Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Planning and Environment 2022

Planning and Environment 2022

Environment
Industry
Local Government
Planning
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk

What the report is about

Result of the Planning and Environment cluster agencies' financial statements audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.

What we found

Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all completed 30 June 2022 financial statements audits of cluster agencies. Seven audits are ongoing.

Disclaimed audit opinions were issued for the 2010–11 to 2015–16 financial statements of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (WAMC), as management was unable to certify that the financial statements exhibit a true and fair view of WAMC's financial position and financial performance.

Qualified audit opinions were issued for WAMC's 2016–17 and 2017–18 financial statements due to insufficient evidence to support the completeness and valuation of water meters infrastructure assets, the impairment of water meters, and the completeness of buildings at Nimmie Caira.

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for WAMC's 2018–19 and 2019–20 financial statements.

The Department of Planning and Environment (the department) assessed 45 Category 2 Statutory Land Managers (SLM) did not meet the reporting exemption criteria and therefore were required to prepare 2021–22 financial statements. None of these 45 Category 2 SLMs prepared and submitted their 30 June 2022 financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline.

All 119 Commons Trusts have never submitted their financial statements for audit as required by the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act).

NSW Treasury has confirmed that the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT) is a controlled entity of the State. To date, CMCT has not met its obligations to prepare financial statements under the GSF Act and it has not submitted financial statements to the Auditor-General for audit.

What the key issues were

Since 2017, the Audit Office has recommended the department address the different practices across the local government sector in accounting for rural firefighting equipment. Despite repeated recommendations, the department did little to resolve this issue. At the time of writing, 32 of 118 completed council audits received qualified audit opinions on their 30 June 2022 financial statements.

There continues to be significant deficiencies in Crown land records. The department uses the Crown Land Information Database (CLID) to record key information relating to Crown land in New South Wales that is managed and controlled by the department and land managers. The CLID system was not designed to facilitate financial reporting, and the department is required to conduct extensive adjustments and reconciliations to produce accurate information for the financial statements.

The department implemented the CrownTracker system as a replacement for CLID. The project was finalised in June 2022, but it has not achieved the intended outcomes.

Nine high-risk issues were identified across the cluster related to the findings outlined above and weaknesses in IT general controls, financial reporting, governance processes and internal controls.

Recommendations were made to address these deficiencies.

This report provides Parliament and other users of the Planning and Environment cluster’s financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

  • financial reporting
  • audit observations.

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster (the cluster) for 2022.

Section highlights

  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all completed 30 June 2022 financial statements audits of cluster agencies. Seven audits are ongoing. The audit of the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust(CMCT) has not been able to commence, despite repeated requests to do so.
     
  • The audits of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation's (WAMC) financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2020 were completed in November 2022. These audits had been long outstanding due to insufficient records and evidence to support the transactions and balances of WAMC, particularly for the earlier years. In recent years, management commenced actions to improve WAMC's governance and financial management, and finalise the outstanding audits.

    Disclaimed audit opinions were issued on the 2010–11 to 2015–16 financial statements as management was unable to certify that the financial statements exhibit a true and fair view of WAMC's financial position and financial performance.

    Qualified audit opinions were issued for the 2016–17 and 2017–18 financial statements due to insufficient evidence to support the completeness and valuation of water meters infrastructure assets, the impairment of water meters, and the completeness of buildings at Nimmie Caira.

    Unqualified audit opinions were issued for the 2018–19 and 2019–20 financial statements.

    The 2020–21 and 2021–22 WAMC audits are in progress.
     
  • The Department of Planning and Environment (the department) assessed 45 Category 2 Statutory Land Managers (SLM) did not meet the reporting exemption criteria and therefore were required to prepare 2021–22 financial statements. None of these 45 Category 2 SLMs prepared and submitted their 30 June 2022 financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline.

    All 119 Commons Trusts have never submitted their financial statements for audit as required by the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act).

    The department needs to do more to ensure Category 2 SLMs and Commons Trusts meet their statutory reporting obligations.

    The department and Category 2 SLMs should finalise their reporting exemption assessments earlier to allow sufficient time for the non-exempted SLMs to prepare and submit annual financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline.
     
  • NSW Treasury has met with the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT) to consider their perspective as part of confirming CMCT is a controlled entity of the State for the purposes of financial reporting. NSW Treasury has confirmed that the CMCT is a controlled entity of the State. This means that the CMCT is statutorily obliged under section 7.6 of the GSF Act to prepare financial statements in accordance with the GSF Act and Treasurer's Directions, and give them to the Auditor-General for audit pursuant to the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (GSA Act). Section 34 of the GSA Act requires the Auditor-General to furnish an audit report on these financial statements.

    The department wrote to CMCT to request it work with, and offer full assistance to, the Auditor-General in the exercise of her duties. To date, the CMCT has not met its obligations to prepare financial statements under the GSF Act as it has not submitted its financial statements to the Auditor-General for audit despite repeated requests, and has not provided access to its books and records for the purposes of a financial audit. The CMCT contends that they are not a GSF agency as defined by the GSF Act and therefore not a controlled entity of the State.
     
  • Six agencies required to perform early close procedures did not complete a total of 11 mandatory procedures. Incomplete procedures included the delayed resolution of matters raised in prior years and two agencies did not record movements in the fair value of physical assets in the financial statements.

 

Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.

This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster.

Section highlights

  • Since 2017, the Audit Office of New South Wales has recommended that the Department of Planning and Environment (the department) address the different practices across the local government sector in accounting for rural firefighting equipment. Despite repeated recommendations, the department did little to resolve this issue, and in 2022, 32 of 118 completed audits of councils received qualified audit opinions on their 2022 financial statements.
    Consistent with the department’s role to assess councils' compliance with legislative responsibilities, standards or guidelines, the department should intervene where councils do not recognise rural firefighting equipment.
  • There continues to be significant deficiencies in Crown land records. The department should implement an action plan to ensure the Crown land database is complete and accurate.
  • The number of findings reported to management decreased from 161 in 2020–21 to 132 in 2021–22. Eight high-risk findings were identified during 2021–22, of which six were repeat issues. One new high-risk finding related to deficiencies in governance processes and internal controls identified as a part of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation's 2011–2020 financial statements audits.
  • The department and NSW Treasury did not comply with section 35 of the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987 (EUA Act). However, complying with the EUA Act could create non-compliance with other pieces of legislation. Amendments to the EUA Act have been made to resolve this inconsistency. The amendment took effect from April 1999.

 

Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit

Appendix two – Early close procedures

Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting

Appendix four – Financial data

Appendix five – Councils received qualified audit opinions 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Actions for Stronger Communities 2022

Stronger Communities 2022

Justice
Community Services
Asset valuation
Compliance
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Risk

What the report is about

Results of the Stronger Communities cluster agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.

What we found

Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all completed 30 June 2022 financial statement audits. One audit is ongoing.

All 13 cluster agencies that have accommodation arrangements with Property NSW derecognised right-of-use assets and lease liabilities of $917 million and $1 billion respectively. The agencies also collectively recorded a gain on derecognition of $136 million.

The Department of Communities and Justice (the department) assumed the responsibility for delivery of the Process and Technology Harmonisation program from the Department of Customer Service. In 2021–22, the department incurred costs of $42.8 million in relation to the project, which remains ongoing.

The number of monetary misstatements identified during the audits decreased from 50 in 2020–21 to 48 in 2021–22.

What the key issues were

Six of the 15 cluster agencies required to submit 2021–22 mandatory early close procedures did not meet the statutory deadlines. One agency did not complete all mandatory procedures.

Five high-risk findings were identified in 2021–22. They related to deficiencies in:

  • user access administration at the department, NSW Rural Fire Service and New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC)
  • segregation of duties at the NSW Trustee and Guardian and NSWALC.

