Reports
Driver vehicle system
What this report is about
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) uses the Driver vehicle System (DRIVES) to support its regulatory functions. The system covers over 6.2 million driver licences and over seven million vehicle registrations.
DRIVES first went live in 1991 and has been significantly extended and updated since, though is still based around the same core system. The system is at end of life but has become an important service for Service NSW and the NSW Police Force.
DRIVES now includes some services to other parts of government and non-government entities which have little or no connection to transport. There are 141 users of DRIVES in total, including commercial insurers, national regulators, and individual citizens.
This audit assessed whether TfNSW is effectively managing DRIVES and planning to transition it to a modernised system.
Audit findings
TfNSW has not effectively planned the replacement of DRIVES.
It is now working on its third business case for a replacement system but has failed to learn lessons from its past attempts.
In the meantime, TfNSW has not taken a strategic approach to managing DRIVES’ growth.
TfNSW has been slow to reduce the risk of misuse of personal information held in DRIVES. With its delivery partner Service NSW, TfNSW has also been slow to develop and implement automatic monitoring of access.
TfNSW uses recognised processes for managing most aspects of DRIVES, but has not kept the system consistently available for users. TfNSW has lacked accurate service availability information since June 2022, when it changed its technology support provider.
TfNSW needs to significantly prioritise cyber security improvements to DRIVES. TfNSW is seeking to lift DRIVES’ cyber defences, but it will not achieve its stated target safeguard level until December 2025.
Even then, one of the target safeguards will not be achieved in full until DRIVES is modernised.
Audit recommendations
TfNSW should:
- implement a service management framework including insight into the views of DRIVES users, and ensuring users can influence the service
- ensure it can accurately and cost effectively calculate when DRIVES is unavailable due to unplanned downtime
- ensure implementation of a capability to automatically detect anomalous patterns of access to DRIVES
- ensure that DRIVES has appropriate cyber security and resilience safeguards in place as a matter of priority
- develop a clear statement of the future role in whole of government service delivery for the system
- resolve key issues currently faced by the DRIVES replacement program including by:
- clearly setting out a strategy and design for the replacement
- preparing a specific business case for replacement.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #388 - released 20 February 2024
State Finances 2023
What this report is about
Results of the audit of the Consolidated State Financial Statements of the New South Wales General Government Sector (GGS) and Total State Sector (TSS) for the year ended 30 June 2023.
Findings
The audit opinion on the 2022–23 Consolidated State Financial Statements was qualified in relation to two issues and included an emphasis of matter.
The first qualification matter is a continuation of the prior year limitation of scope on the audit relating to the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT), a controlled state entity, who continued to deny access to its management, books and records for the purposes of a financial audit. As a result, the Audit Office was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the assets, liabilities, income and expenses relating to CMCT recorded in the TSS and the equity investment recognised in the GGS relating to the net assets of CMCT.
The second qualification matter relates to the limitations on the accuracy and reliability of financial information relating to Statutory Land Managers (SLMs) and Common Trust entities (CTs) controlled by the State and were either exempted from requirements to prepare financial reports, or who were required to submit financial reports and have not done so. The Audit Office was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine the impact on the value of non-land assets and liabilities, income and expenses that should be recognised in the 2022–23 Consolidated State Financial Statements and which have not been recorded in the Consolidated State Financial Statements.
The independent audit opinion also includes an emphasis of matter drawing attention to key decisions made by the NSW Government regarding the future of the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE).
Recommendations
The report includes recommendations for NSW Treasury to address several high-risk findings, including:
- ensuring accurate and reliable financial information is available to recognise the non-land balances of SLMs and CTs
- ensuring the CMCT, SLMs and CTs meet their statutory reporting obligations
- conducting a broader review of the financial reporting exemption framework
- continued monitoring of TAHE's control over its assets
- providing timely guidance to the sector relating to legislative or policy changes that impact financial reporting
- developing an accounting policy for the reimbursement of unsuccessful tender bid cost contributions.
Read the PDF report
Treasury 2023
What this report is about
Result of the Treasury portfolio of agencies’ financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
The results of the audit of the NSW Government’s consolidated Total State Sector Accounts (TSSA), which are prepared by NSW Treasury, will be reported separately in our report on ‘State Finances 2023’.
The audit found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all general purpose financial statement audits.
Qualified audit opinions were issued on two of the 24 other engagements prepared by portfolio agencies. These related to payments made from Special Deposit Accounts that did not comply with the relevant legislation.
The number of monetary misstatements identified in our audits increased from 29 in 2021–22 to 39 in 2022–23.
The new parental leave policy impacted agencies across all portfolios. NSW Treasury should perform annual assessments to identify changes in legislation and regulation and provide timely guidance to the sector.
Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro have capitalised over $300 million of tender bid costs paid to unsuccessful tender bidders relating to significant infrastructure projects. Whilst NSW Treasury policy provides clarity on the reimbursement of unsuccessful bidders’ costs, clearer guidance on how to account for these costs in agencies’ financial statements is required.
The key audit issues were
Five high-risk issues were reported in 2022–23. Three were new findings on contract management, accounting treatments for workers compensation renewal premium adjustments and the management and oversight of a Special Deposit Account. Two repeat issues referred to the need to improve quality review processes over financial reporting and the timely approval of administration costs.
Portfolio agencies should prioritise and action recommendations to address internal control deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Treasury portfolio of agencies’ financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Treasury portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all Treasury portfolio agencies’ 2022–23 financial statements.
