About this report

Over 1,100 native animals, plants and ecological communities are listed as threatened in New South Wales. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) delivers programs and activities aiming to reduce the risk of extinction for threatened species and ecological communities. 

This audit assessed whether DCCEEW has effectively delivered outcomes to support threatened species and ecological communities across New South Wales including delivery of the statutory Biodiversity Conservation Program (Saving our Species). 

Findings

DCCEEW uses a risk‑based approach to guide and deliver a range of programs aiming to improve the outcomes for threatened species and ecological communities.

However, DCCEEW has not effectively determined departmental priorities, coordinated programs to align efforts, or reported on the overall outcomes it is delivering for threatened species and ecological communities. 

Further, DCCEEW does not capture sufficient data to monitor species that it is not actively managing, creating a risk that it cannot readily identify or respond to further decline.

Under the Saving our Species program, DCCEEW is delivering conservation actions for less than one‑third of all threatened species and ecological communities. This number has reduced over time, in line with reduced program funding. 

Gaps in core program planning and risk management frameworks create program delivery risks. 

Recommendations

The report made several recommendations to DCCEEW, focusing on:

• Strengthening Saving our Species program compliance, governance, planning and risk management frameworks.
• Developing a long‑term framework to coordinate and align efforts across DCCEEW for the delivery of threatened species outcomes.
• Expanding activities to improve coordination with other parts of government delivering activities that impact on outcomes for threatened species.

This chapter assesses the effectiveness of DCCEEW’s ability to report on threatened species outcomes across its various programs and activities, and its strategic planning for the delivery of these outcomes at a departmental level.

Under Part 4, Division 6 of the BC Act, DCCEEW is required to deliver a Biodiversity Conservation Program. The program’s statutory objectives are to:

• maximise the long-term security of threatened species and ecological communities in nature
• minimise the impacts of key threatening processes on biodiversity and ecological integrity.

Under Section 4.36 of the BC Act, the program must have:

• strategies to achieve the objectives of the program in relation to each threatened species and threatened ecological community
• a framework to guide the setting of priorities for implementing the strategies
• a process for monitoring and reporting on the overall outcomes and effectiveness of the program.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – Legislative and regulatory provisions relevant to threatened species

Appendix three – Programs and activities relevant to threatened species

Appendix four – Comparison of statutory provisions for the conservation of threatened species

Appendix five – About the audit

Appendix six – 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 #399 released 15 August 2024.

About this report

The Government Advertising Act 2011 requires the Auditor-General to undertake a performance audit of the activities of one or more government agencies in relation to government advertising campaigns in each financial year.

This year, we examined two campaigns run by Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) - 'Don't trust your tired self' (DTYTS) and 'Saving lives on country roads' (SLCR).

The audit assessed whether they were carried out effectively, economically, and efficiently, and complied with regulatory and policy requirements.

Audit findings

The DTYTS campaign complied with all requirements set out in the Act, the Regulation, and Government Advertising Guidelines - except for the requirement to complete an approved and complying cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as per the Guidelines.

The campaign had a clear target audience. It achieved many of its stated objectives and other performance measures and represented an economical and efficient spend.

However, TfNSW has not measured the campaign's long-term impact and this, combined with the lack of a complying CBA, meant that TfNSW could not confidently demonstrate the campaign's effectiveness.

The SLCR campaign (which commenced in 2017) was last run fully in 2021–22. TfNSW could have improved the formal documentation of its decision-making process when it cancelled the SLCR campaign.

TfNSW continued to run state-wide advertising campaigns – with regional components - to address road safety in regional NSW.

Recommendations

By 31 October 2024, TfNSW should implement processes that ensure:

1. CBAs prepared for government advertising campaigns comply with the Government Advertising Guidelines
2. long-term impacts of advertising campaigns are evaluated
3. strategic and operational decision-making about advertising campaigns, such as starting, stopping or significantly changing a campaign, is well-documented and follows good practice.

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) sets out requirements that must be followed by a government agency when it carries out a government advertising campaign. The requirements prohibit any political advertising and require a peer review and cost-benefit analysis to be completed before the campaign commences. The accompanying Government Advertising Regulation 2018 (the Regulation) and 2012 NSW Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines) address further matters of detail.

Section 14 of the Act requires the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit on the activities of one or more government agencies in relation to government advertising campaigns in each financial year. The performance audit must assess whether a government agency (or agencies) has carried out activities in relation to government advertising campaigns in an effective, economical and efficient manner and in compliance with the Act, the Regulation, other laws and the Guidelines.

This audit examined Transport for NSW's (TfNSW) advertising campaigns 'Don't Trust Your Tired Self' and 'Saving Lives on Country Roads' for the 2022–23 financial year.

TfNSW is the NSW Government agency responsible for leading the development of safe, integrated and efficient transport systems for the people of New South Wales.

The Don't Trust Your Tired Self (DTYTS) campaign, which cost $3.04 million in 2022–23, aimed to educate drivers on how to avoid driving tired and encouraged them to consider how tired they were before driving.

The Saving Lives on Country Roads (SLCR) campaign, which commenced in December 2017, aimed to encourage country drivers¹ to re-think the common excuses used to justify their behaviour on the road. In early 2024, after the audit commenced, the Department of Customer Service (DCS) advised the audit team that TfNSW did not run the SLCR campaign in 2022–23. This was subsequently confirmed by TfNSW. Instead, the SLCR branding was used for the regional element of the state-wide drink driving campaign. As a result, this audit examined the reasons and decision-making process for its cancellation.

The SLCR campaign cost $3.11 million in 2021–22, the last full year in which it was run, and $17,038 in 2022–23.

This part of the report sets out key aspects of Transport for NSW's (TfNSW) compliance with the Government Advertising regulatory framework for Don't Trust Your Tired Self (DTYTS). It considers whether the agency complied with the:

• Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act)
• Government Advertising Regulation 2018 (the Regulation)
• NSW Government Advertising Guidelines 2012 (the Guidelines) and other relevant policy.

This part of the report considers whether Transport for NSW's (TfNSW) advertising campaign Don't Trust Your Tired Self (DTYTS) was carried out in an effective, efficient and economical manner.

This part of the report examines the cancellation of the Saving Lives on Country Roads (SLCR) campaign. It focuses on the decision-making process and evidence for the cancellation of this campaign following its last delivery in 2021–22. It also draws out key implications.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – About the campaigns

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing
 

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #396 released 25 June 2024.

About this report

Financial audit results of the NSW public universities’ financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2023.

Audit findings

Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all ten universities.

Eight universities reported net deficits. Three of these improved on their 2022 results.

Total fees and charges returned to pre-pandemic levels, with 40.5% earned from overseas students from three countries.

Employee related expenses increased 10.2% in 2023 mainly due to an additional 2,830 full time equivalent staff, in response to increased teaching and research activities.

Key issues

The number of findings reported to management has increased to 111 matters in 2023 up from 88 in 2022.

These included one high risk finding and 62 moderate risk findings, a 72% increase from last year.

Gaps identified in universities governance processes included delays in responding to findings and recommendations; staff not attesting compliance with codes of conduct annually; and not capturing and recording staff conflicts of interests within central registers.

Seven of the ten universities have cyber security risks above what they determine as an acceptable risk. Four universities did not have a cyber security uplift program.

Recommendations

Universities should address all recommendations made in the report (see Appendix one for a summary of these).

In particular, there should be a focus on prioritising remediation of wage underpayments to affected employees; ensuring a centralised conflict of interest register is maintained for all staff; considering emerging risks in university risk registers; ensuring controlled entities are considered when determining internal audit plans; and focusing efforts to improve cyber security risk management and cyber resilience capability.

This report provides NSW Parliament with the results of our 2023 financial audits of universities in New South Wales and their controlled entities, including analysis, observations and recommendations in the following areas:

• financial reporting
• internal controls and governance
• teaching and enrolments
• cyber security.

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in university sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines audit observations related to the financial reporting of universities in NSW for 2023.

Appropriate financial controls help to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making. Effective governance is essential for the stability, sustainability and ethical operation of universities. It ensures accountability, transparency and promotes responsible decision making.

This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of NSW universities.

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.

Universities' primary objectives are the functions of 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 enrolment outcomes for universities in NSW for 2023.

This chapter of the report focuses on the cyber risk environment for universities, how universities have assessed that risk, what frameworks they use to strategically identify controls that respond to those risks, and the extent to which they have implemented or have plans to implement those controls. We also address some specific controls in respect of cyber resilience.

Appendix one – List of 2023 recommendations

Appendix two – Status of 2022 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.

About this report

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) in planning, designing, and overseeing the NSW child protection system.

The audit used 'follow the dollar' powers to assess the performance of five non-government organisations (NGOs), that were contracted to provide child protection services. More information about how we did this is included in the full report.

Findings

The NSW child protection system is inefficient, ineffective, and unsustainable.

Despite recommendations from numerous reviews, DCJ has not redirected its resources from a ‘crisis driven’ model, to an early intervention model that supports families at the earliest point in the child protection process.

DCJ's organisational structure and governance arrangements do not enable system reform.

DCJ has over 30 child protection governance committees with no clarity over how decisions are made or communicated, and no clarity about which part of DCJ is responsible for leading system improvement.

DCJ's assessments of child protection reports are labour intensive and repetitive, reducing the time that caseworkers have to support families with services.

DCJ has limited evidence to inform investments in family support services due to a lack of data about the therapeutic service needs of children and families. This means that DCJ is not able to provide relevant services for families engaged in the child protection system. DCJ is not meeting its legislated responsibility to ensure that families have access to services, and to prevent children from being removed to out of home care.

DCJ does not monitor the wellbeing of children in out of home care. This means that DCJ does not have the information needed to meet its legislative responsibility to ensure that children 'receive such care and protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-being’.

In August 2023, there were 471 children living in costly and inappropriate environments, such as hotels, motels, and serviced apartments. The cost of this emergency accommodation in 2022–2023 was $300 million. DCJ has failed to establish ‘safe, nurturing, stable and secure’ accommodation for children in these environments.

Since 2018–19, the number of children being returned to their parents from out of home care has declined. During the five years to 2022–23, families have had limited access to restoration services to support this process.

Recommendations

The audit made 11 recommendations to DCJ. They require the agency to identify accountability for system reform, and to take steps to ensure that children and families have access to necessary services and support.

The child protection system aims to protect children and young people under 18 years old from risk of abuse, neglect, and harm. In NSW, child protection services can include investigations of alleged cases of child abuse or neglect, referrals to therapeutic services for family members, the issuing of care and protection orders, or the placement of children and young people in out of home care if it is deemed that they are unable to live safely in their family home.

A key activity in the child protection process is to determine whether a child is at ‘risk of significant harm’ as defined by Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The Act describes significant harm as when ‘the child's or young person's basic physical or psychological needs are not being met or are at risk of not being met'. The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) has developed a process for determining risk of significant harm. It requires multiple assessments of child concern reports and at least two separate assessments of the child in the home. This process can take a number of months, and until all of these activities are complete, DCJ describes the child as suspected or presumed to be at risk of significant harm.

DCJ has primary responsibility for the child protection system in NSW. DCJ is both a provider of child protection services and a purchaser of child protection services from non-government organisations (NGOs). As system steward, DCJ has a role to establish the policy environment for child protection services and operations. In addition, DCJ is responsible for all governance and reporting arrangements for the commissioned NGOs that deliver services on its behalf, as well as for the governance and reporting arrangements of its own DCJ staff. DCJ must ensure that the child protection system is achieving its intended outcomes – to protect and support children in ways that meet their best interests - as described in legislation.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of DCJ’s planning, design, and oversight of the statutory child protection system in NSW. We assessed whether DCJ was effective in ensuring:

• there is quality information to understand and effectively plan for child protection services and responses
• there are effective processes to manage, support, resource, and coordinate child protection service models and staffing levels
• there is effective oversight of the quality and outputs of child protection services and drivers of continuous improvement.

To do this, the audit assessed the statutory child protection system with a particular focus on:

• initial desktop assessments and triaging of child protection reports
• family visits and investigations of child protection reports
• case management services and referrals to services
• the management of all types of care and protection orders
• the assessments and placements of children in out of home care.

The audit also assessed the performance of five NGOs that provide commissioned child protection services. Collectively, in 2021–2022, the five audited NGOs managed approximately 25% of all out of home care services in NSW. The policies, practices, and management reporting of the five NGOs was assessed for effectiveness in relation to the following:

• quality of data used to understand service requirements
• arrangements for operational service delivery to meet identified needs
• governance arrangements to deliver safe and quality out of home care services under contract arrangements with DCJ.

This audit was conducted concurrently with another audit: Safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal children in the child protection system.

The child protection system aims to protect children and young people (aged less than 18 years) from the risks of abuse, neglect, and harm. Child protection services can include investigations, (which may or may not lead to substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect), care and protection orders, and out of home care placements.

The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) has statutory responsibility for assessing whether a child or young person is in need of care and protection. DCJ’s Child Protection Helpline receives and assesses reports of possible child abuse or neglect. If the information in the report is assessed as meeting a threshold for risk of significant harm, DCJ caseworkers at Community Service Centres investigate the report and decide on a course of action. Follow-up actions can include referring the family to services, visiting the family to conduct ongoing risk and safety assessments of the child, or closing the case. If a child is determined to be unsafe, the child may be removed from the family home and placed in out of home care.

Non-government organisations (NGOs) are funded by the NSW Government to provide services to children and young people who require out of home care and other support services. NGOs provide approximately half of all out of home services in NSW, and DCJ provides the other half.

Government agencies such as Health, Education and Police also play a role in child protection processes, particularly in providing support for children and families where there are concerns about possible abuse or neglect. NSW Health provides some support services for families, along with the Department of Communities and Justice. Exhibit 1 shows some headline child protection statistics for NSW in 2022–2023.

Source: Audit Office summary of DCJ data on child protection statistics.

DCJ has not made progress in shifting the focus and resources of the child protection system to an early intervention model of care, as recommended by major system reviews

DCJ has not readjusted its resource profile so that its operating model can take a more preventative approach to child protection. A preventative approach requires significant early intervention and support for families and children soon after a child has been reported as being at risk of significant harm. This approach has been recommended by a number of reviews into the child protection system.

In 2015, the Independent Review of Out of Home Care in New South Wales recommended an investment approach that uses client data and cost-effective, evidence-based interventions to reduce entries to out of home care and improve outcomes for families and children.

The NSW Government response to the Independent Review of Out of Home Care in New South Wales was a program entitled: Their Futures Matter. This program commenced in November 2016 and was intended to place vulnerable children and families at the heart of services through targeted investment of resources and services. A 2020 report from our Audit Office found that ‘while important foundations were laid and new programs trialled, the key objective of establishing an evidence-based whole of government early intervention program … was not achieved. The majority of $380 million in investment funding remained tied to existing agency programs, with limited evidence of their comparative effectiveness.’

DCJ’s expenditure since 2018–2019 shows that most additional funding has been used to address budget shortfalls for out of home care, and to expand the numbers of frontline case workers. Budget increases show that during the period from 2018–2019 to 2022–2023, DCJ’s expenditure on out of home care increased by 36%, and expenditure on caseworkers increased by 26%. DCJ’s expenditure on family support services, including early intervention and intensive support services, increased by 31% during the audit period.

These resourcing priorities indicate that DCJ has not shifted its focus or expenditure in ways which reorient the child protection system. DCJ has not dedicated sufficient resources to early intervention, and therapeutic support for families and children, in order to implement the recommended changes made by systemwide child protection reviews.

In 2019, the Family is Culture Review recommended increased investment in early intervention support services to prevent more Aboriginal children entering out of home care, with a preference for these services to be delivered by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations. Progress towards enhancing a culturally appropriate service profile has been limited. DCJ last published progress against the Family is Culture recommendations in August 2021, when it reported that projects to increase financial investment in early intervention services were under review.

Data from March 2023 shows that 89% of the DCJ-funded, family support service volume across NSW is delivered by mainstream providers compared with ten per cent provided by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, and one per cent by culturally specific providers. Given that Aboriginal children make up approximately half of all children in out of home care, there is still significant work required to shift the service profile.

DCJ’s governance arrangements are not structured in a way that ensures transparency and accountability for system reform activity and service improvements

DCJ’s organisational structure reflects multiple operational and policy functions across its three branches - the Commissioning Branch, the Operational Branch, and the branch responsible for Transforming Aboriginal Outcomes. Some branches have responsibility for similar functions, and it is not clear where overall executive-level accountability resides for system reform. For example, all three branches have a policy function, and there is no single line of organisational responsibility for this function, and no indication about which branch is responsible for driving system reform.

DCJ has over 30 governance committees and working groups with responsibilities for leadership and oversight of the statutory child protection and out of home care system. DCJ’s governance committees include forums to provide corporate and operational direction, to make financial and resourcing decisions, and to provide leadership and program oversight over the different functions of child protection and out of home care. Some committees and working groups oversee DCJ’s activity to meet government strategic priorities and respond to the findings and recommendations of child protection and out of home care reviews and commissions of inquiry.

