It also presents information about emerging trends in credit demand and supply.
Background
A purpose of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act) is to establish a market-based conservation mechanism through which impacts on biodiversity can be offset. Sufficient credits of appropriate types, which are well matched to demand, are necessary for enough transactions to inform prices and enable efficient like-for-like offsetting. For transactions to occur efficiently in the market, participants require reliable and easy-to-access information about supply, demand and price.
The Scheme was established in 2017 with an existing credit supply and offset obligations (credit demand) as regulations had been introduced to preserve and transition credits and obligations from previous schemes including the BioBanking Scheme, which started in 2008.
Credits under the BioBanking scheme are referred to as 'BBAM credits', and credits under the current Scheme are referred to as 'BAM credits'. BBAM credits are still available, and the transitional arrangements enable DPE to determine the 'reasonable equivalence' of these to the current Scheme's credit numbers and classes. DPE has stated that reasonable equivalence of credits is based on ecological not financial equivalence.
This section assesses the clarity and alignment of the goals of the Scheme to key features of its design and operations. It also examines structural elements of the Scheme that aim to maintain integrity within administering agencies, and the status of actions to address risks or issues.
Background
The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act) sets out the legal framework for the Scheme. Given the complexities, financial interests, and range of stakeholders associated with the Scheme, it requires strong safeguards. Transparency and assurances around the Scheme's integrity are also relevant to participants' confidence in it, which in turn is important for market development.
Core components of the Scheme, identified in section 1.3 of the Act, are to be consistent with the ‘principles of ecologically sustainable development’.
The Act and other administrative arrangements of government allocate responsibility to DPE and the Minister for Environment and Heritage for the Scheme’s design and elements of its implementation. This includes responsibility for the Scheme’s policy, legislative and regulatory framework.
Responsibility is allocated to the BCT for implementing and operating certain elements of the Scheme. This includes administering Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements (which generate credits) and securing offsets on behalf of development proponents who pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund to meet their offset obligations.
This broad legislative framework is not intended to detail responsibilities for the full range of roles and activities that agencies need to take to implement and regulate the Scheme effectively, and ensure its good governance. Agencies should do this as part of sound and transparent public administration.
This section assesses how effectively components of the Scheme have been designed and are being implemented to provide assurance that the impacts of development are being avoided and minimised such that only ‘unavoidable’ impacts remain to be offset. The section also assesses whether the Scheme and its market embeds the necessary controls to ensure that obligations are offset as required.
Background
The Biodiversity Assessment Method, and the quality of its application by DPE-Accredited Assessors, is critical to the robustness the Scheme. The method is designed to be applied to avoid and minimise impacts at proposed development sites before identifying offset obligations. The effectiveness of Scheme outcomes requires that obligations are offset with the retirement of the necessary and appropriate credits.
The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act) requires the relevant Minister (the current Minister for Environment and Heritage) to establish a method for the purpose of assessing the impacts of actions on threatened species and ecological communities.
The Act also specifies that this method must be applied by an accredited person. DPE is responsible for the design and implementation of this accreditation system, arrangements for which are set out in an instrument under the Act.
A Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is a report by a DPE-Accredited Assessor using the Biodiversity Assessment Method. These reports assess the biodiversity impacts of the proposed development and establish offset obligations as part of the development approval process. It is important that local councils and other development consent authorities understand and can assess the quality of these reports.
DPE manages the process of ‘retiring’ credits against the identified offset obligations. Once a credit is retired it cannot be reused to acquit another obligation, which is critical to Scheme outcomes. DPE is also responsible for maintaining records of credit transactions, which results in a legally binding transfer of credit ownership from seller to buyer.
This section assesses how effectively the supply of biodiversity credits has been supported by encouraging and enabling landholders to participate in the Scheme. It also assesses whether sufficient action is underway to address issues and risks to the establishment of BSA sites, especially in the context of known credit supply issues (section 2).
Background
Credit supply is generated when a landholder establishes a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) on their land. Establishing a BSA site requires landholders agree to an in-perpetuity management plan, so it is important that they have sufficient support and access to relevant information about risks and opportunities when deciding to do so. Ensuring adequate credits supply underpins the Scheme's ability to deliver the intended biodiversity outcomes.
A landholder establishes an offset site through a BSA, which is a legal agreement with the Minister of Environment and Heritage (delegated to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust). The BSA is registered on the title of the land.
DPE-Accredited Assessors develop Biodiversity Stewardship Site Assessment Reports, which are submitted by landholders to the BCT as part of the BSA application. These reports apply the Biodiversity Assessment Method to detail the number and types of credits that a BSA site is expected to generate by implementing a 20-year management plan. The BCT issues credits to landholders on registration of the BSA.