- Two qualified audit opinions were issued on special purpose financial reports, relating to whether payments from the Electricity Retained Interest Corporation – Ausgrid (ERIC-A) Fund and the Electricity Retained Interest Corporation – Endeavour (ERIC-E) Fund, complied with the relevant legislation.
- The total number of errors (both corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased from 29 in 2021–22 to 39 in 2022–23.
Reported corrected misstatements increased from 15 in 2021–22 to 25 with a gross value of $7.1 billion in 2022–23. Reported uncorrected misstatements increased from 13 in 2021–22 to 14 in 2022–23, with a gross value of $277.6 million in 2022–23.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Treasury portfolio.
Section highlights
- Five high-risk issues were reported in 2022–23. Three were new findings on contract management, accounting treatments for workers compensation renewal premium adjustments and the management and oversight of a Special Deposit Account.
- A further 35 moderate risk findings were reported in 2022–23, of which ten were repeat findings.
- Some agencies have again spent monies without an authorised delegation.
- The quality of information provided for audit purposes needs to improve.
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting
Appendix four – Financial data
Appendix five – Acquittals and other opinions
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Transport 2023
What this report is about
Result of the Transport portfolio of agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
The audit found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all Transport portfolio agencies.
An 'emphasis of matter' paragraph was included in the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales' (TAHE) independent auditor's report, which draws attention to management's disclosure regarding proposed changes to TAHE's operating model.
Government's decision to convert TAHE into a non-commercial Public Non-Financial Corporation may impact the future valuation and the control of TAHE's assets.
Transport for NSW's valuation of roads and bridges resulted in a net increase to its asset value by $15.7 billion.
Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro have capitalised over $300 million of tender bid costs paid to unsuccessful tender bidders relating to significant infrastructure projects. Whilst NSW Treasury policy provides clarity on the reimbursement of unsuccessful bidders' costs, clearer guidance on how to account for these costs in agency's financial statements is required.
The key audit issues were
The number of issues reported to management decreased from 53 in 2021–22 to 49 in 2022–23.
High-risk findings include:
- gaps in how Sydney Metro manages its contractors and how conflicts of interest are recorded and managed
- future financial reporting implications to account for government's proposed changes to TAHE's future operating model, including asset valuations and control assessments of assets and operations
- Parramatta Park Trust's tree assets' valuation methodology needs to be addressed.
Recommendations were made to address the identified deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Transport portfolio of agencies’ financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Transport portfolio of agencies (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all the portfolio agencies’ 30 June 2023 financial statements.
- An 'Emphasis of Matter' paragraph was included in the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales’ (TAHE) Independent Auditor's Report to draw attention to management's disclosure regarding the proposed changes to TAHE's future operating model.
- The total number of errors (including corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased by 59% compared to the prior year.
- The recent government's decision to convert TAHE into a non-commercial Public Non-Financial Corporation may impact the future valuation and the control of TAHE’s assets.
- Transport for NSW needs to further improve its quality assurance processes over comprehensive valuations, in particular, ensuring key inputs used in the valuations are properly supported and verified.
- Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro capitalised over $300 million of bid costs paid to unsuccessful bidders. NSW Treasury’s Bid Cost Contributions Policy does not contemplate how these costs should be recognised in agency’s financial statements. Transport agencies should work with NSW Treasury to develop an accounting policy for the bid cost contributions to ensure consistent application across the sector.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Transport portfolio.
Section highlights
- The 2022–23 audits identified four high risks and 28 moderate risk issues across the portfolio. Thirty-nine per cent of issues were repeat findings.
- Four high risk findings include:
- TAHE’s asset valuations (new)
- TAHE’s control of assets and operations (new)
- Sydney Metro’s management of contractors and conflicts of interest (new)
- Parramatta Park Trust’s valuation of trees (repeat).
- The total number of findings decreased from 53 in 2021–22 to 49 in 2022–23. Many repeat findings related to control weaknesses over the asset valuation, payroll processes, conflicts of interest and information technology user access administration.
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting
Appendix four – Financial data
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Regional road safety
What this report is about
Around one-third of the state’s population lives in regional NSW, but deaths on regional roads make up around two-thirds of the state’s road toll.
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is responsible for managing road safety outcomes across the NSW road network. This audit assessed the effectiveness of TfNSW’s delivery of road safety strategies, plans and policies in regional areas.
The NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026 has the stated goal of ‘no death or serious injury occurring on the road transport network’ by 2050.
What we found
There is a disproportionate amount of trauma on regional roads, but there are no specific road safety plans or trauma reduction targets for regional NSW.
TfNSW advises that the setting of state-wide road safety targets is consistent with other jurisdictions and international best practice. However, the proportion of road fatalities and serious injuries in regional NSW is almost the same as ten years ago.
There is no regional implementation plan to assist TfNSW to target the Road Safety Action Plan 2026 to regional areas.
TfNSW considers that local road safety outcomes should be managed by councils, but only 52% of regional councils participated in its Local Government Road Safety Program (LGRSP) in 2022–23. This program has not been updated since 2014, despite commitments to do so in 2021 and 2022.
TfNSW has not undertaken a systematic and integrated analysis of the combined impact of its road safety strategies and plans in regional NSW since 2012.
TfNSW reports against the Community Road Safety Fund (CRSF) annually but there is no consolidated, public reporting on total road safety funding allocated to regional NSW. The Fund underspend increased from 12% in 2019–20 to 20% in 2022–23.
What we recommended
We recommended TfNSW:
- develop a regional implementation plan to support the NSW Road Safety Action Plan, including a framework to annually measure, analyse and publicly report on progress
- develop a plan to measure and mitigate risks causing underspend in the CRSF
- expedite the review of the LGRSP including recommendations to increase involvement of regional councils.
