Reports
Workers compensation claims management
What this report is about
Workers compensation schemes in NSW provide compulsory workplace injury insurance. The effective management of workers compensation is important to ensure injured workers are provided with prompt support to ensure timely, safe and sustainable return to work.
Insurance and Care NSW (icare) manages workers compensation insurance. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) regulates workers compensation schemes. NSW Treasury has a stewardship role but does not directly manage the schemes.
This audit assessed the effectiveness and economy of icare’s management of workers compensation claims, and the effectiveness of SIRA’s oversight of workers compensation claims.
Findings
icare is implementing major reforms to its approach to workers compensation claims management - but it is yet to demonstrate if these changes are the most effective or economical way to improve outcomes.
icare’s planning and assurance processes for its reforms have not adequately assessed existing claims models or analysed other reform options.
icare's activities have not focused enough on its core responsibilities of improving return to work and maintaining financial sustainability.
SIRA has improved the effectiveness of its workers compensation regulatory activities in recent years. Prior to 2019, SIRA was mostly focussed on developing regulatory frameworks and was less active in its supervision of workers compensation schemes.
NSW Treasury's role in relation to workers compensation has been unclear, which has limited its support for performance improvements.
Recommendations
icare should:
- Ensure that its annual Statement of Business Intent clearly sets out its approach to achieving its legislative objectives.
- Monitor and evaluate its workers compensation scheme reforms.
- Develop a quality assurance program to ensure insurance claim payments are accurate.
NSW Treasury should:
- Work with relevant agencies to improve public sector workers compensation scheme outcomes.
- Engage with the icare Board to ensure icare's management is in line with relevant NSW Treasury policies.
SIRA should:
- Address identified gaps in its fraud investigation.
- Develop a co-ordinated research strategy.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #393 - released 2 April 2024
Design and administration of the WestInvest program
What this report is about
WestInvest is a $5 billion funding program announced in September 2021 to provide ‘local infrastructure to help communities hit hard by COVID-19’ in 15 local government areas (LGAs) selected by the government. It was divided into three parts: $3 billion for NSW government agency projects; $1.6 billion for competitive grants to councils and community groups; and $400 million for non-competitive grants to councils.
Following the change of government at the 2023 election, the program was renamed the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program. Funding decisions made for the community and local government grants were retained, but multiple funding decisions for the NSW government projects were changed.
The audit objective was to assess the integrity of the design and implementation of the program and the award of program funding.
Findings
The design of the program lacked integrity because it was not informed by robust research or analysis to justify the commitment of public money to a program of this scale.
The then government did not have sufficient regard to the implications for the state's credit rating. A risk to the credit rating arose because the government may have been perceived to be using proceeds from major asset sales to fund new expenditure, rather than pay down its debt.
Decisions about program design were made by the then Treasurer's office without consultation with affected communities. The rationale for these decisions was not documented or made public.
For the NSW government projects, funding allocations did not follow advice from departments. Many funded projects did not meet the objectives of the program.
The two other rounds of the program were administered effectively, except for some gaps in documentation and quality assurance. The program guidelines did not require an equitable or needs-based distribution of funding across LGAs and there was a significant imbalance in funding between the 15 LGAs.
Recommendations
Our recommendations for the administration of future funding programs included:
- considering whether competitive grants are the best way to achieve the program's purpose
- completing program design and guidelines before announcements
- ensuring adequate quality assurance.
We also recommended that when providing advice for submissions by Ministers to Cabinet, agencies should ensure that departmental advice is clearly identified and is distinct from other advice or political considerations.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #391 - released 28 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
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
Design and implementation of the Transport Asset Holding Entity
What the report is about
The Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) is the State's custodian of rail assets. It is a state owned corporation and commenced operating on 1 July 2020.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. We audited TAHE, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and NSW Treasury.
Separate and related audits on TAHE are reported in 'State Finances 2022', 'State Finances 2021' and 'Transport and Infrastructure 2022' reports.
What we found
The design and implementation of TAHE, which spanned seven years, was not effective.
The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to support an accounting treatment to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments.
The benefits of TAHE were claimed in the 2015–16 NSW Budget before the enabling legislation was passed by Parliament in 2017. This committed the agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, regardless of any challenges that arose.