Much of DCJ’s work in child protection and out of home care is interdependent, but its governance arrangements have not been structured in a way that show the lines of communication across the Department. There is no roadmap to show the ways in which decisions are communicated across the various operational and corporate segments of DCJ’s child protection and out of home care business operations.

In 2022, DCJ commenced activity to reorganise its operational committees into a four-tier structure, with each tier representing a level in the hierarchy of authority, decision-making and oversight. Draft documents indicate the ways in which the new organisational structure will facilitate communication through the different business areas of DCJ to the Operations Committee where most of the high-level decisions are made or authorised before being referred to the Executive Board for sign off. The new governance arrangements indicate a more transparent process for identifying Department and divisional priorities across policy and programs, though the process for reforming governance processes was not complete at the time of this audit.

DCJ’s strategic planning documents do not contain plans to address the pressure points in the child protection system or address the increasing costs of out of home care. After the merger of the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) and the Department of Justice, DCJ’s Strategic Directions 2020–2024 document sets out the direction for the expanded Department in generalised terms. While it describes DCJ’s values, and describes an intention to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people and reduce domestic and family violence, it does not contain enough detail to describe a blueprint for Departmental action.

In April 2023, DCJ published a Child Safe Action Plan for 2023 to 2027. This plan includes a commitment to hear children’s voices and to ‘improve organisational cultures, operations and environment to prevent child abuse’. In September 2023, the NSW Government committed to develop ‘long-term plans to reform the child protection system and repair the budget, as part of its plan to rebuild essential services and take pressure off families and businesses'. Any activity to implement these commitments was not able to be audited, as it was too soon to assess progress at the time of this report publication.

DCJ’s expenditure priorities predominantly reinforce its longstanding operating model – to focus on risk assessments and out of home care services rather than early intervention

More than 60% of DCJ’s budget for child protection is spent on out of home care. In the five years from 2018–2019, DCJ’s expenditure on out of home care increased by 36% from $1.39 billion in 2018−19 to $1.9 billion in 2022–23.

During the same timeframe, DCJ’s expenditure on risk report assessments and interventions at the Helpline and Community Service Centres increased by 25%. It grew from $640 million in 2018–2019 to $800 million in 2022–2023. This not only reinforced the existing model of child protection, it expanded upon it, at the expense of other activity.

While DCJ’s expenditure on family support services increased by 31% from $309 million in 2018–2019 to $405 million in 2022–2023, it remains a small component of DCJ’s overall expenditure at 13% of the total budget spend in 2022−2023, as shown at Exhibit 6.

Note: Expenditure is actual spending in each year, not adjusted for inflation. Totals may be more than the sum of components due to rounding. percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Audit Office analysis of Productivity Commission data published in Reports on Government Services 2024, Table 16A.8.

DCJ has not done enough to support the transition of Aboriginal children to the Aboriginal community controlled sector as planned

In 2012, the NSW Government made a policy commitment to ensure the transfer of all Aboriginal children in out of home care to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations. DCJ acknowledges that over the past 12 years, the NSW Government has made limited progress in facilitating this transition.

In June 2023, a total of 1,361 children were managed by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations across NSW. At the same time, 1,746 Aboriginal children were being case managed by non-Aboriginal NGO providers, and 3,456 Aboriginal children were case managed by DCJ. In total there were 5,202 Aboriginal children waiting to be transferred to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations in June 2023.

The transition process was planned and intended to occur over a ten year timeframe from 2012 to 2022. This has not been successful. DCJ has revised its timeframes for the transition process, and now aims to see the transfer of the ‘majority’ of Aboriginal children to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations by June 2026. At the current rate of transition, it would take over 50 years to transfer all 5,202 children to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, so this timeframe is ambitious and will require close monitoring by DCJ.

The cost of transitioning all 5,202 Aboriginal children from DCJ and the non-Aboriginal NGOs to the Aboriginal Community Controlled sector will add close to $135 million to the NSW Government out of home care budget. The increased costs are due to the higher costs of administration, accreditation, and oversight of services provided by the Aboriginal Community Controlled sector.

DCJ has prioritised the transfer of Aboriginal children from non-Aboriginal NGOs to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations before the transfer of Aboriginal children from DCJ’s management. This prioritisation is due, in part, to the fact that most of the non-Aboriginal carers of Aboriginal children are with NGOs. NGO contract requirements should have been one of the drivers of the transition of Aboriginal children to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations.

The most recent NGO contracts, issued in October 2022, required that NGOs develop an Aboriginal Community Controlled transition plan by 31 December 2022. This timeframe was extended to 30 June 2023. All of the NGOs we audited have now prepared detailed transition plans for the transition of Aboriginal children, including service plans that identify risks and document collaborative efforts with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations.

One important requirement in the success of the transitions, is the willingness of carers to switch from their existing NGO provider to an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation. During the period of this audit DCJ failed to provide sufficient information to carers, to assure them of the NSW Government’s commitment to the transition process. Since July 2023 DCJ has written to carers of Aboriginal children case managed by non-Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and provided them with more information about the transition process.

NGOs have had limited success in transitioning Aboriginal children to Aboriginal services, and can do more to report on activity, so that system improvements can be made

Non-Aboriginal NGOs have had limited success in transferring Aboriginal children to the Aboriginal-controlled out of home care sector. For example, of the approximately 1,700 Aboriginal children that were managed by non-Aboriginal providers in 2022–2023, 25 Aboriginal children were transferred from non-Aboriginal NGOs to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations in that year. While DCJ controls the key drivers in this transition, there is limited evidence that NGOs have initiated consultations with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations during the audit period.

NGOs advised that some of their carers do not want to transition to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, and this is slowing the transfer process. NGO contracts in force until September 2022 required that: ‘The express agreement of carers must be sought prior to the transfer of an Aboriginal Child to an Aboriginal Service Provider.’ This audit was not able to verify the extent to which carers have resisted the move to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations.

DCJ did not provide NGOs with sufficient direction, coordination, or governance through its contract arrangements to effect transitions from non-Aboriginal NGOs to Aboriginal NGOs. DCJ has established a project control group with representatives from NGO peak bodies and has set up an internal program management office to manage the transition.

There are limited drivers for the transition of Aboriginal children to Aboriginal-controlled services, and financial risks for both Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and non-Aboriginal NGOs in the process

Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and non-Aboriginal NGOs are carrying significant financial risk due to a lack of certainty in the transition process of Aboriginal children to the Aboriginal Community Controlled sector. These agencies are responsible for planning and making changes to their business models in order to facilitate the transition process. DCJ does not provide funds for this activity.

Some non-Aboriginal NGOs have high numbers of Aboriginal children in their care. These agencies risk financial viability if children and their carers are transitioned in a short space of time. There is a degree of uncertainty about the timelines for transitions to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, and the numbers of children that will be transitioned at any given time.

Non-Aboriginal NGOs are not in a position to require Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations to take Aboriginal children. Similarly, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations cannot compel the transition of children to their care. There are no real system drivers for this activity, and some financial disincentives for NGOs supporting large Aboriginal caseloads.

Throughout 2023, some Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations have been upscaling their businesses to prepare for the transition of Aboriginal children to their care. They have employed additional caseworkers and enhanced administrative and infrastructure arrangements to take on new children, without receiving new intakes. They report that they have been financially disadvantaged by the failure of the transition process. Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations advise that they don’t expect confirmation of the child transition process and timelines until 2024 and must carry the financial consequences of upscaling.

DCJ does not collect sufficient data to assess the effectiveness of its child protection service interventions and does not know whether they lead to improved outcomes

DCJ does not collect sufficient information to understand whether its child protection risk and safety interventions are effective in protecting children from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence.

DCJ is the sole entity with responsibility to make assessments of children after there has been a child protection report. After a child has been reported, DCJ caseworkers conduct a range of assessments of the child and family context, to determine whether the child is at risk of significant harm. If DCJ caseworkers determine that a child is ‘in need of care and protection,’ Section 34 of the Care Act requires DCJ to ‘take whatever action is necessary to safeguard and promote the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person’, including ‘providing, or arranging for the provision of, support services for the child or young person and his or her family’.

DCJ has limited measures to assess the effectiveness of its service interventions. DCJ monitors and reports on the number of children who are re-reported within 12 months after receiving a DCJ caseworker intervention. However, DCJ does not monitor or report any comparative data that would potentially demonstrate the effectiveness of its service interventions. For example, DCJ does not collate and publish data on re-report rates of children who do not receive a DCJ service intervention. This comparative data would give DCJ greater understanding about the effectiveness of its service interventions.

In addition, DCJ’s re-report data does not differentiate between re-reports of children that are substantiated, from those that are not. Children can be re-reported for a variety of reasons. Some re-reports are of children who are not at increased risk of significant harm. Therefore, the current re-report data is a limited measure of the effectiveness of DCJ’s service interventions.

DCJ does not collect data or compare outcomes based on the kinds of services that are accessed by children and families. For example, DCJ does not report on instances where families were denied service interventions because support services were full, or did not exist in their region. DCJ does not collect data or report on children who were taken into out of home care in areas where there were no available services to support the family.

DCJ caseworkers can support families by making referrals to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, family violence services, parenting support courses, or mental health services. It is not known whether families receive services that are relevant to their needs. Some services are offered as additional DCJ caseworker support, some are NGO funded support packages, some offer therapeutic interventions, and some are provided via external government agency services, such as NSW Health. Support services are highly rationed in NSW, and many families engaged in the child protection system do not have access to them.

Limited outcomes data and reporting means that DCJ cannot demonstrate how its actions and service interventions are reducing risks and harms to children, and promoting their safety, welfare, and wellbeing in line with the Care Act.

While child protection reports have significantly increased over the past ten years, around 40% do not meet the threshold for suspected abuse and neglect to warrant a response

The overall number of child protection reports received by the Helpline has increased significantly over the past ten years. Reports to the Helpline ensure that children at risk of significant harm come to the attention of DCJ, but around 40% of reports do not meet the threshold of abuse and neglect to warrant a child protection report and response from child protection caseworkers. DCJ has finite resources, and responding to reports that do not require intervention reduces the capacity of DCJ to effectively respond to children who are at risk of significant harm.

In 2022–2023, the Helpline received 404,611 concern reports, an increase of over 60% since 2012–2013 when there were 246,173 reports. Between 2012–2013 and 2017–2018, reports grew slowly, then increased rapidly for three following years up until 2021. While the number of Helpline reports fell in 2021–2022, this reduction was partly due to a drop in reports by teachers during COVID school closures, and was not maintained in 2022–2023.

DCJ attributes the rapid growth in child protection reports to increasing awareness amongst mandatory reporters about their statutory responsibilities to report, along with the introduction of the online reporting option. Mandatory reporters include medical practitioners, psychologists, teachers, social workers, and police officers. These personnel are legally required to report children that they suspect are at risk of significant harm. In one 3-month period from April to June 2021 there were over 40,000 reports from mandatory reporters that did not meet the threshold that activates a statutory child protection response from DCJ caseworkers. The assessment of these reports consumes significant resources, costing over $4 million during the three month period in 2021, which equates to over $15 million per annum.

In 2010, Child Wellbeing Units were established so that mandatory reporters from Education, Police and Health could be assisted in child protection reporting. The units were established in response to recommendations made by the Wood Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services. They aimed to reduce the number of reports to the Helpline and to support mandatory reporters to assist children and families to receive an appropriate response. DCJ managers advise that the units are underutilised, and mandatory reporters continue to submit reports to the Helpline. The Child Wellbeing Units have not successfully reduced the overall number of reports to the Helpline.

DCJ advised that it is evaluating the Child Wellbeing Units and is developing new guidance for mandatory reporters that aims to address the culture of over-reporting.

Exhibit 7 shows the ten years of Helpline reports from 2012–2013 to 2022–2023.

DCJ does not collate or analyse its service referral data, and as a result, is unable to commission relevant services for families engaged in the child protection system

DCJ lacks data to understand the supply and demand requirements for therapeutic services across the child protection system. DCJ does not collect or report aggregate data about service referrals for children and families, nor does DCJ report data about service uptake across its Districts. DCJ does not collect the necessary information to plan for commissioned therapeutic services, or to fill its service gaps. DCJ does not know whether its funded services are competing with, or complimentary to, services funded by other agencies.

DCJ is required to monitor its therapeutic service interventions in order to comply with the objectives and principles of the Care Act. The Care Act requires that ‘appropriate assistance is rendered to parents and other persons … in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities in order to promote a safe and nurturing environment’, and that any intervention ‘must … promote the child’s or young person’s development.

DCJ does not collect reliable data on the success of service referrals after a child has been identified as being at risk of significant harm. DCJ does not collect information or report on the uptake and outcomes of its referrals where there is a low to intermediate risk of significant harm to the child or young person. In most cases, DCJ does not know whether children or families received a therapeutic service after a referral. The uptake of referrals is voluntary, and families may decide that they do not want to access therapeutic services. DCJ does not routinely record data about the numbers of families that decline services.

DCJ does not collect data on instances where a referral was needed but not made because there was no available service in the District or there were no available places in the service. It is well known within DCJ that therapeutic services are lacking in regional and remote NSW. These include poor access to paediatricians and adolescent psychiatrists, disability assessors, mental health services, alcohol and other drug rehabilitation services, and domestic violence services.

Over the past five years, there is no evidence that DCJ has conducted an assessment of the statewide therapeutic service needs of children and families in NSW, or matched its statewide service profile to these needs through the targeted commissioning of therapeutic services. There has been a lack of system stewardship to ensure there is equity of service access for children and families in all Districts.

In each District, Commissioning and Planning units undertake market analyses at the point when programs are due for recommissioning, generally every three to five years. This market analysis includes an assessment of the availability of local services. There is no consistency in how this work is done across the Districts. While the purpose of District-level, market analysis is to identify gaps and opportunities for services, we did not find evidence of services being newly commissioned where gaps were identified.

District-level Commissioning and Planning units conduct some assessment of the demographics of the local area, as well as information about socio-economic characteristics, and expected population growth. For example, one DCJ District identified that their population is expected to grow by 33% by 2031. This means that more contracts for family preservation places will be needed. Another District identified that they do not have culturally appropriate services. However, the contracts for this District are in place for at least three years, so the District cannot provide the required service profile for local families.

While DCJ is taking some steps to arrange an expanded service profile, the efforts are piecemeal. Different programs are managed and commissioned across different parts of DCJ. For example, one District has developed a localised partnership with the Ministry of Health, but DCJ has not developed a state-wide Memorandum of Understanding with NSW Health to give priority access to all children engaged in the statutory child protection system.

In 2015, the Independent Review of Out of Home Care in New South Wales recommended that DCJ ‘establish local cross-agency boards in each … district to provide local advice, and commission services in line with its priorities and defined outcomes.’ In response, DCJ developed a program known as Their Futures Matter. In 2020, the NSW Audit Office’s assessed this program and found that DCJ had not established any cross-agency boards with the power to commission services. At the time of this audit, in 2024, there is no evidence that DCJ has created cross-agency boards.

DCJ advises that, in future, it plans to issue extra contracts to increase the number of intensive therapeutic care services. DCJ is using data on the locations of children in emergency out of home care placements as part of its needs analysis. The process includes mapping the service system across the State. DCJ’s work to date, has identified a lack of intensive therapeutic care places in Western NSW. The lack of services in Western NSW impacts on the ability of DCJ to keep Aboriginal children on their traditional country, and connected to family and kin.

DCJ is using District-level data in its future-focused recommissioning for family preservation services. DCJ advises that, commencing in 2024, the agency will identify family support service requirements by matching data on instances of risk of significant harm to children by category of harm, and assess service availability at the District level. This audit has not received evidence that the work has begun.

DCJ lacks an integrated performance management system to collect, collate, and compare data about the effectiveness of NGO providers or the outcomes of child support programs

DCJ does not have an integrated performance management system to manage its many programs and contracts with NGO service providers. DCJ advises that at March 2024, it had 1,816 active contracts in its contract management system. DCJ has multiple reporting systems for its different program streams, with information on early intervention programs provided through a different information technology system than the system that is used for out of home care placements. Central program teams do not have good oversight of historical data or trends.

Until 2022, data related to DCJ’s Family Preservation Program was collected separately from each NGO provider, via quarterly spreadsheets. There was no consistency in the ways in which the data was collated or analysed. This means that DCJ does not know how many families entered the Brighter Futures program in each District, even though contracts were issued at a District level and over 7,000 families entered Brighter Futures program in 2018–2019, 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. DCJ does not have a statewide view of the location or effectiveness of this, or any of its other family preservation services.

Contracts with NGOs for out of home care contain service volume requirements, for example a minimum number of children in out of home care each year. Contracts also include performance measures and financial penalties for underperformance. Underperformance includes failure to notify DCJ about out of home care placement changes within contracted time periods. Due to problems with NGOs accessing the ChildStory system, DCJ does not collect reliable data on out of home care placements provided by NGOs and therefore DCJ is not able to issue financial penalties.