Recommendations were made to those agencies to address these control deficiencies.

This report provides Parliament and other users of the Stronger Communities cluster’s financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

  • financial reporting
  • audit observations.

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Stronger Communities cluster (the cluster) for 2022.

Section highlights

  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all completed 30 June 2022 financial statement audits of cluster agencies, including the acquittal and compliance audits for the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales and Crown Solicitor's Office. One audit is ongoing.

  • Reported corrected misstatements decreased from 30 in 2020–21 to 23 with a gross value of $187 million in 2021–22 ($101 million in 2020–21). Reported uncorrected misstatements increased from 20 in 2020–21 to 25 with a gross value of $92.3 million in 2021–22 ($107 million in 2020–21).

  • Six of the 15 cluster agencies required to submit 2021–22 early close financial statements and all other mandatory procedures did not meet the statutory deadlines. One agency did not complete all mandatory procedures.

  • All 13 cluster agencies that have accommodation arrangements with Property NSW accepted the changes in the Client Acceptance Letters, resulting in the derecognition of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities of $917 million and $1 billion respectively. The agencies also collectively recorded a gain on derecognition of $136 million.

  • The Department of Communities and Justice (the department) assumed the responsibility to deliver the Process and Technology Harmonisation program from the Department of Customer Service. In 2021–22, the department incurred costs of $42.8 million in relation to the project.

  • In 2021–22, the department continued to implement the International Financial Reporting Standards Interpretations Committee's agenda decision on 'Configuration or customisation costs in a cloud computing arrangement'. The department's review of the remaining arrangements, with a net book value of $233 million at 30 June 2021, resulted in the recognition as an expense (through accumulated funds at 1 July 2020) of previously capitalised intangible assets totalling $106 million.

Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision making.

This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Stronger Communities cluster.

Section highlights

  • The number of issues reported to management has decreased from 130 in 2020–21, to 110 in 2021–22, and 43% were repeat issues (51% in 2020–21). Many repeat issues related to information technology, governance and oversight controls, and non-compliance with key legislation and/or agency policies.

  • Five high-risk issues were identified in 2021–22, all of which are repeat issues and related to user access administration and segregation of duties.

  • Of the 24 newly identified moderate risk issues, 11 related to information technology. The rest related to governance and oversight controls and internal control deficiencies or improvements in payroll, asset management and other processes.

Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit

Appendix two – Early close procedures

Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting

Appendix four – Financial data

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Actions for Development applications: assessment and determination stages

Development applications: assessment and determination stages

Planning
Local Government
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Service delivery

What the report is about

Local councils in New South Wales are responsible for assessing local and regional development applications.

Most development applications are assessed and determined by council staff under delegated authority. However, some development applications must be referred to independent local planning panels or Sydney and regional planning panels for determination.

Councils provide support to local planning panels. The Department of Planning and Environment provides support to Sydney and regional planning panels.

This audit assessed whether Byron Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council had effectively assessed and determined development applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements.

It also assessed whether The Hills Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council and the Department of Planning and Environment had provided effective support to relevant independent planning panels.

What we found

All councils had established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications and had also established processes to ensure quality of assessment reports.

Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council have established comprehensive approaches to considering and managing risks related to development assessment.

Northern Beaches Council's approach to publishing its assessment reports promotes transparency.

Across a sample of development applications assessed and determined between 2020–22:

  • Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council had assessed and determined applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements. However, The Hills Shire Council could do more to transparently document any conflicts of interest within assessment reports.
  • Byron Shire Council had assessed most applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements. However, we found opportunities for the Council to:
    • ensure determinations were made in line with delegations
    • strengthen its approach to transparent management of conflicts of interest and quality review of assessments.

The Hills Shire Council and Northern Beaches Council had effectively supported their respective local planning panels.

The Department of Planning and Environment had processes that meet requirements for supporting regional planning panels but could do more to promote consistency in approach, share information across panels and measure the effectiveness of its support.

What we recommended

We made recommendations to Byron Shire Council, The Hills Shire Council and the Department of Planning and Environment to address the gaps identified and improve the transparency of processes.

Local councils in New South Wales are responsible for assessing local and regional development applications under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

In assessing development applications, councils consider:

  • whether the proposed development application is compliant with legislation and environmental planning instruments
  • whether the proposed development meets local planning controls and objectives
  • any environmental, social and economic impacts
  • any submissions from impacted properties, neighbours and interested parties
  • the public interest.

Once assessed, a development application will be determined by council staff under delegated authority, the elected council, or an independent planning panel.1 

The involvement of a particular independent planning panel is established under legislative and policy instruments, and depends on the type and value of the proposed development. Most development applications are assessed and determined by council staff under delegated authority.

In determining development applications, independent planning panels must manage any potential, real or perceived conflicts of interest of panel members for a given development application, meet and vote on development applications, and publish their decisions and reasons.

Under the EP&A Act, and as required by statutory instruments and procedures, councils and the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) must provide secretariat and other support functions to independent planning panels.

Previous reviews and inquiries have identified several significant risks that are present within the processes involved in the assessment and determination of development applications. These risks include possible non-compliance with complex legal and policy requirements, potential improper influence from developers and other stakeholders, and a perceived lack of transparency within the planning system and planning outcomes.

There are several planning pathways for development in New South Wales. This audit focuses on local and regional development that requires assessment and determination by a local council and/or an independent local planning panel or Sydney or regional planning panel in three Local Government Areas (LGAs): Byron Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council, The Hills Shire Council.

Audited councils were selected from a range of criteria, including:

  • the number, value and types of development applications determined in 2018–19
  • average determination timeframes
  • appeals against determinations and Land and Environment Court outcomes
  • LGA demographics.

The audit also avoided councils that had previously been subject to a performance audit.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether:

  • selected councils have effectively assessed and determined development applications in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance
  • selected councils and DPE effectively support independent planning panels to determine development applications in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.

Conclusion – Byron Shire Council

Byron Shire Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications. However, the effectiveness of the Council's approach is limited by gaps in governance, risk management and internal controls.

Byron Shire Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications. However, the Council does not have a consolidated policy and procedure for development assessment, has not adequately followed up on the outcomes of internal reviews that identified opportunities to strengthen its assessment and determination procedures and approach, and has not demonstrated that it has managed relevant risks effectively.

The Council has not ensured that delegations have been consistently followed in the assessment of development applications.

Byron Shire Council's approach to managing conflicts of interest in development assessments does not provide transparency over potential conflicts of interest.

Byron Shire Council manages the risk of conflicts of interest for development assessment under its Code of Conduct. The Council has also implemented a separate policy that details additional requirements for managing conflicts of interest relevant to the development assessment process, but has not regularly updated this policy and requirements between it and the Code of Conduct have not been aligned. This creates a risk that planning staff may be following inconsistent or outdated advice in managing conflicts of interest.

Across the period of review, the Council did not require staff to provide a disclosure of interest for individual development applications to be contained within assessment reports. Including these disclosures would increase transparency and ensure that staff are sufficiently considering any conflicts of interest relevant to each separate assessment process.

Byron Shire Council has processes that promote compliance with legislation, regulation and government policy, but can improve how it undertakes some aspects of these that would ensure transparency, quality and consistency.

Our review of a sample of completed development applications from the Council indicated that most assessments were completed in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance, but that there were some opportunities to improve elements of the assessment process, including: transparency of any conflicts of interest involved in the assessment process, ensuring compliance with delegated authority limits, and consideration of modification application provisions.

The Council has established templates to guide planners through relevant assessment considerations required by legislation, regulations and other guidance. However, it could do more to strengthen its approach to peer or manager review, monitoring legislative changes, and how it monitors the completion of relevant training by planning staff. 

