Reports
State Finances 2018
Pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I present my Report on State Finances 2018.
I am pleased to once again report that I issued a clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements. This demonstrates the Government’s focus on preparing high quality information on the State’s financial position and performance for use by stakeholders.
However, there are two key areas I would like to see addressed to further support the preparation of the State’s financial statements.
Firstly, some complex accounting matters are not being resolved until late in the financial reporting cycle. This has contributed to an increase in the number of errors in the financial statements key agencies are submitting for audit, particularly around assessing the value of physical assets. Better planning and earlier resolution of these matters would lead to more efficient processes.
Secondly, the State needs to implement five new accounting standards over the next two years. Agencies will need to devote significant resources and effort to collect the necessary information and assess the impact at the whole of government level. I will work with Treasury and relevant agencies to help them improve quality assurance controls over their financial reporting.
Throughout 2017-18 my office worked with Treasury on reforms to improve financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements across the sector.
The Government Sector Finance Bill 2018 passed both houses of Parliament in June 2018. However, the Legislative Council returned other proposed changes to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 to the Legislative Assembly for further consideration. Most of these changes relate to the Public Accounts Committee. At the time of writing, the cognate Bill had not been debated.
The budget result was a $4.2 billion surplus. The consolidated financial statements at 30 June 2018 do not reflect the sale of 51 per cent of the State’s investment in Sydney Motorway Corporation for which it received $9.3 billion. The sale was announced on 31 August 2018.
Finally, I would like to thank the staff of Treasury for the way they approached the audit. Our partnership is critical to ensuring the quality of financial management and reporting.
Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General
19 October 2018
The State's financial statements given a clear audit opinion
Timely and accurate financial reporting enables informed decision making, effective management of public funds and enhances public accountability.
Since the introduction of mandatory ‘early close procedures’ in 2011-12, the number of significant errors in financial statements of agencies had fallen largely due to identifying and resolving complex accounting issues early.
In 2016-17, Treasury narrowed the scope of mandatory procedures to focus on physical asset valuations and pro-forma financial statements. Despite being broadened for 2017-18, we have observed an increase in the number of errors in agency financial statements.
In 2017-18, twenty-three errors exceeding $20 million were found in agencies’ financial statements that make up the State’s consolidated financial statements. This compares to only five in 2015-16.
The errors identified this year were the result of:
- incorrectly applying Australian Accounting Standards
- deficiencies in assessing the value of physical assets
- using inappropriate and inaccurate assumptions when measuring liabilities
- inaccurately reflecting inter-agency payables and receivables.
Quality financial reporting would be enhanced by responding to key accounting issues as soon as they are identified, and preparing accounting position papers for consideration by Treasury, agency Audit and Risk Committees and the Audit Office.
Key accounting matters addressed by the State in 2017-18.
Restatement of some of the State’s previously reported asset and liability values.
The state corrected the previously reported values of some long-term liabilities ($2 billion).
Accounting standards require the State to measure its long-term liabilities at the best estimate of the expenditures required to settle the obligations. The affected liabilities include claims liabilities of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW and the NSW Self Insurance Corporation, and scheme liabilities of the Long Service Corporation. The liabilities are adjusted by what is referred to as the ‘discount rate’ to reflect the decreasing value of money over time.
In the past, agencies used a variety of rates to discount these liabilities. Some liabilities were discounted using the estimated long-term fair value of 10-year TCorp bond yields while others were discounted using the expected
return on investments. These discount rates did not comply with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards and underestimated liabilities by $2.0 billion.
In 2017-18, the State assessed the discount rates previously used in the Sector. It determined the market yield on Commonwealth Bonds best met the Accounting Standard requirements and used this rate to discount similar liabilities in relevant agencies. This resulted in a $2.0 billion increase in the previously reported values of these liabilities and a similar decrease in retained earnings at 1 July 2016.
The State corrected previously reported values of certain Library assets ($1.1 billion).The value of the Pictorial Collection of the Library Council of NSW (the Library) was reassessed at 31 January 2018. During the valuation process the Library identified three errors in the 2015 valuations which overstated the previously reported asset values. The errors included:
This resulted in a $1.1 billion decrease in previously reported asset values and a corresponding decrease in the asset revaluation reserve at 1 July 2016. |
Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.TAFE NSW has experienced ongoing issues with its student administration system.TAFE NSW has again implemented additional processes to verify the accuracy and completeness of revenue from student fees. TAFE NSW expects to spend up to $89 million on a new information system to address these issues. Modules of the new student enrolment system are planned to be in place by May 2019 |
Risks to the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.
Challenges associated with valuing the State's physical assets.
When we audit financial statements we focus on areas we consider higher risk. These areas often require the use of estimates and judgements.
The valuation of the State’s physical assets is one such area. Fair value estimates are inherently complex and sensitive to assumptions and judgements. In the public sector, this may be exacerbated by the unique nature of its assets, such as land under roads, preserved plant specimens, cultural collections and other heritage assets.
In 2017-18, valuations of physical assets added $24.5 billion to the value of the State’s balance sheet. These assets are now valued at $339.2 billion. Our audits of these valuations identified:
The Library Council of NSW had three errors in the methodology previously used to value their pictorial assets ($1.1 billion error). |
The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust did not previously recognise a value for their Herbarium assets ($284 million error). |
Some revaluations within the Ministry of Health did not meet the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards or Treasury requirements ($159 million error). |
The Department of Justice used an incorrect valuation
|
Some important matters agencies should consider when planning/conducting asset valuations include:
STARTING OUT
- Planning is important
- Most effective revaluations include early engagement with all stakeholders, including auditors.
- Determine who needs to be involved and advised of progress with the revaluation – e.g. finance, internal audit, audit and risk committee.
- Ensure asset registers are complete and there is evidence to demonstrate the agency controls the assets.
- The effective date of the valuation can be any date after the financial year commences, but well before year end.
MANAGEMENT'S ROLE
- For large mass valuations consider using a suitable project management methodology to ensure the process remains ‘on track’ with sufficient oversight.
- Consider engaging an expert to perform the valuation, but maintain responsibility for the outcomes. Ensure the outcomes are reasonable and quality review the results, including the appropriateness of inputs and key assumptions.
- Compare pre and post valuation results on an individual asset basis. Where changes are significant and/or unexpected, document explanations from the valuer.
- Start revaluations early so they are completed by early close (around March). The timetable must allow time for a quality review of results and for the results to be recorded in the financial records.
- Revaluation workpapers must include the revaluation source data provided to the valuer and a reconciliation of the source data to the general ledger.
USING EXPERTS
- The terms of engagement should be documented in an engagement letter, which clearly details the proposed valuation methodology. It’s important the valuer knows what is required from a policy perspective and clearly understands the accounting framework used to prepare the financial statements.
- Valuation reports should detail the key assumptions used, explain why the valuation approach was adopted and how the use of relevant observable input was maximised.
- Valuation reports should clearly differentiate between assets revalued using a cost approach and those using an income or market approach. They should explain why the approach used was the most relevant for the asset type.
- Consider using representative/statistical sampling for mass valuations and determine the extent of physical inspections that may be required.
- If a sampling technique is used, it should provide sufficient confidence that the sample is representative of the population.
- Significant judgements should be supported by relevant benchmark data or other analysis and observations. A common example in the public sector is to discount asset values to reflect restrictions on use.
- Ensure the valuer has considered the age and condition of the assets, and heritage/cultural aspects and/or other special factors.
WHAT ABOUT INTERVENING YEARS?
- Perform revaluations with sufficient regularity to ensure asset carrying values in the financial statements reflect fair value.
- Indexation alone is not normally a substitute for a full revaluation. A full revaluation may be needed to accurately establish fair values if asset values move significantly when indices are applied to them.
- Where indexation is used between full revaluations, the indices should be appropriate for the type of asset being assessed.
- Indexing can be unreliable in assessing whether the fair value of assets has moved over time. For example, some assets are valued based on re- collection cost estimates, which may fall over time due to improved re-collection methods and technology.
COMMUNICATION
- For mass or complex valuations, key stakeholders, including auditors, should be involved at the scoping stage and invited to planning meetings with valuers.
- Management should meet with the auditors regularly to discuss progress and outcomes.
- When issues are identified, management should consult with and seek advice from Treasury.
The state will need to implement five new accounting standards over the next two years.
The State has started developing processes it considers necessary to effectively implement the requirements of five new accounting standards. The changes are significant and will impact the financial position and results of agencies and the State.
The new requirements increase the risk of errors in the financial statements. To minimise this risk, agencies will need to devote resources and effort to collect the necessary information and assess the impact of the accounting changes at the whole of government level.
Treasury is liaising with and obtaining information from agencies to assess the impact of the new standards at the whole of government level. Treasury is also liaising with other Treasuries throughout Australia on common implementation issues. To help agencies implement the new standards, Treasury is developing guidance, preparing position papers on proposed accounting treatments, and mandating options within the new standards that agencies need to adopt on transition.
A $4.2 billion surplus, $1.5 billion more than was budgeted
The Total State Sector comprises 304 entities controlled by NSW Government
The General Government Sector, which comprises 212 entities, generally provides goods and services funded centrally by the State.
The non-General Government Sector, which comprises 92 Government businesses, generally provides goods and services, such as water, electricity and financial services that consumers pay for directly.