Ensuring an adequate and appropriate supply of credits is important so that like-for-like matches between credits and obligations can be efficiently secured in a timely way. This minimises the use of offset variation rules, and can avoid potential delays in developers securing appropriate offsets to meet their offset obligations. It also makes it easier for the BCT to locate the necessary credits to acquit the obligations it acquires from developers.
This section assesses how effectively BSA sites, which need to be managed by landholders to generate the biodiversity gains represented by credits, are regulated and supported by the Biodiversity Conservation Trust. It also assesses whether actions have been taken to address identified risks to the suitability of funds required to ensure long-term BSA site management.
Background
For Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) sites to achieve the expected biodiversity gains to offset losses from development impact, they need sufficient funding for the required management actions, and to be effectively regulated and supported over the long-term. Funding for these sites is generated through the returns on landholders' initial investment (Total Fund Deposit). The BCT is required to monitor landholders' compliance with BSAs and should also ensure ecological outcomes on sites are measured.
DPE and the BCT are responsible for developing and implementing a system of oversight to ensure the implementation of management actions at BSA sites is delivering the intended outcomes in a financially and environmentally sustainable way. The agencies' key mechanisms for delivering this are:
- calculating the costs of the required land management actions in perpetuity
- annual reporting systems for monitoring compliance with land management requirements
- reporting systems for monitoring ecological outcomes arising from land management actions.
Landholders are required to pay the required Total Fund Deposit amount for their BSA accounts into the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund, which is held in trust and managed by the BCT. A costing tool is used by landholders to calculate the value of the deposit, based on the required management payments (in perpetuity), administrative fees, and the discount rate applied.
The Total Fund Deposit can be paid upfront but is usually paid from the proceeds of the sale of credits. Once this occurs the BSA site becomes 'active' and management payments commence to enable the landholder to undertake the required management actions. BSA sites that have not yet sold enough credits to make the deposit are 'passive' sites that do not require active land management.
Sites in passive management for an extended duration present risks to biodiversity outcomes, and potentially to Scheme integrity, if the quality of credits is undermined due to an absence of active site management.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Like-for-like, variation and ancillary rules
Appendix three – Detail on progress of the IIAP
Appendix four – About the audit
Appendix five – 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 #367 - released 30 August 2022
Audit Insights 2018-2022
What the report is about
In this report, we have analysed the key findings and recommendations from our audit reports over the past four years.
This analysis includes financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits of state and local government entities that were tabled in NSW Parliament between July 2018 and February 2022.
The report is framed by recognition that the past four years have seen significant challenges and emergency events.
The scale of government responses to these events has been wide-ranging, involving emergency response coordination, service delivery, governance and policy.
The report is a resource to support public sector agencies and local government to improve future programs and activities.
What we found
Our analysis of findings and recommendations is structured around six key themes:
- Integrity and transparency
- Performance and monitoring
- Governance and oversight
- Cyber security and data
- System planning for disruption
- Resource management.
The report draws from this analysis to present recommendations for elements of good practice that government agencies should consider in relation to these themes. It also includes relevant examples from recent audit reports.
In this report we particularly call out threats to the integrity of government systems, processes and governance arrangements.
The report highlights the need for balanced advice to government on options and risks, for transparent documentation and reporting of directions and decisions, and for early and open sharing of information with integrity bodies and audit.
A number of the matters highlighted in this report are similar to those described in our previous Insights Report, (Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018) specifically in relation to cyber and information security, to performance measurement, reporting and evaluation, and system and workforce planning and capability.
Fast facts
- 72 audits included in the Audit Insights 2018–2022 analysis
- 4 years of audits tabled by the Auditor-General for New South Wales
- 6 key themes for Audit Insights 2018–2022.
I am pleased to present the Audit Insights 2018–2022 report. This report describes key findings, trends and lessons learned from the last four years of audit. It seeks to inform the New South Wales Parliament of key risks identified and to provide insights and suggestions to the agencies we audit to improve performance across the public sector.
The report is framed by a very clear recognition that governments have been responding to significant events, in number, character and scale, over recent years. Further, it acknowledges that public servants at both state and council levels generally bring their best selves to work and diligently strive to deliver great outcomes for citizens and communities. The role of audit in this context is to provide necessary assurance over government spending, programs and services, and make suggestions for continuous improvement.
A number of the matters highlighted in this report are similar to those described in our previous Insights Report, (Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018) specifically in relation to cyber and information security, to performance measurement, reporting and evaluation, and system and workforce planning and capability.