 

Conclusion – Northern Beaches Council

Northern Beaches Council has established processes to support compliant and effective assessment and determination of development applications.

The Council has a clear governance and risk management framework for development assessment that sets out roles, responsibilities and delegations.

Northern Beaches Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for development application assessment and determination. The Council has identified development assessment related risks, and has put in place controls and mitigating actions to manage the risks to within risk tolerances.

Northern Beaches Council's approach to managing conflicts of interest promotes transparency.

Northern Beaches Council manages the risk of conflicts of interest for development assessment under its Code of Conduct. The Council has implemented an additional framework for planning staff to respond to the risk of conflicts of interest in development assessment processes. This framework requires its staff to disclose any conflicts of interest as a formal step in assessing development applications and includes declarations of any interests within assessment reports or planning panel minutes.

Our review of a sample of completed development applications indicated that the assessment reports had been compliant with the Council's approach to transparently documenting conflicts of interest.

Northern Beaches Council has established processes to deliver consistent, quality assessment of development applications.

Northern Beaches Council staff use an electronic development assessment tool that provides guidance, links to legislative and policy instruments and other applications that support assessment and drive consistency in approach. The Council applies a peer review process in which a manager or team member in a more senior position reviews an assessment report prior to determination to ensure that expected standards of quality and consistency have been met.

Our review of a sample of completed development applications indicated that assessments were undertaken in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.

Northern Beaches Council transparently documents assessment reports, supporting information and determination outcomes.

Northern Beaches Council has implemented a transparent approach to how it assesses and determines development applications. The Council publishes assessment reports, supporting technical reports, plans and submissions for all development applications. Notices of determination and final plans are also published alongside the assessment reports, allowing for greater transparency to the public.

Northern Beaches Council has established processes to effectively support the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel.

Northern Beaches Council has established processes to support the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel as required under legislative and policy instruments. The Council has processes to ensure that development applications required to be referred to a planning panel are identified and monitored, supports identification and documentation of any conflicts of interest, and transparently documents decisions of the panel.

Our review of a sample of meeting records held across the audit period of review indicated that these requirements were met and were transparently documented. 

 

Conclusion – The Hills Shire Council

The Hills Shire Council has established processes to support compliant and effective assessment and determination of development applications.

The Council has established a comprehensive governance and risk management framework for development assessment that sets out clear roles, responsibilities and delegations.

The Hills Shire Council has established a comprehensive framework for managing risks related to development assessment. Such risks are clearly identified and associated controls are in place to reduce or mitigate the risks. The Council has undertaken regular internal audits of development assessments, including reviewing completed applications to ensure compliance with relevant legislative and policy requirements.

The Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations, and its staff assessing and determining development applications are supported by a standard set of policies and procedures for undertaking assessment and determination of applications.

The Hills Shire Council is managing conflicts of interest in line with Code of Conduct requirements but could more transparently document these.

The Hills Shire Council manages conflicts of interest for those involved in development application processes through provisions under its Code of Conduct. Under this Code of Conduct, staff must declare any conflicts of interest to their manager. However, the Council does not require staff to disclose any conflicts of interest in development application assessment reports which limits transparency to reviewing managers or any other determination bodies.

The Hills Shire Council has established processes to deliver consistent, quality assessment of development applications.

The Hills Shire Council has established templates to guide planners through relevant development assessment and determination considerations required by legislation, regulations and other guidance. The Council requires a peer review to occur prior to any determination which ensures a check on the compliance and quality of the assessment report prepared.

Our review of a sample of completed development applications from the Council indicated that assessments were performed in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.

The Hills Shire Council has established processes to effectively support The Hills Shire Local Planning Panel.

The Hills Shire Council has met requirements to provide secretariat and other support to The Hills Shire Local Planning Panel as required under legislative and policy instruments. It has processes to ensure that development applications required to be referred to a planning panel are identified and monitored, supports identification and documentation of any conflicts of interest, and transparently documents decisions of the panel.

Our review of a sample of meeting records held across the audit period of review indicated that these requirements were met and were transparently documented. 

 

Conclusion – Department of Planning and Environment

The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) has established processes that meet its statutory and policy requirements to support Sydney and regional planning panels.

DPE has established processes to provide secretariat and other support to planning panels. It has met requirements to provide administrative support to the panels through its planning panels secretariat including undertaking administrative functions, supporting recruitment of panel members, and addressing complaints about the panel processes.

DPE has not ensured collection of annual pecuniary interest declarations for all panel members for the three Sydney and regional planning panels in scope for this audit. DPE could not provide annual pecuniary interest declarations for part of the audit period for three of the 47 members of these panels, as is required by DPE's Code of Conduct for Regional Planning Panels.

DPE does not formally measure its effectiveness in providing support to panels, but panel chairs consulted as part of this audit advised that they had no concerns with the level of secretariat support provided by DPE.

DPE could do more to facilitate information sharing between panels and could formalise how it provides comparative information to panels to improve consistency and standardisation in approach and share good practice. DPE has identified these gaps in reviews of its services and functions and has a plan in place to address them.

DPE has effectively documented planning panel decisions and made them available to all stakeholders. It also effectively documented interests declared as part of consideration of development applications for in-scope panels. 


1 Prescribed councils within designated Sydney districts are required to refer contentious development applications to local planning panels for determination. If the proposed development is above a threshold for estimated cost of works, or meets other prescribed criteria, the EP&A Act may require it to be referred to a Sydney or regional planning panel.

This audit continues a series of audits examining the development assessment process in NSW local councils and is focused on the assessment and determination stages.

The Audit Office of New South Wales previously considered local government development assessments in our 2019 performance audit: 'Development assessment: pre-lodgement and lodgement in Camden Council and Randwick City Council'.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Council profile: Byron Shire Council

Appendix three – Council profile: Northern Beaches Council

Appendix four – Council profile: The Hills Shire Council

Appendix five – About the audit 

Appendix six – Performance auditing

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #370 - released 12 December 2022

 

Published

Actions for Regional NSW 2022

Regional NSW 2022

Environment
Industry
Planning
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Regulation
Risk
Shared services and collaboration

What the report is about

Result of the Regional NSW cluster agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.

What we found

Unmodified audit opinions were issued for Regional NSW cluster agencies. Two audits are ongoing.

What the key issues were

The Department of Regional NSW (the department) and Local Land Services (LLS) accepted changes to their office leasing arrangements managed by Property NSW.

These changes resulted in the collective derecognition of $100.6 million of rights-of-use-assets and $110.4 million of lease liabilities.

In 2021–22, the cluster agencies continued to assist communities in their recovery from recent weather emergencies, including significant flooding in New South Wales.

The Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation was established in May 2022 to rebuild communities in the Lismore and Northern Rivers region impacted by floods.

The number of matters reported to management decreased from 36 in 2020–21 to 14 in 2021–22.

Five moderate risk issues were identified and 14% of reported issues were repeat issues.

One moderate risk issue was a repeat issue related to Local Land Services' annual fair value assessment of the asset improvements on land reserves used for moving stock.

This report provides Parliament and other users of the Regional NSW cluster financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

  • financial reporting
  • audit observations.

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Regional NSW cluster (the cluster) for 2022.

Section highlights

  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements of cluster agencies. Two audits are ongoing.
  • Cluster agencies completed all required early close procedures.
  • Changes to accommodation arrangements managed by Property NSW on behalf of the department and cluster agencies resulted in the collective derecognition of approximately $100.6 million in right-of-use assets and corresponding lease liabilities totalling $110.4 million from the balance sheets of these agencies.
  • Cluster agencies continue to provide financial assistance to communities affected by natural disasters.

Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.

This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Regional NSW cluster.