A principal measure of a Government’s overall performance is its Net Operating Balance (Budget Result). This is the difference between the cost of General Government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors.
WHAT CHANGED FROM 2017 TO 2018?
$4.2b |
2017-18 General Government Budget Result |
Changes in revenues compared to 2016-17
 Dividends and distributions
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
2.4b |
+1.3b |
3.7b |
|
| Taxation
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
30.8b |
+537m |
31.3b |
|
 Grants & Subsidies
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
31.4b |
+509m |
31.9b |
|
 Sale of Goods and services
|
Includes:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
8.2b |
+349m |
8.5b |
|
5.5b |
-185m |
5.3b |
Other revenues |
Changes to expenses compared to 2016-17
| Recurrent Grants & Subsidies
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
12.6b |
+1.3b |
13.9b |
|
 Employee costs
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
34.9b |
+1.2b |
36.1b |
|
 Other operating expenses
|
Includes:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
18.3b |
+1.4b |
19.7b |
|
6.8b |
+103m |
6.9b |
Other expenses |
$5.7b |
2016-17 General Government Budget Result |
The State maintained its AAA credit rating.
The object of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 is to maintain the State’s AAA credit rating.
The Government manages NSW’s finances in alignment with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 (the Act).
The Act establishes the framework for fiscal responsibility and the strategy to protect the State’s AAA credit rating and service delivery
to the people of NSW.
The legislation sets out targets and principles for financial management to achieve this.
New South Wales has credit ratings of AAA/ Stable from Standard & Poor’s and Aaa/ Stable from Moody’s Investors Service.
THE FISCAL TARGETS FOR ACHIEVING THIS OBJECTIVE ARE:
General Government annual expenditure growth is lower than long term average revenue growth.
General Government expenditure grew by 5.4 per cent in 2017-18. This was lower than the long-term revenue growth rate of 5.6 per cent.
Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.
The Act sets a target to eliminate unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.
The State’s funding plan is to contribute amounts escalated by five per cent each year so the schemes will be fully funded by 2030. In 2017-18, the State made employer contributions of $1.7 billion, which is largely consistent with contributions over the past five years. Treasury expects superannuation liabilities will be fully funded by 2030 based on the funding program at the last triennial review (December 2015).
For fiscal responsibility purposes, the State uses AASB 1056: Superannuation Entities. This standard discounts superannuation liabilities using the expected return on assets backing the liability.
Using this method, the State’s unfunded superannuation liability was $14.0 billion at 30 June 2018 ($15.0 billion at 30 June 2017). The unfunded liability is $3.4 billion less than it was when the Act was introduced.
Revenues increased by $3.2 billion to $86.7 billion in 2017-18.
Revenues were underpinned by growth in taxation and Australian Government grant revenues, but stamp duties fell.
Tax revenue for the Total State Sector increased by $746 million, or 2.5 per cent compared to 2016-17, primarily due to a:
- $582 million increase in land tax from growth in land values
- $562 million increase in payroll tax from NSW employment and wages growth
- $1 billion decrease in stamp duty due to lower than expected growth in property market transactions, volumes and prices. In 2016-17, stamp duty included $718 million from the leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.
The State expects total stamp duties will fall to $9.5 billion in 2018-19, a decrease of almost $2.0 billion from 2016-17.
The State received Australian Government grants and subsidies of $30.9 billion in 2017-18.
The State received $444 million more in grants and subsidies from the Australian Government than it did in 2016-17. This was due to increases in GST revenues ($753 million) and special purpose payments ($683 million).
There was a decrease in National Partnership payments ($992 million), mainly due to the timing of major road projects including the Pacific Highway (Woolgoolga to Ballina), WestConnex and Western Sydney Infrastructure Program.
In 2017-18, sales of goods and services were $1.1 billion higher than in 2016-17. This reflected increased transaction revenue at Sydney Water ($139 million), the Department of Education ($133 million), WestConnex ($145 million), Department of Finance, Services and Innovation ($111 million) and Sydney Trains ($83 million).
Other dividends and distributions were $803 million higher than in 2016-17 mainly reflecting higher investment returns on TCorp investments.
$ |
83.5b |
+3.9% |
86.7b |
Total Revenue |
Key revenues include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
 |
35.4b |
+2.8 |
36.3b |
Taxation, Fees, Fines, and other |
|
31.4b |
+1.6 |
31.9b |
Grants & Subsidies |
|
14.1b |
+8.1 |
15.2b |
Sale of Goods and Services |
Expenses increased $4.9 billion to $84.2 billion in 2017-18
Overall expenses increased 6.1 per cent compared to 2016-17. Most of the increase was due to higher employee and operating costs.
$ |
79.3b |
+6.1% |
84.2b |
Total Expenses |
Salaries and wages increased by 3.6 per cent compared to 2016-17.
Salaries and wages increased to $31.1 billion from $30 billion. This was due to inflation linked salary and wage increases and a reported increase in front line staff.
The Government wages policy aims to limit growth in employee remuneration and other employee related costs to no more than 2.5 per cent per annum.
Operating expenses increased by 7.8 per cent from 2016-17.
Within operating expenses, payments for supplies, services and other expenses increased, in part, due to:
- increased costs of major rail projects, WestConnex, B-Line bus program and a new rail timetable
- addressing the maintenance backlog and higher school operating expenses of the Department of Education.
Key expenses include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
|
32.8b |
+3.8 |
34.1b |
Employee Expenses |
|
21.6b |
+7.8 |
23.3b |
Operating Costs |
|
9.7b |
+12.7 |
10.9b |
Grants & Subsidies |
 |
7.2b |
+6.6 |
7.6b |
Depreciation |
 |
4.6b |
+2.8 |
4.7b |
Superannuation Expense |
Health costs remain the highest expense of the State.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics introduced a revised Classification of the Function of Government Australia Framework (COFOG-A) effective 1 July 2017. This resulted in some re-classification of expenditure between purposes and now shows State expenses are highest in:
- Health (25.5 per cent)
- General Public Services (25.0 per cent)
- Education (19.6 per cent).
General Public Services includes the executive and legislative branches, financial affairs, public debt transactions and general public service transactions.
The graph highlights the annual expenditure by function and the value of assets to deliver those services.
Assets grew by $35.6 billion to $443 billion in 2017-18
Valuing the State’s physical assets.
The State had physical assets with a fair value of $339 billion at 30 June 2018. This includes land and buildings ($161.6b) and Infrastructure ($160.2b).
Our audits assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of assumptions used to value physical assets. This includes obtaining an understanding of the valuation methodologies used and judgements made. We also review the completeness of asset registers and the mathematical accuracy of valuation models.
Net movements between years include additions, disposals, depreciation and valuations. This year, revaluations of physical assets added $24.5 billion to the value of the State’s assets. This was mainly attributable to the following agencies:
- Department of Education - $8.5 billion
- Roads and Maritime Services - $7.4 billion.
The State’s financial assets increased by $308 million in 2017-18 ($27.5 billion in 2016-17).
In 2016-17, the significant increase in financial assets was primarily from the sale or lease of the following government assets and businesses:
- In June 2017, the Government leased 50.4 per cent of Endeavour Energy assets, which followed the long-term lease 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid’s assets in December 2016. The Government received proceeds of $24.0 billion from these transactions.
- A 35-year concession for providing titling and registry services, effective 30 June 2017, was granted to a private sector operator. The Government received $2.6 billion cash for the concession.
The Government implemented reforms relating to the use the State’s financial assets.
In 2017-18, the Asset and Liability Committee, which advises the Government on balance sheet management, recommended the following policy actions and frameworks to help manage the State’s financial risks and opportunities:
- expanding the scope of cash management reforms to give the State a whole-of-government view on the use of surplus funds. Treasury advises these reforms have centralised funds management of approximately $3.0 billion
- endorsing a new whole-of-government Foreign Exchange (FX) Risk Policy (effective 1 July 2018) to effectively manage the State’s FX risk
- expanding management of the State’s debt portfolio to minimise interest rate risks, reduce interest costs where possible, and extend the average weighted life of the General Government’s debt portfolio towards eight years
- endorsing establishment of a ‘sustainability bond’ program to further diversify and expand the State’s bond investor base and raise awareness of the Government’s social and environmental initiatives.
The State has established the NSW Generations Fund to maintain debt at sustainable levels.
The State established the NSW Generations Funds (NGF) in June 2018 to support debt retirement and to fund community-focused initiatives. The Government has indicated it will initially capitalise the NGF with $3.0 billion from its reserves.
The NSW Generations Funds Act 2018 requires an audit of each NSW Generations Fund by the Auditor- General (including a report by the Auditor-General on whether payments from the Funds have been made in accordance with the Act). The first audit of the fund will be for the period up to 30 June 2019.
$ |
407b |
+8.7% |
443b |
Total Assets |
Key assets include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
| Physical Assets | ||||
 |
147.0b |
+9.0 |
160.2b |
Infrastructure |
 |
143.4b |
+12.7 |
161.6b |
Land and Buildings |
| Financial Assets | ||||
 |
27.7b |
- 4.6 |
26.4b |
Equity investments |
|
20.6b |
- 5.2 |
19.5b |
Cash and Recievables |
|
40.5b |
+6.5 |
41.3b |
Investments and Placements |
Liabilities increased $5.1 billion to $189 billion in 2017-18
Valuing the State’s liabilities relies on actuarial assessments.