However, in this report we particularly call out threats to the integrity of government systems, processes and governance arrangements. We highlight the need for balanced advice to government on options and risks, for transparent documentation and reporting of directions and decisions, and for early and open sharing of information with integrity bodies and audit. Arguably, these considerations are never more important than in an increasingly complex environment and in the face of significant emergency events and they will be key areas of focus in our future audit program.
While we have acknowledged the challenges of the last few years have required rapid responses to address the short-term impacts of emergency events, there is much to be learned to improve future programs. I trust that the insights developed in this report provide a helpful resource to public sector agencies and local government across New South Wales. I would be pleased to receive any feedback you may wish to offer.
Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General for New South Wales
| Integrity and transparency | Performance and monitoring | Governance and oversight | Cyber security and data | System planning | Resource management |
| Insufficient documentation of decisions reduces the ability to identify, or rule out, misconduct or corruption. | Failure to apply lessons learned risks mistakes being repeated and undermines future decisions on the use of public funds. | The control environment should be risk-based and keep pace with changes in the quantum and diversity of agency work. | Building effective cyber resilience requires leadership and committed executive management, along with dedicated resourcing to build improvements in cyber security and culture. | Priorities to meet forecast demand should incorporate regular assessment of need and any emerging risks or trends. Absence of an overarching strategy to guide decision-making results in project-by-project decisions lacking coordination. | Governments must weigh up the cost of reliance on consultants at the expense of internal capability, and actively manage contracts and conflicts of interest. |
| Government entities should report to the public at both system and project level for transparency and accountability. | Government activities benefit from a clear statement of objectives and associated performance measures to support systematic monitoring and reporting on outcomes and impact. | Management of risk should include mechanisms to escalate risks, and action plans to mitigate risks with effective controls. | In implementing strategies to mitigate cyber risk, agencies must set target cyber maturity levels, and document their acceptance of cyber risks consistent with their risk appetite. | Service planning should establish future service offerings and service levels relative to current capacity, address risks to avoid or mitigate disruption of business and service delivery, and coordinate across other relevant plans and stakeholders. | Negotiations on outsourced services and major transactions must maintain focus on integrity and seeking value for public funds. |
| Entities must provide balanced advice to decision-makers on the benefits and risks of investments. | Benefits realisation should identify responsibility for benefits management, set baselines and targets for benefits, review during delivery, and evaluate costs and benefits post-delivery. | Active review of policies and procedures in line with current business activities supports more effective risk management. | Governments hold repositories of valuable data and data capabilities that should be leveraged and shared across government and non-government entities to improve strategic planning and forecasting. | Formal structures and systems to facilitate coordination between agencies is critical to more efficient allocation of resources and to facilitate a timely response to unexpected events. | Transformation programs can be improved by resourcing a program management office. |
| Clear guidelines and transparency of decisions are critical in distributing grant funding. | Quality assurance should underpin key inputs that support performance monitoring and accounting judgements. | Governance arrangements can enable input into key decisions from both government and non-government partners, and those with direct experience of complex issues. | Workforce planning should consider service continuity and ensure that specialist and targeted roles can be resourced and allocated to meet community need. | ||
| Governments must ensure timely and complete provision of information to support governance, integrity and audit processes. | |||||
| Read more | Read more | Read more | Read more | Read more | Read more |
This report brings together a summary of key findings arising from NSW Audit Office reports tabled in the New South Wales Parliament between July 2018 and February 2022. This includes analysis of financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits tabled over this period.
- Financial audits provide an independent opinion on the financial statements of NSW Government entities, universities and councils and identify whether they comply with accounting standards, relevant laws, regulations, and government directions.
- Performance audits determine whether government entities carry out their activities effectively, are doing so economically and efficiently, and in accordance with relevant laws. The activities examined by a performance audit may include a selected program or service, all or part of an entity, or more than one government entity. Performance audits can consider issues which affect the whole state and/or the local government sectors.
- Compliance audits and other assurance reviews are audits that assess whether specific legislation, directions, and regulations have been adhered to.
This report follows our earlier edition titled 'Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018'. That report sought to highlight issues and themes emerging from performance audit findings, and to share lessons common across government. In this report, we have analysed the key findings and recommendations from our reports over the past four years. The full list of reports is included in Appendix 1. The analysis included findings and recommendations from 58 performance audits, as well as selected financial and compliance reports tabled between July 2018 and February 2022. The number of recommendations and key findings made across different areas of activity and the top issues are summarised at Exhibit 1.
