Reports
Coordination of the response to COVID-19 (June to November 2021)
What the report is about
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies’ coordination of the response to COVID-19, with a focus on the Delta variant outbreak in the Dubbo and Fairfield Local Government Areas (LGA) between June and November 2021. We audited five agencies - the Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Health, the NSW Police Force, Resilience NSW and the Department of Customer Service.
The audit also considered relevant planning and preparation activities that occurred prior to June 2021 to examine how emergency management and public health responses learned from previous events.
What we found
Prior to Delta, agencies developed capability to respond to COVID-19 related challenges.
However, lessons learned from prior reviews of emergency management arrangements, and from other jurisdictions, had not been implemented when Delta emerged in June 2021. As a result, agencies were not as fully prepared as they could have been to respond to the additional challenges presented by Delta.
Gaps in emergency management plans affected agencies' ability to support individuals, families and businesses impacted by restrictions to movement and gathering such as stay-at-home orders. In LGAs of concern, modest delays of a few days had a significant impact on people, especially those most vulnerable.
On 23 July 2021, the NSW Government established a cross-government coordinating approach, the Delta Microstrategy, which complemented existing emergency management arrangements, improved coordination between NSW Government agencies and led to more effective local responses.
Where possible, advice provided to government was supported by cross-government consultation, up-to-date evidence and insights. Public Health Orders were updated as the response to Delta intensified or to address unintended consequences of previous orders. The frequency of changes hampered agencies' ability to effectively communicate changes to frontline staff and the community in a rapidly evolving situation.
The NSW Government could provide greater transparency and accountability over decisions to apply Public Health Orders during a pandemic.
What we recommended
The audit made seven recommendations intended to improve transparency, accountability and preparedness for future emergency events.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies’ coordination (focused on the Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Health, the NSW Police Force, Resilience NSW and the Department of Customer Service) of the COVID-19 response in selected Local Government Areas (Fairfield City Council and Dubbo Regional Council) between June and November 2021.
As noted in this report, Resilience NSW was responsible for the coordination of welfare services as part of the emergency management arrangements. On 16 December 2022, the NSW Government abolished Resilience NSW.
During the audited period, Resilience NSW was tasked with supporting the needs of communities subject to stay-at-home orders or stricter restrictions and it provided secretariat support to the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC). The SEMC was, and remains, responsible for the coordination and oversight of emergency management policy and preparedness.
Our work for this performance audit was completed on 15 November 2022, when we issued the final report to the five audited agencies. While the audit report does not make specific recommendations to Resilience NSW, it does include five recommendations to the State Emergency Management Committee. On 8 December 2022, the then Commissioner of Resilience NSW provided a response to the final report, which we include as it is the formal response from the audited entity at the time the audit was conducted.
The community of New South Wales has experienced significant emergency events during the past three years. COVID-19 first emerged in New South Wales after bushfire and flooding emergencies in 2019–20. The pandemic is now into its third year, and there have been further extreme weather and flooding events during 2021 and 2022.
Lessons taken from the experience of these events are important to informing future responses and reducing future risks to the community from emergencies.
This audit focuses on the NSW Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular, the Delta variant (Delta) that occurred between June and November 2021. The response to the Delta represents six months of heightened challenges for the NSW Government.
Government responses to emergencies are guided by legislation. The State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (SERM Act) establishes emergency management arrangements in New South Wales and covers:
- coordination at state, regional and local levels through emergency management committees
- emergency management plans, supporting plans and functional areas including the State Emergency Management Plan (EMPLAN)
- operations centres and controllers at state, regional and local levels.
This audit focuses on the activities of five agencies during the audit period:
- The NSW Police Force led the emergency management response and was responsible for coordinating agencies across government in providing the tactical and operational elements that supported and enhanced the health response to the pandemic. The NSW Police Force also led the compliance response which enforced Public Health Orders and included household checks on those required to isolate at home after testing positive to COVID-19. In some parts of NSW, they were supported by the Australian Defence Force in this role.
- NSW Health was responsible for leading the health response which coordinated all parts of the health system, initially to prevent, and then to manage, the pandemic.