Nearly half of the State’s liabilities relate to its employees. They include unfunded superannuation, and employee benefits, such as long service and recreation leave.
Valuing these obligations involves complex estimation techniques and significant judgements. Small changes in assumptions can materially impact the values and the financial statements.
The State’s superannuation obligations fell $2.2 billion in 2017-18.
The State’s $56.4 billion unfunded superannuation liability represents obligations to past and present employees less the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations. The unfunded superannuation liability fell from $58.6 billion to $56.4 billion in 2017-18.
The State’s borrowings at 30 June 2018 were $700 million higher than they were at 30 June 2017.
The State’s borrowings totalled $71.3 billion at 30 June 2018.
TCorp issues bonds to raise funds for NSW Government agencies. These are actively traded in financial markets, which provides price transparency and liquidity to public sector borrowers and institutional investors. All TCorp bonds are guaranteed by the NSW Government.
The Government manages its debt liabilities through its balance sheet management strategy. The strategy extends to TCorp, which applies an active risk management strategy to the Government’s debt portfolio.
General Government Sector debt has been restructured by replacing shorter-term debt with longer-term debt. This lengthens the portfolio to match liabilities with the funding requirements for infrastructure assets.
$ |
184b |
+2.8% |
189b |
Total Liabilities |
Key liabilities include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
|
58.6b |
- 3.7 |
56.4b |
Unfunded Superannuation |
|
18.3b |
+4.7 |
19.1b |
Other Employee Benefits |
|
70.6b |
+1.0 |
71.3b |
Borrowings |
Managing Antisocial behaviour in public housing
The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) has not adequately supported or resourced its staff to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing according to a report released today by the Deputy Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin.
In recent decades, policy makers and legislators in Australian states and territories have developed and implemented initiatives to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing environments. All jurisdictions now have some form of legislation or policy to encourage public housing tenants to comply with rules and obligations of ‘good neighbourliness’. In November 2015, the NSW Parliament changed legislation to introduce a new approach to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing. This approach is commonly described as the ‘strikes’ approach.
When introduced in the NSW Parliament, the ‘strikes’ approach was described as a means to:
- improve the behaviour of a minority of tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour
- create better, safer communities for law abiding tenants, including those who are ageing and vulnerable.
FACS has a number of tasks as a landlord, including a responsibility to collect rent and organise housing maintenance. FACS also has a role to support tenants with complex needs and manage antisocial behaviour. These roles have some inherent tensions. The FACS antisocial behaviour management policy aims are:
to balance the responsibilities of tenants, the rights of their neighbours in social housing, private residents and the broader community with the need to support tenants to sustain their public housing tenancies.
This audit assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the ‘strikes’ approach to managing antisocial behaviour in public housing environments.
We examined whether:
- the approach is being implemented as intended and leading to improved safety and security in social housing environments
- FACS and its partner agencies have the capability and capacity to implement the approach
- there are effective mechanisms to monitor, report and progressively improve the approach.
|
Conclusion
FACS has not adequately supported or resourced its staff to implement the antisocial behaviour policy. FACS antisocial behaviour data is incomplete and unreliable. Accordingly, there is insufficient data to determine the nature and extent of the problem and whether the implementation of the policy is leading to improved safety and security. FACS management of minor and moderate incidents of antisocial behaviour is poor. FACS has not dedicated sufficient training to equip frontline housing staff with the relevant skills to apply the antisocial behaviour management policy. At more than half of the housing offices we visited, staff had not been trained to:
When frontline housing staff are informed about serious and severe illegal antisocial behaviour incidents, they generally refer them to the FACS Legal Division. Staff in the Legal Division are trained and proficient in managing antisocial behaviour in compliance with the policy and therefore, the more serious incidents are managed effectively using HOMES ASB.
|
Parliamentary reference - Report number #306 - released 10 August 2018
Matching skills training with market needs
In 2012, governments across Australia entered into the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. Under the National Partnership Agreement, the Australian Government provided incentive payments to States and Territories to move towards a more contestable Vocational Education and Training (VET) market. The aim of the National Partnership Agreement was to foster a more accessible, transparent, efficient and high quality training sector that is responsive to the needs of students and industry.
The New South Wales Government introduced the Smart and Skilled program in response to the National Partnership Agreement. Through Smart and Skilled, students can choose a vocational course from a list of approved qualifications and training providers. Students pay the same fee for their chosen qualification regardless of the selected training provider and the government covers the gap between the student fee and the fixed price of the qualification through a subsidy paid to their training provider.
Smart and Skilled commenced in January 2015, with the then Department of Education and Communities having primary responsibility for its implementation. Since July 2015, the NSW Department of Industry (the Department) has been responsible for VET in New South Wales and the implementation of Smart and Skilled.
The NSW Skills Board, comprising nine part-time members appointed by the Minister for Skills, provides independent strategic advice on VET reform and funding. In line with most other States and Territories, the Department maintains a 'Skills List' which contains government subsidised qualifications to address identified priority skill needs in New South Wales.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department in identifying, prioritising, and aligning course subsidies to the skill needs of NSW. To do this we examined whether:
- the Department effectively identifies and prioritises present and future skill needs
- Smart and Skilled funding is aligned with the priority skill areas
- skill needs and available VET courses are effectively communicated to potential participants and training providers.
Smart and Skilled is a relatively new and complex program, and is being delivered in the context of significant reform to VET nationally and in New South Wales. A large scale government funded contestable market was not present in the VET sector in New South Wales before the introduction of Smart and Skilled. This audit's findings should be considered in that context.
The Department needs to better use the data it has, and collect additional data, to support its analysis of priority skill needs in New South Wales, and direct funding accordingly.
- funding scholarships and support for disadvantaged students
- funding training in regional and remote areas
- providing additional support to deliver some qualifications that the market is not providing.
The Department needs to evaluate these funding strategies to ensure they are achieving their goals. It should also explore why training providers are not delivering some priority qualifications through Smart and Skilled.
Training providers compete for funding allocations based on their capacity to deliver. The Department successfully manages the budget by capping funding allocated to each Smart and Skilled training provider. However, training providers have only one year of funding certainty at present. Training providers that are performing well are not rewarded with greater certainty.
The Department needs to improve its communication with prospective students to ensure they can make informed decisions in the VET market.
The Department also needs to communicate more transparently to training providers about its funding allocations and decisions about changes to the NSW Skills List.
The Department relies on stakeholder proposals to update the NSW Skills List. Stakeholders include industry, training providers and government departments. These stakeholders, particularly industry, are likely to be aware of skill needs, and have a strong incentive to propose qualifications that address these needs. The Department’s process of collecting stakeholder proposals helps to ensure that it can identify qualifications needed to address material skill needs.
It is also important that the Department ensures the NSW Skills List only includes priority qualifications that need to be subsidised by government. The Department does not have robust processes in place to remove qualifications from the NSW Skills List. As a result, there is a risk that the list may include lower priority skill areas. Since the NSW Skills List was first created, new additions to the list have outnumbered those removed by five to one.
The Department does not always validate information gathered from stakeholder proposals, even when it has data to do so. Further, its decision making about what to include on, or delete from, the NSW Skills List is not transparent because the rationale for decisions is not adequately documented.
The Department is undertaking projects to better use data to support its decisions about what should be on the NSW Skills List. Some of these projects should deliver useful data soon, but some can only provide useful information when sufficient trend data is available.
Recommendation
The Department should:
- by June 2019, increase transparency of decisions about proposed changes to the NSW Skills List and improve record-keeping of deliberations regarding these changes
- by December 2019, use data more effectively and consistently to ensure that the NSW Skills List only includes high priority qualifications
Only qualifications on the NSW Skills List are eligible for subsidies under Smart and Skilled. As the Department does not have a robust process for removing low priority qualifications from the NSW Skills list, some low priority qualifications may be subsidised.
The Department allocates the Smart and Skilled budget through contracts with Smart and Skilled training providers. Training providers that meet contractual obligations and perform well in terms of enrolments and completion rates are rewarded with renewed contracts and more funding for increased enrolments, but these decisions are not based on student outcomes. The Department reduces or removes funding from training providers that do not meet quality standards, breach contract conditions or that are unable to spend their allocated funding effectively. Contracts are for only one year, offering training providers little funding certainty.
Smart and Skilled provides additional funding for scholarships and for training providers in locations where the cost of delivery is high or to those that cater to students with disabilities. The Department has not yet evaluated whether this additional funding is achieving its intended outcomes.
Eight per cent of the qualifications that have been on the NSW Skills List since 2015 are not delivered under Smart and Skilled anywhere in New South Wales. A further 14 per cent of the qualifications that are offered by training providers have had no student commencements. The Department is yet to identify the reasons that these high priority qualifications are either not offered or not taken up by students.
Recommendation
The Department should:
- by June 2019, investigate why training providers do not offer, and prospective students do not enrol in, some Smart and Skilled subsidised qualifications
- by December 2019, evaluate the effectiveness of Smart and Skilled funding which supplements standard subsidies for qualifications on the NSW Skills List, to determine whether it is achieving its objectives
- by December 2019, provide longer term funding certainty to high performing training providers, while retaining incentives for them to continue to perform well.