Rail safety arrangements were a priority throughout TAHE's design and implementation, and risks were raised and addressed.
Agencies relied heavily on consultants on matters related to the creation of TAHE, but failed to effectively manage these engagements. Agencies failed to ensure that consultancies delivered independent advice as an input to decision-making. A small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on the same topic. The final cost of TAHE-related consultancies was $22.6 million compared to the initial estimated cost of $12.9 million.
What we recommended
We recommended that the audited agencies should:
- improve accountability and transparency for major new fiscal transformation initiatives
- ensure entities do not reflect the financial impact of significant initiatives in the Budget when there is uncertainty, or it creates perverse incentives
- review record keeping practices, systems and policies to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998, and the NSW Government Information Classification, Labelling and Handling Guidelines
- review procurement policies to ensure that consultant use complies with all NSW Government policy requirements.
The NSW Government established the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE), a statutory State Owned Corporation (SOC), on 1 July 2020 to replace the former rail infrastructure owner – RailCorp. It is the State's custodian of rail network assets, including rail tracks and other infrastructure, rolling stock, land, train stations and facilities, retail space, and signal and power systems, within metropolitan and regional New South Wales. It is responsible for $2.8 billion of major capital projects in 2022–23.
TAHE was established under Part 2 of the Transport Administration Act 1988 and is governed by a decision-making board. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Employee Relations are the Shareholding Ministers of TAHE, and they annually agree performance expectations articulated in a Statement of Corporate Intent.
Whereas TAHE is the custodian of rail assets, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains operate public rail services. TAHE does not have responsibility for the operation of the heavy rail network or train services, nor does it have network control functions. TAHE, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains are in the Transport and Infrastructure cluster in the public sector (formerly the Transport cluster and renamed in April 2022), which also includes Sydney Metro and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).
TfNSW leads the Transport and Infrastructure cluster. Its role is to set the strategic direction for transport across the State. This involves the shaping of planning, policy, strategy, regulation, resource allocation and other service and non-service delivery functions for all modes of transport.
TAHE's Operating Licence is granted by the Portfolio Minister and authorises the entity to perform the functions required to acquire, develop, finance, divest and hold assets, pursuant to the Transport Administration Act 1988. The Portfolio Minister also issues a Statement of Expectations which outlines the government’s expectation for the business for the next three to five years.
TAHE's original Portfolio Minister was the Minister for Transport who approved, on 30 June 2020, the issuing of an interim 12-month Operating Licence to enable TAHE to commence operating on 1 July 2020. The Portfolio Minister then granted TAHE's current Operating Licence in 2021. After TAHE requested a 12-month extension to its current Operating Licence, its next Operating Licence is due on 1 July 2024. The current Portfolio Minister is the Minister for Infrastructure, Cities and Active Transport.
About this audit
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. In making this assessment, we considered whether:
- the process of designing and implementing TAHE was cohesive and transparent, and delivered an effective outcome
- agencies' roles and responsibilities were clear in the planning of TAHE
- agencies effectively identified and managed certain risks.
Conclusion
The design and implementation of TAHE was not effective. The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments to sustain TAHE through continuing investment, and funding of the state owned rail operators. The ineffective process to design TAHE delivered a model that entails significant uncertainty as to whether the anticipated longer-term financial improvements to the Budget position can be achieved or sustained.
NSW Treasury and TfNSW had different objectives for TAHE
Up to June 2013, RailCorp had been the owner and operator of rail services and maintainer of the metropolitan rail network for almost a decade. It had been operating as a not-for-profit Public Non-Financial Corporation (PNFC).
In 2012, NSW Treasury (hereafter Treasury) decided there was a risk that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) would reclassify RailCorp to the General Government Sector (GGS), meaning depreciation expenses of approximately $870 million would be reflected in the GGS Budget. Treasury wanted to avoid this impact on the GGS Budget, and considered the establishment of a transport asset holding entity as a means to do so. Capital grants to RailCorp were being treated as an expense to the GGS Budget.