Disclosure of confidential information
Under the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (the Act), the Auditor-General may disclose confidential information if, in the Auditor-General’s opinion, the disclosure is in the public interest, and that disclosure is necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions.
Confidential information in the Act means Cabinet information or information subject to legal privilege. This performance audit report contained confidential information.
The NSW Premier has certified that in his opinion the disclosure of the confidential information was not in the public interest.
The confidential information has been redacted from this report.
Under section 36A(2) of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, the Auditor-General may authorise the disclosure of confidential information if, in the Auditor-General’s opinion, the disclosure is in the public interest and necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions. Confidential information under the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 means Cabinet information, or information that could be subject to a claim of privilege by the State or a public official in a court of law. This performance audit report contained confidential information which, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, is in the public interest to disclose and that disclosure is necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions.
On 26 October 2023, pursuant to section 36A(2)(b) of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, the Auditor-General notified the NSW Premier of the intention to include this information in the published report, having formed the opinion that its disclosure is in the public interest and is necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions.
On 23 November 2023, pursuant to section 36A(2)(c) of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, the NSW Premier certified that, in his opinion, the proposed disclosure of the confidential information contained in this report was not in the public interest. The Premier’s certificate follows. Section 36A(4) states that a certificate of the Premier that it is not in the public interest to disclose confidential information is conclusive evidence of that fact.
The issuance of the certificate by the NSW Premier prevents the publication of this information. The relevant sections of the report containing confidential information have been redacted.
One-third of the New South Wales population resides in regional areas, but two-thirds of the state’s road crash fatalities take place on regional roads.
Between 2017 and 2021, the average number of fatalities for every 100,000 of the population living in regional New South Wales was 8.33 — approximately four times higher than the equivalent measure for Greater Sydney. Similarly, the average number of serious injuries in regional New South Wales over the same period was 75.24 per 100,000 of the population, compared with 50.53 in Greater Sydney. Further, more than 70% of people who lose their lives in accidents on regional roads are residents of regional areas.
Residents of regional areas face particular transport challenges. They often need to travel longer distances for work, health care, or recreation purposes, yet their public transport options are more limited than metropolitan residents. Vehicle safety is also an issue. According to the NSW Road Safety Progress Report 2021, of the light vehicles registered in New South Wales that were manufactured in or after 2000, 48.4% of light vehicles in regional areas had a five-star Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) rating, compared to 54.8% in metropolitan areas. Road conditions in regional areas can also be more challenging for drivers.
Regional New South Wales covers 98.5% of the total area of the state. The road network in New South Wales is vast — spanning approximately 200,000 kilometres.
The road network includes major highways, state roads and local roads. Speed limits range from 10 km/hr in high pedestrian shared zones, up to 110 km/hr on high volume and critical road corridors. Eighty per cent of the network has a 100 km/h speed limit, which is mostly applied as a default speed limit, regardless of the presence of safety features and treatments.
Speed is the primary causal factor in more crashes in New South Wales than any other factor, and car crashes in regional areas are more likely to be fatal because of the higher average speeds involved.
The responsibility for managing road safety outcomes across the entire New South Wales road network lies with Transport for NSW (TfNSW), pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Transport Administration Act 1988.
While its safety responsibilities are state-wide, TfNSW does not own or directly manage all of the road network in regional New South Wales, which spans approximately 200,000 kilometres. Approximately 80% of the roads are classified as Local Roads and are administered and managed by local councils. Local councils also maintain Regional Roads that run through their local government areas. TfNSW is responsible for managing State Roads (approximately 20% of roads), which are major arterial roads. It also provides funding for councils to manage over 18,000 km (approximately 10%) of state-significant Regional Roads.
According to TfNSW, between 2016 and 2020, there were 9,776 people killed or seriously injured on roads in regional New South Wales. Adding to the tragic loss of life, according to TfNSW, the estimated cost to the community between 2016 and 2020 resulting from regional road trauma and fatalities was around $13.7 billion.
TfNSW also noted that the ‘risk of road trauma is pervasive, and a combination of effective road safety measures is required to systematically reduce this risk’.
TfNSW released its first long-term road-safety strategy in December 2012, which introduced the goal of ‘Vision Zero’ — a long-term goal of zero deaths or serious injuries on NSW roads. The terminology was changed to ‘Towards Zero’ in the 2021 Road Safety Plan and has been retained in the NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026. Towards Zero has the stated goal of ‘no death or serious injury occurring on the road transport network’ by 2050.
The objective of this audit is to assess the effectiveness of TfNSW’s delivery of ‘Towards Zero’ in regional areas.
In making this assessment, the audit examined whether TfNSW:
- is effectively reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries on regional roads
- has an effective framework, including governance arrangements, for designing and refreshing the NSW Road Safety Strategy 2012–2021 and the NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026
- effectively makes use of whole-of-government and other relevant sources of data to support decision-making, and to evaluate progress and outcomes
- effectively manages accountabilities, including roles and responsibilities, with respect to road safety outcomes and the use of data.
This audit focused on the policies and strategies used by TfNSW for managing road safety outcomes in regional areas. We did not evaluate individual road safety projects, programs and initiatives as part of this audit.
Whilst Regional Roads and Local Roads (as defined by the Road Network Classifications) are owned and maintained by local councils, we included these roads in this audit as TfNSW may advise and assist councils to promote and improve road safety, as well as manage grant programs that focus on improving road safety outcomes on these roads. Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, references to ‘regional roads’ refer to all classifications of roads in the state which are in regional New South Wales, irrespective of their ownership.