In a contestable market, it is important for consumers to have sufficient information to make informed decisions. The Department does not provide some key information to prospective VET students to support their decisions, such as measures of provider quality and examples of employment and further education outcomes of students completing particular courses. Existing information is spread across numerous channels and is not presented in a user friendly manner. This is a potential barrier to participation in VET for those less engaged with the system or less ICT literate.
The Department conveys relevant information about the program to training providers through its websites and its regional offices. However, it could better communicate some specific information directly to individual Smart and Skilled training providers, such as reasons their proposals to include new qualifications on the NSW Skills List are accepted or rejected.
While the Department is implementing a communication strategy for VET in New South Wales, it does not have a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled which comprehensively identifies the needs of different stakeholders and how these can be addressed.
Recommendation
By December 2019, the Department should develop and implement a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled to:
- support prospective student engagement and informed decision making
- meet the information needs of training providers
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #305 - released 26 July 2018
Managing risks in the NSW public sector: risk culture and capability
The Ministry of Health, NSW Fair Trading, NSW Police Force, and NSW Treasury Corporation are taking steps to strengthen their risk culture, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford. 'Senior management communicates the importance of managing risk to their staff, and there are many examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities', the Auditor-General said.
We did find that three of the agencies we examined could strengthen their culture so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. To support innovation, senior management could also do better at communicating to their staff the levels of risk they are willing to accept.
Effective risk management is essential to good governance, and supports staff at all levels to make informed judgements and decisions. At a time when government is encouraging innovation and exploring new service delivery models, effective risk management is about seizing opportunities as well as managing threats.
Over the past decade, governments and regulators around the world have increasingly turned their attention to risk culture. It is now widely accepted that organisational culture is a key element of risk management because it influences how people recognise and engage with risk. Neglecting this ‘soft’ side of risk management can prevent institutions from managing risks that threaten their success and lead to missed opportunities for change, improvement or innovation.
This audit assessed how effectively NSW Government agencies are building risk management capabilities and embedding a sound risk culture throughout their organisations. To do this we examined whether:
- agencies can demonstrate that senior management is committed to risk management
- information about risk is communicated effectively throughout agencies
- agencies are building risk management capabilities.
The audit examined four agencies: the Ministry of Health, the NSW Fair Trading function within the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, NSW Police Force and NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp). NSW Treasury was also included as the agency responsible for the NSW Government's risk management framework.
In assessing an agency’s risk culture, we focused on four key areas:
Executive sponsorship (tone at the top)
In the four agencies we reviewed, senior management is communicating the importance of managing risk. They have endorsed risk management frameworks and funded central functions tasked with overseeing risk management within their agencies.
That said, we found that three case study agencies do not measure their existing risk culture. Without clear measures of how employees identify and engage with risk, it is difficult for agencies to tell whether employee's behaviours are aligned with the 'tone' set by the executive and management.
For example, in some agencies we examined we found a disconnect between risk tolerances espoused by senior management and how these concepts were understood by staff.
Employee perceptions of risk management
Our survey of staff indicated that while senior leaders have communicated the importance of managing risk, more could be done to strengthen a culture of open communication so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. We found that senior management could better communicate to their staff the levels of risk they should be willing to accept.
Integration of risk management into daily activities and links to decision-making
We found examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities. On the other hand, we also identified areas where risk management deviated from good practice. For example, we found that corporate risk registers are not consistently used as a tool to support decision-making.
Support and guidance to help staff manage risks
Most case study agencies are monitoring risk-related skills and knowledge of their workforce, but only one agency has addressed the gaps it identified. While agencies are providing risk management training, surveyed staff in three case study agencies reported that risk management training is not adequate.
NSW Treasury provides agencies with direction and guidance on risk management through policy and guidelines. In line with better practice, NSW Treasury's principles-based policy acknowledges that individual agencies are in a better position to understand their own risks and design risk management frameworks that address those risks. Nevertheless, there is scope for NSW Treasury to refine its guidance material to support a better risk culture in the NSW public sector.
Recommendation
By May 2019, NSW Treasury should:
- Review the scope of its risk management guidance, and identify additional guidance, training or activities to improve risk culture across the NSW public sector. This should focus on encouraging agency heads to form a view on the current risk culture in their agencies, identify desirable changes to that risk culture, and take steps to address those changes.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #298 - released 23 April 2018
Detecting and responding to cyber security incidents
A report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, found there is no whole-of-government capability to detect and respond effectively to cyber security incidents. There is very limited sharing of information on incidents amongst agencies, and some agencies have poor detection and response practices and procedures.
The NSW Government relies on digital technology to deliver services, organise and store information, manage business processes, and control critical infrastructure. The increasing global interconnectivity between computer networks has dramatically increased the risk of cyber security incidents. Such incidents can harm government service delivery and may include the theft of information, denial of access to critical technology, or even the hijacking of systems for profit or malicious intent.
This audit examined cyber security incident detection and response in the NSW public sector. It focused on the role of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (DFSI), which oversees the Information Security Community of Practice, the Information Security Event Reporting Protocol, and the Digital Information Security Policy (the Policy).
The audit also examined ten case study agencies to develop a perspective on how they detect and respond to incidents. We chose agencies that are collectively responsible for personal data, critical infrastructure, financial information and intellectual property.
Some of our case study agencies had strong processes for detection and response to cyber security incidents but others had a low capability to detect and respond in a timely way.
Most agencies have access to an automated tool for analysing logs generated by their IT systems. However, coverage of these tools varies. Some agencies do not have an automated tool and only review logs periodically or on an ad hoc basis, meaning they are less likely to detect incidents.
Few agencies have contractual arrangements in place for IT service providers to report incidents to them. If a service provider elects to not report an incident, it will delay the agency’s response and may result in increased damage.
Most case study agencies had procedures for responding to incidents, although some lack guidance on who to notify and when. Some agencies do not have response procedures, limiting their ability to minimise the business damage that may flow from a cyber security incident. Few agencies could demonstrate that they have trained their staff on either incident detection or response procedures and could provide little information on the role requirements and responsibilities of their staff in doing so.
Most agencies’ incident procedures contain limited information on how to report an incident, who to report it to, when this should occur and what information should be provided. None of our case study agencies’ procedures mentioned reporting to DFSI, highlighting that even though reporting is mandatory for most agencies their procedures do not require it.
Case study agencies provided little evidence to indicate they are learning from incidents, meaning that opportunities to better manage future incidents may be lost.
Recommendations
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
- assist agencies by providing:
- better practice guidelines for incident detection, response and reporting to help agencies develop their own practices and procedures
- training and awareness programs, including tailored programs for a range of audiences such as cyber professionals, finance staff, and audit and risk committees
- role requirements and responsibilities for cyber security across government, relevant to size and complexity of each agency
- a support model for agencies that have limited detection and response capabilities
- revise the Digital Information Security Policy and Information Security Event Reporting Protocol by
- clarifying what security incidents must be reported to DFSI and when
- extending mandatory reporting requirements to those NSW Government agencies not currently covered by the policy and protocol, including State owned corporations.
DFSI lacks a clear mandate or capability to provide effective detection and response support to agencies, and there is limited sharing of information on cyber security incidents.
DFSI does not currently have a clear mandate and the necessary resources and systems to detect, receive, share and respond to cyber security incidents across the NSW public sector. It does not have a clear mandate to assess whether agencies have an acceptable detection and response capability. It is aware of deficiencies in agencies and across whole‑of‑government, and has begun to conduct research into this capability.
Intelligence gathering across the public sector is also limited, meaning agencies may not respond to threats in a timely manner. DFSI has not allocated resources for gathering of threat intelligence and communicating it across government, although it has begun to build this capacity.
Incident reporting to DFSI is mandatory for most agencies, however, most of our case study agencies do not report incidents to DFSI, reducing the likelihood of containing an incident if it spreads to other agencies. When incidents have been reported, DFSI has not provided dedicated resources to assess them and coordinate the public sector’s response. There are currently no formal requirements for DFSI to respond to incidents and no guidance on what it is meant to do if an incident is reported. The lack of central coordination in incident response risks delays and increased damage to multiple agencies.
DFSI's reporting protocol is weak and does not clearly specify what agencies should report and when. This makes agencies less likely to report incidents. The lack of a standard format for incident reporting and a consistent method for assessing an incident, including the level of risk associated with it, also make it difficult for DFSI to determine an appropriate response.
There are limited avenues for sharing information amongst agencies after incidents have been resolved, meaning the public sector may be losing valuable opportunities to improve its protection and response.
Recommendations
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
- develop whole‑of‑government procedure, protocol and supporting systems to effectively share reported threats and respond to cyber security incidents impacting multiple agencies, including follow-up and communicating lessons learnt
- develop a means by which agencies can report incidents in a more effective manner, such as a secure online template, that allows for early warnings and standardised details of incidents and remedial advice
- enhance NSW public sector threat intelligence gathering and sharing including formal links with Australian Government security agencies, other states and the private sector
- direct agencies to include standard clauses in contracts requiring IT service providers report all cyber security incidents within a reasonable timeframe
- provide assurance that agencies have appropriate reporting procedures and report to DFSI as required by the policy and protocol by:
- extending the attestation requirement within the DISP to cover procedures and reporting
- reviewing a sample of agencies' incident reporting procedures each year.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - ISMS maturity model
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #297 - released 2 March 2018
Internal Controls and Governance 2017
Agencies need to do more to address risks posed by information technology (IT).