Section highlights

  • The 2021–22 audits identified five moderate issues across the cluster. One moderate risk issue was a repeat issue related to Local Land Services' annual fair value assessment of the asset improvements on land reserves used for moving stock.
  • Of the four newly identified moderate rated issues, one related to internal control deficiencies and improvements and three related to financial reporting.
  • The number of findings reported to management has decreased from 36 in 2020–21 to 14 in 2021–22.

Published

Actions for Health 2022

Health 2022

Health
Whole of Government
Asset valuation
Compliance
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Risk
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

What the report is about

Result of Health cluster (the cluster) agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.

What we found

Unmodified audit opinions were issued for the financial statements for all Health cluster agencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic continued to increase the complexity and number of accounting matters faced by the cluster. The total gross value of corrected misstatements in 2021–22 was $353.3 million, of which $186.7 million related to an increase in the impairment provision for Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs).

A qualified audit opinion was issued on the Annual Prudential Compliance Statement related to five residential aged care facilities. There were 20 instances (19 in 2020–21) of non-compliance with the prudential responsibilities within the Aged Care Act 1997.

What the key issues were

The total number of matters we reported to management across the cluster decreased from 116 in 2020–21 to 67 in 2021–22. Of the 67 issues raised, four were high risk (three in 2020-21) and 37 were moderate risk (57 in 2020–21). Nearly half of all control deficiencies reported in 2021–22 were repeat issues.

Three unresolved high-risk issues were:

  • COVID-19 inventories impairment – we continued to identify issues relating to management’s impairment model which relies on anticipated future consumption patterns. RATs had not been assessed for impairment.

  • Asset capitalisation threshold – management has not reviewed the appropriateness of the asset capitalisation threshold since 2006.

  • Forced-finalisation of HealthRoster time records – we continued to observe unapproved rosters being finalised by system administrators so payroll can be processed on time. 2.6 million time records were processed in this way in 2021–22.

What we recommended

  • COVID-19 inventories impairment – ensure consumption patterns are supported by relevant data and plans.

  • Assets capitalisation threshold – undertake further review of the appropriateness of applying a $10,000 threshold before capitalising expenditure on property, plant and equipment.

  • Forced-finalisation of HealthRoster time records – develop a methodology to quantify the potential monetary value of unapproved rosters being finalised.

This report provides Parliament and other users of Health cluster (the cluster) agencies' financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

  • financial reporting

  • audit observations.

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Health cluster (the cluster) for 2022.

Section highlights

  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies required to prepare general purpose financial statements.

  • The total gross value of corrected monetary misstatements for 2021–22 was $353.3 million, of which, $186.7 million related to an increase in the impairment provision for Rapid Antigen Tests.

  • A qualified audit opinion was issued on the ministry's Annual Prudential Compliance Statements.

Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.

This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the cluster.

Section highlights

  • The total number of internal control deficiencies has decreased from 116 in 2020–21 to 67 in 2021–22. Of the 67 issues raised in 2021–22, four were high (2020–21: 3) and 37 were moderate (2020–21: 57); with nearly half of all control deficiencies reported in 2021–22 being repeat issues.

  • The following four issues were reported in 2021–22 as high risk:

    • impairment of COVID-19 inventories

    • inadequate review over the appropriateness of asset capitalisation threshold

    • forced-finalisation of HealthRoster time records

    • COVID-19 vaccination inventories – data quality issue at 31 March 2022.

  • Management of excessive leave balances and poor quality or lack of documentation supporting key agreements continued to be the key repeat issues observed in the 2021–22 financial reporting period.

Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit

Appendix two – Early close procedures

Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting

Appendix four – Financial data

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Actions for New South Wales COVID-19 vaccine rollout

New South Wales COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Health
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Project management
Risk
Service delivery

What the report is about

The Australian Government led and implemented the Australian COVID-19 vaccine rollout, with the support of state and territory governments. As part of the Australian Government's vaccine rollout, NSW Health launched its vaccination program on 22 February 2021, with responsibility for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccine stock provided by the Australian Government.

This audit examined the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 and focused on NSW Health's contribution to the Australian Government led vaccine roll out in four Local Health Districts (LHDs), in particular the administration of two doses of vaccine to people aged 16 and over.

What we found

On 16 October 2021, NSW Health, in partnership with the Australian Government's vaccination program, achieved its first objective to fully vaccinate 80% of people in NSW aged 16 and over. Demand for the vaccine reduced in December 2021, and NSW Health did not reach its target of 95% fully vaccinated for people aged 16 and over until June 2022.

Despite challenges such as uncertain supply and changes to clinical advice affecting vaccine eligibility, NSW Health's overall delivery of vaccination services was effective and efficient.

During the audit period, NSW Health implemented effective strategies to allocate vaccines and reduce wastage to optimise the number of vaccines available.

NSW Health implemented its own booking system after it identified that the Australian Government's system would not manage bookings. There were problems with NSW Health's interim vaccine booking system, and NSW Health fully resolved these issues by September 2021.

As at 19 October 2022, vaccination rates for Aboriginal peoples and culturally and linguistically diverse people remained below the 95% target.

What we recommended

By June 2023, NSW Health should conduct a comprehensive review of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and incorporate lessons learned into pandemic response plans.

The first three cases of COVID-19 in New South Wales were diagnosed in January 2020. By 30 June 2021, 128 people were being treated in hospital and one person was in intensive care. By the end of December 2021, 187,504 total cases and 663 deaths were reported in New South Wales. As at 27 October 2022, NSW Health reported more than three million total cases and 5,430 deaths.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact on the people and the health sector of New South Wales. The Australian, state, territory, and local governments have directed significant resources towards health responses and economic recovery.

On 13 November 2020, National Cabinet (comprised of the Australian, state, and territory governments) endorsed the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. Australia's vaccination program was launched on 21 February 2021 with the goal of providing safe and effective vaccines to the people who most needed them as quickly as possible, to support the physical, mental and economic wellbeing of the nation.

The Australian Government led and implemented the Australian vaccine rollout, with the support of state and territory governments. As part of the Australian Government's vaccine rollout, NSW Health launched its vaccination program on 22 February 2021, with responsibility for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccine stock provided by the Australian Government.

The overall objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of NSW Health’s contribution to the Australian COVID-19 vaccine rollout. It is important to note that in New South Wales, primary care providers (GPs and pharmacies) and aged care providers administered the majority of vaccines. Primary care providers and aged care providers are the responsibility of the Australian Government.

The audit had a particular focus on whether NSW Health:

  • set clear vaccination targets underpinned and/or guided by evidence
  • managed the rollout of the vaccination program effectively and efficiently
  • managed demand of vaccines effectively and efficiently.

The audit examined the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 and focused on NSW Health's contribution to the Australian Government led vaccine rollout in four Local Health Districts (LHDs), in particular the administration of two doses of vaccine to people aged 16 and over. We did not audit the subsequent rollout for ages five to 15, or the booster rollout (third and fourth doses) as these activities mostly occurred outside the date of our review.

This audit also did not assess the Australian Government’s allocation of vaccine supplies to New South Wales because we do not audit the Australian Government's activities. On 17 August 2022, the Australian National Audit Office completed a performance audit which assessed the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care's effectiveness in the planning and implementation of Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

This audit is one of a series of audits that have been completed or are in progress regarding the New South Wales COVID-19 emergency response. This includes the planned performance audit ‘Coordination of the response to COVID-19 (June to November 2021)’, and financial audit assurance activities focusing on Local Health District processes and controls to manage the receipt, distribution and inventory management of vaccine stock. The Audit Office New South Wales '2022–25 Annual Work Program' details the ongoing focus our audits will have on providing assurance on the effectiveness of emergency responses.