Local councils in regional areas are key stakeholders for the purposes of this audit, and we interviewed eight as part of the audit process (noting that this was not intended to be a representative sample). Road asset management by local councils is also out of scope for this audit as it is the focus of a subsequent performance audit by the Audit Office of New South Wales.b
The Audit Office of New South Wales has undertaken several performance audits relating to road safety since 2009 and these have been referenced while undertaking this audit. They include:
- Condition of State Roads (August 2006)
- Improving Road Safety: Heavy Vehicles (May 2009)
- Improving Road Safety: School Zones (March 2010)
- Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras (July 2011)
- Regional Assistance Programs (May 2018)
- Mobile speed cameras (October 2018)
- Rail freight and Greater Sydney (October 2021).
Conclusion
TfNSW has acknowledged that there is a disproportionate amount of road trauma on regional roads in the NSW Road Safety Strategy 2012–2021, the NSW Road Safety Plan 2021, and the NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026. However, TfNSW has not articulated or evaluated a strategy for implementing road safety policy in regional New South Wales to assist in guiding targeted activities to address regional road trauma. There is also no transparency about the total amount of funding invested in improving road safety outcomes for regional New South Wales.
People living in regional New South Wales make up one-third of the state’s population, but deaths on regional roads make up around two-thirds of the state’s total road toll. This statistic is almost the same in 2023 as it was ten years ago when TfNSW released its first long-term road safety strategy.
More than 70% of people who died on roads between 2012 and 2022 in regional New South Wales were residents of regional areas. Speed is the greatest contributing factor to road fatalities and serious injuries across the entire state. However, it is responsible for more fatalities on regional roads (43%) than in Greater Sydney (34%).
TfNSW’s road safety strategies and plans acknowledge that most road fatalities occur in regional New South Wales but none of its existing strategies or plans show evidence of tailoring measures to suit particular regional settings or ‘hot spots’. There are infrastructure initiatives (such as Saving Lives on Country Roads) and behavioural programs targeting regional areas (such as Driver Reviver). However, these activities are not aligned to a regional-specific strategy or plan that addresses issues specific to regional areas.
TfNSW has state-wide responsibility for managing road safety outcomes. TfNSW advised the audit that a regional plan and regional trauma reduction targets are not needed as the state-wide plan and targets apply equally for all areas of New South Wales, and local road safety factors are best managed by local councils. TfNSW partners with local councils. However, only 52% of councils in regional New South Wales participate in TfNSW’s Local Government Road Safety Program, compared to 84% of councils in metropolitan areas. TfNSW has not undertaken any evaluations to determine whether projects completed under the Local Government Road Safety Program have reduced road trauma at the local level.
Notwithstanding the above points, TfNSW works with local councils (who are road authorities for local roads in their respective areas under the Roads Act 1993) and other key stakeholders such as the NSW Police Force to achieve the NSW Government’s road safety policy objectives.
TfNSW advised that ‘the setting of state-wide road safety targets is consistent with other jurisdictions and international best practice. Importantly, delivery of road safety countermeasures is tailored and applied with a focus on road user groups across all geographic locations to maximise trauma reductions’. There may be legitimate reasons for the existing approach, as articulated by TfNSW. However, the proportion of road fatalities in regional New South Wales roads has not reduced since 2012 – despite a long-term reduction in the overall number of deaths on the state’s roads between 2012–2021. The audit report has recommended that a regionally focused implementation plan could address this issue. TfNSW has accepted this report’s recommendation that such a plan be developed.
Specific road safety initiatives targeted to regional areas have not been implemented or expanded
| Text removed pursuant to section 36A of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW), in compliance with the issuance of a Premier’s certificate preventing the publication of this information. |
TfNSW increased the use of other forms of automated enforcement (such as tripling enforcement hours in mobile speed cameras).
However, the use of automated enforcement has a strong metropolitan focus with most red light and fixed speed cameras being in metropolitan areas. Average speed cameras are the only camera type overwhelmingly located in regional areas but these apply only to heavy vehicles and are positioned on major freight routes.
There is no consolidated, public reporting of what proportion of total road safety funding is directed to regional New South Wales each year. The main source of funding for road safety in New South Wales, the Community Road Safety Fund, has been underspent since 2019.
Fines from camera-detected speeding, red-light and mobile phone use offences are required to be used solely for road safety purposes through the Community Road Safety Fund (CRSF), as set out in the Transport Administration Amendment (Community Road Safety Fund) Act 2012.
The CRSF has been underspent every year since 2019–20. The underspend has increased from 12% in 2019–20 to 20% in 2022–23 where the full year underspend was forecasted to be $104 million. Of this underspend, $13.5 million was dedicated for regional road infrastructure projects. TfNSW advised the audit that much of the underspend is the result of delays to infrastructure projects due to COVID-19, bushfires, and floods, as well as skills shortages. However, TfNSW has not provided any evidence that it had a plan to mitigate these risks – meaning the level of underspend could continue to grow. TfNSW also advised ‘there is no reason to expect budget management and controls will not return to pre-COVID circumstances’.
In total, TfNSW received $700 million in funding for road safety in 2021–22 (including federal contributions and the Community Road Safety Fund). Of this, $411 million (or ~59%) was directed to regional New South Wales. This is the most recent comprehensive financial data that was provided by TfNSW to the audit team. The 2022–23 NSW Budget allocated $880 million for road safety in 2022–23, with a forecasted total allocation for road safety of $1.6 billion in recurrent expenses and $0.8 billion in capital expenditure over the period 2022–23 to 2025–26.