- Resilience NSW coordinated welfare services as part of the emergency management arrangements and provided secretariat support to the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC). The SEMC is responsible for the coordination and oversight of emergency management policy and preparedness. Resilience NSW was also tasked with supporting the needs of communities subject to stay-at-home orders or stricter restrictions.
- The Department of Customer Service (DCS) was responsible for the statewide strategic communications response.
- The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) held a key role in providing policy and legal services, as well as supporting the coordination of activity across a range of functional areas and decision-making by our State’s leaders.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies’ coordination (focused on the Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Health, the NSW Police Force, Resilience NSW and the Department of Customer Service) of the COVID-19 response in selected Local Government Areas (LGA) (Fairfield City Council and Dubbo Regional Council) after June 2021.
The audit investigated whether:
- government decisions to apply LGA-specific Public Health Orders were supported by effective crisis management governance and planning frameworks
- agencies effectively coordinated in the communication (and enforcement) of Public Health Orders.
While focusing on the coordination of NSW Government agencies’ response to the Delta variant in June through to November 2021, the audit also considered relevant planning and preparation activities that occurred prior to June 2021 to examine how emergency management and public health responses learned from previous events.
This audit does not assess the effectiveness of other specific COVID-19 responses such as business support. It refers to the preparedness, planning and delivery of these activities in the context of supporting communities in selected LGAs. NSW Health's contribution to the Australian COVID-19 vaccine rollout was also subject to a separate audit titled 'New South Wales COVID-19 vaccine rollout' tabled in NSW Parliament on 7 December 2022.
This audit is part of a series of audits which have been completed, or are in progress, regarding the New South Wales COVID-19 emergency response. The Audit Office of New South Wales '2022–2025 Annual Work Program' details the ongoing focus our audits will have on providing assurance on the effectiveness of emergency responses.
In this document Aboriginal refers to the First Nations peoples of the land and waters now called Australia, and includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Conclusion
Prior to June 2021, agencies worked effectively together to adapt and refine pre-existing emergency management arrangements to respond to COVID-19. However, lessons learned from prior reviews of emergency management arrangements, and from other jurisdictions, had not been implemented when Delta emerged in June 2021. As a result, agencies were not as fully prepared as they could have been to respond to the additional challenges presented by Delta.
In the period March 2020 to June 2021, the State's Emergency Management (EM) arrangements coordinated the New South Wales emergency response to COVID-19 with support from the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) which led the cross-government COVID-19 Taskforce. NSW Government agencies enhanced the EM arrangements, which until then had typically been activated in response to natural disasters, to meet the specific circumstances of the pandemic.
However, the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC), supported by Resilience NSW, did not address relevant recommendations arising from the 2020 Bushfires Inquiry before June 2021 and agencies did not always integrate lessons learned from other jurisdictions or scenario training exercises into emergency management plans or strategies before Delta. As a result, deficiencies in the EM arrangements, including representation of vulnerable communities on EM bodies, well-being support for multicultural communities in locked down environments and cross-agency information sharing, persisted when Delta emerged in June 2021.
It should be noted that for the purposes of this audit there is no benchmark, informed by precedent, that articulates what level of preparation would have been sufficient or proportionate. However, the steps required to address these gaps were reasonable and achievable, and the failure to do so meant that agencies were not as fully prepared as they could have been for the scale and escalation of Delta’s spread across the State.
The Delta Microstrategy complemented the EM arrangements to support greater coordination and agencies are working to improve their capability for future events
The Delta Microstrategy (the Microstrategy) led to innovations in information sharing and collaboration across the public service. Agencies involved in the response have completed, or are completing, reviews of their contribution to the response. That said, none of these reviews includes a focus on whole-of-government coordination.
On 23 July 2021, the NSW Government approved the establishment of the Microstrategy to respond to the additional challenges presented by Delta including the need to support communities most impacted by restrictions to movement and gathering in the LGAs of concern. An extensive range of government agencies were represented across eight Microstrategy workstreams, which coordinated with the existing EM arrangements to deliver targeted strategies to communities in high-risk locations and improve data and information sharing across government. This enhanced the public health, compliance, income and food support, communications and community engagement aspects of the response.
Agencies also leveraged learnings from early weeks of the Delta wave and were able to replicate those lessons in other locations. The use of pre-staging hubs in Fairfield to support food and personal hamper distribution was used a month later in Dubbo which acted as a central hub for more remote parts of the State.