DCJ has also failed to deliver expected outcomes from the Human Services Dataset. The dataset was recommended by the 2015 Independent Review of Out of Home Care, and approved by the NSW Government in August 2016. The aim of the dataset was to bring together a range of service demand data in order to prioritise support for the most vulnerable children and families. It was intended to deliver whole-of-system reform that would lead to improved outcomes for children and families with the highest needs.

The dataset brings together 27 years of data, and over seven million records about children, young people, and families. The records contain de-identified information about all NSW residents born on or after 1 January 1990 (the Primary Cohort) and their relatives such as family members, guardians, and carers (the Secondary Cohort). The Independent Review of Out of Home Care recommended that the dataset include information about the service requirements of the most vulnerable families. This recommendation has not been implemented to date. The Human Services Dataset does not contain records about the service interventions made by NGOs, and has minimal child protection and out of home care placement data.

DCJ’s package-based funding system has not been successful in tailoring services to children in out of home care

When a child is transferred to an NGO for out of home care services, DCJ provides the NGO with relevant funding packages to support the child. NGOs receive different funding packages according to the care needs of the child. Some packages relate to the placement of the child, whether it be a foster care placement, or an intensive therapeutic care placement for children with complex needs. Other packages relate to the permanency goals for each child. These goals can include restoring the child to their parents, establishing the child in long-term foster care, or supporting the child through an adoption process. Each funding package is based on an average cost for the different service type.

While the funding packages are attached to individual children, in practice, NGOs can allocate this funding flexibly. NGOs can integrate the funds from the packages into their global budgets and use the funds for a range of activities. The package-based system that was intended to deliver tailored services to individual children in out of home care, is not being implemented in the ways it was intended.

NGOs do not receive funding for administrative or management costs. They are not funded for supporting Children’s Court work, or the recruitment of new foster carers. NGOs calculate how much they need for these different activities, and use the required funds from funding packages and other sources of income.

DCJ does not collect data from NGOs to determine the nature of the services that were delivered to the child against the funding for each package. In fact, NGOs are not required to report on the expenditure of package funds in relation to any outcomes that relate to the child’s health, wellbeing, cultural, or educational needs.

An external evaluation of the permanency support package system was completed in 2023. It found that children receiving permanency support packages did not achieve better outcomes than children in a control group who did not receive them. This indicates that the package-based system has not achieved its objective to shift the out of home care system from a bed per night payment model, to a child-centred funding model, aimed at supporting safety, wellbeing, and permanency in out of home care.

DCJ’s contract arrangements for NGO funding are overly complex and administratively burdensome

NGO recipients of package-based funding must liaise with separate DCJ contract managers for the different types of funding packages they receive. Within each DCJ District, a range of contract managers have oversight of the different package types – including the packages for out of home care placements, and for the family preservation program. In addition, many NGOs have contracts in more than one DCJ District. This means that NGOs must liaise with a number of different contract managers and operational teams across different units in multiple DCJ Districts. NGOs advise that the time spent navigating the DCJ system reduces the time they can spend actively supporting children and families.

NGOs report that DCJ District personnel can vary in their preferred communication styles and channels. Some District staff prefer email contact, others prefer phone calls, and some prefer service requests that are entered into ChildStory. NGOs must adapt to these different styles depending on the District.

DCJ Districts also vary in the processes that NGOs must follow to have a child’s needs reassessed. This is a routine process, but some Districts take three months to consider and approve a reassessment, while others complete the process more rapidly. If a child is reassessed as requiring a higher category of support, DCJ does not back-pay any increased allowances. This is regardless of the time during which the NGO has provided the child with increased services. In these Districts, NGOs must carry the financial burden for the time it takes for re-assessment approval processes.

The NSW Procurement Policy Framework includes an objective of ‘easy to do business’. This includes a requirement to pay suppliers within specific timeframes, and recommends that government agencies should limit contract length and complexity.

An external evaluation of the package-based system found that that the funding packages are complex and administratively burdensome, and that DCJ Districts have different models and approaches to implementing them. As a result, a child and family living in one District could receive very different care from a child in another District. In 2023, DCJ advised that it is considering the recommendations of the evaluation with the aim of operationalising relevant system reforms, while not increasing the administrative burden on NGOs.

Exhibit 16 shows the multiple stages that NGOs must navigate in DCJ’s complex, contract environment.

DCJ’s case management system lacks an effective business to business interface with NGO partners, and has not produced data on key deliverables

DCJ’s case management system promised a single entry point for NGOs to interact with DCJ. In 2017, DCJ commenced the rollout of ChildStory, its new case management system, at a cost of more than $130 million. While the ChildStory system has become an important repository for information about children in the child protection system, it has failed to deliver on some of its key intended functionalities. ChildStory does not provide an integrated business to business system interface with commissioned NGOs where they can record information about children and families in their care.

Most of the ChildStory system is locked off to NGOs, meaning that NGOs cannot use it as a case management system. NGO personnel must enter data into their own client information systems before manually replicating any required data into the ChildStory system. Until June 2022, NGO staff lost access to ChildStory if they did not log onto the system for a three month period, and staff had to reapply for access, increasing the administrative burden on some NGO personnel.

The lack of an integrated business to business interface between DCJ’s ChildStory and the NGO case management systems, has vastly increased levels of administrative handling for all parties, and frequently results in mismatched data between DCJ and NGOs. The process for NGOs to correct data errors in ChildStory requires contact with DCJ, and the process can be protracted. NGOs advise that they spend significant time on complex data reconciliation processes and that these processes have financial implications. In some instances, NGOs are asked to repay contract ‘underspends’ as a result of DCJ data errors.

The lack of system interface between DCJ and NGOs has been a lost opportunity to produce and report NGO trend data on a wide range of metrics. While some data is manually entered by NGOs into ChildStory Partner, and some systemwide data produced, it is only available for a limited number of key performance indicators. For example, it was intended that ChildStory would be used to collect and collate information about the status and wellbeing of children. According to DCJ, this has not been possible, as the system does not have the functionality to collate data from questionnaires or instruments that assess child wellbeing.

Given that many of the smaller NGO data systems have limited sophistication and functionality, the failure of ChildStory to become a case management system for all NGOs, means they are not able to produce trend data on a wider range of metrics. The inability to collate key data from all NGO service providers limits the statewide data that is available for service planning.

Until 2022−2023, DCJ did not contribute all required data to a national, publicly-reported dataset on child protection. The Australian Institute for Health and Wellbeing (AIHW) collates data from Australian states and territories every year. Child protection information is published on the AIHW website and provided to the Productivity Commission for the annual Report on Government Services. Since 2014−2015, AIHW requested that all states and territories provide anonymised child-level data for reporting and research purposes. DCJ did not provide this requested child-level data until 2022−2023. In previous years, DCJ provided the AIHW with aggregated data tables that lacked some of the required information.

ChildStory has not been effective for the contract management of NGOs and commissioned services. The system cannot be used to report and generate information about NGO contract activity, nor can it be used to make payments to NGOs.

Caseworkers advise that they spend significant time updating the case management system, limiting the time they have for child and family visits

DCJ has not quantified the amount of time that staff spend entering information and updating records. While DCJ completed a time and motion study on caseworker activity in 2021, the study did not include information on the time it takes for caseworkers to enter data for individual tasks. The DCJ caseworkers who were interviewed for this audit, advised that they spend a large proportion of their total working week entering data into the case management system, rather than visiting families or providing phone support to families.

DCJ’s ChildStory system does not display all of the summary information that caseworkers need in order to be efficient and effective in their role. For example, triage caseworkers need to know when a report was made to the Helpline, in order to meet the statutory period for response of 28 days after the report was received. This information is not shown in the triage transfer list and is only visible by clicking into case notes for each child, one at a time.

ChildStory does not contain accurate information about decisions made by frontline staff. Caseworkers are required to choose a reason when they close a child protection case. Reasons can include that the family was referred to an external service. There is no field for a caseworker to indicate that a case was closed because the child protection report related to a person who was external to the family. ChildStory does not have a case closure field to record that the parents were protective in instances when a child was at risk from someone outside the home. These cases are closed with the reason ‘No capacity to allocate’, resulting in inaccurate management reporting. This incorrect record keeping can be problematic for the family. It can mean that if the child is re-reported, there may be unnecessary interventions by DCJ in future.

DCJ advises that ChildStory is not being used to its full functionality and that District DCJ Offices have created arrangements that increase the administrative burden on staff. For example, in some Districts before a caseworker can submit an approval request in ChildStory to the relevant Director, the caseworker must attach an email with the same Director’s written approval. DCJ managers advise that ChildStory is not being used in ways that would allow for efficient approvals of ‘out of guidelines’ expenses. It is not known whether this is a training deficit, or related to another matter.

Up until recently, DCJ’s information management system did not have functionality to record and collate information about the service needs of children and families. DCJ advises that in 2022, a referral function was added to ChildStory. While DCJ advise that this functionality is being used for referrals to family preservation services, there is no evidence that caseworkers are using the function, or that referral data is collated and reported. Prior to July 2022, decisions to refer a child or family to therapeutic services were recorded in individual ChildStory case notes, and could not be extracted and reported as trend data.

Some Districts have developed local monitoring systems to track vacancies in local family preservation and targeted early intervention services. These local initiatives go some way to improving the planning for child protection services responses at the local level, but they are yet to be systematised.

DCJ advises that it is developing a service vacancy dashboard and it is due to be rolled out to all Districts in late 2023. In order for service information to be visible to DCJ staff, NGO partner agencies will need to regularly update their service vacancy information in the dashboard. Initially DCJ will collect data on which families were referred to services, and NGOs will be expected to enter information on attendance at program sessions at a later date.

DCJ has management reporting systems to track activity and outputs for child protection work, however some key metrics are missing

DCJ’s interactive internal dashboards effectively report against an agreed performance framework that measures caseworker activity. This provides DCJ managers with caseworker progress against targets such as seeing new children and families within specified timeframes. Managers can drill into the dashboard data to see individual cases and the caseworkers behind the numbers. This assists managers in allocating new cases to their frontline staff. While DCJ managers advise that they use the dashboards on a daily or weekly basis, they raised concerns that dashboards did not account for staff vacancies or new recruits who cannot carry a full caseload.

DCJ dashboards do not allow managers to focus on groups of children who are at greater risk of harm, or on children who require a tailored service. This limits the effectiveness of DCJ’s response. While Aboriginal children are identified on most internal dashboards, there are gaps in the identification of Aboriginal children, especially at the early Helpline assessments of child protection reports and at the initial caseworker assessment of child safety and risk. There is no indication in DCJ’s system to show whether a family has experienced intergenerational removal, despite these families needing a specific trauma-informed response. Children from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds are not reported clearly on dashboards and refugee children are not flagged.

Children and parents with disability are not identified accurately in ChildStory and are not reported on dashboards. The Disability Royal Commission found that parents with disability are over-represented in all stages of the child protection system, and that they are more likely to have their children removed from their care. The Commission found that child protection agencies are less likely to try to place children back in the care of parents with disability.

DCJ data is stored in a Corporate Information Warehouse, which combines child protection data and data about children in out of home care. This information is sourced from ChildStory. The Corporate Information Warehouse also includes staffing data, and contract management data from the Contracting Online Management System. The Warehouse is updated every night to ensure that management reports and dashboards are current. However, some key datasets are not included in the Warehouse, such as the Helpline report backlog, which means that the DCJ Executive does not have easy visibility of Helpline workload or delays in responding to electronic reports.

DCJ’s external dashboards provide limited public transparency about child protection and out of home care activity. Until early 2024 the dashboards did not show the numbers of children in emergency out of home care. In addition, the main quarterly and annual dashboards do not show the average time that children have been in out of home care. 

External reporting is managed by DCJ’s Insights Analysis and Research directorate, known as FACSIAR. In addition to quarterly and annual dashboards reporting key statistics, FACSIAR hosts monthly seminars presenting research findings aimed at improving caseworker practice. The seminars are well attended by DCJ and NGO caseworkers. FACSIAR also maintains a public evidence hub summarising research papers and evaluations.

While regular quantitative data is necessary for day-to-day management purposes, it is not sufficient to understand the experience and outcomes of children in out of home care. In order to deliver additional insights, DCJ has invested in a long-term study of children in out of home care through the Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study. This study follows children who entered care in NSW for the first time between May 2010 and October 2011 and includes data from external sources such as Medicare data, health and education records, and youth offending data. DCJ has used this data for research studies on topics such as outcomes for children with disability in out of home care, and to assist caseworkers in working with children and families through Evidence to Action notes.

DCJ’s system for requesting out of home care placements is ineffective, resulting in multiple unsuccessful requests to NGOs to place children

DCJ does not have a centralised system where its NGO service providers can indicate that they are able to take on new children requiring out of home care. There are almost 50 providers of out of home care services across the State, but no consolidated database showing that there are foster carers who are able to take on new children by location.

DCJ uses a system (known as the broadcast system) to notify NGOs that it needs a foster care placement or another placement type for a child. The number of placement broadcasts has increased from around 450 per month in 2018–2019, to over 1200 per month in 2022–2023, even though the number of children in out of home care has not risen during this timeframe.

Exhibit 17 shows the monthly numbers of children that were ‘broadcast’ to NGOs as requiring out of home care placements from July 2018 to June 2023.

Appendix one – Response from entities

Appendix two – DCJ Organisational Structure for Child Protection

Appendix three – Child protection flowchart from Family is culture review report 2019

Appendix four – About the audit

Appendix five – 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 #394 - released 6 June 2024

About this report

The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) is responsible for safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal children, families, and communities when they encounter the child protection system. These rights are known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Principles (the Principles), which are set out in legislation.

DCJ provides early intervention, prevention and out of home care services and also subcontracts non-government organisations to provide these services.

This audit assessed whether DCJ, and five funded non-government organisations that provide out of home care services, are effectively safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal children in the child protection system.

Findings

DCJ cannot demonstrate its compliance with the Principles. DCJ has not embedded the Principles in its governance, accountability arrangements, policy and day-to-day casework practice.

Insufficient governance and accountability arrangements have contributed to DCJ's failure to deliver on Aboriginal strategies and reforms in the last five years.

DCJ has not developed holistic family preservation models based on Aboriginal ways of healing.

DCJ is aware that its structured decision-making tools, used to make significant casework decisions, adversely affect Aboriginal children and their families. However, DCJ continues to use the tools.

DCJ has no quality assurance mechanisms over its child protection system and casework practice.

As system steward, DCJ has not provided non-government organisations with means to satisfy the Principles.

Recommendations

The audit recommends that DCJ:

• establish governance and accountability arrangements that provide oversight of the safeguards and outcomes for Aboriginal children and families
• develop and implement a quality assurance framework to ensure compliance with safeguards for Aboriginal children at all points in the child protection system
• fulfil its commitment to develop and implement a healing framework for child protection services
• commission family preservation services consistent with the principles of self-determination and participation set out in the Principles.

In this report, the term Aboriginal people is used to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Audit Office of NSW acknowledges the diversity of traditional Nations and Aboriginal language groups across the state of New South Wales.

The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) is responsible for the administration of the child protection system in NSW.

Aboriginal children and their families' rights in the child protection system are contained in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These rights are also binding on DCJ funded non-government organisations (NGOs) through the administration of service contracts.

In 2022–23, DCJ spent $3.1 billion on child protection and out of home care services. This includes $1.9 billion on out of home care services, $800 million on child protection services and $405 million on early and intensive family preservation services.

DCJ subcontracts various early intervention, prevention programs and out of home care services to NGOs. However, DCJ is responsible, as system steward, for the effectiveness of the entire child protection system.

This audit assessed whether DCJ and five of its funded NGOs are effectively safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal children in the child protection system. The audit period was June 2018 to June 2023 (five years). In this report, children and young people under 18 are described together as children.

We addressed the audit objective by answering three questions:

1. Does DCJ and its funded non-government organisations have established governance and accountability arrangements to understand and track performance in safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal children in the child protection system?
2. Does DCJ and its funded non-government organisations have effective policies, practices, systems, and resources to support and enable staff to safeguard the rights of Aboriginal children in the child protection system?
3. Does DCJ and its funded non-government organisations have effective monitoring and quality assurance systems to ensure that the outcomes for Aboriginal children in the child protection system are consistent with their legislative rights and their human rights?

This audit was conducted concurrently with the Oversight of the child protection system performance audit.

The child protection system aims to protect children and young people from the risks of abuse, neglect and harm. This report refers to several parts of the child protection system including:

• Helpline: DCJ receives and triages reports about children suspected to be at risk of significant harm
• Investigation of reports (mostly performed at community service centres): DCJ determines if reports meet the suspected risk of significant harm threshold and the subsequent assessment and investigation of suspected risk of significant harm reports
• Case work: where risk of significant harm has been substantiated, DCJ provides and procures services to prevent a child’s entry into the child protection system
• Entry into care decisions: DCJ determines when a child enters out of home care
• Out of home care services: where a child cannot safely remain at home, DCJ or a contract service provider, place the child in foster care, kinship care, temporary care arrangements or residential care.