Appendix one – Response from Transport for NSW
Appendix two – The Safe Systems framework and NSW road safety strategies and plans
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 #386 - released 30 November 2023
Education 2023
What this report is about
Results of the Education portfolio of agencies’ financial statements audits for the year ended 30 June 2023.
What we found
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all Education portfolio agencies.
An ‘other matter’ paragraph was included in the TAFE Commission’s independent auditor’s report as it did not have a delegation or sub-delegation from the Minister for Education and Early Learning to incur expenditure on grants from other portfolio agencies.
What the key issues were
Comprehensive valuations of buildings at the Department of Education (the department) and at the TAFE Commission found that certain assumptions applied in previous years needed to be updated, resulting in prior period restatements.
The department prepaid a building contractor for early works on a project and some of the prepayment is in legal dispute.
The department duplicated a claim for project funding from Restart NSW in 2021.
New parental leave legislation increased employee liabilities for portfolio agencies. The department and the NSW Education Standards Authority (the Authority) updated their financial statements to record parental leave liabilities.
A high risk matter was raised for the Authority to improve the quality and timeliness of information to support their financial statement close process.
What we recommended
Portfolio agencies should ensure any changes to employee entitlements are assessed for their potential financial statements impact under the relevant Australian Accounting Standards.
The department should:
- improve processes to ensure project claims are not duplicated
- assess the risks associated with providing prepayments to contractors.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Education portfolio of agencies’ financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Education portfolio (the portfolio) for 2023.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all the portfolio agencies 2022–23 financial statements.
- An ‘other matter’ paragraph was included in the independent auditor’s report for the Technical and Further Education Commission (the TAFE Commission) as it did not have a delegation or sub-delegation from the Minister for Education and Early Learning to incur expenditure on grants from other portfolio agencies.
- Comprehensive valuations of buildings in the current year identified that certain assumptions applied in previous years were incorrect. The effects of these corrections are disclosed as prior period errors in the financial statements of the Department of Education (the department) and the TAFE Commission.
- The department made corrections to its financial statements to reflect increases to NSW teachers’ wages announced post balance date. This impacted amounts recorded as liabilities for a range of employee benefits and entitlements totalling $225.4 million, of which $147.9 million is accepted by the Crown and $77.5 million is borne by the department.
- A change to the NSW paid parental leave scheme, effective October 2022, created a new legal obligation that needed to be recognised by impacted government agencies. Of the three affected portfolio agencies, only the department and the NSW Education Standards Authority recognised a liability to account for this change. The aggregated unrecorded liabilities of other agencies in the portfolio totalled $2.4 million. The errors within the individual agencies’ financial statements were not material.
- The total number of errors (including corrected and uncorrected) in the financial statements increased compared to the prior year.
- The NSW Childcare and Economic Opportunity Fund should prepare financial statements unless NSW Treasury releases a Treasurer’s Direction under section 7.8 of the GSF Act that will exempt the SDA from financial reporting requirements.
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Education portfolio.
Section highlights
- The 2022–23 audits identified one high risk and 20 moderate risk issues across the portfolio. Of these, one was a high risk repeat issue and four were moderate risk repeat issues.
- The total number of findings increased from 29 to 36, which mainly related to deficiencies in financial reporting, information technology, payroll and purchasing controls.
- The high risk matter relates to the lack of quality and timely information to support the financial statement close process at the NSW Education Standards Authority.
Appendix one – Early close procedures
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Natural disasters
What this report is about
This report draws together the financial impact of natural disasters on agencies integral to the response and impact of natural disasters during 2021–22.
What we found
Over the 2021–22 financial year $1.4 billion from a budget of $1.9 billion was spent by the NSW Government in response to natural disasters.
Total expenses were less than the budget due to underspend in the following areas:
- clean-up assistance, including council grants
- anticipated temporary accommodation support
- payments relating to the Northern Rivers Business Support scheme for small businesses.
Natural disaster events damaged council assets such as roads, bridges, waste collection centres and other facilities used to provide essential services. Additional staff, contractors and experts were engaged to restore and repair damaged assets and minimise disruption to service delivery.
At 30 June 2022, the estimated damage to council infrastructure assets totalled $349 million.
Over the first half of the 2022–23 financial year, councils experienced further damage to infrastructure assets due to natural disasters. NSW Government spending on natural disasters continued with a further $1.1 billion spent over this period.
Thirty-six councils did not identify climate change or natural disaster as a strategic risk despite 22 of these having at least one natural disaster during 2021–22.
Section highlights
|
Section highlights
|
Universities 2022
What this report is about
Results of the financial statement audits of the public universities in NSW for the year ended 31 December 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all ten universities.
Nine universities reported net deficits in 2022, and all showed a decline from their 2021 results.
Results were impacted by a decline in investment income and government grants.
Wage remediation provisions across the universities increased by 116% to $110 million at 31 December 2022.
Expenditure increased as universities transitioned back to face-to-face teaching with the lifting of most COVID-19 restrictions.
Revenue from overseas students decreased by 0.5% overall in 2022, although not all universities were impacted equally.
Nearly 42% of fees and charges revenue came from overseas student revenue from three countries of origin (43% in 2021).
What the key issues were
We reported 88 findings to universities on internal control deficiencies (105 in 2021).
Six high risk findings were identified (four in 2021), relating to:
- IT control deficiencies in monitoring privileged user access
- password configuration
- cyber security process improvements
- lack of security over access to EFT payment files
- the status of a university's work in assessing its liability for underpayment of staff
- inadequate review of contracts leading to incorrect accounting treatments.
Two out of 13 entities reported financial losses from cyber incidents in 2022.