Conclusion

By 12 December 2021, NSW Health had administered two doses of vaccines to one third of eligible people in New South Wales aged 16 and over – contributing significantly to the achievement of the NSW Government vaccination target of 80% fully vaccinated before 31 December 2021. Despite challenges such as uncertain supply and changes to clinical advice affecting vaccine eligibility, NSW Health's overall delivery of vaccination services was effective and efficient.

NSW Health implemented its own booking system after it identified that the Australian Government's system would not manage bookings. There were problems with NSW Health's interim vaccine booking system, and NSW Health fully resolved these issues by September 2021.

Vaccination levels in some vulnerable populations remain below the 95% double dose target currently in place. Access to quality data to regularly measure vaccination rates in some vulnerable populations remains an ongoing challenge for the NSW and Australian Governments. As a result, NSW Health is unable to fully ensure it has delivered on its shared responsibility with the Australian Government to vaccinate vulnerable people.

NSW Health managed challenges regarding the uncertain supply of vaccines from the Australian Government and filled gaps beyond its agreed responsibilities in the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response. During the Delta outbreak of the pandemic, NSW Health sought to achieve the best possible public health outcome from limited vaccine supply by opening up additional vaccination clinics in highly affected areas and redistributing vaccine supplies from areas with fewer cases to highly affected local government areas in south west Sydney.

During the audit period, NSW Health implemented effective strategies to allocate vaccines and reduce wastage to optimise the number of vaccines available. Our financial audit report, 'Health 2022', includes additional information on vaccine supply stock held by NSW Health.

NSW Health demonstrated agility by using a range of strategies to promote vaccination, including direct engagement with communities to develop culturally appropriate services such as pop-up clinics. NSW Heath recruited prominent community members, such as faith leaders, elders and sportspeople, to promote vaccination within their communities. However, at the date of this report, there are still vulnerable populations with vaccination rates lower than the current 95% double dose vaccination target. There is also a lack of regularly updated data for some cohorts which prevents NSW Health from accurately monitoring vaccination rates in some populations it has identified as vulnerable.

In March 2021, NSW Health identified that the booking system provided by the Australian Government was an online directory of vaccine clinics and would not manage bookings. To overcome this, NSW Health amended an internal-use system to be publicly facing. This solution was not user-friendly for staff or those seeking to make an appointment. Between June to September 2021, NSW Health progressively resolved booking system related issues, by developing and rolling out a new purpose-built booking solution for NSW Health vaccination clinics.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – Australian audits on the vaccine rollouts

Appendix three – Committee members 

Appendix four – About the audit 

Appendix five – Performance auditing 

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #369 - released 7 December 2022

Published

Actions for Audit Insights 2018-2022

Audit Insights 2018-2022

Community Services
Education
Environment
Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Local Government
Premier and Cabinet
Planning
Transport
Treasury
Universities
Whole of Government
Asset valuation
Cross-agency collaboration
Compliance
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Regulation
Risk
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

What the report is about

In this report, we have analysed the key findings and recommendations from our audit reports over the past four years.

This analysis includes financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits of state and local government entities that were tabled in NSW Parliament between July 2018 and February 2022.

The report is framed by recognition that the past four years have seen significant challenges and emergency events.

The scale of government responses to these events has been wide-ranging, involving emergency response coordination, service delivery, governance and policy.

The report is a resource to support public sector agencies and local government to improve future programs and activities.

What we found

Our analysis of findings and recommendations is structured around six key themes:

  • Integrity and transparency
  • Performance and monitoring
  • Governance and oversight
  • Cyber security and data
  • System planning for disruption
  • Resource management.

The report draws from this analysis to present recommendations for elements of good practice that government agencies should consider in relation to these themes. It also includes relevant examples from recent audit reports.

In this report we particularly call out threats to the integrity of government systems, processes and governance arrangements.

The report highlights the need for balanced advice to government on options and risks, for transparent documentation and reporting of directions and decisions, and for early and open sharing of information with integrity bodies and audit.

A number of the matters highlighted in this report are similar to those described in our previous Insights Report, (Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018) specifically in relation to cyber and information security, to performance measurement, reporting and evaluation, and system and workforce planning and capability.

Fast facts

  • 72 audits included in the Audit Insights 2018–2022 analysis
  • 4 years of audits tabled by the Auditor-General for New South Wales
  • 6 key themes for Audit Insights 2018–2022.

picture of Margaret Crawford Auditor-General for New South Wales in black dress with city skyline as backgroundI am pleased to present the Audit Insights 2018–2022 report. This report describes key findings, trends and lessons learned from the last four years of audit. It seeks to inform the New South Wales Parliament of key risks identified and to provide insights and suggestions to the agencies we audit to improve performance across the public sector.

The report is framed by a very clear recognition that governments have been responding to significant events, in number, character and scale, over recent years. Further, it acknowledges that public servants at both state and council levels generally bring their best selves to work and diligently strive to deliver great outcomes for citizens and communities. The role of audit in this context is to provide necessary assurance over government spending, programs and services, and make suggestions for continuous improvement.

A number of the matters highlighted in this report are similar to those described in our previous Insights Report, (Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018) specifically in relation to cyber and information security, to performance measurement, reporting and evaluation, and system and workforce planning and capability.

However, in this report we particularly call out threats to the integrity of government systems, processes and governance arrangements. We highlight the need for balanced advice to government on options and risks, for transparent documentation and reporting of directions and decisions, and for early and open sharing of information with integrity bodies and audit. Arguably, these considerations are never more important than in an increasingly complex environment and in the face of significant emergency events and they will be key areas of focus in our future audit program.

While we have acknowledged the challenges of the last few years have required rapid responses to address the short-term impacts of emergency events, there is much to be learned to improve future programs. I trust that the insights developed in this report provide a helpful resource to public sector agencies and local government across New South Wales. I would be pleased to receive any feedback you may wish to offer.

Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General for New South Wales

Integrity and transparency Performance and monitoring Governance and oversight Cyber security and data System planning Resource management
Insufficient documentation of decisions reduces the ability to identify, or rule out, misconduct or corruption. Failure to apply lessons learned risks mistakes being repeated and undermines future decisions on the use of public funds. The control environment should be risk-based and keep pace with changes in the quantum and diversity of agency work. Building effective cyber resilience requires leadership and committed executive management, along with dedicated resourcing to build improvements in cyber security and culture. Priorities to meet forecast demand should incorporate regular assessment of need and any emerging risks or trends. Absence of an overarching strategy to guide decision-making results in project-by-project decisions lacking coordination. Governments must weigh up the cost of reliance on consultants at the expense of internal capability, and actively manage contracts and conflicts of interest.
Government entities should report to the public at both system and project level for transparency and accountability. Government activities benefit from a clear statement of objectives and associated performance measures to support systematic monitoring and reporting on outcomes and impact. Management of risk should include mechanisms to escalate risks, and action plans to mitigate risks with effective controls. In implementing strategies to mitigate cyber risk, agencies must set target cyber maturity levels, and document their acceptance of cyber risks consistent with their risk appetite. Service planning should establish future service offerings and service levels relative to current capacity, address risks to avoid or mitigate disruption of business and service delivery, and coordinate across other relevant plans and stakeholders. Negotiations on outsourced services and major transactions must maintain focus on integrity and seeking value for public funds.
Entities must provide balanced advice to decision-makers on the benefits and risks of investments. Benefits realisation should identify responsibility for benefits management, set baselines and targets for benefits, review during delivery, and evaluate costs and benefits post-delivery. Active review of policies and procedures in line with current business activities supports more effective risk management. Governments hold repositories of valuable data and data capabilities that should be leveraged and shared across government and non-government entities to improve strategic planning and forecasting. Formal structures and systems to facilitate coordination between agencies is critical to more efficient allocation of resources and to facilitate a timely response to unexpected events. Transformation programs can be improved by resourcing a program management office.
Clear guidelines and transparency of decisions are critical in distributing grant funding. Quality assurance should underpin key inputs that support performance monitoring and accounting judgements. Governance arrangements can enable input into key decisions from both government and non-government partners, and those with direct experience of complex issues.     Workforce planning should consider service continuity and ensure that specialist and targeted roles can be resourced and allocated to meet community need.
Governments must ensure timely and complete provision of information to support governance, integrity and audit processes.          
Read more Read more Read more Read more Read more Read more

 

This report brings together a summary of key findings arising from NSW Audit Office reports tabled in the New South Wales Parliament between July 2018 and February 2022. This includes analysis of financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits tabled over this period.