Emergency management plans did not enable government to respond immediately to support vulnerable communities in high-risk LGAs or regional NSW
There are gaps in the emergency management plans relating to the support for individuals, families and businesses impacted by the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions to movement and gathering. These gaps affected agencies' ability to respond immediately when the need arose during Delta.
Emergency management plans and supporting instruments did not include provision for immediate relief for households, which meant arrangements for isolation income support and food security measures had to be designed in the early stages of Delta before it could be approved and deployed.
There were delays – sometimes only days, on occasion, weeks - in providing support to affected communities. In particular, there were delays to the provision of income support and in scaling up efforts to coordinate food and grocery hampers to households in isolation. In LGAs of concern, modest delays of a few days had a significant impact on people, especially those most vulnerable.
Although government issued stricter restrictions for workers in the Fairfield LGA on 14 July 2021, it only approved targeted income support for people in LGAs of concern on 16 August 2021.
Overall, agencies coordinated effectively to provide advice to government but there are opportunities to learn lessons to improve preparedness for future events
Agencies coordinated in providing advice to government. The advice was supported by timely public health information, although this was in the context of a pandemic, where data and information about the virus and its variants was changing regularly. However, agencies did not always consider the impact on key industries or supply chains when they provided advice to government, which meant that Public Health Orders would sometimes need to be corrected.
Public Health Orders were also updated as the response to Delta intensified or to address unintended consequences of previous orders. The frequency of changes hampered agencies' ability to effectively communicate changes to frontline staff and the community in a rapidly evolving situation.
The audit identified several occasions where there were delays, ranging from three to 21 days, between the provision of advice to government and subsequent decision-making (which we have not detailed due to the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations). Agency officers advised of instances where they were not provided sufficient notice of changes to Public Health Orders to organise local infrastructure (such as traffic support for testing clinics) to support compliance with new requirements.
The COVID-19 pandemic arrived in Australia in late January 2020 as the bushfire and localised flooding emergencies were in their final stages. Between 2020 and mid-2021, agencies responded to the initial variants of COVID-19, managed a border closure with Victoria that lasted nearly four months and dealt with localised ‘flare-ups’ that required postcode-based restrictions on mobility in northern parts of Sydney and regional New South Wales. During this period, New South Wales had the opportunity to learn from events in Victoria which imposed strict restrictions on mobility across the State and the growing emergence of the Delta variant (Delta) across the Asia Pacific.
This section of the report assesses how emergency management and public health responses adapted to these lessons and determined preparedness for, and responses to, widespread community transmission of Delta in New South Wales.
The previous chapter discusses how agencies had refined the existing emergency management arrangements to suit the needs of a pandemic and describes some gaps that were not addressed. This chapter explores the first month of Delta (mid-June to mid-July 2021). It explores the areas where agencies were prepared and responses in place for the outbreak. It also discusses the impact of the gaps that were not addressed in the period prior to Delta and other issues that emerged.
NSW Health provided advice on the removal of restrictions based on up-to-date advice
The NSW Government discussed the gradual process for removing restrictions using the Doherty Institute modelling provided to National Cabinet on 10 August 2021. NSW Health highlighted the importance of maintaining a level of public health and safety measure bundles to further suppress case numbers. This was based on additional modelling from the Doherty Institute.
The Department of Regional NSW led discussion and planning around reopening with a range of proposal through August and September 2021. The Department of Premier and Cabinet and NSW Health jointly developed a paper to provide options on the restrictions when the State reached a level of 70% double dose vaccinations.
The roadmap to reopening was originally published on 9 September 2021. However, by 11 October 2021, the restrictions were relaxed when the 70% double dose threshold was reached to allow:
- up to ten fully vaccinated visitors to a home (increased from five)
- up to 30 fully vaccinated people attending outdoor gatherings (increased from 20)
- weddings and funerals limits increased to 100 people (from 50)
- the reopening of indoor pools for training, exercise and learning purposes only.
On the same day, the NSW Government announced further relaxation of restrictions once the 80% double dose threshold was reached. These restrictions were further relaxed on 8 November 2021. This included the removal of capacity restrictions to the number of visitors to a private residence, indoor pools to reopen for all purposes and density limits of one person for every two square metres, dancing allowed in nightclubs and 100% capacity in major stadia.