Retention policies on personally identifiable information (PII) vary and universities can further reduce their PII exposure risk from cyber attack.
What we recommended
Universities should:
- conduct a comprehensive assessment of their employment agreements and historical pay practices to identify potential underpayments
- prioritise actions to address repeat findings on internal control deficiencies in a timely manner
- review their PII retention policies to ensure PII stored is limited to the entity's needs, held only for the minimum duration it is legally and operationally required, and access is strictly limited.
This report provides Parliament with the results of our financial audits of universities in New South Wales and their controlled entities in 2022, including our analysis, observations and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- internal controls and governance
- teaching and research.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in university sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of universities in NSW for 2022.
Section highlights
|
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.
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.
Section highlights
|
Universities' primary objectives are teaching and research. They invest most of their resources aiming to achieve quality outcomes in academia and student experience. Universities have committed to achieving certain government targets and compete to advance their reputation and their standing in international and Australian rankings.
This chapter outlines teaching and research outcomes for universities in NSW for 2022.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – List of 2022 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2021 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.
NSW government agencies' use of consultants
What the report is about
This audit assessed how effectively NSW government agencies procure and manage consultants. It examined the role of the NSW Procurement Board and NSW Procurement (a unit within NSW Treasury) in supporting and monitoring agency procurement and management of consultants.
The audit used four sources of data that contain information about spending on consultants by NSW government agencies, including annual report disclosures and the State's financial consolidation system (Prime). It also reviewed a sample of consulting engagements from ten NSW government agencies.
What we found
Our review of a selection of consulting engagements indicates that agencies do not procure and manage consultants effectively.
We found most agencies do not use consultants strategically and do not have systems for managing or evaluating consultant performance. We also found examples of non-compliance with procurement rules, including contract variations that exceeded procurement thresholds.
NSW Procurement has made improvements to the information available about spending on consultants, including additional analysis and reporting. However, there is no single data source that accurately captures spending on consultants.
Our analysis of data on whole-of-government spending on consultants, drawn from agency annual reports, indicates that four large professional services firms accounted for about a quarter of consultancy expenditure from 2017–18 to 2021–22. This concentration increases strategic risks, including over-reliance on a limited number of providers and potential reduction in the independence of advice.
It is also highly unlikely that NSW government agencies will meet the government's 2019 policy commitment to reduce consultancy expenses by 20% each year, over four years, from 2019–20. NSW Treasury advised that to implement this commitment, agency budgets were reduced in Prime in line with the savings targets. However, actual spending on consulting in NSW Treasury's Reports on State Finances 2020–21 and 2021–22 was almost $100 million higher than the savings targets over the first three years since 2019–20.
What we recommended
The report made seven recommendations which aim to improve:
- the quality and transparency of data on spending on consultants
- monitoring of strategic risks and agency compliance with procurement and recordkeeping rules
- agencies' strategic use of consultants, including evaluation and knowledge retention.
Between 2017–18 and 2021–22, NSW government agency annual reports disclosed total spending of around $1 billion on consultants across more than 10,000 engagements. More than 1,000 consulting firms provided services to NSW government agencies during this period. Consulting is a classification of professional services that is characterised by giving advice or recommendations on a specific issue. The NSW Procurement Board Direction PBD-2021-03 defines a consultant as a person or organisation that provides 'recommendations or professional advice to assist decision-making by management'. PBD-2021-03 notes that the advisory nature of the work of consultants is the main factor that distinguishes them from other providers of professional services.
The NSW Procurement Board is responsible for setting procurement policy, issuing directions to support policies, and monitoring and reporting on agency compliance with policies and directions. NSW Procurement, a division within NSW Treasury, supports agencies to comply with the NSW Procurement Board’s policies and directions. A 'devolved governance model' is used for procurement in New South Wales. This means the heads of government entities that are covered by the NSW Procurement Board’s directions are responsible for managing the entity's procurement, including managing risks, reporting and ensuring compliance, in line with procurement laws and policies.
This audit assessed how effectively NSW government agencies procure and manage consultants. It assessed the role of the NSW Procurement Board and NSW Procurement in supporting and monitoring agency procurement and management of consultants. It also reviewed a sample of consulting engagements from ten NSW government agencies to examine how agencies procured, managed and reported on their use of consultants. The ten NSW government agencies were:
- NSW Treasury
- Department of Communities and Justice
- Department of Customer Service
- Department of Education
- Department of Planning and Environment
- Department of Premier and Cabinet
- Department of Regional NSW
- Infrastructure NSW
- Sydney Metro
- Transport for NSW
There are four different sources of data that contain information about spending on consultants by NSW government agencies: the State's financial consolidation system (Prime), disclosures of spending on consultants in agency annual reports, and two systems operated by NSW Procurement (the Business Advisory Services (BAS) dashboard and Spend Cube). Each of these data sources serves a different purpose, and collects and categorises information differently. None of these provide a complete source of data on spending on consultants, either in their own right or collectively.
NSW Treasury considers Prime to be the 'source of truth' on consulting expenditure across the NSW public sector. An account within Prime records recurrent spending on consultants, but this account does not include capital expenditure (that is, spending on consultants that has from a financial reporting perspective been 'capitalised' to a project on the balance sheet). As the State's financial consolidation system, Prime captures all financial information. However, capitalised consulting expenditure is recorded within various capital accounts, and is not identifiable within these accounts. While this is appropriate for accounting purposes, it means that the Prime account that records recurrent consulting expenditure does not reflect total spending on consultants by NSW government agencies. We used the data in Prime to assess whether NSW government agencies met the NSW Government's policy commitment—stated before the 2019 election and costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office—to reduce recurrent expenditure on consulting by 20% each year, over four years, from 2019–20. We did this because, while the Prime account for recurrent consulting expenditure does not reflect all spending on consultants, it does capture the recurrent spending that was subject to the policy commitment.