DCJ is not monitoring or reporting on safeguards for the rights of Aboriginal children 

Decisions and actions that affect families and children in contact with the child protection system are often made within the context of complex circumstances. They are also deeply impactful on children and their families and can have lifelong implications in areas such as mental health and wellbeing, social inclusion and the likelihood for descendants to also be in contact with the child protection system. Legislative safeguards exist to ensure that the rights of children are paramount.

DCJ governance arrangements are not informed by, and do not reflect, legislative safeguards for the rights of Aboriginal children. Such safeguards include the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Principles (the Principles) contained in sections 11 to 13 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

DCJ has not established mechanisms to:

• address the reasons, including those arising from its own process deficiencies, that Aboriginal children are disproportionately reported at suspected Risk of Significant Harm, seen by caseworkers and enter statutory out of home care
• assess and hold its funded non-government organisations (NGO) accountable for the quality and outcomes of family preservation services that aim to prevent Aboriginal children entering out of home care
• hold departmental districts and NGOs accountable for outcomes for Aboriginal children in out of home care.

Department districts are instead held accountable against nine key performance indicators at Quarterly Business Review Meetings. The performance indicators reflect activity in the child protection and out of home care system. None are disaggregated by Aboriginality, and no indicators require districts to demonstrate casework outcomes for Aboriginal children and families.

DCJ has not developed effective accountability mechanisms for its staff to safeguard the rights of Aboriginal children in the child protection system

DCJ does not have formal accountability mechanisms for any of its staff to safeguard the rights of Aboriginal children. Because of this, DCJ does not have a framework to address staff non-compliance with safeguards for Aboriginal children and their families.

DCJ does not collect data to demonstrate adherence to the Principles or consistently collect feedback from the Aboriginal community to understand its performance. Without Aboriginal outcomes focused data and feedback from Aboriginal stakeholders, DCJ cannot understand its performance or hold its staff accountable for complying with the Principles.

DCJ advises that it plans to introduce a new performance framework that will require senior executives to demonstrate their performance with respect to Aboriginal children in the child protection system. DCJ has not nominated when the framework will come into effect.

DCJ has made negligible progress in implementing key recommendations, strategies and reforms designed to improve outcomes for Aboriginal children and their families

DCJ has not delivered on any Aboriginal specific child protection reform strategy and made negligible progress in implementing key recommendations from the Family is Culture report.

Exhibit 5 identifies major Aboriginal specific reforms to address longstanding issues that impact Aboriginal children and their families. These reviews attempted to reorient the system toward preventing children from entering care and focused on improving outcomes for Aboriginal children in contact with the child protection and out of home care system.

DCJ’s organisational structure and governance arrangements are not enabling the system reform needed to meet the NSW Government’s commitment to Closing the Gap Target 12

The NSW Government is a signatory to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2021-2031. The objective of the Agreement ‘is to overcome the entrenched inequality faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so that their life outcomes are equal to all Australians’. The agreement commits the NSW Government to ‘mobilise all avenues and opportunities available, to meet the objectives’.

DCJ established a temporary Deputy Secretary Transforming Aboriginal Outcomes (TAO) role and associated unit in November 2021 to lead its Closing the Gap targets, which includes Target 12 (to reduce the proportion of Aboriginal children in out of home care by 45% by 2031). The TAO unit does not have decision-making powers over policy, commissioning of DCJ funded services or operational decisions. Instead DCJ has nominated a series of 18 disparate projects to achieve Target 12, which are monitored by TAO.

DCJ districts make significant child protection decisions that would likely contribute to achieving Target 12, including whether Aboriginal children enter out of home care and whether Aboriginal children currently in out of home care are restored to their families. However, there are no targets, measures or data to hold districts accountable to demonstrate progress in these key areas which would likely contribute to achieving Target 12.

Although senior executives meet regularly, the meetings are not used to drive the structural reform needed to achieve Target 12. DCJ is not on track to achieve Target 12.

Aboriginal children are over-represented in the child protection system. Approximately 6,500 Aboriginal children were in out of home care as at 30 June 2023, making up 45% of the out of home care population. By comparison, around seven per cent of children in NSW are Aboriginal. Aboriginal children are three times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be reported at risk of significant harm and four times more likely to be allocated to a community service centre for a caseworker to undertake a face-to-face safety assessment. One in eight Aboriginal children seen by caseworkers enters out of home care.

DCJ does not have a quality assurance framework in child protection to safeguard the rights of Aboriginal children

DCJ has no quality assurance framework over systems and processes prior to the removal of a child into out of home care. Without such a framework, DCJ cannot be assured of its compliance with legislative safeguards afforded to Aboriginal children.

In late 2022, DCJ engaged a consultant to examine Aboriginal quality assurance for the child protection system. In July 2023, the consultant report highlighted deficient quality assurance systems and concerns with cultural capacity of staff to support Aboriginal families and children. DCJ has not indicated how or when it plans to address this deficiency.

DCJ does not have assurance that out of home care services are safeguarding the rights of every Aboriginal child in out of home care

The Office of the Children’s Guardian accredits out of home care providers, including DCJ and its funded NGOs, to a minimum standard set out in the Child Safe Standards for Permanent Care. As a result, DCJ and NGOs can demonstrate a range of internal quality controls and processes for children in out of home care to support the Office of the Children’s Guardian accreditation process.

However, the Office of the Children’s Guardian cannot provide qualitative assurance that DCJ and the NGOs have adhered to safeguards for each of the approximately 6,500 Aboriginal children in statutory out of home care at any given time. For example, the Office of the Children’s Guardian looks at whether a cultural plan exists for an Aboriginal child, but generally does not provide feedback for agencies to improve cultural plans.

DCJ, as the system steward, has a duty of care to ensure that it, and all NGOs it contracts with, have quality assurance processes to demonstrate compliance with safeguards for every Aboriginal child that is placed in out of home care. DCJ needs to do more than the minimum requirements of Office of the Children’s Guardian accreditation to gain assurance, commensurate with the risk of poor compliance and practice set out in this report, that it is adequately safeguarding the rights of every Aboriginal child in out of home care.

DCJ contracts NGOs to provide out of home care services through Service Level Agreements, aligned with the Principles in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. This audit assessed whether NGOs are effectively safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal children in out of home care.

Five NGOs were selected as auditees for this performance audit. Selection of the providers was based on criteria which included:

• a mix of faith- and non-faith-based entities
• Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal entities
• number of children in care
• funding
• location
• service model.

Collectively, the NGOs selected for this audit were contracted to provide 2,600 foster care places in the 2021–22 financial year. This equated to one third of the total number of contracted foster care places in NSW in 2021–22. The two Aboriginal Community Controlled NGOs selected case managed about 20% of Aboriginal children in out of home care who were contracted out to NGOs.

Appendix one – Response from entities

Appendix two – The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Principles (extract from the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998

Appendix three – Data tables

Appendix four – About the audit

Appendix five – 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 #395 - released 6 June 2024.

Schools collect and maintain detailed student data, including sensitive personal information. Schools can also require or encourage students, parents and carers to use third party software applications for learning and other school related activities. This audit will consider how effectively schools ensure student data is secure within their own systems and when provided to third or fourth parties.

What this report is about

Results of the local government sector financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.

Findings

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 85 councils, eight county councils and 12 joint organisations.

Qualified audit opinions were issued for 36 councils due to non-recognition of rural firefighting equipment vested under section 119(2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The audits of seven councils, one county council and one joint organisation remain in progress at the date of this report due to significant accounting issues.

Fifty councils, county councils and joint organisations missed the statutory deadline of submitting their financial statements to the Office of Local Government, within the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, by 31 October.

Audit management letters included 1,131 findings with 40% being repeat findings and 91 findings being high-risk. Governance, asset management and information technology continue to represent 65% of the key areas for improvement.

Fifty councils do not have basic governance and internal controls to manage cyber security.

Recommendations

To improve quality and timeliness of financial reporting, councils should:

• adopt early financial reporting procedures, including asset valuations
• ensure integrity and completeness of asset source records
• perform procedures to confirm completeness, accuracy and condition of vested rural firefighting equipment.

To improve internal controls, councils should:

• track progress of implementing audit recommendations, and prioritise high-risk repeat issues
• continue to focus on cyber security governance and controls.

Pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993 I am pleased to present my Auditor-General’s report on Local Government 2023. My report provides the results of the 2022–23 financial audits of 121 councils, eight county councils and 12 joint organisations. It also includes the results of the 2021–22 audits for two councils and two joint organisations which were completed after tabling of the Auditor-General’s report on Local Government 2022. The 2022–23 audits for eight councils, one county council and one joint organisation remain in progress due to significant accounting issues.

This will be my last consolidated report on local councils in NSW as my term as Auditor-General ends in April. Without a doubt, the change in mandate to make me the auditor of the local government sector has been the biggest challenge in my term. Challenging for councils as they adjust to consistent audit arrangements and for the staff of the Audit Office of NSW as they learn about the issues facing NSW councils.

The change in mandate aimed to improve the quality of financial management and reporting across the sector. This will take time. But this report does show some ‘green shoots’ with more councils submitting financial reports to the Office of Local Government by 31 October and more councils having Audit, Risk and Improvement Committees. 

I also want to acknowledge that councils face significant challenges responding to and recovering from emergency events whilst cost and resourcing pressures have been persistent.

The findings from our audits identify opportunities to further improve timeliness and quality of financial reporting and integrity of systems and processes. The recommendations in this report are also intended to improve financial management and reporting capability, encourage sound governance, and boost cyber resilience.

Margaret Crawford PSM
Auditor-General for New South Wales

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in and transparency of public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines audit observations related to the financial reporting audit results of councils, county councils and joint organisations.

A strong system of internal controls enables councils to operate effectively and efficiently, produce reliable financial reports, comply with laws and regulations, and support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends in governance and internal controls across councils, county councils and joint organisations in 2022–23.

Financial audits focus on key governance matters and internal controls supporting the preparation of councils’ financial statements. Breakdowns and weaknesses in internal controls increase the risk of fraud and error. Deficiencies in internal controls, matters of governance interest and unresolved issues are reported to management and those charged with governance through audit management letters. These letters include our observations with risk ratings, related implications, and recommendations.

Appendix one – Response from the Office of Local Government within the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Appendix two – NSW Crown Solicitor’s advice

Appendix three – Status of previous recommendations

Appendix four – Status of audits

Appendix five – Councils received qualified audit opinions for non-recognition of rural firefighting equipment

© 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

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 

This report assesses how effectively SafeWork NSW, a part of the Department of Customer Service (DCS), has performed its regulatory compliance functions for work health and safety in New South Wales. 

The report includes a case study examining SafeWork NSW's management of a project to develop a real-time monitoring device for airborne silica in workplaces. 

Findings 

There is limited transparency about SafeWork NSW's effectiveness as a regulator. The limited performance information that is available is either subsumed within DCS reporting (or other sources) and is focused on activity, not outcomes. 

As a work health and safety (WHS) regulator, SafeWork NSW lacks an effective strategic and data-driven approach to respond to emerging WHS risks. 

It was slow to respond to the risk of respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone. 

SafeWork NSW is constrained by an information management system that is over 20 years old and has passed its effective useful life. 

While it has invested effort into ensuring consistent regulatory decisions, SafeWork NSW needs to maintain a focus on this objective, including by ensuring that there is a comprehensive approach to quality assurance. 

SafeWork NSW's engagement of a commercial partner to develop a real-time silica monitoring device did not comply with key procurement obligations. 

There was ineffective governance and process to address important concerns about the accuracy of the real-time silica monitoring device. 

As such, SafeWork NSW did not adequately manage potential WHS risks. 

Recommendations 

The report recommended that DCS should: 

• ensure there is an independent investigation into the procurement of the research partner for the real-time silica detector 
• embed a formal process to review and set its annual regulatory priorities 
• publish a consolidated performance report 
• set long-term priorities, including for workforce planning and technology uplift 
• improve its use of data, and start work to replace its existing complaints handling system 
• review its risk culture and its risk management framework 
• review the quality assurance measures that support consistent regulatory decisions

SafeWork NSW is the work health and safety regulator in New South Wales. It was established by the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015.

As the regulator, SafeWork NSW is responsible for, among other things, enforcing compliance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the WHS Act) and the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017. The regulator’s full functions are set out in section 152 of the WHS Act.

SafeWork NSW’s operations are guided by seven regulatory priorities for 2023, which contribute to three strategic outcomes:

• Workers understand their rights and responsibilities.
• Employers ensure that work is healthy and safe, with no advantage for cutting corners.
• Regulation is fair and efficient.

This audit assesses the effectiveness of SafeWork NSW in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the WHS Act, through the examination of three lines of inquiry:

1. Does SafeWork NSW have evidence-based processes to set its objectives and priorities for monitoring and enforcing compliance?
2. How effectively does SafeWork NSW measure and report its performance in monitoring and enforcing compliance against the WHS Act?
3. Are SafeWork NSW's policies and procedures for monitoring and enforcing compliance applied consistency across different sectors?

As SafeWork NSW is part of the NSW Department of Customer Service (DCS), the department is the auditee. Prior to 2019, SafeWork NSW was located in the former Department of Finance, Services and Innovation. Unless otherwise stated, any reference to SafeWork NSW should be read as including the broader department in which it sits.

This chapter considers whether SafeWork NSW has evidence-based processes to set its objectives and priorities, including how it takes into account operational feedback and expertise. It also includes how existing and emerging risks are assessed as part of the priority-setting process, and how planning and prioritisation takes into account resourcing, including workforce skills and capacity.

SafeWork NSW's operating model is now based on annual regulatory priorities, rather than longer-term priorities

From 2016 to 2022, SafeWork NSW worked under a six-year Work Health and Safety Roadmap (‘the Roadmap’). The Roadmap was revised in August 2018 and included the following statements:

In addition to the Roadmap, SafeWork NSW operated under its 2019–20 Strategic Business Plan.

After SafeWork NSW was moved into DCS, the Roadmap was subject to a mid-term evaluation by ARTD Consultants in 2020. SafeWork NSW management subsequently accepted all nine recommendations of that mid-term evaluation, which included the following:

• Strengthen business intelligence data systems to allow managers and inspectors to access to real-time data on safety incidents and workers compensation claim data (Rec 5).
• Improve evidence available to assess Roadmap outcomes in 2022 (Rec 9).

In 2023, SafeWork NSW replaced its six-year Roadmap with a model of setting annual regulatory priorities. Seven regulatory priorities were set for 2023. These priorities were:

•  gig economy – increase safety and WHS compliance in the sector, particularly food delivery riders and health care
• safety around moving plant – reduce workplace safety incidents, particularly forklifts
• seasonal workplaces – increase WHS compliance to support itinerant workers, particularly in the agricultural sector and those working with amusement devices
• psychological safety – reduce the prevalence of psychological injury at workplaces, with a focus on mental health and well being
• respect at work – reduce the incidence of bullying, sexual harassment, and customer aggression in the workplace, particularly in make dominated sectors and healthcare
• exposure to harmful substances – reduce the incidence of worker exposure to dangerous substances in the workplace, particularly silica and dangerous chemicals
• falls – reduce the incidence of falls from heights with a particular focus on construction.

These priorities are intended 'to deliver on three strategic outcomes’:

• Workers understand their rights and responsibilities.
• Employers ensure that work is healthy and safe, with no advantage for cutting corners.
• Regulation is efficient and fair.

As SafeWork NSW works to deliver on these outcomes, the focus is on priority or vulnerable groups of workers – these being younger workers, workers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (especially newly arrived workers), and Aboriginal people.

Shorter-term priorities are intended to enable SafeWork NSW to be more responsive to work health and safety risks and were developed in consultation with operational staff

The adoption of shorter-term priority-setting is intended to enable a more agile approach to regulation that, according to DCS, is better able to adapt to changes in risk profiles and industries. It was put to the audit by some interviewees that the six-year plan was less able to respond to rapid changes in the economy that may lead to quickly emerging work health safety risks. An example commonly cited was the significant increase in gig economy workers, including in areas such as food delivery workers and personal care workers. It was put to the audit that this example highlighted new WHS risks unique to those emerging workplaces.

According to DCS, in addition to being more agile and responsive to macro changes in the workforce, the annual priorities are intended to enhance accountability by creating a more timely and contemporaneous link between activities and outcomes. The more immediate nature of annual priorities is also designed to provide a more immediate and tangible link to SafeWork NSW’s activities and ensure better accountability for delivery.

The annual priorities are intended to complement SafeWork NSW’s commitments under the national Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2023-33. This strategy sets a high-level vision and goal for Australia’s work health and safety regulators, including to address agreed persistent challenges, such as psychosocial risks, vulnerable workers, and ensuring that small businesses are adequately supported to meet their work health and safety obligations.

The process for developing regulatory priorities for 2023 involved internal consultation with SafeWork NSW executive directors, directors, managers, inspectors, project leads, as well as consultation with external stakeholders and experts. There is evidence that SafeWork NSW considered the feedback it received, including from its inspectors.