The NSW Government allowed workers in regional areas who received one vaccination dose to return to their workplace from 11 October 2021.
The Premier extended the date of easing of restrictions for unvaccinated people aged over 16 from 1 December to 15 December 2021.
Many agencies have undertaken reviews of their response to the Delta outbreak but a whole-of-government review has yet to be conducted
Various agencies and entities associated with the response to the Delta outbreak conducted after-action review processes. These processes assessed the achievements delivered, lessons learned and opportunities for improvement. However, a whole-of-government level review has not been conducted. This limits the New South Wales public service's ability to improve how it coordinates responses in future emergencies.
The agencies/entities that conducted reviews included:
- South West Metropolitan region, Western NSW region, Fairfield Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC), Dubbo Local Emergency Operations Controller (LEOCON), which were collated centrally by the State Emergency Operations Centre (SEOC)
- Aboriginal Affairs NSW assessed representation and relevance of the emergency management arrangements for Aboriginal communities following the 2019 bushfires
- Resilience NSW developed case studies to capture improved practice with regard to food security and supply chains
- a community support and empowerment-focused after-action review undertaken by the Pillar 5 workstream of the Microstrategy.
Key lessons collated from the after-action reviews include:
- the impact of variation in capability across agencies on the management of key aspects of the response including welfare support and logistics
- issues with boundary differences between NSW Police Force regions, local government areas (LGA and local health districts (LHD) caused issues in delivering and coordinating services in an emergency situation
- the need to improve relationships between state and local Government outside of acute emergency responses to improve service delivery
- issues arising from impediments to information sharing between agencies and jurisdictions, such as:
- timeliness and accuracy of data used to direct compliance activities
- the impact of insufficient advance notice on changes to Public Health Orders
- timely access to data across public sector agencies and other jurisdictions to inform decision-making, analysis and communications
- gaps in data around ethnicity, geolocation of recent positive cases and infection/vaccination rates in Aboriginal communities.
- the lack of Aboriginal community representation on many LEMCs
- compared with the response to COVID-19 in 2020, improved coordination of communications with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) populations with a reduction in overlapping messages and over-communication
- improved attendance from agency representatives in LEMCs, and regional emergency operations centres (REOC) to improve interagency communications, planning, capability development and community engagement issues
- deficiencies in succession planning and fatigue management practices
- the potential for REOC Welfare/Well-being subgroups to be included as part of the wider efforts to community needs during emergencies.
NSW Health commenced a whole of system review of its COVID-19 response in May 2022. At the time of writing, the completion due date for the debrief is 7 November 2022. This debrief is expected to explore:
- governance
- engagement
- innovation and technology
- community impact
- workforce impact
- system impact and performance.
NSW Health is also undertaking a parallel Intra-Action Review that is focused on the public health aspects of the response with finalisation estimated for the end of November 2022. At the time of completing this performance audit report, NSW Health had not finalised these reviews and, as a result, we cannot validate their findings against our own observations.
Recent inquiries are likely to impact the governance of emergency management in New South Wales
In March 2022, the NSW Government established an independent inquiry to examine and report on the causes of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from the 2022 floods. The Flood Inquiry report made 28 recommendations, which the NSW Government supported in full or in principle. Some of the recommendations relate directly to the governance and leadership of emergency management arrangements in New South Wales.
The State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) will likely be involved in, and impacted by, the recommendations arising from the Flood Inquiry with potential changes to its membership and reshaping of functional areas and agencies. At the same time, the SEMC may have a role in overseeing the changes that emerge from the SEOC consolidated after-action reviews. This can also extend to ensuring local and regional bodies have incorporated the required actions. There is a risk that the recommendations from the pandemic-based after-action reviews may not be considered due to the priority of action resulting from the Flood Inquiry.
Furthermore, there is potential for the SEMC to work with NSW Health during its system-wide review. Such an approach is likely to improve preparedness for future events.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Chronology 2020–2021
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 #371 - released 20 December 2022
Development applications: assessment and determination stages
What the report is about
Local councils in New South Wales are responsible for assessing local and regional development applications.
