Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors

Engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors

Transport
Education
Health
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Procurement
Project management
Workforce and capability

Three key agencies are not fully complying with the NSW Procurement Board’s Direction for engaging probity practitioners, according to a report released today by the Acting Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin. They also do not have effective processes to achieve compliance or assure that probity engagements achieved value for money.

Probity is defined as the quality of having strong moral principles, honesty and decency. Probity is important for NSW Government agencies as it helps ensure decisions are made with integrity, fairness and accountability, while attaining value for money.

Probity advisers provide guidance on issues concerning integrity, fairness and accountability that may arise throughout asset procurement and disposal processes. Probity auditors verify that agencies' processes are consistent with government laws and legislation, guidelines and best practice principles. 

According to the NSW State Infrastructure Strategy 2018-2038, New South Wales has more infrastructure projects underway than any state or territory in Australia. The scale of the spend on procuring and constructing new public transport networks, roads, schools and hospitals, the complexity of these projects and public scrutiny of aspects of their delivery has increased the focus on probity in the public sector. 

A Procurement Board Direction, 'PBD-2013-05 Engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors' (the Direction), sets out the requirements for NSW Government agencies' use and engagement of probity practitioners. It confirms agencies should routinely take into account probity considerations in their procurement. The Direction also specifies that NSW Government agencies can use probity advisers and probity auditors (probity practitioners) when making decisions on procuring and disposing of assets, but that agencies:

  • should use external probity practitioners as the exception rather than the rule
  • should not use external probity practitioners as an 'insurance policy'
  • must be accountable for decisions made
  • cannot substitute the use of probity practitioners for good management practices
  • not engage the same probity practitioner on an ongoing basis, and ensure the relationship remains robustly independent. 

The scale of probity spend may be small in the context of the NSW Government's spend on projects. However, government agencies remain responsible for probity considerations whether they engage external probity practitioners or not.

The audit assessed whether Transport for NSW, the Department of Education and the Ministry of Health:

  • complied with the requirements of ‘PBD-2013-05 Engagement of Probity Advisers and Probity Auditors’
  • effectively ensured they achieved value for money when they used probity practitioners.

These entities are referred to as 'participating agencies' in this report.

We also surveyed 40 NSW Government agencies with the largest total expenditures (top 40 agencies) to get a cross sector view of their use of probity practitioners. These agencies are listed in Appendix two.

Conclusion

We found instances where each of the three participating agencies had not fully complied with the requirements of the NSW Procurement Board Direction ‘PBD-2013-05 Engagement of Probity Advisers and Probity Auditors’ when they engaged probity practitioners. We also found they did not have effective processes to achieve compliance or assure the engagements achieved value for money.

In the sample of engagements we selected, we found instances where the participating agencies did not always:

  • document detailed terms of reference
  • ensure the practitioner was sufficiently independent
  • manage probity practitioners' independence and conflict of interest issues transparently
  • provide practitioners with full access to records, people and meetings
  • establish independent reporting lines   reporting was limited to project managers
  • evaluate whether value for money was achieved.

We also found:

  • agencies tend to rely on only a limited number of probity service providers, sometimes using them on a continuous basis, which may threaten the actual or perceived independence of probity practitioners
  • the NSW Procurement Board does not effectively monitor agencies' compliance with the Direction's requirements. Our enquiries revealed that the Board has not asked any agency to report on its use of probity practitioners since the Direction's inception in 2013. 

There are no professional standards and capability requirements for probity practitioners

NSW Government agencies use probity practitioners to independently verify that their procurement and asset disposal processes are transparent, fair and accountable in the pursuit of value for money. 

Probity practitioners are not subject to regulations that require them to have professional qualifications, experience and capability. Government agencies in New South Wales have difficulty finding probity standards, regulations or best practice guides to reference, which may diminish the degree of reliance stakeholders can place on practitioners’ work.

The NSW Procurement Board provides direction for the use of probity practitioners

The NSW Procurement Board Direction 'PBD-2013-15 for engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors' outlines the requirements for agencies' use of probity practitioners in the New South Wales public sector. All NSW Government agencies, except local government, state owned corporations and universities, must comply with the Direction when engaging probity practitioners. This is illustrated in Exhibit 1 below.

Published

Actions for Assessment of the use of a training program

Assessment of the use of a training program

Finance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (DFSI) and Service NSW's use of Franklin Covey's '7 Habits' program (the Program) met identified business needs according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales Margaret Crawford. 

This audit assesses the effectiveness and economy of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation's, including Service NSW's, use of the Franklin Covey ‘7 Habits’ program (the Program). On 15 March 2018, the Hon. Victor Dominello MP, Minister for Finance, Services and Property, requested the Auditor General conduct this audit under section 27(B)(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 (the Act).