Effective internal controls and governance systems help agencies to operate efficiently and effectively and comply with relevant laws, standards and policies. We assessed how well agencies are implementing these systems, and highlighted opportunities for improvement.
1. Overall trends
|
New and repeat findings |
The number of reported financial and IT control deficiencies has fallen, but many previously reported findings remain unresolved. |
|
High risk findings |
Poor systems implementations contributed to the seven high risk internal control deficiencies that could affect agencies. |
|
Common findings |
Poor IT controls are the most commonly reported deficiency across agencies, followed by governance issues relating to cyber security, capital projects, continuous disclosure, shared services, ethics and risk management maturity. |
2. Information Technology
|
IT security |
Only two-thirds of agencies are complying with their own policies on IT security. Agencies need to tighten user access and password controls. |
|
Cyber security |
Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
|
Other IT systems |
Agencies can improve their disaster recovery plans and the change control processes they use when updating IT systems. |
3. Asset Management
|
Capital investment |
Agencies report delays delivering against the significant increase in their budgets for capital projects. |
|
Capital projects |
Agencies are underspending their capital budgets and some can improve capital project governance. |
|
Asset disposals |
Eleven per cent of agencies were required to sell their real property through Property NSW but didn’t. And eight per cent of agencies can improve their asset disposal processes. |
4. Governance
|
Governance arrangements |
Sixty-four per cent of agencies’ disclosure policies support communication of key performance information and prompt public reporting of significant issues. |
|
Shared services |
Fifty-nine per cent of agencies use shared services, yet 14 per cent do not have service level agreements in place and 20 per cent can strengthen the performance standards they set. |
5. Ethics and Conduct
|
Ethical framework |
Agencies can reinforce their ethical frameworks by updating code‑of‑conduct policies and publishing a Statement of Business Ethics. |
|
Conflicts of interest |
All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
6. Risk Management
|
Risk management maturity |
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity. |
|
Risk management elements |
Many agencies can improve risk registers and strengthen their risk culture, particularly in the way that they report risks to their lead agency. |
This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2016–17 financial audits related to the internal controls and governance of the 39 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. These agencies represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW agencies and were considered to be a large enough group to identify common issues and insights.
The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2017 cluster financial audit reports tabled in Parliament from October to December 2017.
This new report offers strategic insight on the public sector as a whole
In previous years, we have commented on internal control and governance issues in the volumes we published on each ‘cluster’ or agency sector, generally between October and December. To add further value, we then commented more broadly about the issues identified for the public sector as a whole at the start of the following year.
This year, we have created this report dedicated to internal controls and governance. This will help Parliament to understand broad issues affecting the public sector, and help agencies to compare their own performance against that of their peers.
Without strong control measures and governance systems, agencies face increased risks in their financial management and service delivery. If they do not, for example, properly authorise payments or manage conflicts of interest, they are at greater risk of fraud. If they do not have strong information technology (IT) systems, sensitive and trusted information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.
These problems can in turn reduce the efficiency of agency operations, increase their costs and reduce the quality of the services they deliver.
Our audits do not review every control or governance measure every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present the most significant risks that agencies should mitigate. This report divides these into the following six areas:
- Overall trends
- Information technology
- Asset management
- Governance
- Ethics and conduct
- Risk management.
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this volume then illustrates this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
|
Issues |
Recommendations |
|
1.1 New and repeat findings |
|
|
The number of internal control deficiencies reduced over the past three years, but new higher-risk information technology (IT) control deficiencies were reported in 2016–17. Deficiencies repeated from previous years still make up a sizeable proportion of all internal control deficiencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should focus on emerging IT risks, but also manage new IT risks, reduce existing IT control deficiencies, and address repeat internal control deficiencies on a more timely basis. |
|
1.2 High risk findings |
|
|
We found seven high risk internal control deficiencies, which might significantly affect agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should rectify high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority |
|
1.3 Common findings |
|
|
The most common internal control deficiencies related to poor or absent IT controls. We found some common governance deficiencies across multiple agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should coordinate actions and resources to help rectify common IT control and governance deficiencies. |
Information technology (IT) has become increasingly important for government agencies’ financial reporting and to deliver their services efficiently and effectively. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place over their IT systems. We found that IT security remains the source of many control weakness in agencies.
| Issues | Recommendations |
2.1 IT security |
|
|
User access administration While 95 per cent of agencies have policies about user access, about two-thirds were compliant with these policies. Agencies can improve how they grant, change and end user access to their systems. |
Recommendation Agencies should strengthen user access administration to prevent inappropriate access to sensitive systems. Agencies should:
|
|
Privileged access Sixty-eight per cent of agencies do not adequately manage who can access their information systems, and many do not sufficiently monitor or restrict privileged access. |
Recommendation Agencies should tighten privileged user access to protect their information systems and reduce the risks of data misuse and fraud. Agencies should ensure they:
|
|
Password controls Forty-one per cent of agencies did not meet either their own standards or minimum standards for password controls. |
Recommendation Agencies should review and enforce password controls to strengthen security over sensitive systems. As a minimum, password parameters should include:
|
2.2 Cyber Security |
|
|
Cyber security framework Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
Recommendation The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should revisit its existing framework to develop a shared cyber security terminology and strengthen the current reporting requirements for cyber incidents. |
|
Cyber security strategies While 82 per cent of agencies have dedicated resources to address cyber security, they can strengthen their strategies, expertise and staff awareness. |
Recommendations The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
Agencies should ensure they adequately resource staff dedicated to cyber security. |
2.3 Other IT systems |
|
|
Change control processes Some agencies need to improve change control processes to avoid unauthorised or inaccurate system changes. |
Recommendation Agencies should consistently perform user acceptance testing before system upgrades and changes. They should also properly approve and document changes to IT systems. |
|
Disaster recovery planning Agencies can do more to adequately assess critical business systems to enforce effective disaster recovery plans. This includes reviewing and testing their plans on a timely basis. |
Recommendation Agencies should complete business impact analyses to strengthen disaster recovery plans, then regularly test and update their plans. |
Agency service delivery relies on developing and renewing infrastructure assets such as schools, hospitals, roads, or public housing. Agencies are currently investing significantly in new assets. Agencies need to manage the scale and volume of current capital projects in order to deliver new infrastructure on time, on budget and realise the intended benefits. We found agencies can improve how they:
- manage their major capital projects
- dispose of existing assets.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
3.1 Capital investment |
|
|
Capital asset investment ratios Most agencies report high capital investment ratios, but one-third of agencies’ capital investment ratios are less than one. |
Recommendation Agencies with high capital asset investment ratios should ensure their project management and delivery functions have the capacity to deliver their current and forward work programs. |
|
Volume of capital spending Most agencies have significant forward spending commitments for capital projects. However, agencies’ actual capital expenditure has been below budget for the last three years. |
Conclusion The significant increase in capital budget underspends warrant investigation, particularly where this has resulted from slower than expected delivery of projects from previous years. |
3.2 Capital projects |
|
|
Major capital projects Agencies’ major capital projects were underspent by 13 percent against their budgets. |
Conclusion The causes of agency budget underspends warrant investigation to ensure the NSW Government’s infrastructure commitment is delivered on time. |
|
Capital project governance Agencies do not consistently prepare business cases or use project steering committees to oversee major capital projects. |
Conclusion Agencies that have project management processes that include robust business cases and regular updates to their steering committees (or equivalent) are better able to provide those projects with strategic direction and oversight. |
3.3. Asset disposals |
|
|
Asset disposal procedures Agencies need to strengthen their asset disposal procedures. |
Recommendations Agencies should have formal processes for disposing of surplus properties. Agencies should use Property NSW to manage real property sales unless, as in the case for State owned corporations, they have been granted an exemption. |
Governance refers to the high-level frameworks, processes and behaviours that help an organisation to achieve its objectives, comply with legal and other requirements, and meet a high standard of probity, accountability and transparency.
This chapter sets out the governance lighthouse model the Audit Office developed to help agencies reach best practice. It then focuses on two key areas: continuous disclosure and shared services arrangements. The following two chapters look at findings related to ethics and risk management.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
4.1 Governance arrangements |
|
|
Continuous disclosure Continuous disclosure promotes improved performance and public trust and aides better decision-making. Continuous disclosure is only mandatory for NSW Government Businesses such as State owned corporations. |
Conclusion Some agencies promote transparency and accountability by publishing on their websites a continuous disclosure policy that provides for, and encourages:
|
4.2 Shared services |
|
|
Service level agreements Some agencies do not have service level agreements for their shared service arrangements. Many of the agreements that do exist do not adequately specify controls, performance or reporting requirements. This reduces the effectiveness of shared services arrangements. |
Conclusion Agencies are better able to manage the quality and timeliness of shared service arrangements where they have a service level agreement in place. Ideally, the terms of service should be agreed before services are transferred to the service provider and:
|
|
Shared service performance Some agencies do not set performance standards for their shared service providers or regularly review performance results. |
Conclusion Agencies can achieve better results from shared service arrangements when they regularly monitor the performance of shared service providers using key measures for the benefits realised, costs saved and quality of services received. Before agencies extend or renegotiate a contract, they should comprehensively assess the services received and test the market to maximise value for money. |
All government sector employees must demonstrate the highest levels of ethical conduct, in line with standards set by The Code of Ethics and Conduct for NSW government sector employees.
This chapter looks at how well agencies are managing these requirements, and where they can improve their policies and processes.