  • Financial audits provide an independent opinion on the financial statements of NSW Government entities, universities and councils and identify whether they comply with accounting standards, relevant laws, regulations, and government directions.
  • Performance audits determine whether government entities carry out their activities effectively, are doing so economically and efficiently, and in accordance with relevant laws. The activities examined by a performance audit may include a selected program or service, all or part of an entity, or more than one government entity. Performance audits can consider issues which affect the whole state and/or the local government sectors.
  • Compliance audits and other assurance reviews are audits that assess whether specific legislation, directions, and regulations have been adhered to.

This report follows our earlier edition titled 'Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018'. That report sought to highlight issues and themes emerging from performance audit findings, and to share lessons common across government. In this report, we have analysed the key findings and recommendations from our reports over the past four years. The full list of reports is included in Appendix 1. The analysis included findings and recommendations from 58 performance audits, as well as selected financial and compliance reports tabled between July 2018 and February 2022. The number of recommendations and key findings made across different areas of activity and the top issues are summarised at Exhibit 1.

The past four years have seen unprecedented challenges and several emergency events, and the scale of government responses to these events has been wide-ranging involving emergency response coordination, service delivery, governance and policy. While these emergencies are having a significant impact today, they are also likely to continue to have an impact into the future. There is much to learn from the response to those events that will help the government sector to prepare for and respond to future disruption. The following chapters bring together our recommendations for core elements of good practice across a number of areas of government activity, along with relevant examples from recent audit reports.

This 'Audit Insights 2018–2022' report does not make comparative analysis of trends in public sector performance since our 2018 Insights report, but instead highlights areas where government continues to face challenges, as well as new issues that our audits have identified since our 2018 report. We will continue to use the findings of our Insights analysis to shape our future audit priorities, in line with our purpose to help Parliament hold government accountable for its use of public resources in New South Wales.

Appendix one – Included reports, 2018–2022

Appendix two – About this report

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Actions for Local Government 2021

Local Government 2021

Local Government
Asset valuation
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Information technology

What the report is about

Results of the local government sector council financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2021.

What we found

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 126 councils, 13 joint organisation audits and nine county councils in 2020–21. 

A qualified audit opinion was issued for Central Coast Council who was unable to provide evidence to support the carrying value of $5.5 billion of roads, bridges, footpaths, bulk earthworks, stormwater drainage, water supply and sewerage network assets.

The audit of Kiama Municipal Council is still in progress as at the date of this report due to significant accounting issues not resolved resulting in corrections to the financial statements and prior period errors.

Forty-one councils and joint organisations (2020: 16) received extensions to submit audited financial statements to the Office of Local Government (OLG). 

Councils were impacted by recent emergency events, including bushfires, floods and the COVID-19 pandemic. The financial implications from these events varied across councils. Councils adapted systems, processes and controls to enable staff to work flexibly.

What the key issues were

There were 1,277 audit findings reported to councils in audit management letters.

Ninety-two high-risk matters were identified across the sector:

  • 69 high-risk matters relating to asset management (see page 30)
  • six high-risk matters relating to information technology (see page 39)
  • six high-risk matters relating to financial reporting (see page 26)
  • six high-risk matters to council governance procedures (see page 22)
  • five high-risk matters relating to financial accounting (see page 28).

More needs to be done to reduce the number of errors identified in financial reports. Twenty-nine councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements.

Rural firefighting equipment

Sixty-eight councils did not record rural firefighting equipment estimated to be $145 million in their financial statements.

The financial statements of the NSW Total State Sector and the NSW Rural Fire Service do not include these assets, as the State is of the view that rural firefighting equipment that has been vested to councils under the Rural Fires Act 1997 is not controlled by the State. In reaching this conclusion, the State argued that on balance it would appear the councils control rural firefighting equipment that has been vested to them.

The continued non-recording of rural firefighting equipment in financial management systems of some councils increases the risk that these assets are not properly maintained and managed.

What we recommended

Councils should perform a full asset stocktake of rural firefighting equipment, including a condition assessment for 30 June 2022 financial reporting purposes and recognise this equipment as assets in their financial statements. 

Consistent with OLG’s role to assess council’s compliance with legislative responsibilities, standards or guidelines, OLG should intervene where councils do not recognise rural firefighting equipment.

Fast facts

  • 150 councils and joint organisations in the sector
  • 99% unqualified audit opinions issued for the 30 June 2021 financial statements
  • 489 monetary misstatements reported in 2020–21
  • 54 prior period errors reported
  • 92 high-risk management letter findings identified
  • 53% of reported issues were repeat issues.

Early financial reporting procedures

Fifty-nine per cent of councils performed some early financial reporting procedures, less than the prior year.

What we recommended

OLG should require early financial reporting procedures across the local government sector by April 2023. Policy requirements should be discussed with key stakeholders to ensure benefits of the procedures are realised.

Asset valuations

Audit management letters reported 288 findings relating to asset management. Fifty-eight councils had deficiencies in their processes to revalue infrastructure assets.

Thirty-five councils corrected errors relating to revaluations amounting to $1 billion and 13 councils had prior period errors relating to asset revaluations that amounted to $253 million.

What we recommended

Councils should have all asset revaluations completed by April of the financial year subject to audit.

Integrity/completeness of asset records

Sixty-seven councils had weak processes over maintenance, completeness and security of fixed asset registers.

Thirty-five councils corrected errors to the financial statements relating to poor record keeping of asset data that amounted to $102.1 million. Nineteen councils had 27 prior period financial statement errors that amounted to $417.1 million relating to the quality of asset records such as found and duplicate assets.

What we recommended

Councils need to improve controls and processes to ensure integrity and completeness of asset source records.

Cybersecurity

Our audits found that cybersecurity frameworks and related controls were not in place at 65 councils.

These councils have yet to implement basic governance and internal controls to manage cybersecurity such as having a cybersecurity framework, policy and procedure, register of cyber incidents, system penetrations testing and training.

What we recommended

OLG needs to develop a cybersecurity policy to be applied by councils as a matter of high priority in order to ensure cybersecurity risks over key data and IT assets are appropriately managed across councils and key data is safeguarded.

Councils should monitor the implementation of recommendations

Fifty-three per cent of total findings reported in 2020–21 audit management letters were repeat or partial repeat findings from prior years.

What we recommended

Councils and those charged with governance should track the progress of implementing recommendations from financial audits, performance audits and public inquiries.

Key financial information

In 2020–21, councils:

  • collected $7.6b in rates and annual charges
  • received $5.1b in grants and contributions
  • incurred $4.8b of employee benefits and on costs
  • held $15.3b of cash and investments
  • managed $161.7b of infrastructure, property, plant and equipment
  • entered into $3.4b of borrowings.

Pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993 I present my report Local Government 2021. My report provides the results of the 2020–21 financial audits of 127 councils, 13 joint organisations and nine county councils.