TfNSW also wanted an asset holding entity – but one that would be a non-trading ‘shell’ company with no staff that would hold and manage all public transport assets. TfNSW's concept envisaged the entity would have a structure that would enable future public transport reforms and strategic directions while ensuring vertical integration of operations between asset owners and the rail operators to maintain rail safety.
However, Treasury pursued its objective to improve the GGS Budget result, and sought to expand on TfNSW's 'shell' asset holding entity concept. Treasury wanted an entity that could generate a return on investment, as this meant that government investment in transport assets could be treated as equity investments, rather than a Budget expense, and in turn improve the GGS Budget position. As an example of the potential impact of creating this new entity, capital grants of $2.3 billion were paid to RailCorp in 2013–14. If Treasury's objective was met, grants of this significance would then be treated as an equity investment, rather than an expense in the GGS Budget.
In 2017, Treasury's preferred option was progressed through legislation, but both agencies' central objectives for the proposed asset holding entity would continue to prove difficult to reconcile. To achieve Treasury's objective to improve the Budget result, the entity would need to generate a return on investment (this is further discussed below). However, TfNSW expressed concerns that the prioritisation of rail safety, and the effective management of governance, regulation and operations would be more complex in an entity with commercial imperatives.
Asset holding entities are a common approach to the management of transport assets in Australia and internationally, and there are a range of approaches to how they are structured and used. Such structures should be driven by the goal of improved asset management. Ultimately, TfNSW's objectives could have been delivered through a simpler entity structure. However, reconciling TfNSW's objectives with Treasury's imperative to deliver and justify a Budget improvement in the short-term resulted in an overly lengthy process and an unnecessarily complex outcome that places an obligation on future governments to sustain. There is still significant uncertainty as to whether the short-term improvements to the Budget can continue to be realised in the longer-term.
The Budget benefits of TAHE were claimed before the entity was legislated, committing the agencies to deliver, regardless of the complexities that subsequently arose
The 2015–16 GGS Budget treated the government's investment in TAHE (still known at this time as RailCorp) as an equity contribution. This had the immediate impact of improving the Budget result by $1.8 billion per annum. However, the legislation to enable the establishment of TAHE had not yet been passed by Parliament, key elements of the operating model were still under development, and imminent changes in accounting standards had the potential to impact TAHE's financial model. The decision to book the benefits in the Budget early committed the involved agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, irrespective of the challenges that arose.
TAHE's financial structure requires circular government investment to work
For the NSW Government to continue to treat its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution, rather than an expense to the Budget, there must be a reasonable expectation that TAHE will generate a sufficient rate of return as required by the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) framework. In doing so, it needs to recover a revaluation loss created by a $20.3 billion reduction in the value of its assets which was incurred in its first full year of operation. This loss occurred as a result of a revaluation of TAHE's assets when RailCorp (a not-for profit entity) became TAHE (a for-profit commercial entity) – and is discussed further in the 'Key findings' below.
TAHE generates a small portion of its income from transactions with the private sector but, as noted in our report 'State Finances 2021', TAHE receives the majority of its revenue (more than 80%) from access and licence fee agreements with Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. Both of these entities are funded by grants (a Budget expense) to TfNSW from the GGS Budget.
Based on Treasury’s correspondence with the ABS in 2015, TAHE was initially expected to pay a return on equity of 7% in 2016–17. The assumption of a 7% return persisted through to 2018, after the legislation enabling the establishment of TAHE was passed by Parliament. However, when the initial access and licence fees were agreed on 1 July 2020, this figure had been revised to an expected rate of return of 1.5% excluding the revaluation loss. This was below the long-term inflation target and did not include the recovery of the revaluation loss – risking the government's ability to treat its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution. Importantly, as TAHE is primarily reliant on fees paid by the state owned rail operators that, in turn, are funded by the GGS Budget (as an expense), the decision to change the returns model from 7% to 1.5% would in its own right have had a positive impact on the GGS Budget. However, the decision to use a 1.5% return would ultimately be problematic as it made it difficult to treat the government's contributions to TAHE as an equity investment, as discussed below.
On 14 December 2021, to avoid a qualified audit opinion, the NSW Government made the decision to increase TAHE's expected rate of return to 2.5%, equal to the Reserve Bank’s long-term inflation target.