We found that agencies mostly have the appropriate codes, frameworks and policies in place. But we have highlighted opportunities to improve the way they manage those systems to reduce the risks of unethical conduct.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
5.1 Ethical framework |
|
|
Code of conduct All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
Recommendation Agencies should regularly review their code-of-conduct policies and ensure they keep their codes of conduct up-to-date. |
|
Statement of business ethics Most agencies maintain an ethical framework, but some can enhance their related processes, particularly when dealing with external clients, customers, suppliers and contractors. |
Conclusion Agencies can enhance their ethical frameworks by publishing a Statement of Business Ethics, which communicates their values and culture. |
5.2 Potential conflicts of interest |
|
|
Conflicts of interest All agencies have a conflicts-of-interest policy, but most can improve how they identify, manage and avoid conflicts of interest. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage conflicts of interest, particularly by:
|
|
Gifts and benefits While all agencies already have a formal gifts-and-benefits policy, we found gaps in the management of gifts and benefits by some that increase the risk of unethical conduct. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage gifts and benefits by promptly updating registers and providing annual training to staff. |
Risk management is an integral part of effective corporate governance. It helps agencies to identify, assess and prioritise the risks they face and in turn minimise, monitor and control the impact of unforeseen events. It also means agencies can respond to opportunities that may emerge and improve their services and activities.
This year we looked at the overall maturity of the risk management frameworks that agencies use, along with two important risk management elements: risk culture and risk registers.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
6.1 Risk management maturity |
|
|
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity in their application. Agencies’ averaged a score of 3.1 out of five across five critical assessment criteria for risk management. While strategy and governance fared best, the areas that most need to improve are risk culture, and systems and intelligence. |
Conclusion Agencies have introduced risk management frameworks and practices as required by the Treasury’s:
However, more can be done to progress risk management maturity and embed risk management in agency culture. |
6.2 Risk management elements |
|
|
Risk culture Most agencies have started to embed risk management into the culture of their organisation. But only some have successfully done so, and most agencies can improve their risk culture.
|
Conclusion Agencies can improve their risk culture by:
|
|
Risk registers and reporting Some agencies do not report their significant risks to their lead agency, which may impair the way resources are allocated in their cluster. Some agencies do not integrate risk registers at a divisional and whole-of-enterprise level. |
Conclusion Agencies not reporting significant risks at the cluster level increases the likelihood that significant risks are not being mitigated appropriately. |
Effective risk management can improve agency decision-making, protect reputations and lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings. By embedding risk management directly into their operations, agencies can also derive extra value for their activities and services.
Planning and Environment 2017
The following report highlights results of financial audits of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these agencies.
The audits were completed for most agencies in the cluster and unqualified audit opinions issued. Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven small agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline, and six of these remain incomplete. Apart from these small agencies, the quality of financial reporting across the cluster remained at a high standard.
This report provides Parliament and others with the audit results, observations and recommendations for Planning and Environment cluster agencies. The report has been structured into two chapters focussing on financial reporting and controls and service delivery.
The Planning and Environment cluster plays a role in ensuring each community across New South Wales receives the services and infrastructure it needs.
This chapter outlines our audit observations and recommendations related to financial reporting and controls of Planning and Environment cluster agencies for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
2.1 Quality of financial reporting |
|
|
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 39 of the 45 cluster agencies' financial statements. |
Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven smaller agencies delayed their completion. Six audits remain incomplete at the date of this report. Apart from these seven small agency audits, the quality of financial reporting across the cluster remained at a high standard. |
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting |
|
|
Seven agencies' financial statement audits were not completed by the statutory deadline with six audits incomplete at the date of this report. |
Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven smaller agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline. These agencies would benefit from performing additional early close procedures in future reporting periods. |
2.3 Financial and sustainability analysis |
|
|
Water and Electricity utility agencies continue to operate with low liquidity ratios. |
A liquidity ratio below one is an indicator that an entity may not be able to pay its debts as and when they fall due. Whilst liquidity ratios were below one, utility agencies demonstrated they can continue to support ongoing operations due to:
|
2.5 Internal controls |
|
|
One in six internal control weaknesses reported in 2016–17 were repeat issues. |
Delays in implementing audit recommendations can prolong the risk of fraud and error. Recommendation (repeat issue): anagement letter recommendations to address internal control weaknesses should be actioned promptly, with a focus on addressing repeat issues. |
|
Nine of these internal control weaknesses related to the creation, modification, deletion and review of user access to financial systems. |
These control weaknesses may compromise the integrity and security of financial data. Recommendation (repeat issue): Management of user administration over financial systems should be strengthened to prevent inappropriate access to financial information. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations relating to service delivery for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
3.1 Premier's and State priorities |
|
| The Planning and Environment cluster is responsible for delivering five Premier's and State priorities. |
One priority target was achieved in 2016–17, two targets are on track to be achieved and progress towards one target slowed. Progress against one target cannot be determined. |
3.2 Planning |
|
|
Housing Completion |
|
| There were 63,506 housing completions in 2016–17. This was 4.1 per cent above the Premier’s priority target of delivering 61,000 housing completions per year. |
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the housing completions target was achieved in 2016–17. |
|
Housing supply |
|
| The number of approvals for new houses in 2016–17 was 72,472 against the State priority target of more than 50,000 approvals per year. |
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates the housing approvals target was achieved in 2016–17. |
|
Major project assessment |
|
| State significant developments are not clearly defined for the purposes of reporting against the State priority target. | The Department of Planning and Environment will clarify with the Department of Premier and Cabinet which developments are captured by the State priority target. |
| The Department of Planning and Environment’s data shows the time taken to assess complex State significant developments increased by 16 per cent in 2016–17 while the time taken to assess less complex developments reduced by 20 per cent. | The Department of Planning and Environment considers it is on track to meet the State priority target of halving the time taken to assess State significant developments, despite uncertainty over the target measure. |
|
Housing acceleration fund |
|
|
Program business cases were not developed for projects in Housing Acceleration Fund Rounds 1 to 4. The Department advised a program business case will be developed for Housing Acceleration Fund Round 5 projects. |
A program business case is necessary to ensure related projects are evaluated, managed and coordinated effectively. |
|
A benefit realisation review process has not yet been approved for Housing Acceleration Fund projects. The Department of Planning and Environment advised it is developing a benefit realisation review process. |
A benefit realisation review process is necessary to determine whether funded projects achieved intended outcomes. |
|
Greater Sydney Commission |
|
| The Greater Sydney Commission forecasts a further 725,000 dwellings in the greater Sydney region will be required up to 2036 to meet housing demand. | In response to population growth, the Commission has set a five-year housing supply target of 189,100 houses across the five Greater Sydney Commission districts. |
|
ePlanning system |
|
| The Department of Planning and Environment did not perform a benefit realisation review for phase one of the ePlanning project. It has committed to performing a benefit realisation review after completion of phase two in 2018. | It cannot be determined if phase one of the project delivered expected outcomes as a benefit realisation review was not performed. |
3.3. Environment and Heritage |
|
| Litter volume in New South Wales was 6.6 litres per 1,000 square metres in 2016–17, an increase of 16 per cent from the prior year. This is above the Premier's priority litter volume target of 4.2 litres per 1,000 square metres by 2020. | The Environment Protection Authority's data indicates the progress towards the target of reducing the volume of litter by 40 per cent by 2020 has slowed. |
| The NSW Government plans to invest $240 million to facilitate strategic biodiversity conservation on private land. | Performance measures have not yet been developed for the private land conservation program. |
3.4 Water |
|
| IPART reduced water usage charges for most Sydney Water Corporation customers in 2016–17. | Water usage prices in New South Wales compare favourably to larger water utilities in other jurisdictions. |
|
Hunter Water Corporation's water recycling and water conservation performance has been stable over recent years. The volume of Sydney Water Corporation’s recycled water reduced by 12 per cent in 2016–17 compared to the previous year. |
Sydney Water Corporation experienced reduced industry demand for recycled water. Several large industrial customers relocated away from Sydney. |
3.5 Arts and culture |
|
| A State priority target is to increase overall attendance at cultural venues and events in New South Wales by 15 per cent from 2014–15 levels by 2019. | The Department of Planning and Environment's data indicates overall attendance increased by 16 per cent in 2015–16, although attendance fluctuated across individual venues and events. This indicates progress towards achieving the overall target by 2019. |
Industry 2017
The following report highlights the results of the financial audits of NSW Government entities in the Industry cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these entities.
The report notes that TAFE NSW will continue to incur extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information due to deficiencies in its student administration system. TAFE NSW plans to replace its Student Administration and Learning Management system in 2018-19 at an estimated cost of $89 million.