SafeWork NSW staff identified potential risks that SafeWork NSW will need to manage as the process for developing regulatory priorities continues to develop

The audit team interviewed almost all SafeWork NSW executive directors, directors, and team managers, particularly those performing regulatory functions. These interviews revealed a strong level of commitment to the purpose and functions of SafeWork NSW, as well as a shared desire to see the organisation fulfil its potential.

In regard to the annual priorities, senior executives and the majority of team managers we interviewed supported the adoption of annual priorities and expressed confidence that establishing annual priorities would improve the effectiveness of SafeWork NSW in delivering its compliance functions. It was noted by SafeWork NSW that the shift towards regulatory priorities 'brings us to a level of maturity mirroring the approach of regulators such as ASIC and the ACCC'.

While most staff interviewed during this audit welcomed the sharper focus and greater flexibility afforded by shorter-term priorities, others identified a range of risks. Some experienced people managers in SafeWork NSW expressed significant doubts about the pursuit of annual regulatory priorities. Risks identified during audit interviews included:

• That the short-term focus had prevented SafeWork NSW from establishing a longer-term goal or vision.
• That the annual priorities were simplistic and lacked sufficient detail to engage the regulator, industry, and the community.
• That short-term priorities would make it difficult to meaningfully measure and report progress, especially for activities and initiatives that may take longer to achieve demonstratable change.
• That the process of considering the next annual priorities may need to commence well before initiatives for the current year have been completed (or even commenced), hindering how effectively lessons can be incorporated into future planning.
• That frequent changes in regulatory priorities may make it difficult to ensure that the SafeWork NSW workforce has appropriate capability and capacity, particularly for potentially complex emerging threats such as artificial intelligence in workplaces.

In response to these risks, SafeWork NSW has noted that:

• SafeWork NSW has a separate vision in addition to the regulatory priorities. This is 'healthy, safe and productive working lives'.
• A review process will occur to understand what went well and what did not from the first year of regulatory priorities before finalising priorities for 2024.
• Planning will improve over time as the process reoccurs, and lessons learned will be linked to future priorities.

The inability to achieve full ‘buy-in’ from experienced people managers in SafeWork NSW suggests that change management, including consultative and communication processes, has not been completely successful. SafeWork NSW advised that this initiative was a significant shift for all its staff and in particular middle management. Given this, the leadership of SafeWork NSW should prioritise investment in effective change management processes, especially if the annual regulatory priorities are anticipated to change in 2024.

Importantly, the SafeWork NSW leadership team should undertake strategic planning to ensure that a meaningful set of longer-term priorities underpin their investment decision-making on organisational fundamentals, such as a capable and sustainable workforce and fit-for purpose technology systems. Without this, there is a real risk that the regulator's business needs and priorities will be overtaken by the priorities of a much bigger department.

SafeWork NSW consulted with external stakeholders in determining its 2023 annual regulatory priorities

SafeWork NSW developed a discussion paper in 2022 for external stakeholders as a precursor to consultation on its 2023 annual priorities. This discussion paper outlined an intent by SafeWork NSW to develop a new strategy that would prioritise activities that were the biggest points of leverage to drive material change and were the biggest risks and most important trends affecting WHS in NSW.

SafeWork NSW considered expert feedback and expertise in the development of its regulatory priorities through this process. A summary document detailing the rationale for its regulatory priorities provides evidence that feedback from external stakeholders, such as unions and industry groups, were taken into account.

SafeWork NSW has not established a formal process for determining its regulatory priorities for 2024 and beyond

SafeWork NSW has an indicative timeline for preparing its 2024 priorities which provides that the priorities will not be settled until March 2024 and will be based on the results of the previous year’s priorities to December 2023. However, no ongoing process for determining annual priorities in each future year was settled at the time of writing this report. Some priorities might be expected to remain relatively constant, especially persistent challenges such as preventing falls from heights. However, if the annual priorities model is to meet the expectation of being agile, then new and emerging priorities will need to be identified, understood, scoped, and responded to with relatively short notice.

Elements of the 2023 regulatory priorities will overlap with any new or revised priorities, such as the monitoring and evaluation framework, and the three-year Construction Services Blueprint. SafeWork NSW explains that these longer-term initiatives are 'intended to support the delivery of priorities that are likely to run over many years, providing more granular detail on specific drivers of harm, regulatory responses and targets'.

SafeWork NSW does not effectively use data to inform its priority-setting or assessment of risk, despite adopting the recommendations from the 2020 mid-term Roadmap evaluation

SafeWork NSW states that it chose its regulatory priorities in 2023 based on the following factors - potential for serious harm or death, new or emerging risks, and increases in the frequency of an issue. An emerging issue is where:

SafeWork NSW has a substantial data repository, with over 20 years of case and activity data contained in its Workplace Services Management System (WSMS). However, SafeWork NSW does not effectively interrogate this data to provide an evidence base for its regulatory functions.

SafeWork NSW has only recently established a data governance committee. SafeWork NSW also advised that a data science function was created within the Centre for Work Health and Safety during 2023, repurposing existing resources and supported by a business intelligence working group comprising of inspector representatives from operational directorates.

While this data science function is newly created, SafeWork NSW does not have a strategic business intelligence function that is both recognised and understood across each directorate and team, and the ability of its technology infrastructure to deliver sophisticated strategic and operational data intelligence has been limited.

As a result of this lack of central coordination and capability, directorates have sought to develop their own data analysis capability, with inconsistent, fragmented and potentially duplicative results. The audit did find specific (albeit isolated) examples of data being used to inform decision-making, though these efforts were disparate and uncoordinated at the directorate level.

SafeWork NSW said that data is used to inform leadership discussions at the quarterly SafeWork NSW Leadership Meetings, and monthly operational executive meetings. The audit did not review the agenda papers for these meetings.

At the 2020–21 NSW Parliament Budget Estimates Committee hearing, SafeWork NSW stated that it:

SafeWork NSW has started to use artificial intelligence to interrogate historical compliance data to rate the risk of different employers. However, this is used inconsistently across SafeWork NSW and there is limited evidence about its effectiveness. A similar tool does not exist for industry or product-related trends or relationships that may assist SafeWork to proactively identify high-risk workplaces and issues.

Outdated technology and uncertainty in planning its replacement is limiting SafeWork NSW's ability to effectively use its data for analytics and insights

SafeWork NSW uses WSMS to manage work health and safety data. This system has been in place for over 20 years. It was noted in interviews conducted during this audit that this data system is at the end of its effective life.

Issues noted by users of WSMS include:

The lack of governance associated with data management of WSMS. There is no data custodian, and a formalised data quality assurance process does not exist. This means that data can be extracted from the system with no controls on the accuracy of the analysis.

Access to WSMS cannot be tracked (and is therefore not auditable).

• Data quality is variable, depending on the quality of notes provided by inspectors (with individuals noting that these notes could be full of speculation), and inconsistent approaches to entering information into the system. At the same time, inspectors noted that entering information into the system can be an administrative burden due to duplication and time requirements.
• Analysis cannot readily be undertaken on a geographic basis (for example, all high-risk employers within a particular region).
• As WSMS does not track information about the directors of companies, it is unable to identify risks associated with 'phoenixing', where directors of wound-up businesses establish new entities, or other forms of related-entity risk. The audit team linked WSMS data with ASIC data to match company directors with company and notice data. This was done in order to understand the additional intelligence that could be used to inform risk-based decision-making. As an example, the audit found that there is a large number of companies that have not received notices from SafeWork NSW but may be at higher risk due to the conduct of their directors:
  • There were approximately 151,000 companies with directors that were also linked to at least one other company that had received at least one type of notice from SafeWork NSW.
  • There were approximately 24,500 companies with directors that were also linked to one or more companies that had cumulatively received over 100 notices from SafeWork NSW.
  • There were approximately 8,600 companies with directors that were also linked to one or more other companies that had cumulatively received over 400 notices from SafeWork NSW.

In addition to the feedback provided by WSMS users within SafeWork NSW, the audit team also found related data quality issues during the course of our own analysis, including:

•  Industry analysis is more challenging to perform because specific industry data points and grouping details are not captured in WSMS.
• There was no systematic method to identify all silica-related incidents. The search terms were not standardised and relied on judgement, for example: ‘silic’ (potentially capturing both ‘silica’ and ‘silicosis’) and ‘benchtop’, though SafeWork NSW advised that consultation with subject matter experts informed these searches. There is a high-risk of false positives and incomplete analysis without time intensive manual review of each identified case. WSMS was not readily able to provide data on silica-related complaints without workarounds and manual file review (which proved unreliable) and requiring significant effort from data staff in both the Audit Office and SafeWork NSW.
• Test data is captured in production systems, rather than in test systems. These records do not have a unique identifier and are difficult to identify and isolate for business intelligence analysis.
• Data validations are not enforced (for example, on Australian Business Number, Australian Company Number columns). Instead, the data entry fields allow for incorrect details to be captured or left blank without explanation from the staff entering the data.

SafeWork NSW provided advice to the audit team that an upgrade of WSMS was planned as part of the broader e-regulation program across DCS (that is, the single digital platform for all 28 business regulators). However, this upgrade is now uncertain as there is no funding for SafeWork NSW to be onboarded to the new platform. This means that for the foreseeable future SafeWork NSW will be constrained by the limitations inherent to WSMS.

SafeWork NSW took around eight years to actively and sufficiently respond to the emerging risk of respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone

Silicosis is a progressive, occupational lung disease resulting from inhalation of respirable crystalline silica (RCS). Silicosis is one of the oldest known occupational diseases, particularly affecting industries like mining. In Australia, silicosis has been a known cause of death and disability for over 100 years. This disease is preventable through appropriate workplace practices in a hierarchy of controls, which includes the use of correct personal protective equipment.

The use of manufactured stone for applications such as kitchen benchtops became popular in Australia in the early 2000s. Other substances that contain silica, such as rock, stone, clay, gravel, concrete and brick, may contain between 2% and 40% silica. In contrast, manufactured stone contains up to 95% silica. Workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica from manufactured stone are more likely to develop severe silicosis (and other serious lung diseases), and more quickly, than workers exposed to silica from other sources.

In 2010, international research was published that pointed to the specific heightened risk posed by the high silica content of manufactured stone used primarily for kitchen countertops and bathroom fixtures. This was confirmed by subsequent research published in 2012, which concluded that, in regard to a documented outbreak of silicosis among manufactured stone workers in Israel:

This research was relevant to Australia as the sample of workers was derived from the same Israeli-based manufacturer and exporter of manufactured stone that supplies the majority of the product used in Australia.

The first identified group of related workers who contracted silicosis in NSW was reported in literature in 2015. Further cases have been reported in the media since 2015. These included examples of relatively young workers developing silicosis, presumptively from inhaling silica dust derived from manufactured stone.

In 2017, SafeWork NSW listed RCS as one of the top ten priority chemicals in its 2017–2022 Hazardous Chemicals and Materials Exposures Baseline and Reduction Strategy (dated October 2017).

A legislatively-mandated case finding study conducted by SafeWork NSW in 2021³ reported that screening conducted by icare between 2017–18 and 2019–20 found an average of 29 cases per year of silicosis among workers in the manufactured stone industry.⁴ Despite the relatively small size of this workforce, this was three times the number of cases of all workers engaged in all other at-risk industries.

While the heightened risk posed by respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone was first published in research in 2010 and detected in cases from 2015, SafeWork NSW’s first substantial practical response commenced in 2018–19.

From July 2018, SafeWork NSW convened a Manufactured Stone Industry Taskforce, including representatives from industry, unions, health, education and other government agencies. During the term of this taskforce (which ended at 30 June 2019), SafeWork NSW conducted 523 visits to 246 manufactured stone sites. These inspections resulted in 656 improvement notices being issued, along with 43 prohibition notices (this included matters not related to silica). Prior to this, the extent of SafeWork NSW’s active response to the emerging risk was to conduct a limited inspection program of six work sites in May 2017 (one site) and August 2017 (five sites). The results of these six workplace visits were incorporated into a research project report that was finalised in August 2018.

In the period from 2012 to 2018, SafeWork NSW also received complaints about silica-related matters, including matters not related to manufactured stone. These are detailed in Exhibit 1 below. The number of complaints was a relatively small proportion of all complaints received, though the number increased after 2018. This increase may be a result of increased community and industry awareness through media reporting and SafeWork NSW’s proactive audit work.⁵ The majority of these complaints did not result in further regulatory action by SafeWork NSW beyond preliminary inquiries and, in some cases, site visits. The right-hand column of the below table shows key events leading up to and shortly after SafeWork NSW’s first regulatory interventions.

*         2023 data are to 30 November 2023.
Note: Complaints received by SafeWork NSW where the issue description includes ‘silic*’ or ‘benchtop’. This will include silica derived from sources other than manufactured stone, including relating to those products listed in the Safe Work Australia 2020 national guide.
Source: Audit Office analysis of WSMS data.

High-profile media reporting in 2018, 2021, and early 2023 appeared to provide impetus to SafeWork NSW’s regulatory actions. SafeWork NSW subsequently conducted further rounds of proactive compliance, education and awareness activities among identified workplaces. This work increasingly targeted high-risk workplaces. Since 2018–19, SafeWork NSW has conducted three rounds of workplace inspections that have progressively focused on the highest risk workplaces. This program has adopted a strategic and evidence-based approach.

Since October 2019, 17 matters were progressed to further investigation with a view to prosecution. Five silica-related matters have been filed in court for prosecution. Three of these matters were still in court at the time of this audit, and two matters have been finalised.

In 2020, NSW introduced a range of legislative reforms including:

• Banning the practice of dry cutting engineered stone containing crystalline silica. Maximum penalty of $30,000 for a body corporate and $6,000 for an individual, with on-the-spot fines for uncontrolled dry processing of engineered stone.
• Halving the Workplace Exposure Standard from 0.1mg/m3 to 0.05 mg/m3 (ahead of the national deadline to implement it).
• Silicosis becoming a notifiable disease requiring clinicians to report each case of silicosis diagnosed in NSW. Those notifications are shared with SafeWork NSW to manage a NSW Dust Disease Register. An annual report is tabled in Parliament and published on the NSW Government website www.nsw.gov.au (NSW Silica Dashboard) alongside some information on compliance activities.
• On 27 October 2020, silicosis became a notifiable disease requiring clinicians to report each case of silicosis diagnosed in NSW. Those notifications are shared with SafeWork NSW to manage a NSW Dust Disease Register. In August 2021, SafeWork NSW published the first NSW Dust Disease Register Annual Report, detailing diagnosed cases of silicosis, asbestosis, and mesothelioma in NSW during 2020–21 and the Case Finding Study Report on silica exposure in the Manufactured Stone Industry. The Annual Report is tabled in Parliament and published on the NSW Government website www.nsw.gov.au (NSW Silica Dashboard) alongside some information on compliance activities.

Also in 2020, SafeWork NSW released the NSW Dust Strategy 2020-2022, which identified silica as one of three focus areas for the regulator.

In February 2022, New South Wales introduced the NSW Code of Practice – Managing the risks of respirable crystalline silica from engineered stone in the workplace, based on the National Model Code that was finalised in late 2021. The Code provides practical information on how to manage health and safety risks associated with respirable crystalline silica from engineered stone in the workplace.

Silica continues to be a priority for SafeWork NSW in 2023 under the SafeWork NSW regulatory priority: Exposure to harmful substances - Reduce the incidence of worker exposure to dangerous substances in the workplace, particularly silica and dangerous chemicals.

The online NSW Silica Dashboard provides members of the public with information on SafeWork NSW’s silica workplace visit program that commenced in 2018 through to 30 September 2023.

Organisational silos within SafeWork NSW contribute to inconsistent regulatory decision-making, duplication of effort, and inefficient practices

There is evidence indicating that SafeWork NSW works in silos, with limited communication, collaboration, and awareness of activities across functions.

We note the finding made by the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption in reviewing SafeWork SA:

The existence of silos was evidenced by the audit team through:

• The inconsistent application of policies and procedures. For example, performance management practices differ between directorates and individual teams. This is further discussed in Chapter 4.
• How data is used across SafeWork NSW. While there are pockets of effective data analysis, they often seem to operate in isolation from each other, resulting in duplication and a failure to achieve economies of scale and the benefits of synergies.
• Limited feedback loops across SafeWork NSW. SafeWork NSW does not have an overarching continuous improvement framework, and communication surrounding decision-making is limited. For example, where the Investigations and Emergency Response team decide to discontinue an investigation, there is no requirement to inform the referring inspector that this has occurred, or the rationale behind the decision.

Similar findings on the existence of silos, and the need to improve teamwork and collaboration, have been made by SafeWork NSW in internal reviews undertaken as part of restructuring activities.

This audit also found broader issues of concern regarding organisational structure. SafeWork NSW staff frequently expressed reservations about the effectiveness of the current structure and compared it unfavourably to the regulator’s previous form. In particular, some SafeWork NSW staff said that the existing structure:

• reduced SafeWork NSW’s profile as the regulator for work health and safety in NSW
• confused lines of accountability for senior strategic leadership
• diluted the regulator’s focus and the cohesion of the staff.