About the agencies

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (the Department) is the lead agency of the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster. The Department has a number of divisions and business units, including: ICT and Digital Government, Property and Advisory Group, Better Regulation, NSW Fair Trading, Government and Corporate Services, and Revenue NSW. At 30 June 2017, the Department (excluding Service NSW) had 5,239 full-time equivalent staff.

Service NSW is a central point of contact for customers accessing NSW Government Services. It is a Division of the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster and operates as an executive agency. As an executive agency, Service NSW is led by a Chief Executive Officer, who is responsible to the Minister for Finance, Services and Property but appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation. Service NSW was established in 2013 and has operated under the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster since July 2015. At 30 June 2017, Service NSW had 1,989 full-time equivalent staff.

About the Program

The Program that the Department and Service NSW are implementing, and which is the subject of this audit, is a professional development training course which focusses on organisational culture emphasising personal effectiveness, leadership development and change management. All staff in the Department and Service NSW will receive the training, which involves:

  • a 360-degree assessment where every staff member receives feedback from their manager, direct reports, and peers
  • a two-day training workshop, which will be delivered face to face by accredited facilitators
  • 2 years of online access to all training materials created by the provider of the Program.

As part of the licensing arrangement purchased by the agencies, the Program also provides access (at no extra cost) to the full range of the provider's training and development courses that might be useful for other learning and development activities. This includes courses to improve staff capability in communication skills, leadership, productivity and customer engagement. The Department is considering using one of these courses to develop leadership capabilities. Service NSW has integrated three of these courses into its people development curriculum.

Service NSW commenced the first sessions of the Program in May 2017. At 24 April 2018, around 1,000 staff had undertaken the training. Service NSW expects all staff to complete the Program by June 2019.

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation commenced the first sessions of the Program in August 2017. At 18 April 2018, around 175 staff had undertaken the training. The Department expects all staff to complete the Program by December 2019.

Audit objective and criteria

The audit sought to assess the effectiveness and economy of the Finance, Services and Innovation cluster’s use of the Program. In making this assessment, we considered whether:

  1.  the Program is being used effectively, including whether
    1. there is an identified need for the Program
    2. the use of the Program meets the identified need
    3. Finance, Services and Innovation cluster agencies evaluate the effectiveness of the Program
  2. the Program is economical, including whether:
    1. the procurement complies with all relevant policies and processes
    2. funding and resources allocated to the Program are reasonable.
Conclusion
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, and Service NSW developed workforce strategies which identified a business need to improve organisational culture and staff engagement. The Program met the identified business needs and both agencies negotiated value for money contracts for the delivery of the Program when compared to other available options for training all staff.
However, the agencies did not document evidence to show that training all staff members was necessary to meet their business needs, as compared with training fewer staff members at a lower overall cost. As a result, we are unable to form a view on whether the approach to train all staff members was economical. The agency heads have subsequently provided information supporting their decisions to train all staff members. This information indicates their decisions were based on evidence that this would meet the goals of their workforce strategies, including improving employee engagement scores and organisational culture change.
The Department is paying $1,320,700, over three years, for up to 5,600 staff to participate in the Program ($235.84 per person). Service NSW is paying $595,000, over two years, for up to 2,400 staff to participate in the Program ($247.92 per person).
The agencies are collecting the data they need to evaluate the Program and there is some evidence that the Program is achieving its objectives in Service NSW. Due to the timing of this audit, there is not yet enough information available to comment on whether the Program is achieving its objectives in the Department.

Sector-wide learnings

Implementing robust learning and development frameworks

  1. Agencies should evidence decisions about how proposed learning and development opportunities will meet staff and business needs - both in the program design, and through evaluation. In many cases, organisations may have unique needs or circumstances, or may want to trial innovative approaches to improving organisational capability. Innovation should be encouraged, to avoid the risk that agencies are locked into outdated training and development models. However such approaches should be balanced by ensuring that business needs are well scoped and defined.
     
  2. Agencies implementing innovative or new approaches to learning and development should build-in iterative evaluations (such as pulse surveys, or collecting post-participation qualitative feedback) to ensure that the training is delivered on intended benefits, and to inform improvements to ongoing rollout.
     
  3. Agencies implementing innovative or new training programs should ensure they build enough flexibility into contracts so that they can assess how well programs are meeting staff and business needs, and use evidence to inform whether further rollout should occur.

Published

Actions for Fraud Survey

Fraud Survey

Education
Community Services
Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Local Government
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Universities
Whole of Government
Environment
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Procurement
Risk

In a report released today, the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford provides a snapshot of reported fraud in the NSW public sector and an analysis of NSW Government agencies’ fraud controls based on a survey of 102 agencies.