1. Financial reporting and controls
|
Financial reporting |
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 44 out of 48 financial statement audits with four audits incomplete. Early close procedures continue to promote earlier and better quality financial reporting. |
| Financial performance | The cluster recorded a net deficit of $107 million in 2016–17 ($78.0 million in 2015–16). Contributing to the overall cluster net deficit was the Department's $226 million net deficit offset by net surpluses at Water NSW and the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. |
| TAFE NSW continues to experience system issues | TAFE NSW incurs extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information due to deficiencies in its student administration system. TAFE NSW plans to replace its Student Administration and Learning Management system in 2018–19 at an estimated cost of $89 million. |
| Internal controls |
We identified 180 internal control issues, including 61 repeat issues across the cluster. We rated four of these issues as 'high' risk, 98 as ‘moderate’ risk and 78 as ‘low’ risk. Of the 180 issues raised, 37 related to financial reporting and 52 related to controls over processes such as procurement and fixed assets. Some internal control issues and recommendations identified in previous years, have been repeated and should be addressed promptly to reduce risks and improve processes. |
| Deficient user administration access | Agencies need to strengthen user access administration to critical financial systems. |
2. Service delivery
| Premier and State Priorities |
Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Premier's priority for job creation has been achieved. While performance has declined for the State priority to increase the proportion of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships, the Department advises it has initiatives in place to achieve this State priority, and the State priority for New South Wales to lead Australia in business confidence. |
| Crown land | The Department is working to respond to the recommendations from a Parliamentary Inquiry into Crown Land and to implement the revised framework contained in the Crown Land Management Act 2016. |
| Aboriginal land claims |
Despite a continued focus, the Department has been unsuccessful in reducing the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. The Department should continue to implement measures to reduce the backlog of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
This report focuses on agencies in the Industry cluster. The report focuses on audit results, observations, conclusions and recommendations for financial reporting and controls, and service delivery.
This cluster leads the State's promotion of New South Wales as the place to invest and produce goods and services. Significant cluster agencies deliver services in the following areas:
Confidence in public sector decision-making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies.
This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for the financial reporting and controls of agencies in the cluster for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 44 out of 48 financial statement audits. Four audits are continuing. | Ongoing improvements in the preparation of financial statements helped identify and resolve material issues. |
| The number of misstatements within the cluster fell from 104 in 2015–16 to 70 in 2016–17. | The ‘early close procedures’ initiative introduced by the Treasury in 2011–12 has reduced the number of misstatements each year. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Most agencies complied with the Treasury’s early close procedures and the timetable for the preparation and audit of financial statements. | Greater focus on financial reporting and effective early close procedures has improved the timeliness of financial reporting, but further improvements are required. |
| 2.3 Key financial issues from cluster agencies | |
| The Department of Industry completed a revaluation of Crown land and continues work on improving the accounting for Crown land. | The value of Crown land recognised in the Department's financial statements at 30 June 2017 was $5.3 billion. The revaluation was carried out using a revised mass valuation approach which reduced complexity and subjectivity and improved transparency. |
| There is no process in place to ensure agencies recognise all the Crown land they manage and control. | Recommendation: The Department should confirm the completeness and accuracy of the Crown land database with other organisations that manage and control Crown land to improve the reliability of its records. |
| TAFE NSW incurred approximately $6 million of direct costs to deal with issues in its student administration system and establish the integrity of its financial data for 2016–17. | TAFE NSW will continue to incur extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information. TAFE NSW advises it intends to replace the Student Administration and Learning Management system it jointly implemented with the Department of Education three years ago at a cost $40.2 million. TAFE plans to implement the new system in 2018–19 at an estimated cost of $89 million. |
| 2.4 Key financial information | |
| The cluster recorded a net deficit of $107 million in 2016–17 ($78.0 million in 2015–16). | The overall cluster net deficit included the Department's $226 million net deficit which was partly offset by net surpluses in a number of other agencies, including Water NSW and the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. Most agencies in the cluster, including the Department, but excluding the State owned corporations, are dependent on the NSW Government for the majority of their revenue. |
| 2.5 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| We assessed the performance of certain agencies against key financial sustainability indicators. This identified four agencies with adjusted net deficits and two agencies with liquidity ratios below one. | Overall, based on our analysis these agencies are not at high risk of sustainability concerns. |
| 2.6 Internal controls | |
| A significant number of repeat internal control issues were again raised with management for certain agencies in the cluster. |
Recommendation (repeat issue): Internal control issues and recommendations from previous years should be addressed promptly to reduce risks and improve processes. |
| User access administration over financial systems needs to be improved. 17 moderate risk issues related to user access administration across nine agencies were identified. |
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure administration of user access to critical systems
|
Government outcomes can be achieved by delivering services through a mix of the public, private or not-for-profit sectors. Service delivery reform is most successful if there is clear accountability for service delivery outcomes, decisions are aligned to the government's strategic direction, and performance and value for money are monitored and evaluated.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for the service delivery of agencies in the cluster for 2016–17.
| Issues | Conclusion or recommendation |
|
3.1 Measuring and reporting on performance |
|
| The Department is responsible for two State priorities (increasing apprenticeships and business confidence) and the Premier's priority of creating jobs. The Department also supports four state priorities. | Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Premier's priority for job creation continues to be achieved. The Department reported that the number of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships had declined to 59 per cent against a 2019 target of 65 per cent, while the State was ranked first or second on a range of business confidence indicators. |
|
3.2 Improvements required in the administration of Crown land |
|
| The Department faces many challenges in the administration of Crown land. These challenges range from inadequate systems and processes through to satisfying competing commercial, environmental, and community interests. |
The Department has implemented, or is implementing the recommendations from a performance audit on the Sale and Lease of Crown land and the Parliamentary Inquiry into Crown land. It is also implementing the revised framework for Crown land contained in the Crown Land Management Act 2016. |
|
3.3 Aboriginal land claims over Crown land |
|
| The number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims continues to increase. Work on finalising Aboriginal Land Agreements, which may help address the claims backlog, is continuing. | Recommendation (repeat Issue): The Department should continue to implement measures to reduce the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
|
3.4 Skills development |
|
| Eleven contracted Smart and Skilled service providers had their contracts cancelled for quality issues. There were 391 providers of Smart and Skilled qualifications as at October 2017. | The Department of Industry spent $1.4 billion on the provision of vocational education and training. The Department has controls in place to monitor the performance of contracted service providers to ensure quality delivery of training. |
Family and Community Services 2017
The following report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of agencies in the Family and Community Services cluster.
The report includes a range of findings on service delivery. The Department of Family and Community Services' data indicates that family preservation programs are having a positive impact on children and young people entering statutory care. On the other hand, waiting times for social housing applicants increased in 2016-17.
1. Financial reporting and controls
| Quality of financial reporting | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' financial statements. |
| Timeliness of financial reporting | Agencies completed mandatory early close procedures and all but one agency submitted financial statements by the statutory deadline. |
| Internal controls | The 2016–17 audits reported 29 internal control improvements to cluster agencies’ management. None of these findings were high risk. Eleven related to information technology control weaknesses in key financial business systems. |
2. Service Delivery
| Commissioning | Non-government organisations (NGOs) received $2.6 billion in 2016–17 to deliver services. |
| Children and young people |
The Department of Family and Community Services data indicates that family preservation programs are reducing the number of children and young people entering statutory care. The Department's data shows 86 per cent of children and young people in statutory care had their placements reviewed in the 12 months to 30 June 2017. Legislation requires all placements are reviewed at least every 12 months. |
| Social Housing | The Department's data shows waiting times for social housing applicants are longer than last year. |
| People with disability | Under the current timetable for implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Department plans to transfer direct disability services to NGOs by 30 June 2018. |
This report provides Parliament and others with the audit results, observations, conclusions and recommendations for Family and Community Services cluster agencies. The report has been structured into two chapters focusing on financial reporting and controls and service delivery.
The Family and Community Services cluster works with children, adults, families and communities to improve lives and help people realise their potential.
This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations related to the financial reporting and controls of agencies in the Family and Community Services cluster for 2016–17.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in public sector decision making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
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.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' financial statements. | The quality of financial reporting remains high across the cluster. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Agencies completed mandatory early close procedures and all but one submitted financial statements by the deadline. | Early close procedures continue to allow issues and financial reporting risk areas to be addressed early in the audit process. There are opportunities to improve effectiveness of early close procedures. |
| 2.3 Internal controls | |
| The 2016–17 audits reported 29 internal control weaknesses. While none were high risk, the Department had five repeat issues. |
Management accepted the audit findings and advised they are actioning recommendations. Timely action is important to ensure internal controls operate effectively. |
| Eleven of these internal control weaknesses were related to IT system user access administration and security over financial systems. |
Controls weaknesses may compromise the integrity and security of financial data. Recommendation Agencies should:
|
Government outcomes can be improved by delivering the right mix of services, whether from the public, private or not for profit sectors. Service delivery reform will be most successful if there is clear accountability for service delivery outcomes, decisions are aligned to strategic direction and performance is monitored and evaluated.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations related to service delivery by agencies in the Family and Community Services cluster for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
|
3.1 Commissioning |
|
| Non-government organisations (NGOs) received $2.6 billion funding in 2016–17 to deliver services. | Commissioning of service delivery can change the profile of risks that need to be managed. The Department has established a Commissioning Division and developed its ‘Commissioning for Better Outcomes Framework’. |
|
3.2 Children and young people |
|
|
All the Department's Districts are accredited to provide out-of-home care services. The Department's data indicates 66 more children and young people were in statutory care at 30 June 2017 compared to 30 June 2016. This contrasts to the previous year where 1,150 more children were in statutory care at 30 June 2016 than at 30 June 2015. |
The Department is complying with out-of-home care service standards, but one District has an additional condition attached to its accreditation. Department’s data indicates that family preservation programs are having a positive impact.. |
|
The Department's data shows 86 per cent of children and young people in statutory care had their placement reviewed at 30 June 2017. The Department’s data shows, at 30 June 2017, 41 per cent of children and young people with closed case plans for the 12 months ended 30 June 2016 were re-reported at risk of significant harm. |
The Department did not meet the legislative requirement to review the placement of all children and young people in statutory care annually. The number of children being re-reported at risk of significant harm is above the Premier’s Priority target of 34 per cent by June 2019. |
|
3.3. Social Housing |
|
| Waiting time for priority and non-priority social housing applicants increased in 2016–17, by 19 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. | Some factors impacting waiting time for social housing applicants are outside the control of the Department. |
|
3.4 People with disability |
|
| A Bilateral Agreement between the Australian and NSW Governments sets out how eligible persons access the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2018. |
Under the timetable for the NDIS, the Department plans to transfer direct disability services to NGOs. |
Central Agencies 2017
This report highlights the results of the financial audits of NSW Government central agencies. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial statement audits of agencies in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet, and Finance, Services and Innovation clusters.