The Independent Review of SafeWork NSW being conducted by Mr Robert McDougall KC is examining organisational structural issues. In the interim, the decision has been made by DCS that SafeWork NSW will transition out of the Better Regulation Division of DCS from 1 December 2023, to become a standalone division within DCS.

Organisational restructuring and any uncertainty that it involves in the short- to medium-term could impact on the SafeWork NSW's progress in achieving desired policy outcomes, especially if the change management process is not effective.

The lack of a strategic approach to data and intelligence by SafeWork NSW hampers effective targeting and prioritisation of proactive compliance activity

Effective proactive compliance work is an important part of an effective regulatory approach. For SafeWork NSW, these activities range from dedicated state-wide programs over extended periods through to specific, localised ‘blitzes’ of targeted workplaces. These activities are performed alongside 'reactive compliance activities' such as responding to incidents, complaints, or requests by ‘persons conducting a business or undertaking’ (PCBUs) for education and awareness-building activities.

In accordance with Safe Work Australia’s National Compliance and Enforcement Policy, proactive compliance activities are intended to be:

SafeWork NSW’s proactive compliance activity is intended to be based on:

• SafeWork NSW’s annual regulatory priorities
• data and insights on high-risk harms, industries or businesses
• the identification of new or emerging risks
• targeted programs focused on reducing the greatest harms.

As discussed earlier in this section, SafeWork NSW does not effectively use data to inform priorities or to assess risk.

While managers at SafeWork NSW referred to an overall target for proactive work (it was commonly suggested that between 60% and 70% of regulatory activities should be proactive), we were informed by the Head of SafeWork NSW (and Deputy Secretary of the Better Regulation Division) that there was no specific target.

In practice, there is significant variation in the mix of proactive and reactive compliance activities between directorates and teams, with some teams doing either largely proactive or largely reactive activities. This can depend on the nature of the industry sectors and geographic areas in which they function, and the extent of teams’ non-discretionary reactive workload.

Planning, implementing and evaluating proactive compliance work is inconsistently done across SafeWork NSW, making it hard to assess whether resources are being used effectively

The audit team found widely differing approaches to how directorates and even individual teams within the same directorate used evidence to identify and target risk areas for proactive work programs, such as blitzes. While there was evidence that data was used to inform how activities would be targeted, this was not consistent. For example, some teams draw on intelligence generated by dedicated interventions staff in their directorates, while others rely entirely on opportunistically identifying potential worksites for proactive work by driving or walking past sites. The audit found examples of effective use of data and intelligence to plan proactive activities.

There is also no consistent approach to planning, implementing, or evaluating proactive compliance work across SafeWork NSW. Even within the same directorate, there can be significant differences in approach. Some of these differences can be explained by the different types of matters and circumstances that apply to PCBUs across different industries. However, inconsistencies extended to fundamental aspects of proactive compliance work such as:

• the rigour of evidence and intelligence by which priorities are determined and targeted, which was partly reflected by directorates having different levels of internal data capability
• the degree of project management capability and resourcing, including where some directorates have dedicated specialist project management skills, while others rely on inspectors to perform project management
• the extent to which different directorates and teams had a clear approach to how programs would be evaluated, beyond simply measuring activity, something which appears undermined by the absence of an evaluation framework
• whether the strategic intent of programs and blitz activities are to drive meaningful behavioural change or just, as some interviewees expressed it, to ‘make sure they tick some boxes.’

These material differences and lack of consistency in approaches to proactive compliance makes it difficult to assess whether these activities are effective and efficient regulatory interventions. While there was strong support for proactive compliance activity among both managers and inspectors (indeed, most thought that there should be more proactive activity), there were relatively few who could provide an evidence base to justify the significant staff resources that they consume.

The Centre for Work Health and Safety has a function to improve data, research, and evidence to support risk identification

The Centre for Work Health and Safety (CWHS), a functional unit within SafeWork NSW, was established in December 2017 under the WHS Roadmap 2016-2022. Among other things, it has an insights and analytics function. Its establishment was driven by the recognition that SafeWork NSW was not effectively using data and evidence to support its decision-making and activities.

Two pieces of work undertaken by the CWHS are intended to provide SafeWork NSW with greater capability in identifying and addressing risk in both strategic and operational contexts.

First, the WHS Radar project is intended to deliver ‘…regular and actionable insights about WHS in an Australian context.’ Conducted twice a year, the WHS Radar synthesises information about work health and safety by drawing on five sources of evidence:

• existing data, including incidents, worker’s compensation, ABS, and prosecutions
• analysis of grey literature (non-peer reviewed sources, such as government reports, some conference papers, and reports from academic, business and industry bodies)
• social media listening
• nationwide survey of WHS inspectors and experts
• nationwide survey of Australian workers across all industries.

The WHS Radar is intended to reduce the extent to which SafeWork NSW is dependent on lag data, by actively collecting more contemporaneous data from multiple sources. The first WHS Radar report was released publicly in April 2023.

A second piece of work delivered by the CWHS is the WHS Risk Rating tool for a PCBU.⁶ This tool attributes a rating to many businesses in NSW based on assessment of their future risk of non-compliance with WHS legislation. The WHS Risk Rating is intended to:

• support existing SafeWork NSW Triage decision-making
• support IDMP decision-making
• select high-risk profiles during blitz operations
• proactively screen and target high-risk profiles.

While some managers in SafeWork NSW did use the WHS Risk Rating tool, others were less confident in its value, expressing doubts about the accuracy and completeness of the data, or were not aware of it at all. These inconsistent views between different managers and directors, between those who use the WHS Risk Rating tool and those who do not use it or do not even have awareness about it, suggests that its purpose and functionalities have not been fully communicated to the wider inspectorate.

The governance of the CWHS, and particularly its relationship to SafeWork NSW, is somewhat unclear. While the Centre sits under the Executive Director, Regulatory Engagement, it identifies on its website as ‘A division of the Department of Customer Service’. Structurally, it is equivalent to a directorate under the Regulatory Engagement business area of SafeWork NSW, rather than a division of the department.

SafeWork NSW's inspectors are its core asset, and its ability to recruit, train and retain inspectors is key to fully performing its functions and meeting the internationally recognised benchmark

SafeWork NSW is funded to fully operate with up to 370 inspectors, though with 352 inspectors at August 2023 it has not recruited to full capacity.

Staff retention within the inspectorate has been a historic strength of the regulator. However, there has been a recent increase in inspector turnover. SafeWork NSW notes that from 2020 to 2022 attrition rates doubled from 5.3% to 10.6% within the inspectorate, which – due to the average age of its workers – was anticipated. Nearly one-third of inspectors were 56 years or older in the 2021–22 financial year. SafeWork NSW also experienced a general increase in resignations since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Increased recruitment activity is intended to mitigate the impact of ongoing attrition due to retirement. However, given the training requirements for new inspectors, there is a significant lag time between recruitment and the utility of inspectors in the field to progress regulatory priorities. SafeWork NSW notes however that inspectors receive authorisations to use their powers throughout the 12-month training period, with individuals assessed at a number of stages based on individual competence.

Where there have been capacity limitations, there have been localised responses such as the sharing of inspectors between teams, or the change in resourcing profile of investigations where instead of one inspector working on a case, a case is assigned to a team.

The International Labour Organization sets a benchmark of one labour inspector per 10,000 workers in industrial market economies. This benchmark is considered the number of inspectors deemed sufficient to ensure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate. In October 2022, SafeWork NSW reported at the Parliamentary Budget Estimates Committee hearings that recruiting the full contingent of 370 inspectors would have meant that there was one SafeWork NSW inspector for every 10,000 workers, allowing it to meet this benchmark.

SafeWork NSW provided advice to the audit team that forecast increases in the number of workers and workplaces in New South Wales will result in 471 inspectors being required to meet the International Labour Organization benchmark by 2027.

SafeWork NSW inspectors can take up to two years to be considered ready to be fully utilised, due to training requirements and variations in their experience

Once recruitment is completed and new inspectors commence employment, they will start the New Inspector Training Program (NITP). The NITP is a 12-month comprehensive training program which prepares new Inspectors to perform the duties required of an Inspector within SafeWork NSW as well as providing training and assessment required for the PSP50116 Diploma of Government (Workplace Inspection) qualification. Inspectors will be fully trained after 12 months.

They will be issued with their instrument of appointment (authorities) to use their powers throughout the 12 month course. However it was noted throughout interviews with the inspectorate that it can take up to two years for new inspectors to be deployed in the field on their own and confidently making decisions. SafeWork NSW notes that the level of mentoring and support provided to individual inspectors, and access to a variety of experiences to build a range of skills contributes to variations in new inspectors building their confidence.

SafeWork NSW also provides:

• a structured framework for new inspector onboarding and capacity-building, including in May 2023 formalising requirements for accompanied field visits, and delivering the NITP, delivered by the SafeWork NSW Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and utilising experienced inspectors from across the directorate to deliver training across the 12-month period
• a SafeWork NSW Inspectorate and Manager Continuing Professional Development Program Policy
• formal processes for Inspectorate Continuing Professional Development and Manager Continuing Professional Development, including recognition of prior learning through credit transfer from other registered training organisations
• a formalised procedure for inspectors to progress to senior inspector and principal inspector.

While it was beyond the scope of this audit to assess the effectiveness of this training and capability development framework, it was recognised by interviewees that the commitment of time and resources provided by SafeWork NSW to training inspectors was significant. This underscores the importance of ensuring the effective use of inspectors.

There are inconsistent expectations around the responsibilities of SafeWork NSW inspectors and managers for identifying new and emerging issues

Inspectors may apply to the Inspector Progression Panel of SafeWork NSW to progress from Inspector to the level of Senior Inspector, or Senior Inspector to the level of Principal Inspector. In addition to the overarching requirements of the (Department of Customer Service – SafeWork NSW Inspectors 2007) Reviewed Award, this process is governed by a formal written procedure.

This procedure sets out that in considering applications for progression, the panel should take into account whether the applicant has fulfilled the responsibilities of their current role. The procedure specifies that inspectors and principal inspectors are accountable to:

It is unclear why inspectors and principal inspectors have this responsibility, but not the intermediate level of senior inspectors. It is also unclear whether people managers, such as team managers, directors, and executive directors, also have similar formal obligations to proactively identify emerging issues.

Moreover, as senior inspectors are not accountable for identifying trends and emerging issues, inspectors are not assessed against this accountability when seeking progression to the senior inspector level. In contrast, when seeking progression from senior inspector to principal inspector, the applicant is required to provide evidence of how they meet this accountability, even though it is not an accountability specified for senior inspectors.

The accuracy of SafeWork NSW’s workforce planning is uncertain

Workload capacity is managed at the directorate level, with a forecasting report on the capacity across all teams discussed quarterly at the SafeWork NSW Leadership Group. Inspectors do not fill out timesheets, instead, this is based on time estimates for specific activities undertaken by inspectors. Directorates are also responsible for leading or supporting work against specific regulatory priorities, requiring directorates to discuss workforce capacity as part of planning proactive work.

SafeWork NSW has a 'workload management treatment model' that provides operation guidance once certain thresholds are reached within this forecasting report. These mechanisms include the reallocation of resources within the directorate at 125% of capacity reached, sharing and reallocation of work between equivalent portfolios at 150% of capacity reached, and cross directorate sharing of work and resources as well as the cessation or deference of work at 175% of capacity reached.

The actual allocation of inspectors to individual directorates is determined at the executive level when vacancies arise, with SafeWork NSW noting that 'consideration is given to the demand for regulatory services (current and expected future) across all teams to determine which directorate and office location a replacement position should be allocated'.

Audit interviews identified some concern that the calculations the forecasting reports are based on were not accurate, overestimated time, and that the data was used inconsistently and as a method to 'grab for resources'. While this audit did not examine SafeWork NSW's forecasting methodology in detail, a sample of the workforce forecasting report for April to June 2023 showed average capacity ranging from 9% to 390%, which may indicate under-utilised or over-utilised teams, or under or overweighted activities.

While there are mechanisms in place to review operational capacity, longer-term strategic workforce planning does not seem to form part of these review processes.

As part of developing its regulatory priorities, SafeWork NSW released a discussion paper that noted broader trends affecting workplaces and communities that it regulates, for example the rise in mental health issues in the workplace, automation, and the return of regional on-shore manufacturing. SafeWork NSW has a SafeWork Inspectorate and Manager Continuing Professional Development Program Policy, however this policy was only finalised in July 2023.

³ This study, conducted by a third-party, stemmed from a recommendation made by the NSW Parliament’s 2019 Dust Disease Review to amend the WHS Act to require SafeWork NSW to ensure that a case finding study was carried out:

• to investigate respirable crystalline silica exposure in the manufactured stone industry, and

• to gather information to improve the identification and assessment of workers at risk of exposure.

The purpose of this recommendation was to ‘to improve the identification and assessment of workers at risk of exposure.

⁴ The authors of this case finding study identified significant data limitations, which meant that it was not possible to estimate with confidence the complete number of workers potentially affected by silicosis.

⁵ Because of the lag period between when a worker is exposed to risky work practices and when they may develop silicosis, complaint data is not necessarily a useful tool to identify the emerging risk, especially where awareness of the risk is low. Unlike with risks that pose a more immediate and direct harm – such as falling off an insecure elevated platform - individuals may be less conscious to complain about a risk where the potential injury is not immediately visible.

⁶ A person conducting a business or undertaking has the primary duty of care for work health and safety.

This chapter considers how effectively SafeWork NSW measures and reports its performance in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the WHS Act. This includes whether it has meaningful performance measures, whether its performance is transparent to all stakeholders, and whether it uses performance information to support continuous improvement and quality assurance.

Performance measurement and reporting are essential to demonstrating a regulator's effectiveness

The Audit Office’s 2022 Audit Insights 2018–22 report noted that:

The same report also observed that government activity should:

Relatedly, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has said that it is important for regulators to be aware of the impacts of their regulatory actions and decisions, and that this:

SafeWork NSW reports its activities and performance against certain KPIs, along with equivalent regulators in other Australian jurisdictions

Safe Work Australia, the national policy body for work health and safety, collects, analyses and publishes data across jurisdictions. SafeWork NSW provides data on regulatory activities such as the volume of proactive and reactive regulatory work, and performance measures such as injuries and fatalities. This is contained in the Safe Work Australia Comparative Performance Monitoring – Work Health and Safety Performance, and Work Health and Safety Compliance and Enforcement Activities reports.

The data published by Safe Work Australia provides comparative and longitudinal performance data relating to workplace injuries, fatalities, and compliance activities. This is ‘lag’ data, often 12 months or more in arrears. SafeWork NSW notes that due to the currency of data, it is not useful for planning purposes.

The ability to directly compare jurisdictional activities to form a view on the effectiveness of each regulator is limited, due to differences in how each work health and safety regulator works and the scope of their powers and responsibilities. For example, unlike in other states and territories, SafeWork NSW is not responsible for claims management or return to work matters.

Data reported by SafeWork NSW to Safe Work Australia indicates that, while fatalities have decreased, SafeWork NSW may not have had meaningful impact on the rates of serious injuries and disease claims since 2016–17

The data provided to Safe Work Australia shows that SafeWork NSW has presided over a period where there has been an increase in the incident rate of serious injury and disease claims in New South Wales. While SafeWork NSW is not responsible for workers compensation, the payment of workers compensation necessitates that a workplace injury has occurred.

The audit team has not seen evidence that SafeWork NSW has interrogated the root cause data trends since 2016–17 (discussed below). While the causes of workplace injury are often complex and multifaceted, the data suggests that SafeWork NSW may not be having a meaningful impact on reducing rates of serious injuries, but the poor data quality means that we cannot be sure. It was beyond the scope of this audit to specifically examine serious injuries and disease claims, or the root cause(s) for the upward trend.

An extract of one performance indicator is shown in Exhibit 2 below. It shows serious injury and disease claim data from 2012–13 through to 2020–21 (where 2020–21p stands for preliminary data). The 2015–16 financial year is highlighted to indicate the establishment phase of SafeWork NSW.

This chapter considers selected policies and procedures that SafeWork NSW has implemented to ensure that it performs its compliance functions in a manner that is consistent with regulatory good practice. This includes that regulatory decisions are fair, consistent, predictable, transparent and in accordance with any laws or government policy. This extends to how complaints and incidents are initially triaged, the decisions inspectors make in response to complaints or incidents, and decisions made about whether a matter is referred to investigation for possible prosecution.

SafeWork NSW has made significant efforts to promote consistency in regulatory decision-making

A core element of an effective compliance regime is that the regulator’s behaviour and decision-making should be consistent and predictable. This encourages trust and confidence in the regulator, while promoting clarity and certainty among regulated entities.

SafeWork NSW faces particular challenges to achieving consistency in regulatory outcomes without fettering the legislative decision-making authority of individual inspectors. The audit was made aware of cases where stakeholders could not understand the rationale by which decisions were made, including in matters raised in Parliamentary Budget Estimates Committee hearings.