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 126 councils, 13 joint organisation and nine county councils in 2020–21. My independent auditor’s opinion was qualified for Central Coast Council who was unable to provide evidence to support the carrying value of $5.5 billion of roads, bridges, footpaths, bulk earthworks, stormwater drainage, water supply and sewerage network assets.

The 2020–21 year was challenging from many perspectives, not least being the continuing impact of and response to the recent emergency events, including bushfires, floods and the COVID-19 pandemic. We appreciate the efforts of council staff and management right across local government and they must be congratulated for their responsiveness and resilience in meeting their financial reporting obligations in such challenging circumstances.

This report makes a number of recommendations to councils and to the regulator, the Office of Local Government within the Department of Planning and Environment. These are intended to support councils to further improve the timeliness, accuracy and strength of financial reporting and their governance arrangements. Arguably, when faced with challenges, it is even more important to prioritise and invest in systems and processes to protect the integrity of councils' operations and promote accurate and transparent reporting.

I look forward to continuing engagement and constructive dialogue with councils in 2022–23 and beyond.

Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General for New South Wales

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in and transparency of public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.

This chapter outlines audit observations related to the financial reporting of councils and joint organisations.

Highlights

  • One hundred and nine councils and joint organisations (2020: 133) lodged audited financial statements with OLG by the statutory deadline of 31 October (2020: 30 November).
  • Forty-one councils and joint organisations (2020: 16) received extensions to submit audited financial statements to OLG.
  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 126 councils, 13 joint organisations and nine county councils in 2020–21. A qualified audit opinion was issued for Central Coast Council in both 2019–20 and 2020–21.
  • The audit of Kiama Municipal Council is still in progress as at the date of this report due to significant accounting issues.
  • Fifty-nine per cent of councils performed some early financial reporting procedures, less than the prior year. We recommended that OLG should require early close procedures across the local government sector by 30 April 2023.
  • The total number and dollar value of corrected financial statement errors increased compared with the prior year, however uncorrected financial statement errors and prior period financial statement errors decreased compared to the prior year.
  • Sixty-eight councils (2020: 68 councils) did not record rural firefighting equipment in their financial statements worth an estimated $145 million (2020: $119 million). The NSW Government has confirmed these assets are not controlled by the NSW Rural Fire Service and are not recognised in the financial records of the NSW Government. We recommended that consistent with the OLG's role to assess council’s compliance with legislative responsibilities, standards or guidelines, OLG should intervene where councils do not recognise rural firefighting equipment. Councils should perform a full asset stocktake of rural firefighting equipment, including a condition assessment for 30 June 2022 financial reporting purposes.

A strong system of internal controls enables councils to operate effectively and efficiently, produce reliable financial reports, comply with laws and regulations, and support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends in governance and internal control findings across councils, county councils and joint organisations in 2020–21.

Financial audits focus on key governance matters and internal controls supporting the preparation of councils' financial statements. Audit findings are reported to management and those charged with governance through audit management letters.

Highlights

  • Total number of audit findings reported in audit management letters decreased from 1,435 in 2019–20 to 1,277 in 2020–21.
  • No extreme risk audit findings were identified in 2020–21 (2019–20: 1).
  • Total number of high-risk audit findings increased from 53 in 2019–20 to 92 in 2020–21. Sixty of the high-risk findings in 2020–21 related to the non-recording of rural firefighting equipment in councils' financial statements. Twenty-six per cent of the high-risk findings identified in 2019–20 were reported as high-risk findings in 2020–21.
  • Fifty-three per cent of findings reported in audit management letters were repeat or partial repeat findings. We recommend councils and those charged with governance should track progress of implementing recommendation from our audits.
  • Governance, asset management and information technology comprise over 62% of findings and continue to be key areas requiring improvement.
  • A number of recommendations were made relating to asset valuations and integrity of asset data records, in response to the findings that:
    • 67 councils had weak processes over maintenance and security of fixed asset registers
    • 58 councils had deficiencies in their processes to revalue infrastructure assets.
  • Sixty-five councils have yet to implement basic governance and internal controls to manage cybersecurity. We recommended that OLG needs to develop a cybersecurity policy to be applied by councils as a matter of high priority.

Total number of findings reported in audit management letters decreased

In 2020–21, 1,277 audit findings were reported in audit management letters (2019–20: 1,435 findings). No extreme audit risk findings were identified this year. The extreme risk relating to Central Coast Council's use of externally restricted funds in 2019–20 was partially addressed by management and has been rated as a high-risk for 2020–21. The total number of high-risk findings increased to 92 (2019–20: 53 high-risk findings).

Findings are classified as new, repeat or ongoing, based on:

  • new findings were first reported in 2020–21 audits
  • repeat findings were first reported in prior year audits, but remain unresolved in 2020–21
  • ongoing findings were first reported in prior year audits, but the action due dates to address the findings are after 2020–21.

Findings are categorised as governance, financial reporting, financial accounting, asset management, purchases and payables, payroll, cash and banking, revenue and receivables, or information technology. The high-risk and common audit findings across these areas are explored further in this chapter.

Audit Office’s annual work program for 2021–22 onwards

Focus on integrity of systems, good governance and good advice

We have a fundamental role in helping the Parliament hold government accountable for the use of public resources. In doing so, we examine whether councils' systems and processes are effective in supporting integrity, accountability and transparency. Key aspects of integrity that we expect to through conduct of our financial and performance audits over the next three years include the integrity of systems, good governance and good advice. These focus areas have arisen from the collation of key findings and recommendations from our past reports.

Focus on local councils' continued response to recent emergencies

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact on the people and the public sector of New South Wales. Local councils are continuing to assist communities in their recovery from the 2019–20 bushfires and subsequent and recent flooding. The full extent of some of these events remain unclear and will likely continue to have an impact into the future.

Image of a bus stop that's been completely burned because of a bushfire

The Office of Local Government within the Department of Planning and Environment continues to work with other state agencies to assist local councils and their communities to recover from these unprecedented events.

The increasing and changing risk environment presented by these events has meant that we have recalibrated and focused our efforts on providing assurance on how effectively aspects of responses to these emergencies have been delivered.

This includes financial and governance risks arising from the scale and complexity of government responses to these events.

We will take a phased approach to ensure our financial and performance audits address the following elements of the emergencies and the Local Government's responses:

  • local councils' planning and preparedness for emergencies
  • local councils' initial responses to support people and communities impacted by COVID-19 and the 2019–20 bushfires and recent floods
  • governance and oversight risks that arise from the need for quick decision-making and responsiveness to emergencies
  • effectiveness and robustness of processes to direct resources toward recovery efforts and ensure good governance and transparency in doing so
  • the mid to long-term impact of government responses to the natural disasters and COVID-19
  • whether government investment has achieved desired outcomes.

Focus on the effectiveness of cybersecurity in local government

The increasing global interconnectivity between computer networks has dramatically increased the risk of cybersecurity incidents. Such incidents can harm local government service delivery and may include theft of information, denial of access to critical technology, or even hijacking of systems for profit or malicious intent.

Outdated IT systems and capability present risks to government cybersecurity. Local councils need to be alert to the need to update and replace legacy systems, and regularly train and upskill staff in their use. To add to this, cybersecurity risks have been exacerbated by recent emergencies, which have resulted in greater and more diverse use of digital technology.

Our approach to auditing cybersecurity across in the sector involves:

  • considering how local councils are responding to the risks associated with cybersecurity across our financial audits
  • examining the effectiveness of cybersecurity planning and governance arrangements within local councils
  • conducting deep-dive performance audits of the effectiveness of cybersecurity measures in selected councils.

Local government elections

Local government elections took place in 2021–22

The local government elections were deferred for one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were held on 4 December 2021.

As part of our audits, we will consider the impact of any significant change on key decisions and activities for councils, county councils and joint organisations following the local government elections.