Most development applications are assessed and determined by council staff under delegated authority. However, some development applications must be referred to independent local planning panels or Sydney and regional planning panels for determination.
Councils provide support to local planning panels. The Department of Planning and Environment provides support to Sydney and regional planning panels.
This audit assessed whether Byron Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council had effectively assessed and determined development applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements.
It also assessed whether The Hills Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council and the Department of Planning and Environment had provided effective support to relevant independent planning panels.
What we found
All councils had established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications and had also established processes to ensure quality of assessment reports.
Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council have established comprehensive approaches to considering and managing risks related to development assessment.
Northern Beaches Council's approach to publishing its assessment reports promotes transparency.
Across a sample of development applications assessed and determined between 2020–22:
- Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council had assessed and determined applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements. However, The Hills Shire Council could do more to transparently document any conflicts of interest within assessment reports.
- Byron Shire Council had assessed most applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements. However, we found opportunities for the Council to:
- ensure determinations were made in line with delegations
- strengthen its approach to transparent management of conflicts of interest and quality review of assessments.
The Hills Shire Council and Northern Beaches Council had effectively supported their respective local planning panels.
The Department of Planning and Environment had processes that meet requirements for supporting regional planning panels but could do more to promote consistency in approach, share information across panels and measure the effectiveness of its support.
What we recommended
We made recommendations to Byron Shire Council, The Hills Shire Council and the Department of Planning and Environment to address the gaps identified and improve the transparency of processes.
Local councils in New South Wales are responsible for assessing local and regional development applications under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).
In assessing development applications, councils consider:
- whether the proposed development application is compliant with legislation and environmental planning instruments
- whether the proposed development meets local planning controls and objectives
- any environmental, social and economic impacts
- any submissions from impacted properties, neighbours and interested parties
- the public interest.
Once assessed, a development application will be determined by council staff under delegated authority, the elected council, or an independent planning panel.1
The involvement of a particular independent planning panel is established under legislative and policy instruments, and depends on the type and value of the proposed development. Most development applications are assessed and determined by council staff under delegated authority.
In determining development applications, independent planning panels must manage any potential, real or perceived conflicts of interest of panel members for a given development application, meet and vote on development applications, and publish their decisions and reasons.
Under the EP&A Act, and as required by statutory instruments and procedures, councils and the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) must provide secretariat and other support functions to independent planning panels.
Previous reviews and inquiries have identified several significant risks that are present within the processes involved in the assessment and determination of development applications. These risks include possible non-compliance with complex legal and policy requirements, potential improper influence from developers and other stakeholders, and a perceived lack of transparency within the planning system and planning outcomes.
There are several planning pathways for development in New South Wales. This audit focuses on local and regional development that requires assessment and determination by a local council and/or an independent local planning panel or Sydney or regional planning panel in three Local Government Areas (LGAs): Byron Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council, The Hills Shire Council.
Audited councils were selected from a range of criteria, including:
- the number, value and types of development applications determined in 2018–19
- average determination timeframes
- appeals against determinations and Land and Environment Court outcomes
- LGA demographics.
The audit also avoided councils that had previously been subject to a performance audit.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether:
- selected councils have effectively assessed and determined development applications in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance
- selected councils and DPE effectively support independent planning panels to determine development applications in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.
Conclusion – Byron Shire Council
Byron Shire Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications. However, the effectiveness of the Council's approach is limited by gaps in governance, risk management and internal controls.
Byron Shire Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications. However, the Council does not have a consolidated policy and procedure for development assessment, has not adequately followed up on the outcomes of internal reviews that identified opportunities to strengthen its assessment and determination procedures and approach, and has not demonstrated that it has managed relevant risks effectively.
The Council has not ensured that delegations have been consistently followed in the assessment of development applications.
Byron Shire Council's approach to managing conflicts of interest in development assessments does not provide transparency over potential conflicts of interest.
Byron Shire Council manages the risk of conflicts of interest for development assessment under its Code of Conduct. The Council has also implemented a separate policy that details additional requirements for managing conflicts of interest relevant to the development assessment process, but has not regularly updated this policy and requirements between it and the Code of Conduct have not been aligned. This creates a risk that planning staff may be following inconsistent or outdated advice in managing conflicts of interest.