The reasons for the lack of consistency, whether perceived or actual, includes such matters as:

• the unique circumstances that may apply to individual risks, hazards, or incidents
• the wide variation in characteristics of PCBUs, including in regard to matters that might affect their culpability for non-compliance, such as their size or compliance history
• varying levels of experience across inspectors
• potential differences between individual inspectors in risk appetite, regulatory posture and attitudes to varying regulatory interventions.

These complexities have received heightened attention by SafeWork NSW since the 2020 findings of the NSW Ombudsman’s inquiry into SafeWork NSW and the Blue Mountains City Council. Among other things, in this inquiry the Ombudsman found that:

• only inspectors had the authority to form a ‘reasonable belief’ that non-compliance with the WHS Act or regulation had occurred
• where an inspector forms a ‘reasonable belief’ of non-compliance, then they must issue a regulatory notice
• instances had occurred where inspectors had issued notices without forming the necessary ‘reasonable belief’ that valid grounds existed for those notices
• inspectors had issued notices without forming their own requisite ‘reasonable belief’ because they had been directed to issue notices by management.

Notwithstanding these challenges, SafeWork NSW was able to demonstrate that it has implemented measures aimed at promoting consistency in regulatory decision-making. These measures include:

• extensive guidance in exercising discretionary decision-making
• inspector practice notes
• directorate and team level discussions intended to promote consistency in decision-making.

These measures are primarily focused at encouraging consistency in the application of the law prospectively. There was less evidence that decisions were consistently, formally, and robustly reviewed retrospectively, such as by:

• peer review
• internal audit or quality assurance of decisions
• managerial coaching and mentoring.

The audit found varying practices and processes across SafeWork NSW teams and directorates for these sorts of retrospective and reflexive learning processes. Some managers and directors were able to describe regular review activities, either through one-on-one case reviews with individual inspectors, or through team meetings, though the evidence was that these activities were not consistent across regulatory decision-making areas of SafeWork NSW.

Such retrospective mechanisms would not be aimed at varying decisions already made, but at contributing to standardising how inspectors make future decisions by promoting consistency through setting precedents for responding to substantively similar matters.

Staff performance management is inconsistent across SafeWork NSW, which may hinder consistent practices, behaviours and outcomes

The use of organisational performance management and planning systems can be an important tool for promoting consistent behaviours, understandings and outcomes.
This audit included a survey of all members of the inspectorate, excluding team managers. Approximately 60% the inspectorate responded to the survey. The survey of found that:

• 36% said that they did not have an annual performance agreement – almost one in every two inspectors (46%) in the two metropolitan focused directorates said they did not have performance agreements that set out what was required of them
• the Investigation and Emergency Response directorate had a comparatively higher rate of reported performance agreements in place (80%) than all the other directorates that comprised SafeWork NSW (57%) – the reasons for this were not examined by the survey.

Findings from a survey of the inspectorate highlight the role of discretion in decision-making, and how these factors can be inconsistently applied

The survey conducted by the audit also asked inspectors about how different factors might affect their decision to issue a penalty notice for a breach of the WHS Act (excluding the most serious categories of matters that would ordinarily be immediately referred to full investigation and possible prosecution).

The discretionary factors that were included in the survey included:

• a sample taken from SafeWork NSW's written procedure for issuing penalty notices (shown in Exhibit 5 below)
• a small number that had been raised with the audit team by SafeWork NSW staff during interviews, namely: current regulatory priorities, media or political interest, and the size of the PCBU (specifically, whether or not a hypothetical PCBU was a small, family-owned business).

Source: SafeWork NSW, Penalty Notice Procedure.

Inspectors were asked whether a range of selected factors were in general more, less, or not at all likely to influence their decision to issue a penalty notice.

As shown in Exhibit 6 below, the survey found that the most common response to most of the factors was that they made it neither more nor less likely that an inspector would issue a penalty notice in response to non-compliance. In some cases, this is probably to be expected.

For example, whether or not a non-compliant PCBU is a NSW government agency should probably not affect whether it is issued with a penalty notice. This was the case for 80% of respondents (though notably, 20% of inspectors responded that it would affect their decision, including 3% who responded that they would be much more likely to issue a penalty notice).

Other variations seem less intuitive to explain. This is particularly the case when a factor is written in policy or procedures. For example, 44% of inspectors responded that their decision would not be affected by whether or not the PCBU had prior notice of the risk, even though prior notice is prescribed in the SafeWork NSW procedure as a factor that should be taken into account (see item 7 of Exhibit 5).

The role played by SafeWork NSW regulatory priorities is also uncertain. On the one hand, 62% of inspectors said that they would be more (39%) or much more (23%) likely to issue a penalty if the non-compliance related to a regulatory priority, while 38% said it would have no impact.

The survey also found noticeable variations in responses between directorates regarding when penalty notices would be more or less likely to be issued. This included in regard to:

• whether a non-compliant PCBU was a small business or not
• the role of PCBU culpability
• whether non-compliance related to a matter of media or political interest.

This chapter presents a case study that arose during the course of this audit. The case study demonstrates issues discussed in earlier chapters of this report, particularly in relation to the management of risk and the proper application of policies and procedures to ensure SafeWork NSW’s effectiveness as a regulator.

About the case study

The case study concerns the activities of the Department of Customer Service and SafeWork NSW, the latter of which is located within the department. Neither the case study nor this performance audit generally examined the activities of the commercial partner (including any related companies) referenced in the case study, including Trolex Ltd (UK), Trolex Nome Australia Pty Ltd., or Trolex Sensors Pty Ltd. No findings have been made, either express or implied, in relation to the commercial partner.

The case study was based on a review of evidentiary documents, primarily in the form of emails sourced from SafeWork NSW. To avoid compromising other processes, interviews were not held.

SafeWork NSW’s respirable crystalline silica real-time detection project

As discussed earlier, silicosis is a progressive, occupational lung disease resulting from inhalation of respirable crystalline silica. In recent years, there has been high profile attention to respirable crystalline silica exposure from manufactured stone products (such as kitchen benchtops), though these risks had been published in international research since at least 2010. Unlike asbestos, respirable crystalline silica from manufactured stone can lead to the development of silicosis and other lung diseases after relatively short exposure and latency periods, resulting in relatively young workers developing serious diseases.

From 2016 to 2022, SafeWork NSW’s Work Health and Safety Roadmap included a target to reduce workplace exposure to priority hazardous chemicals and materials by 30%. This focus was retained in SafeWork NSW's regulatory priorities for 2023, which included the aim of reducing the incidence of worker exposure to harmful substances such as silica.

In 2018, SafeWork NSW commenced a project to fund a ‘research partner’ to develop a device that would detect in real-time the presence of respirable crystalline silica in workplaces. This project was led by the Centre for Work Health and Safety within SafeWork NSW.

Following a selection process, Trolex, a private company from the United Kingdom, was selected as the research partner. Trolex developed a device intended to meet the objective of the project. This device is called the Air XS and sells for approximately $18,500 AUD. The Air XS device was launched on 7 April 2022. The first-generation of the Air XS devices are no longer on the market, however up to 60 second-generation devices are currently in use across Australia.

In December 2022, this research project won the DCS Secretary’s Award for Excellence in Digital Innovation and was also one of the department’s nominees for a Premier’s Award in 2022.

As part of understanding SafeWork NSW’s response to the work health and safety risks of respirable crystalline silica from manufactured stone products, the audit examined this research project to procure a 'research partner' to develop a respirable crystalline silica real-time detection device. The findings of this examination are set out below.

SafeWork NSW’s processes were ineffective in responding to and mitigating risk and in ensuring compliance

As detailed below, our examination of this project found significant governance failings in SafeWork NSW, including the absence of key documentation, which created risks relating to whether the project would deliver its objective and whether it complied with procurement requirements. Concerns about whether the Air XS device would satisfy project objectives were not properly addressed.

We also found non-compliance with mandatory procurement policies. The failure to ensure compliance with procurement requirements leaves open the risk that value for money was not achieved, or that the procurement was not fair, transparent, consistent with promoting competition, or free from corruption or maladministration.

As a result of the Audit Office raising these issues with the Head of SafeWork NSW, the regulator undertook to enter into discussions with the CSIRO to conduct further testing of the real-time RCS detection device.

Concerns were raised by staff about the accuracy of the Air XS devices, though these concerns were not escalated beyond Director-level staff

Both before and after the launch of the Air XS device, concerns were raised by technical staff within SafeWork NSW about the accuracy of the devices and the rigour with which they had been tested during development.

It should be noted that the manufacturer, in correspondence with SafeWork NSW, defended the accuracy of the Air XS devices. It was beyond the scope of the audit to reconcile apparently conflicting technical assessments. Rather, the audit examined how SafeWork NSW managed the potential project delivery risk when these material concerns were raised.

Toward the end of 2021, concerns first emerged about the accuracy of the Air XS devices in emails between staff in the Regulatory Engagement business area of SafeWork NSW. These emails outlined concerns that the Air XS devices were not sufficiently accurate in detecting respirable crystalline silica. These views were derived from testing performed outside of any technical assurance process. At the time, these concerns were not shared with executive-level staff, including with any relevant Directors.

By the end of March 2022, the Centre for Work Health and Safety had requested and received from Trolex testing reports on the Air XS device. Two technical staff in the Testing Services directorate of SafeWork NSW were asked to review the testing reports. They were given five days to conduct these reviews.

On 5 April 2022, two days before the product was launched, one of the technical staff emailed the Director, Testing Services, advising that each of the two technical staff had independently prepared assessments and that their conclusions were ‘…not what DCS will want to hear’.

The internal assessment reports were subsequently provided to the Director, Testing Services, and to the Centre for Work Health and Safety. One of the reports stated that the product was not ‘market ready’ and that further testing was required. The audit did not find evidence that these conclusions were escalated to the Executive Director, Regulatory Engagement.

On 6 April 2022, the research project manager was advised by a staff member in the Centre for Work Health and Safety that an independent expert’s report (commissioned by the Centre for Work Health and Safety) concluded that ‘…there isn’t enough data to assess the validity of the device’.

Despite these concerns, the product launch occurred on 7 April 2022.

The audit found that concerns were again documented on at least two occasions after the product was launched. First, in September 2022, a senior technical staff member in the Centre for Work Health and Safety expressed concerns to colleagues, including the Director, Testing Services, that the staff member was uncomfortable promoting the Air XS without further testing being conducted.

Secondly, in May 2023, an internal test report prepared within the Testing Services business unit highlighted specific concerns about the accuracy of a first-generation Air XS device. This internal test report was provided to the Director, Testing Services, and was conducted with at least the knowledge of the Director, Research and Evaluation.

In both cases (September 2022 and May 2023), there are gaps in the evidence concerning how widely these internal concerns were shared. The audit found no evidence of:

• any material response by SafeWork NSW management to address the concerns that had been raised
• any assessment of risks posed to SafeWork NSW and other stakeholders
• any escalation of the concerns to the relevant Executive Director or to the Head of SafeWork NSW.

This apparent lack of management action was despite the potential risks to the work health and safety of workers who may have relied on the Air XS, and to the reputation of the regulator.

Some SafeWork NSW staff were hesitant to raise concerns about the Air XS device

Some staff reported to us that they did not raise these risks with their managers due to concerns that to do so might affect their employment. In the Auditor-General’s 2018 audit report Managing risks in the NSW public sector: risk culture and capability, it was noted that:

The report also observed that it is now widely accepted that organisational culture is a key element of risk management because it influences how people recognise and engage with risk. This includes ensuring that agencies have a culture of open communication so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks.

In this case, SafeWork NSW lacked the risk processes and culture to encourage all staff to identify, raise, escalate, and respond to risk appropriately. While the department does have a mechanism (via dedicated phone and email contacts) for staff to report integrity concerns, this mechanism was not used.

Concerns about the Air XS device were also raised by an external user of the device, though there is no evidence that these concerns were substantively addressed

On 21 August 2023, a senior manager from an external user emailed staff in SafeWork NSW’s Testing Services Directorate to advise that they had told the local distributor that they no longer wished to conduct further testing, nor purchase any Air XS devices. The senior manager stated that:

The senior manager further stated that they were:

The audit found no evidence that these concerns were meaningfully addressed by SafeWork NSW.

The process of procuring a ‘research partner’ to develop the Air XS device was flawed, in that there was non-compliance with procurement obligations and inadequate record keeping

The cost of procuring the Air XS research partner increased from an initial estimated cost of $200,000 when the request for tender was issued in May 2019 to $1.34 million when the final contract was executed in August 2019.

The audit found non-compliance in the process undertaken by the CWHS to procure the research partner. This non-compliance related to the requirements of the applicable departmental procurement manual, as well as with DCS financial delegations, and with the tender evaluation plan prepared for the process.

Examples of non-compliance and other poor practices are outlined below.

• The Director, Research and Evaluation, was a voting member of the evaluation committee and also signed the acceptance letter for the successful proposal. This contravened the department’s procurement requirement that an approving delegate may not also evaluate tender responses. At the time, the estimated cost of the engagement was $200,000 and was therefore within the Director’s financial delegation.
• The evaluation of the submitted tenders included an assessment provided by a designated non-voting member of the tender evaluation committee who had a declared conflict of interest.
• One member of the tender evaluation committee lodged a strong objection to the preferred provider. SafeWork NSW could not provide documentation about how this objection was addressed.
• When the final cost of the engagement increased to $1.34 million by August 2019, the Director, Research and Evaluation, no longer had the necessary delegation to approve the engagement of Trolex. Under the delegations issued by the DCS Secretary on 29 August 2019, the approval of an Executive Director was required for contracts valued between $500,000 and $2 million.
• The scoring in the tender evaluation committee’s (unsigned) evaluation report did not comply with the approach set out in the tender evaluation plan. This was material as, had the tender evaluation plan been followed, two tenders would have been assessed as having the same successful score.
• SafeWork NSW was unable to provide:
  • a signed and dated copy of an approval to issue the initial request for tender
  • a signed and dated copy of an approval for SafeWork NSW to enter into a formal agreement with Trolex
  • a final tender evaluation report signed by all members of the tender evaluation panel
  • evidence of any approval to increase the value of the contract from the $200,000 anticipated in the initial request for tender up to the $1.34 million final value of the contract.

Such non-compliance can contribute to the risk of maladministration in procurement activities, including by undermining probity and challenging whether value for money is achieved.

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 #390 - released 27 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.

Pursuant to section 52A of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, I am pleased to present my Report on State Finances, for the year ended 30 June 2023. 

The report highlights the maturity of financial reporting across the sector, with most New South Wales (NSW) government agencies that consolidate into the whole-of-government accounts having unqualified audit reports.  

This report also highlights important areas for improvement. Improving the timely completion of the NSW Government's consolidated financial statements, and resolving matters on the quality of the Total State Sector Accounts that have resulted in modifications to the independent audit opinion, should be a key focus.  

Colleagues in NSW Treasury and key agencies, along with staff of the Audit Office, have worked extremely hard and collaboratively throughout the year to resolve significant accounting and audit matters, and address recommendations from past audits. I thank them for their diligence and commitment to ensuring the quality and timeliness of financial management and reporting in the NSW public sector.  

This level of professionalism needs to be sustained in view of the significant challenges that lie ahead, including embedding sustainability reporting and the disclosure of climate-related financial information. The State and the Audit Office are well placed to meet these challenges.  

As this is the last report I will present on State Finances during my term as Auditor-General, I would like to conclude by saying what an honour it has been to serve the Parliament of NSW in such an important role. A commitment to independent assurance and transparent reporting on the activities of government have been a hallmark of NSW for two centuries. We should all take pride in and protect this commitment to good government.

Margaret Crawford PSM 

Auditor-General for New South Wales

The Independent Auditor's report was qualified 

The audit opinion on 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 was qualified in relation to two issues and included an emphasis of matter. These matters are detailed below. 

From here on, the Consolidated State Financial Statements are referred to as the Total State Sector Accounts (TSSA), in line with NSW Treasury's naming convention. 

The audit opinion continued to be qualified due to a limitation on the scope of the audit relating to the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust 

The first qualification matter is a continuation of the prior year limitation of scope relating to the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT), who continued to deny access to its management, books and records for the purposes of a financial audit. 

NSW Treasury's position remains that CMCT is a controlled entity of the State for financial reporting purposes. This means CMCT is a GSF agency and is obliged under Section 7.6 of the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act) to prepare financial statements and give them to the Auditor-General for audit. 

To date, CMCT has not met its statutory obligations under the GSF Act. CMCT has not submitted its financial statements to the Auditor-General for audit despite repeated requests and has not provided access to its books and records for the purposes of a financial audit. As a controlled entity, NSW Treasury is required by Australian Accounting Standards to consolidate the CMCT into the TSSA. 

Consequently, the Audit Office was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on the carrying amount of assets and liabilities recognised in the TSS as at 30 June 2023 and of the amount of income and expenses for the year then ended. The value of the net assets of CMCT consolidated into the TSS is $321 million, and the total comprehensive income of CMCT consolidated into the TSS for the year is $25.8 million. The GGS financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2023 also recognised an equity investment in the net assets of CMCT ($321 million). 