Most NSW government agencies are required by legislation to disclose spending on consultants (as defined in PBD-2021-03) in their annual reports. These disclosures include both recurrent and capital expenditure. For consulting engagements that cost more than $50,000, the disclosures also provide itemised information, including the names of the individual projects and the consultants used. While this data is more complete than Prime because it includes capital expenditure, it also has some gaps. Some entities are excluded from public reporting requirements on consultant use. For example, NSW Local Health Districts (LHD) are not required to produce annual reports, and the Ministry of Health does not include LHD consulting expenditure in its annual report.1 We used annual report disclosure data to report on total expenditure on consultants, and the concentration of suppliers of consulting services to NSW government agencies.
The BAS dashboard and Spend Cube are systems created by NSW Procurement to collect information about spending on suppliers of professional services. This includes consultants, but also includes other professional services providers. The systems were not designed for reporting on spending on consulting as defined in PBD-2021-03. However, we have used this data to assess specific aspects of NSW Procurement's monitoring of the use of consultants by NSW government agencies.
In 2018, we conducted an audit titled 'Procurement and reporting of consultancy services'. This assessed how 12 NSW government agencies complied with procurement requirements and how NSW Procurement supported the functions of the NSW Procurement Board. The 2018 audit found that none of the 12 agencies fully complied with NSW Procurement Board Directions on the use of consultants and that the NSW Procurement Board was not fully effective in overseeing and supporting agencies’ procurement of consultants. Specific findings from the 2018 audit included:
- Agencies applied the definition of consultant inconsistently, which affected the accuracy of reporting on consultancy expenditure.
- There was inadequate guidance from NSW Procurement for agencies implementing the procurement framework, with a need for additional tools, automated processes, and other internal controls to improve compliance.
- NSW Procurement had insufficient data for effective oversight of procurement and did not publish any data on the procurement of consultancy services by NSW government agencies.
Conclusion
Our review of a selection of consulting engagements from ten NSW government agencies indicates that these agencies do not procure and manage consultants effectively. We found that most agencies do not have a strategic approach to using consultants, or systems for managing or evaluating their performance. We also found examples of non-compliance with procurement rules, including contract variations that exceeded procurement thresholds. NSW Procurement, a division within NSW Treasury, provides frameworks and some guidance to agencies for procuring consultants. However, gaps in its data collection and analysis mean monitoring of strategic risks is limited and it does not respond to agency non-compliance consistently. There are limitations in ability of various data sources to accurately record spending on consultants. These limitations include incomplete recording of all spending, and different definitions of consulting for accounting and financial reporting purposes. Notwithstanding these limitations, and based on information in the State's financial consolidation system (Prime)—which records recurrent expenditure on consultants—it is highly unlikely that NSW government agencies will meet the government's 2019 policy commitment to reduce spending on consultants, as defined in the policy commitment and costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The use of a 'devolved governance model' for procurement means NSW government agencies are responsible for developing and implementing their own systems that align with the NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework. Agency heads are responsible for demonstrating compliance. Most agencies included in this audit did not have a clear strategic approach to how and when consultants should be used (for example, to seek advice and expertise not already available within the agency) and were using consultants in an ad hoc manner.
Our analysis of whole-of-government spending on consultants, drawn from agency annual reports, indicates that four large professional services firms account for around 27% of spending on consultants in the period from 2017–18 to 2021–22. The number of firms making up the top 50% of expenditure decreased from 11 to eight during this time, with the other 50% of expenditure spread across more than 1,000 firms. Concentration of consulting engagements within a small number of firms increases strategic risks, including that advice is not sufficiently objective and impartial, and that NSW government agencies become overly reliant on selected professional services firms.
Our review of a selection of consulting engagements by NSW government agencies found several examples of non-compliance with procurement policy. This included the use of variations to contract values which exceeded allowable limits. Record keeping was inadequate in many cases we reviewed, which limits transparency about government spending. Most agencies did not proactively manage their consulting engagements. The majority of consulting engagements that we reviewed were not evaluated or assessed by the agency for quality. Very few used any processes to ensure the transfer and retention of knowledge generated through consulting engagements. This means agencies miss opportunities to increase core staff skills and knowledge and to maximise value from these engagements.
NSW Procurement oversees a detailed policy framework that provides guidance and support to NSW government agencies when they are using consultants. The policy framework provides mandatory steps and some other guidance. Our audit on the procurement and reporting of consultancy services in 2018 found that agency reporting on the use of consultants was inconsistent and recommended that NSW Procurement should improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of data collection. NSW Procurement’s guidance on how agencies should classify and report on consulting engagements remains ambiguous. This contributes to continued inconsistent reporting by and across agencies, and reduces the quality of data on the use of consultants.
NSW Procurement has made some improvements to the information available about spending on consultants since our audit in 2018, including additional analysis and reporting that is available to agencies. However, there is still no single data source that accurately captures all spending on consultants. This is despite our recommendations in 2018 that NSW Procurement improve the quality of information collected from agencies and suppliers, which NSW Procurement accepted. This makes it harder for NSW Procurement or individual agencies to track trends and identify risks or improvement opportunities in the way consultants are used.