Across the period of review, the Council did not require staff to provide a disclosure of interest for individual development applications to be contained within assessment reports. Including these disclosures would increase transparency and ensure that staff are sufficiently considering any conflicts of interest relevant to each separate assessment process.
Byron Shire Council has processes that promote compliance with legislation, regulation and government policy, but can improve how it undertakes some aspects of these that would ensure transparency, quality and consistency.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications from the Council indicated that most assessments were completed in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance, but that there were some opportunities to improve elements of the assessment process, including: transparency of any conflicts of interest involved in the assessment process, ensuring compliance with delegated authority limits, and consideration of modification application provisions.
The Council has established templates to guide planners through relevant assessment considerations required by legislation, regulations and other guidance. However, it could do more to strengthen its approach to peer or manager review, monitoring legislative changes, and how it monitors the completion of relevant training by planning staff.
Conclusion – Northern Beaches Council
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to support compliant and effective assessment and determination of development applications.
The Council has a clear governance and risk management framework for development assessment that sets out roles, responsibilities and delegations.
Northern Beaches Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for development application assessment and determination. The Council has identified development assessment related risks, and has put in place controls and mitigating actions to manage the risks to within risk tolerances.
Northern Beaches Council's approach to managing conflicts of interest promotes transparency.
Northern Beaches Council manages the risk of conflicts of interest for development assessment under its Code of Conduct. The Council has implemented an additional framework for planning staff to respond to the risk of conflicts of interest in development assessment processes. This framework requires its staff to disclose any conflicts of interest as a formal step in assessing development applications and includes declarations of any interests within assessment reports or planning panel minutes.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications indicated that the assessment reports had been compliant with the Council's approach to transparently documenting conflicts of interest.
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to deliver consistent, quality assessment of development applications.
Northern Beaches Council staff use an electronic development assessment tool that provides guidance, links to legislative and policy instruments and other applications that support assessment and drive consistency in approach. The Council applies a peer review process in which a manager or team member in a more senior position reviews an assessment report prior to determination to ensure that expected standards of quality and consistency have been met.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications indicated that assessments were undertaken in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.
Northern Beaches Council transparently documents assessment reports, supporting information and determination outcomes.
Northern Beaches Council has implemented a transparent approach to how it assesses and determines development applications. The Council publishes assessment reports, supporting technical reports, plans and submissions for all development applications. Notices of determination and final plans are also published alongside the assessment reports, allowing for greater transparency to the public.
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to effectively support the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel.
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to support the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel as required under legislative and policy instruments. The Council has processes to ensure that development applications required to be referred to a planning panel are identified and monitored, supports identification and documentation of any conflicts of interest, and transparently documents decisions of the panel.
Our review of a sample of meeting records held across the audit period of review indicated that these requirements were met and were transparently documented.
Conclusion – The Hills Shire Council
The Hills Shire Council has established processes to support compliant and effective assessment and determination of development applications.
The Council has established a comprehensive governance and risk management framework for development assessment that sets out clear roles, responsibilities and delegations.
The Hills Shire Council has established a comprehensive framework for managing risks related to development assessment. Such risks are clearly identified and associated controls are in place to reduce or mitigate the risks. The Council has undertaken regular internal audits of development assessments, including reviewing completed applications to ensure compliance with relevant legislative and policy requirements.
The Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations, and its staff assessing and determining development applications are supported by a standard set of policies and procedures for undertaking assessment and determination of applications.
The Hills Shire Council is managing conflicts of interest in line with Code of Conduct requirements but could more transparently document these.
The Hills Shire Council manages conflicts of interest for those involved in development application processes through provisions under its Code of Conduct. Under this Code of Conduct, staff must declare any conflicts of interest to their manager. However, the Council does not require staff to disclose any conflicts of interest in development application assessment reports which limits transparency to reviewing managers or any other determination bodies.
The Hills Shire Council has established processes to deliver consistent, quality assessment of development applications.
The Hills Shire Council has established templates to guide planners through relevant development assessment and determination considerations required by legislation, regulations and other guidance. The Council requires a peer review to occur prior to any determination which ensures a check on the compliance and quality of the assessment report prepared.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications from the Council indicated that assessments were performed in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.