In 2021-22, TAHE needed to start charging rail operators higher access and licence fees in order to generate a return of 2.5%, so as to support the government's treatment of its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution in the GGS Budget. This meant the government needed to provide additional grant (expense) funding to the state owned rail operators so they could pay the increased access and licence fees to TAHE. Based on current projections, TAHE is not expected to recover the revaluation loss until 2046.
There remains a risk that TAHE will not be able to generate a sufficient return on the NSW Government's investment without relying on increased funding to state owned rail operators so that they can in turn pay the higher access and licence fees. TAHE's ability to generate returns on government investment from other sources are uncertain and may not be achievable or sustainable. Current modelling highlights that TAHE remains largely reliant, through to 2046, on increasing fees (which are assumed to increase at 2.5% per annum from 2031 onwards when the current 10 year contracts with rail operators expire) paid by the state owned rail operators that remain principally reliant on GGS Budget grants.
The process of designing and implementing TAHE was not transparent to independent scrutiny
Our report 'State Finances 2021' commented that Treasury did not always provide this Office with information relating to TAHE on a timely basis. Similarly, during this performance audit, there were also multiple instances where auditees were unable to provide documentation regarding key activities in the process to deliver TAHE. Agencies also applied higher sensitivity classifications to large tranches of documents than was justified or required by policy. Of particular concern is the incorrect classification of documents as Cabinet sensitive information. The incorrect or over-classification of documentation as Cabinet sensitive delayed this Office's ability to provide scrutiny or independent assurance.
There was a lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of governance structures set up to oversee the design and implementation of TAHE
From 2014, multiple workstreams and advisory committees were established to progress the design and implementation of TAHE. For some of these committees and workstreams, there is limited information on what they were tasked to do and what they achieved. Most had ceased meeting by 2018, before significant work needed to deliver TAHE was completed.
The lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of these governance structures reduced opportunities for TfNSW and Treasury to reconcile their differing objectives for TAHE, and resolve key questions earlier in the process.
There was a heavy reliance on consulting firms throughout the process to establish TAHE, and the management of consultant engagements failed to ensure that agencies received independent advice to support objective decision-making
In 2020, Treasury and TfNSW failed to prevent, identify, or adequately manage a conflict of interest when they engaged the same 'Big 4' consulting firm to work on separate TAHE-related projects. Both agencies used the firm's work to further their respective views with regard to the financial implications of TAHE's operating model. At this time those views were still unreconciled.
Treasury engaged the firm to provide a fiscal risk management strategy and advice on the impact of changes to accounting standards. TfNSW engaged the same firm to develop operating and financial models for TAHE, which raised concerns regarding the viability of TAHE. Disputes arose around the findings of these reports. Treasury disagreed with some of the outcomes of the work commissioned by TfNSW, relating to accounting treatment and fiscal advice.
The management of this conflict (real or perceived) was left to the 'Big 4' consulting firm when it was more appropriate for it to be managed by Treasury and TfNSW. If these agencies had communicated more effectively, used available governance structures consistently, and shared information openly about their use of the firm and the nature of their respective engagements, these disputes might have been avoided. This issue, coupled with deficiencies in procurement by both agencies, reflected and further perpetuated the lack of cohesion in the design and implementation of TAHE.
More broadly, over the period 2014 – 2021, 16 separate consulting firms were employed to work on 36 contracts, valued at over $22.56 million, relating to TAHE ranging from accounting and legal advice, project management, and the provision of administrative support and secretariat services.
Consultants are legitimately used by agencies to provide advice on how to achieve the outcomes determined by government, including advising agencies on the risks and challenges in achieving those outcomes. Similarly, consultants can provide expert knowledge in the service of achieving those outcomes and managing the risks. However, the heavy reliance on consulting firms during the design and implementation of TAHE heightened the risk that agencies were not receiving value for money, were outsourcing tasks that should be performed by the public service, and did not mitigate the risk that the advice received was not objective and impartial. The risk that the role of consultants could have been blurred between providing independent advice to government on options and facilitating a pre-determined outcome was not effectively treated or mitigated. This risk was amplified because a small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on one topic. The effective procurement and management of consultants is an obligation of government agencies.
Appendix two – Classification of government entities
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 #372 - released 24 January 2023