In early 2019, the NSW Government made a policy commitment to reduce consultancy expenses by 20% each year, over four years, from 2019–20 (excluding capital-related consultancy expenses). This commitment was set out in the Parliamentary Budget Office's '2019 Coalition Election Policy Costings (Policy Costings)'. NSW Treasury subsequently advised that to implement this commitment, agency budgets were reduced in Prime in line with the savings targets. However, actual spending on consultants recorded in Prime in the first three years after the commitment was made was almost $100 million higher than the targets. We did not see any evidence that the financial data on actual expenditure was used to inform reporting on NSW government agencies' progress toward achieving the savings set out in the policy commitment.
This chapter outlines our findings on the role of NSW Procurement in overseeing the use of consultants by NSW government agencies.
This chapter outlines our findings on the use of consultants by the ten NSW government agencies that were included in this audit.
Appendix one – Responses from auditees
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #378 - released 2 March 2023
Government advertising 2021–22
What the report is about
The Government Advertising Act 2011 requires the Auditor-General to undertake a performance audit on government advertising activities each financial year.
This audit examined whether TAFE NSW's annual advertising campaign in 2021–22:
- was carried out effectively, economically, and efficiently
- complied with regulatory requirements and the Government Advertising Guidelines.
What we found
TAFE NSW complied with Section 6 of the Act, prohibiting political content.
It also complied with most other advertising requirements.
An important exception was that the Managing Director certified that the campaign complied with regulatory requirements and was an efficient and cost-effective means of achieving its public purpose, before a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was completed.
We have found issues with agencies complying with CBA requirements in previous government advertising audits. This includes the failure to complete them before signing compliance certificates.
The policy owner, the Department of Customer Service (DCS), does not consider oversight of CBAs to be within the scope of their peer review process.
TAFE NSW evaluated this advertising campaign by surveying a population significantly broader than the target audience. As such, survey results may not accurately reflect the views of the intended audience.
What we recommended
By 30 June 2023, TAFE NSW should:
- implement processes that ensure:
- CBAs are completed before the launch of campaigns over $1 million
- compliance certificates are completed only after all regulatory requirements are met
- consider adding to its current evaluation methods by surveying a population which closely reflects the age profile of its intended target audience.
By June 2023, DCS should:
- improve whole‑of‑government reporting and monitoring processes to provide the NSW Government with a central view of compliance, including the completion of CBAs by agencies.
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 include an explicit prohibition on political advertising, as well as a need to complete a peer review and cost-benefit analysis before the campaign commences. The accompanying Government Advertising Regulation 2018 (the Regulation) and Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines) address further matters of detail.
The Act also 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. It also assesses compliance with the Act, the Regulation, other laws and the Guidelines.
This audit examined TAFE NSW's advertising campaign for the 2021–22 financial year. TAFE NSW is the NSW Government's public provider of vocational education and training. TAFE NSW carries out an advertising campaign every year. In 2021–22, it spent $15.16 million on developing and implementing advertising. TAFE NSW used channels such as television, radio, internet and social media, press, and out of home advertising in public settings such as bus stops. The advertising aimed to increase the percentage of people considering TAFE NSW for training or education, grow the percentage of people who consider TAFE NSW to be the preferred education provider in NSW, and maintain the proportion of people who are aware of TAFE NSW more generally.
There are a range of private service providers helping to deliver vocational education and training in NSW.
ConclusionTAFE NSW’s advertising campaign for 2021–22 was for an allowed purpose under the Act and did not include political advertising. TAFE NSW complied with most of the requirements set out in the Act, the Regulation, and the Guidelines, but it failed to complete a cost-benefit analysis for the campaign or provide sufficient support for the compliance certificate signed by TAFE NSW's Managing Director. TAFE NSW complied with the requirement to complete a peer review of its campaign, but it did not meet the requirement to complete a cost-benefit analysis, either before it launched the campaign or during its implementation throughout 2021–22. Some of TAFE NSW's advertising did not meet the requirement for statements to be clearly supported by evidence. The Act requires the head of an agency to sign a compliance certificate stating that, among other things, the campaign complies with the Act, the Regulation, and the Guidelines, and that the campaign is an efficient and cost-effective means of achieving the public purpose. TAFE NSW's Managing Director signed a compliance certificate in May 2021. However, TAFE NSW had not prepared a cost-benefit analysis as required under the Act and therefore TAFE NSW's Managing Director could not validly sign the compliance certificate. TAFE NSW did not subsequently complete a cost-benefit analysis during the campaign. The campaign achieved many of its objectives and other performance measures and is likely to have been impactful. It is also likely that TAFE NSW’s advertising campaign in 2021–22 represented economical, efficient, and effective spend. However, the lack of a cost-benefit analysis meant that this could not be confidently demonstrated by TAFE NSW. TAFE NSW used internal resources to create its advertising content, such as videos, radio scripts and press advertising, and relied upon a specialist partner to arrange and place its media in the appropriate advertising channel. TAFE NSW also adjusted the advertising campaign in response to performance data and in response to changes in the educational and advertising marketplaces. TAFE NSW evaluated the impact of its advertising and tracked its brand performance using a survey which reflected the New South Wales general population aged between 16 and 60. However, this evaluation did not match TAFE NSW's advertising spend as TAFE NSW directed significantly more of its campaign budget to influencing younger people in this cohort. |
This part of the report sets out key aspects of TAFE NSW's compliance with the government advertising regulatory framework. It considers whether TAFE NSW complied with the:
- Government Advertising Act 2011
- Government Advertising Regulation 2018
- NSW Government Advertising Guidelines 2012 and other relevant policy.
This part of the report considers whether TAFE NSW's advertising program for 2021–22 was carried out in an effective, efficient, and economical manner.
Appendix one – Responses from agencies
Appendix two – About the campaign
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #377 - released 28 February 2023