The Hills Shire Council has established processes to effectively support The Hills Shire Local Planning Panel.
The Hills Shire Council has met requirements to provide secretariat and other support to The Hills Shire Local Planning Panel as required under legislative and policy instruments. It has processes to ensure that development applications required to be referred to a planning panel are identified and monitored, supports identification and documentation of any conflicts of interest, and transparently documents decisions of the panel.
Our review of a sample of meeting records held across the audit period of review indicated that these requirements were met and were transparently documented.
Conclusion – Department of Planning and Environment
The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) has established processes that meet its statutory and policy requirements to support Sydney and regional planning panels.
DPE has established processes to provide secretariat and other support to planning panels. It has met requirements to provide administrative support to the panels through its planning panels secretariat including undertaking administrative functions, supporting recruitment of panel members, and addressing complaints about the panel processes.
DPE has not ensured collection of annual pecuniary interest declarations for all panel members for the three Sydney and regional planning panels in scope for this audit. DPE could not provide annual pecuniary interest declarations for part of the audit period for three of the 47 members of these panels, as is required by DPE's Code of Conduct for Regional Planning Panels.
DPE does not formally measure its effectiveness in providing support to panels, but panel chairs consulted as part of this audit advised that they had no concerns with the level of secretariat support provided by DPE.
DPE could do more to facilitate information sharing between panels and could formalise how it provides comparative information to panels to improve consistency and standardisation in approach and share good practice. DPE has identified these gaps in reviews of its services and functions and has a plan in place to address them.
DPE has effectively documented planning panel decisions and made them available to all stakeholders. It also effectively documented interests declared as part of consideration of development applications for in-scope panels.
This audit continues a series of audits examining the development assessment process in NSW local councils and is focused on the assessment and determination stages.
The Audit Office of New South Wales previously considered local government development assessments in our 2019 performance audit: 'Development assessment: pre-lodgement and lodgement in Camden Council and Randwick City Council'.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Council profile: Byron Shire Council
Appendix three – Council profile: Northern Beaches Council
Appendix four – Council profile: The Hills Shire Council
Appendix five – About the audit
Appendix six – 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 #370 - released 12 December 2022
Student attendance
What the report is about
Poor attendance at school is related to poor student outcomes, particularly once patterns of non-attendance have been established.
This report examined how the NSW Department of Education (the department) is managing student attendance in NSW government schools.
What we found
Around a third of students in Years 1–10 attended school less than 90% of the time in semester one, 2021. Missing more than 10% of school may put a student's educational outcomes at risk.
Since 2018, the department has improved the quality of student attendance data, analysis and reporting. However, there are still gaps in understanding the reasons for absence at a system level.
The department set state-wide and school-level targets to increase the proportion of students attending school at least 90% of the time. This emphasis risks diverting attention away from students with very low attendance rates.
There are gaps in central programs to support schools in lifting student attendance. Schools are taking a variety of approaches to this work.
There is a large gap in attendance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, which has increased since 2018.
What we recommended
The Department of Education should:
- set new state-wide and school level attendance targets
- evaluate its attendance support programs
- update its attendance strategies and programs
- publish the attendance level for each school in their annual reports
- improve internal analysis and reporting of attendance data
- finalise the review of the attendance policy, procedure and codes
- review programs supporting Aboriginal student attendance and address any gaps
- review the approach to enforcing compulsory school attendance.
Fast facts
- 90% - attending school less than 90% of the time can put a student's educational outcomes at risk
- 67.9% of Year 1–10 students in NSW government schools attended at least 90% of the time in semester one, 2021
- 42.7% of Aboriginal Year 1–10 students in NSW government schools attended school at least 90% of the time in semester one, 2021.
Regular attendance at school is important for academic and other long-term outcomes. Students who do not attend regularly are less likely to complete school and more likely to experience poorer long-term health and social outcomes. A range of factors influence student attendance including student engagement and wellbeing, family and community factors and the school environment.
The NSW Department of Education's (the department's) Strategic Plan for 2018–2022 identifies improving student attendance as a priority. It has identified 95% as its expected level of attendance. It set targets to increase the proportion of students attending school at least 90% of the time, from 79.4% to 82% in primary schools and 64.5% to 70% for secondary schools.