The report includes a range of findings in respect to service delivery. One repeat finding is that while the Government regularly reports on the 12 Premier's priorities, there is no comprehensive reporting on the 18 State priorities.
1. Financial reporting and controls
| Audit Opinions | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' 30 June 2017 financial statements. |
| Early close | Early close procedures continue to facilitate the timely preparation of financial statements and completion of audits, but agencies can make further improvement. |
| Deficient user administration access | User access administration over financial systems remains an area of weakness. Agencies need to strengthen user access administration to critical systems. |
| Transitioning to outsourced service providers | Transitioning of services to outsourced service providers can be improved. Outsourcing services can lead to better outcomes, which may include lower transaction costs and improved services, but it also introduces new risks. |
2. Service delivery
| Premier and State Priorities | A comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities is yet to be published. While some measures are publicly reported through agency annual reports or other sources, a comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities would ensure all State Priorities are publicly reported, provide a single and easily accessible source of reference and improve transparency. |
| ICT and digital government | The Digital Government Strategy was released in May 2017. Targets will need to be set to assess and monitor progress against the Strategy. |
| Digital information security | Not all agencies are complying with the NSW Government's information security policy. This increases the risk of noncompliance with legislation, information security breaches and difficulty restoring data or maintaining business continuity in the event of a disaster or disruption. |
| Property and asset utilisation | Property NSW's performance reporting would be enhanced by developing and reporting on customer satisfaction, reporting against set targets and benchmarking cost of service to the private sector. |
3. Government financial services
| Prudential oversight of NSW Government superannuation funds |
Prudential oversight of SAS Trustee Corporation Pooled Fund and Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund has not been prescribed. Structured and comprehensive prudential oversight of these funds remains important as they operate in a specialised, complex and continuously changing investment market sector, have over 106,000 members and manage investments in excess of $42.4 billion. |
| Green slip scheme affordability | Currently, Green Slips in NSW are the most expensive in Australia. However, CTP reforms are expected to reduce the cost of Green Slips. |
This report sets out the results of the 30 June 2017 financial statement audits of NSW Government's central agencies and their cluster agencies.
Central agencies play a key role in ensuring policy coordination, good administrative and people management practices and prudent fiscal management. The central agencies and their key responsibilities are set out below.
Confidence in public sector decision‑making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions or recommendations related to financial reporting and controls of agencies for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agency financial statements. | The quality of financial reporting continues to remain strong across the clusters. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Most agencies complied with the statutory timeframes for completion of early close procedures and preparation and audit of financial statements. | Early close procedures continue to facilitate the timely preparation of financial statements and completion of audits, but agencies can make further improvement. |
| 2.3 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| We assessed the performance of agencies listed in Appendix six against some key financial sustainability indicators. This highlighted two agencies with negative operating margins of more than ten per cent and one agency with a liquidity ratio of less than 0.5. | These agencies have strategies in place to remain financially sustainability and manage their liquidity. Our analysis found that, overall, the agencies are not at high risk of sustainability concerns. |
| 2.4 Internal Controls | |
|
User access administration over financial systems remains an area of weakness. Sixteen moderate risk and ten low risk issues related to user access administration across eight agencies were identified. |
Recommendation: Agencies should review user access administration to critical systems to ensure:
|
|
Transitioning of services to outsourced service providers can be improved. Our 2016–17 audits identified one high risk issue relating to Property NSW's outsourcing of property and facility management services to the private sector. While a high risk issue was identified in 2015–16 from the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation's outsourcing of transactional and information technology services to GovConnect there has been an improvement in GovConnect's internal control environment throughout |
Outsourcing services can lead to better outcomes, which may include lower transaction costs and improved services, but it also introduces new risks. The transition needs to be carefully managed and requires thorough planning and effective project governance. This should be supported by oversight and direction from senior management and independent project assurance. |
| 2.5 Human Resources | |
| The percentage of full‑time equivalent staff with annual leave greater than 30 days in the Finance, Services and Innovation, Premier and Cabinet and the Treasury clusters is 7.9 per cent, 17.1 per cent and 18.4 per cent respectively. | Agencies have strategies in place to reduce annual leave balances that are greater than 30 days. The effectiveness of these strategies will need to be monitored to ensure they are helping to achieve the desired outcome. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations relating to service delivery for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 3.1 Premier and State priorities | |
|
The Department of Premier and Cabinet monitors the achievement of targets and the implementation of initiatives to deliver the 12 Premier’s Priorities. Responsible ministers and agencies manage the 18 State Priorities. A comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities is yet to be published. |
While some measures are publicly reported through agency annual reports or other sources, a comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities would ensure all State Priorities are publicly reported, provide a single and easily accessible source of reference and improve transparency. Where possible, independent sources are used to measure performance, however without independent assurance there is an increased risk that the target measures are inaccurate, not relevant or do not fairly represent actual performance. |
|
Performance against the State Priority to make NSW the easiest state to start a business is not currently published. |
Initiatives, such as easy to do business and red tape reduction are in place to help achieve this priority. The regulatory policy framework is under review following an October 2016 performance audit on ‘Red tape reduction’ that found the regulatory burden of legislation had increased. |
| 3.2 Financial management | |
| Revenue NSW earned record crown revenue of $30.0 billion in 2016–17 to support the state's finances. | Record crown revenue has been driven by the sustained increase in duties revenue, which has increased by 93.7 per cent over the last five years. This is a consequence of the continued strength in the property market over this time and large one off NSW Government business asset sales and leases. |
| 3.3 ICT and digital government | |
| The Digital Government Strategy (the Strategy) was released in May 2017 to build on reforms set out in previous ICT strategies. | The Strategy’s priorities and enablers aim to support digital innovation. Targets and measures will need to be set to assess and monitor progress against the Strategy. |
| The Digital Information Security Policy (DISP) is a key tool that helps ensure a minimum set of information security controls are implemented across NSW Government agencies. A review of 2016 annual reports found 15 agencies (13 in 2015) did not attest to compliance with the DISP and of the agencies that attested to compliance, 34 reported issues associated with their compliance. |
The Strategy’s priorities and enablers aim to support digital innovation. Targets and measures will need to be set to assess and monitor progress against the Strategy. |
| 3.4 Property and asset utilisation | |
|
Property NSW's performance reporting could be |
Property NSW's performance reporting would be enhanced by developing and reporting on customer satisfaction, reporting against set targets and benchmarking cost of service to the private sector. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations specific to NSW Government agencies providing financial services.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 4.1 Key issues | |
|
The SAS Trustee Corporation (STC) Pooled Fund and the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation (PCS) Fund are not required to comply with the prudential and reporting standards issued by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). Amendments to relevant legislation allows the Minister for Finance, Services and Property to prescribe applicable prudential standards and audit requirements. |
Structured and comprehensive prudential oversight of these funds remains important as they operate in a specialised, complex and continuously changing investment market sector, have over 106,000 members and manage investments of more than $42.4 billion. Recommendation: The Treasury should liaise with the respective Trustees to implement appropriate prudential standards and oversight arrangements for the exempt public sector superannuation funds. |
|
Currently, Green Slips in NSW are the most expensive in Australia. Average premiums for Sydney Metropolitan vehicles increased by 10.4 per cent between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016. |
CTP reforms are expected to reduce the cost of Green Slips. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority will need to ensure it has appropriate processes in place to track and report against the expected benefits. |
| 4.2 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| Net unfunded superannuation liabilities were $15.0 billion at 30 June 2017. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012, the NSW Government’s target is to eliminate unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030. |
The superannuation funds’ strategic asset allocation and investment strategies are monitored and adjusted to help achieve a fully funded position by 2030. |
| The Home Warranty Scheme commenced in 2011. Over this time total premiums collected have not been sufficient to cover expected claim costs. | Funding arrangements introduced during 2016–17 allow the Home Building Compensation Fund to apply to the Crown for reimbursement of unfunded realised losses from under-pricing of premiums. Other reforms are planned to address the long term sustainability of the home building compensation scheme. |
| 4.3 Investment performance | |
| The NSW Government’s main superannuation funds have maintained the management expense ratio (MER) at consistent levels over the past two years. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation (PCS) Fund does not set an MER target. | MER is an industry recognised ratio to measure the performance of funds and investment managers. Recommendation: The Fund Secretary for the PCS Fund, in conjunction with the Trustee, should consider establishing an appropriate management expense ratio target to measure performance. |