This limitation of scope resulted in a qualified audit opinion being issued on the TSS and the GGS. 

Section 3 of this report titled 'Limitation of scope relating to CMCT' discusses this matter in further detail. 

The audit opinion was qualified due to a limitation on the scope of the audit relating to the non-land assets, liabilities, income and expenses of controlled entities that manage crown land and associated assets and for which reliable financial information is not available 

There are 579 Category 2 Statutory Land Managers and 119 Commons Trust entities controlled by the State. 

A category 2 Statutory Land Manager (SLM) is a type of Crown Land Manager that is controlled by the State. It excludes other Crown Land Managers such as councils, metro cemeteries and Crown Holiday Parks land managers. Commons Trusts (CT) are responsible for the care, control and management of commons for which the trust is established. A common is a parcel of land that has been set aside by the Governor or the Minister for specific use in a certain locality, such as grazing, camping or bushwalking.

NSW Treasury has determined that SLMs and CTs are controlled entities of the State. Consequently these should be recognised in the TSSA as required by Australian Accounting Standards. However, the non-land assets, liabilities, income and expenses of SLMs and CTs have not been recognised in the TSSA. 

Most of these entities have not prepared financial statements, upon which to consolidate the non-land assets, liabilities, income and expenses of SLMs and CTs into the TSSA. This is because they have either not complied with their financial reporting obligations under section 7.6 of the GSF Act, or they were not required to prepare financial statements as they met the prescribed reporting exemption criteria set out in the Government Sector Finance Regulation 2018. 

In 2022–23 NSW Treasury reviewed available financial information to estimate the aggregate value of non-land assets, liabilities, income and expenses relating to SLMs and CTs that were not recognised in the TSSA. 

NSW Treasury estimates the aggregate value of non-land assets not recognised in the TSSA to be in the range of $351.6 million to $382.4 million. However, there are significant limitations on the accuracy and reliability of financial information that support these estimates. Only 12 entities were supported by what NSW Treasury defined as ‘highly reliable financial data’. Two hundred and eighty-four entities provided self-reported information and 288 entities had not submitted any financial data. The balances of the remaining entities were supported by what NSW Treasury defined as ‘somewhat reliable financial data’. This included ‘lower-quality’ financial statements and assessments of asset values performed by the former Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). 

Because of the limitations on the accuracy and reliability of financial information relating to SLMs and CTs, the Audit Office was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine the impact on the value of non-land assets and liabilities that should be recognised in the TSSA as at 30 June 2023 and of the amount of income and expenses that should be recognised in the TSSA for the year then ended. 

Accordingly, this limitation of scope resulted in a qualified audit opinion being issued on the TSSA. 

Section 4 of this report titled 'Limitation of scope relating to Category 2 Statutory Land Managers and Commons Trusts' discusses this matter in further detail. 

The audit opinion included an emphasis of matter drawing attention to key decisions regarding the future of the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE) 

The Independent Auditor’s Report also includes an emphasis of matter, drawing attention to key decisions made by the government in August 2023 regarding the future of TAHE. 

The decisions are likely to have a significant impact on TAHE's financial position and future operating model, including converting TAHE from a for-profit State Owned Corporation (SOC) to a non-commercial Public Non-Financial Corporation (PNFC). 

These decisions may impact the future commercial agreements with the public rail operators and the future valuation of TAHE’s assets that are consolidated in the TSS. The decisions also mean that cash contributions made to TAHE are treated as grant expenses, rather than equity investments, the audit matter that has previously been reported. 

Section 5 of this report titled 'Investment in TAHE' discusses this matter in further detail. 

Other significant matters relating to the TSSA audit are covered in Section 6 titled 'Key audit findings'.

The number of identified errors increased in 2022–23 

In 2022–23, agency financial statements presented for audit contained 29 errors, where each error exceeded $20 million (20 errors in 2021–22). The total value of these errors was $2.5 billion, an increase from the previous year ($973 million in 2021–22). 

The following graph shows the number of reported errors (both corrected and uncorrected), exceeding $20 million over the past five years in agencies’ financial statements presented for audit. 

Most errors related to: 

• the incorrect application of Australian Accounting Standards and NSW Treasury policies 
• issues with the data, judgements and assumptions used when valuing non-current physical assets and liabilities 
• non-recognition of provisions related to the enhanced paid parental leave scheme that became effective 1 October 2022.

CMCT continues to deny the NSW Government and the Auditor-General access to its management, books and records 

NSW Treasury has reconfirmed the CMCT is a controlled entity of the State. The Audit Office accepts the position of NSW Treasury. 

The reaffirmation of this position means CMCT is a GSF agency under the provisions of the GSF Act. Section 7.6 of the GSF Act places an obligation on CMCT to prepare financial statements and give them to the Auditor-General. Further, section 34 of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (the GSA Act) requires the Auditor-General to furnish an audit report on these financial statements. 

The Audit Office recommended in the ‘State Finances 2022’ report that NSW Treasury and DPE should ensure CMCT meets its statutory reporting obligations. CMCT continues to contest NSW Treasury’s determination and asserts they are not a controlled entity of the NSW Government. 

To date, CMCT has not met its statutory obligations to prepare financial statements under the GSF Act and provide them to the Auditor-General for audit. CMCT has not submitted their financial statements to the Auditor-General for audit despite repeated requests and has not provided access to its books and records for the purposes of a financial audit. There continued to be correspondence between the Audit Office of NSW, CMCT, NSW Treasury and DPE in 2022–23 regarding this matter.

Category 2 Statutory Land Managers and Commons Trusts should be consolidated in the TSSA 

A category 2 Statutory Land Manager (SLM) is a type of Crown Land Manager that is controlled by the State. It excludes other Crown Land Managers such as councils, metro cemeteries and Crown Holiday Parks land managers. SLMs are persons or entities appointed by the Minister to be responsible for the care, control and management of Crown reserves on behalf of the people of New South Wales. 

Commons Trusts (CTs) are responsible for the care, control and management of commons for which the trust is established. A common is a parcel of land that has been set aside by the Governor or the Minister for specific use in a certain locality, such as grazing, camping or bushwalking. CTs are considered to be controlled entities of the Minister who administers the Commons Management Act 1989. CTs are not SLMs. 

Category 2 SLMs and CTs are controlled entities of the State and should be consolidated in the Total State Sector Accounts as required by Australian Accounting Standards. 

Most of these entities have not prepared audited financial statements, upon which to consolidate the non-land assets, liabilities, income and expenses of SLMs and CTs into the Total State Sector Accounts. This is because they have either not complied with their financial reporting obligations under section 7.6 of the GSF Act or they were not required to prepare audited financial statements as they met the prescribed reporting exemption criteria set out in the Government Sector Finance Regulation 2018. Further information on this compliance matter is included in Section 6 of this report titled 'Key audit findings'. 

Insufficient financial information is available to estimate the value of non-land assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of SLMs and CTs that should be consolidated in the TSSA 

In 2022–23, NSW Treasury reviewed the available financial information to estimate the aggregate value of assets, liabilities, income, and expenses relating to SLMs and CTs that should be consolidated in the TSSA. 

Land managed by the SLMs and CTs is valued each year by the former Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and included in the TSSA in aggregate ($466 million, 2021–22: $318 million). However, there were significant issues with the accuracy and reliability of financial information to support non-land assets, liabilities, income and expenses of SLMs and CTs. 

NSW Treasury considered the financial statements of 30 of the largest SLMs and CTs, self-reported financial information for around 400 SLMs and CTs, asset valuations, aerial photography, review of business operations, risks, legal claims, insurance arrangements and limitations imposed due to the scale and bespoke nature of the operations. DPE facilitated further engagement with SLMs and CTs to identify additional information.

NSW Treasury estimates the aggregate value of non-land assets not recognised in the TSSA to be in the range of $351.6 million to $382.4 million. However, there are significant limitations on the accuracy and reliability of financial information that support these estimates. Only 12 entities were supported by what NSW Treasury defined as ‘highly reliable financial data’. Two hundred and eighty-four entities provided self-reported information and 288 entities had not submitted any financial data. The balances of the remaining entities were supported by what NSW Treasury defined as ‘somewhat reliable financial data’. This included ‘lower-quality’ financial statements and assessments of asset values performed by DPE. 

Although the review provided some information about the SLMs and CTs, NSW Treasury concluded that there were significant limitations in the financial information available from the SLMs and CTs, and limited information to support compliance with accounting policies and relevant Treasurer’s directions. 

The TSSA audit opinion was qualified in relation to SLMs and CTs 

The opinion in the TSSA’s audit report was qualified due to the limitations on the accuracy and reliability of financial information relating to SLMs and CTs. This is a new audit qualification for 2022–23. 

This limitation was appropriately disclosed in Note 1 'Statement of Significant Accounting Policies' of the TSSA. The Statement of Compliance signed by the Secretary of NSW Treasury and the Treasurer on 18 January 2024 was also updated to acknowledge the disclosure in Note 1 regarding SLMs and CTs.

In September 2023, the NSW Government announced its intention to convert TAHE into a non-commercial PNFC. 

TAHE’s new operating model is expected to be implemented in three phases: 

• Phase 1: the government expects to transition TAHE to not-for-profit status by taking administrative actions under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989. 
• Phase 2: the government expects to introduce an initial wave of legislative changes to allow for the introduction of the new operating model. 
• Phase 3: the government expects to introduce further legislative changes to remove TAHE’s status as a SOC. The corporation is expected to be renamed. 

Cash contributions from NSW Treasury to TAHE in 2022–23 have been expensed and are no longer treated as equity contributions 

In prior years the cash transfers from NSW Treasury (an entity in the GGS) to TAHE, an entity controlled by the State that is classified in the PNFC sector, were treated as equity contributions. 

The equity contributions were recognised on the basis there was a reasonable expectation to earn a sufficient rate of return of 2.5% (including recovering any holding losses) on the investment in TAHE. The exception to this treatment is if there is no reasonable expectation of a sufficient rate of return on the contribution, in which case, the transfer should be recorded as a capital transfer expense. Returns include dividends, income tax equivalents and holding gains or losses. 

The accounting treatment of the cash contributions to TAHE has been an area of significant audit focus in previous years, and significant audit findings reported to Parliament. The significant uncertainty relating to the assumptions and estimates used to forecast a 2.5% return on GGS investments into TAHE, that supported the recognition of an equity contribution in the prior year, was reported as an emphasis of matter in the 2021–22 TSSA audit report. 

In 2022–23 the government changed the intent and expectations in relation to the future operating model of TAHE. This change in direction meant the government will no longer account for cash contributions to TAHE as equity, but rather will treat such contributions as an expense. This is because the government is no longer demonstrating that there is a reasonable expectation of a sufficient rate of return on the contributions made by the GGS to TAHE. 

As a result, from 1 July 2022, the capital funding of $1.6 billion provided to TAHE in 2022–23 has been recorded as a capital transfer expense in the GGS Statement of Comprehensive Income. 

The emphasis of matter included in last year’s TSSA audit report relating to the significant uncertainty relating to the assumptions and estimates used to forecast returns on GGS investments into TAHE is no longer relevant this year. However, the Audit Office have included a new emphasis of matter in the 2022–23 TSSA audit report, drawing attention to the key decisions made by the government in August 2023 regarding the future of TAHE. 

'Emphasis of matter' paragraphs are included in an agency's Independent Auditor's Report for matters that have been presented or disclosed by the agency in its certified financial statements. Whilst they do not constitute an audit qualification, they do highlight matters that are, in our judgment, relevant to the users' understanding of the financial statements. 

Further information on last year's audit of the government's investment in TAHE can be found in our ‘State Finances 2022’ report.

Valuation of TAHE assets in TAHE's accounts

At 30 June 2023, TAHE reported $16.5 billion in property, plant and equipment and related intangibles within the cash generating units (CGUs) – a $2.8 billion or 15% decrease from the same time last year (2021–22: $19.3 billion). The fair value of these assets at balance date is determined using the income approach – appropriate for TAHE given its current for-profit status. Such an approach is reliant on, and is sensitive to TAHE’s judgements, estimates and assumptions. 

The reduction in the carrying value of reported assets was largely driven by the uncertainty of TAHE's future operating model under the new government, which increased the risk and discount rates applied to the valuation model. 

Given the uncertainty over the future of TAHE, NSW Treasury and TAHE will need to assess whether the income approach remains an appropriate basis of valuation going forward. 

Control of TAHE assets 

TAHE's position on control of assets for the current year was accepted 

TAHE assessed that it maintains control of its assets as it has exercised authority and power over its assets during the year, as well as continuing to operate as an independent SOC. 

Consistent with the prior year, the audit did not find evidence that the assets held by TAHE are not controlled by TAHE. However, given the constraints that can be imposed through the operating licence, there is a risk that limitations could be placed on the operations or functions of TAHE. Future limitations to the degree of control TAHE, and its board, can exercise over it functions may impact the degree of control TAHE has over its assets going forward. The current operating licence issued by the Minister for Transport expires on 30 June 2024. 

Furthermore, the government’s decision to change the operating model for TAHE in future years could impact the control TAHE has over its assets. The control of these assets by TAHE will be a continued area of audit focus.

Performance audit on the design and implementation of TAHE 

In January 2023, the Auditor-General tabled a performance audit on the 'Design and implementation of the Transport Asset Holding Entity', which assessed the effectiveness of NSW government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. The audit included TAHE, Transport for NSW and NSW Treasury. 

The audit found the design and implementation of TAHE, which spanned seven years, was not effective. 

The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to support an accounting treatment to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments.

The budget benefits of TAHE were claimed in the 2015–16 NSW Budget before the enabling legislation was passed by Parliament in 2017. This committed the agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, regardless of any challenges that arose. 

Rail safety arrangements were a priority throughout TAHE's design and implementation, and risks were raised and addressed. 

Agencies relied heavily on consultants on matters related to the creation of TAHE, but failed to effectively manage these engagements. Agencies failed to ensure that consultancies delivered independent advice as an input to decision-making. A small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on the same topic. The final cost of TAHE-related consultancies was $22.6 million compared to the initial estimated cost of $12.9 million.

Deficit of $10.6 billion compared with a budgeted deficit of $11.3 billion 

The General Government Sector (GGS) comprises of 210 entities and provides public services or carries out policy or regulatory functions. Agencies in this sector are funded centrally by the State. 

A principal measure of the government's overall activity and policies is its net operating balance (budget result). This is the difference between the cost of general government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors. 

Outside the GGS, a further 104 government-controlled entities are included within the TSSA. These entities form part of the PNFC (32) and PFC (72) sectors, and generally provide goods and services for which consumers pay for directly (including water and electricity). 

The GGS's budget result for the 2022–23 financial year was a deficit of $10.6 billion compared to an original forecast of a budget deficit of $11.3 billion.

Revenues increased $6.6 billion to $113.2 billion 

The State’s total revenues increased $6.6 billion to $113.2 billion, an increase of 6.2% compared to the previous year. Total revenue growth in 2021–22 was 18.2%. The State's increase in revenue was mostly from $2 billion in sale of goods and services, $1.5 billion in fines, regulatory fees and other revenue, and $1.4 billion in interest. 

Sale of goods and services increased by 14.8% 

Sale of goods and services revenue increased by $2 billion, mainly due to the return of the State's operations and services post the COVID-19 pandemic, including the: 

• return of elective surgery, increased patient services and sale of high-cost drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment for Section 100 Highly Specialised Drugs for both private and public patients 
• increased user demand for public transport 
• re-opening of schools contributing to higher revenue from student fees, sports and extracurricular activities. 

Fines, regulatory fees and other revenue increased by 19.8% 

Fines, regulatory fees and other revenue increased by $1.5 billion, mainly due to higher mining royalties collected by the State of $949 million. Extracted volume and weight of coal, gold and copper increased in 2022–23, as the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions eased, increasing the demand for export commodities. 

Interest revenue increased by 137.6% 

Interest revenue increased by $1.5 billion because of the strong interest rate environment and increases in the cash rate impacting securities, investment deposits and government agencies. As a result, this is passed on to new client loans as TCorp’s own borrowing costs increase.

Assets grew by $75.1 billion to $651 billion 

The State’s assets include physical assets such as land, buildings and infrastructure systems, and financial assets such as cash, and other financial instruments and equity investments. The value of total assets increased by $75.1 billion or 13.1% to $651 billion. The increase was largely due to increases in the carrying value of land, buildings and infrastructure systems. 

Valuing the State’s physical assets 

The State’s physical assets were valued at $489 billion 

The value of the State’s physical assets increased by $52.6 billion to $489 billion in 2022–23 ($46.7 billion increase in 2021–22). The State’s physical assets include land and buildings ($214 billion), infrastructure systems ($256 billion) and plant and equipment ($19.4 billion). 

The movement in physical asset values between years includes additions, disposals, depreciation and valuation adjustments. Other movements include assets reclassified to held for sale.

Appendix one – Prescribed entities

Appendix two – TSS sectors and entities

© 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.