The past four years have seen unprecedented challenges and several emergency events, and the scale of government responses to these events has been wide-ranging involving emergency response coordination, service delivery, governance and policy. While these emergencies are having a significant impact today, they are also likely to continue to have an impact into the future. There is much to learn from the response to those events that will help the government sector to prepare for and respond to future disruption. The following chapters bring together our recommendations for core elements of good practice across a number of areas of government activity, along with relevant examples from recent audit reports.
This 'Audit Insights 2018–2022' report does not make comparative analysis of trends in public sector performance since our 2018 Insights report, but instead highlights areas where government continues to face challenges, as well as new issues that our audits have identified since our 2018 report. We will continue to use the findings of our Insights analysis to shape our future audit priorities, in line with our purpose to help Parliament hold government accountable for its use of public resources in New South Wales.
Appendix one – Included reports, 2018–2022
Appendix two – About this report
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.
Universities 2021
What the report is about
Results of the financial statement audits of the public universities in NSW for the year ended 31 December 2021.
What we found
Financial reporting
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all ten universities.
The University of Wollongong reported the retrospective correction of a prior period error relating to a $169 million contract termination liability.
All universities reported positive net results in 2021 (four in 2020) and each showed improvement from 2020. This was mainly due to expenditure decreasing by a combined $644 million (5.8%) from 2020. Universities implemented redundancy programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a decrease of nearly 2,300 full-time equivalent staff in 2021.
All universities held an investment in Education Australia Limited, which paid to its shareholders a fully franked dividend comprising cash and shares in IDP Education Limited. This increased the combined investment revenues of the universities by $515 million in 2021. However, it affected each university's net result differently depending on elections made in their historical accounting treatment.
Government grants increased by $442 million from 2020, of which $297 million related to the Commonwealth's 2021 additional Research Support Program funding to the NSW universities which was a COVID-19 support measure to the sector.
Over 43% of universities' course fees revenue comes from three countries (39% in 2020). Students from China now represent over half of all overseas student enrolments. A high level of reliance on student revenue from a single country poses a concentration risk for universities.
Internal controls
We reported 105 findings to universities on internal control deficiencies (110 in 2020).
Four high-risk findings were identified (three in 2020), relating to:
- the status of one university's work in assessing its liability for underpayment of staff
- IT control deficiencies over privileged user access
- control deficiencies that resulted in non-recognition of a liability in one university's prior year's financial statements
- a detailed review of payroll compliance for casual staff, which remains outstanding at one university.
There were 45 repeat findings of control deficiencies in 2021 (45 in 2020).
All universities have drafted or implemented a cybersecurity policy and established a governance committee accountable for cybersecurity. However, improvements could be made in:
- recording and monitoring of attempted cyber incidents
- assessing cyber risks relating to IT vendors
- implementation of cybersecurity control measures for key systems.
Four out of 13 entities experienced a significant cyber incident during 2021.
What we recommended
- Universities should prioritise actions to address repeat findings on internal control deficiencies, particularly where the issue has been repeated for a number of years.
- Universities and controlled entities should prioritise improvements to their cybersecurity and resilience.
Fast facts
There are ten public universities in NSW, with 52 controlled entities in Australia and 22 overseas controlled entities.
- $12b total combined adjusted revenue in 2021, an increase of $1.1 billion (10.5%) from 2020
- $10.4b total combined expenditure in 2021, a decrease of $644 million (5.8%) from 2020
- 79,134 overseas student enrolments in 2021, a decrease of 3,138 students (3.8%) from 2020
- 209,018 domestic student enrolments in 2021, an increase of 1,622 students (0.8%) from 2020
- 4 high-risk management letter findings were identified (3 in 2020)
- 43% of reported issues were repeat issues.
This report provides Parliament with the results of our financial audits of universities in New South Wales and their controlled entities in 2021, including our analysis, observations and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- internal controls and governance
- teaching and research.
Financial reporting is an important element of governance. Confidence and transparency in university sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial reporting of universities in NSW for 2021.
Section highlights
|
Appropriate and robust internal controls help produce reliable financial reports and reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and administration of universities.
This chapter outlines the internal controls related observations and insights across universities in NSW for 2021, including overall trends in findings, level of risk and implications.
Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. The more significant issues and risks are included in this chapter. These along with the less significant matters are reported to universities for management to address.
Section highlights
|
Universities' primary objectives are teaching and research. They invest most of their resources aiming to achieve quality outcomes in academia and student experience. Universities have committed to achieving certain government targets and compete to advance their reputation and their standing in international and Australian rankings.
This chapter outlines teaching and research outcomes for universities in NSW for 2021.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – List of 2021 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2020 recommendations
Appendix three – Universities' controlled entities
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.