This report focuses on attendance data for semester one of 2018, 2019 and 2021. Unless otherwise noted, attendance data refers to Years 1–10 in alignment with national reporting conventions. Changes in recording systems and definitions mean attendance data prior to 2018 is not comparable. Attendance data for semester one of 2020 and 2022 was significantly affected by COVID-related disruptions, which prevented many students across the State from attending school. Data for semester one of 2021 is considered relatively less affected by COVID-related disruptions.
The Education Act 1990 (the Act) sets out the responsibilities of students, parents and the department for ensuring students receive compulsory schooling. The department has developed policies, procedures and guidance to assist schools in managing their responsibilities to promote regular attendance. In this report, we define 'regular' attendance as at least 90% of the time. This is equivalent to missing one day of school each fortnight or four weeks of school across a school year.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether student attendance is effectively managed in NSW government schools for students from kindergarten to Year 10. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:
- there are effective systems and policies for managing student attendance
- the department effectively supports schools to manage student attendance
- schools are effectively managing student attendance.
Conclusion
There are too many students in NSW Government schools who regularly miss school. In semester one of 2021, around a third of students in Years 1–10 attended school less than 90% of the time — a level that puts their educational outcomes at risk. Attendance problems are widespread. 775 of 2,200 schools in NSW had an average attendance rate below 90% in 2021. Aboriginal student attendance is significantly below non-Aboriginal students and there is no specific strategy to address this gap. The department needs to place greater attention on supporting schools to lift student attendance.
Good quality data on attendance patterns is critical to developing strategies to address the underlying reasons for absence. The quality of the department's data on student attendance has improved from 2018. This has allowed it to monitor attendance more closely throughout the year, rather than relying on a yearly collection. However, there are still gaps in capturing and analysing the reasons for absence.
The improved data collection allowed the department to begin reporting on the 'attendance level' for the first time in 2018. This measures the proportion of students attending more than 90% of the time. The department has set state-wide and school-level targets to improve the attendance level. The new targets have influenced the focus of strategies to lift attendance. There is now a greater focus on lifting students above the reportable benchmark of 90% rather than addressing more serious attendance concerns.
The School Success Model formalises the focus on achieving school-level targets. When introduced, the department stated that schools would receive targeted support as part of the rollout of the model. Targeted support for attendance was initially planned to be delivered in late 2021 but was delayed due to the impact of COVID. The two main attendance support programs do not cater to schools with fewer than 100 students and there are gaps in support due to two different methodologies being used to select schools.
The Home School Liaison Program is a longstanding program to support students with low attendance. Requests for support are rationed pending availability of case officers, which leads to younger students being prioritised. Older students are not supported because there is a lower chance of prosecution in the legal system if attendance is not restored by the program. There is insufficient monitoring of the adequacy of resources, activities and long-term outcomes of this program.
The department's Aboriginal Education Policy aims to have Aboriginal students matching or exceeding outcomes of non-Aboriginal students. In semester one, 2021 42.7% of Aboriginal students attended school regularly (at least 90% of the time) compared with 70.3% of non-Aboriginal students. The gap in attendance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students has grown since 2018. There are relatively new programs supporting Aboriginal students in secondary school to attain their Higher School Certificate, but greater attention should be placed on supporting attendance for Aboriginal students in primary schools.
Schools are using a wide range of strategies to improve student attendance depending on their local contexts. Schools we spoke with told us of allocating responsibility to key staff members, closer monitoring of data, community engagement, rewards and incentives, before school sporting and breakfast programs, and partnerships with external agencies. The school planning and annual reporting process prompts schools to evaluate the impact of their strategies on progress towards their targets. The department could do more to promote evidence-based programs, showcase better practice examples from schools in NSW and identify the circumstances where these approaches are most effective.
This chapter considers the effectiveness of systems to accurately collect, analyse and report student attendance data. It also considers the effectiveness of policies and procedures to support attendance and central oversight of attendance issues.
This chapter considers the effectiveness of the department's strategies to improve student attendance and the support it provides to schools to achieve this. It also considers the effectiveness of school-level strategies and actions for students with low attendance.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #368 - released 27 September 2022