New rate peg methodology to support growing councils

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has completed its review of the local government rate peg methodology to include population growth.

On 10 September 2021, IPART provided the final report on this review to the Minister for Local Government.

The minister has endorsed the new rate peg methodology and has asked IPART to give effect to it in setting the rate peg from the 2022–23 financial year.

As part of our audits, we will consider the impact of these changes on the financial statements and on key decisions and activities for councils, county councils and joint organisations.

Appendix one – Response from the Office of Local Government within the Department of Planning and Environment

Appendix two – Status of previous recommendations

Appendix three – Status of audits

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Actions for NSW planning portal

NSW planning portal

Planning
Industry
Environment
Local Government
Information technology
Project management
Risk

What the report is about

The ePlanning program is an initiative of the Department of Planning and Environment (the department) to deliver a digital planning service for New South Wales through the NSW planning portal (the portal).

Using the portal, relevant planning activities can be carried out online, including all stages of development applications.

The portal has been developed under three separate business cases in 2013, 2014 and 2020.

In late 2019, the government mandated the use of the portal for all development applications. This decision took effect across 2020–21.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the department's implementation, governance and stakeholder engagement in delivering the NSW planning portal. 

What we found

Since implementation commenced in 2013, the NSW planning portal has progressively achieved its objectives to provide citizens with access to consolidated planning information, and allow them to prepare and submit development applications online.

Shortcomings in the department's initial planning and management of the program led to a significant time overrun. It has taken the department longer and cost significantly more to implement the portal than first anticipated. 

In recent years the department has improved the planning, implementation and governance of the ePlanning program, resulting in improved delivery of the portal’s core functions.

The department now has a clear view of the scope necessary to finalise the program, but has not yet published the services it plans to implement in 2022 and 2023.

Mandating the use of the portal for all development applications changed the program's strategic risk environment and required the department to work more closely with a cohort of stakeholders, many of whom did not want to adopt the portal.

Despite this change, the department kept its overall delivery approach the same.

While implementation of the portal has delivered financial benefits, the department has overestimated their value.

The Department has only reported benefits since 2019 and has not independently assured the calculation of benefits.

What we recommended

By December 2022, the department should:

  • publish a roadmap of the services it expects to release on the portal across 2022 and 2023
  • update its ePlanning program assumptions, benefits targets and change management approach to reflect the government's decision to mandate the use of the portal for all stages of a development application
  • independently assure and report publicly the correct calculation of ePlanning program benefits.

Fast facts

  • 10 years taken to implement the portal when completed
  • 3 years longer than initially planned to implement the portal
  • $146m capital expenditure on the portal when completed
  • $38.5m more spent than planned in the business cases.

The ePlanning program is an initiative of the Department of Planning and Environment (the department) to deliver a digital planning service for New South Wales through the NSW planning portal (the portal, or the planning portal). The department defines the portal as an online environment where community, industry and government can work together to better understand and meet their obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Using the portal, relevant planning activities can be carried out online throughout New South Wales. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • applying for and gaining planning approval
  • applying for and gaining approval for building works, sub-dividing land and similar activities
  • issuing occupancy and other certificates.

The portal has been developed under three separate business cases. The first business case in 2013 led to the creation of a central portal, which made planning information available to view by planning applicants and allowed some planning applications to be lodged and tracked online.

Under a second business case prepared in 2014, the department set out to improve and widen the functions available via the portal. The department prepared a third business case in 2020 to fund further improvements to the portal over the period July 2020 to June 2023. The third business case also extended the portal's functions to support the building and occupation stages of the planning cycle.

In late 2019, the government mandated the use of the portal for all stages of development applications. This decision took effect across 2020–21 and applied to all councils as well as certifiers and others involved in the planning process.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the effectiveness of the department's implementation, governance and stakeholder engagement in delivering the NSW planning portal. We investigated whether:

  • delivery of the NSW planning portal was planned effectively
  • sound governance arrangements are in place to ensure effective implementation of the program
  • users of the NSW planning portal are supported effectively to adopt and use the system.
Conclusion

Since implementation commenced in 2013, the NSW planning portal has progressively achieved its objectives to provide citizens with access to consolidated planning information and allow them to prepare and submit development applications online. Implementation was initially hindered by deficiencies in planning and it has taken the department significantly longer and cost significantly more to implement the portal than first anticipated. While the portal's implementation has delivered financial benefits, the department has overestimated their value. As a result, the department cannot yet demonstrate that the portal has achieved overall financial benefits, relative to its costs.

In the first two years of the ePlanning program, the department delivered a portal that allowed planners, developers, certifiers and the public to view important planning information. However, the department found the delivery of a second, transactional version of the portal in 2017 to be much more challenging. This version was intended to offer more integrated information and allow development applications to be submitted and managed online. The department did not rollout this version after a pilot showed significant weaknesses with the portal's performance. A subsequent review found that this was partly because the department did not have a clear view of the portal’s role or the best way to implement it. In recent years the department has improved the planning, implementation and governance of the ePlanning program resulting in improved delivery of the portal’s core functions.

By the time the program reaches its scheduled completion in 2023, it will have taken the department ten years and around $146 million in capital expenditure to implement the portal. This will be significantly longer and more expensive than the department originally expected. This overrun is partly due to an increased scope of services delivered through the portal and an initial under-appreciation of what is involved in creating a standard, central resource such as the portal. The department also experienced some significant implementation difficulties – which saw the transactional portal discontinued after it was found to be not fit for purpose. Following this, the department re-set the program in 2017–18 and re-planned much of the portal's subsequent development.

In November 2019, the New South Wales Government decided to mandate the use of the portal for all stages of development applications by the end of 2020–21. The department had previously planned that the portal would be progressively adopted by all councils and other stakeholders over the five years to 2025. The decision to mandate the portal's use for all development applications brought forward many of the portal's benefits as well as the challenges of its implementation. The department did not change its overall delivery approach in response to the changed risks associated with the government's decision to mandate use of the portal.

The current version of the portal has given the department more timely and comprehensive planning information and has helped New South Wales to provide continuous planning services during COVID-19 lockdowns, which interrupted many other public functions. The portal has also delivered financial benefits, however the department has not independently assured benefits calculations carried out by its consultant, and the reported benefits are overstated. In addition, some stakeholders report that the portal is a net cost to their organisation. This has included some certifiers and some councils which had implemented or had started to implement their own ePlanning reforms when use of the portal was mandated in 2019. The department now needs to address the issues faced by these stakeholders while continuing to deliver the remaining improvements and enhancements to the portal. Over the remaining year of the program, it will be critical that the department focuses on the agreed program scope and carefully evaluates any opportunities to further develop the portal to support future planning reforms.

This part of the report sets out how:

  • the ePlanning program has been planned and delivered
  • users of the portal have been supported
  • the program has been governed.

This part of the report sets out the ePlanning program's:

  • expected and reported financial benefits
  • calculation of financial benefits.

In 2019, the department increased its expectations for net financial benefits

The department's three ePlanning business cases each forecast substantial financial benefits from the implementation of the planning portal. The department expected that most financial benefits would flow to planning applicants due to a quicker and more consistent planning process. It also expected that government agencies and councils would benefit from the portal.

Exhibit 6: Summary of the financial benefits originally expected
  Business case 1
($ million)
Business case 2
($ million)
Business case 3
($ million)
Total
($ million)
Benefits 90.0 44.3 270.9 405.2
Costs 43.3 29.4 89.8 162.5
Net benefits 46.7 15.0 181.1 242.7

Note: Benefits and costs are incremental. All amounts are calculated over ten years. Amounts for business case 1, 2 and 3 amounts are expressed in 2013, 2015 and 2019 dollars respectively. All amounts are discounted at seven per cent to show their value at the time when they were calculated. Amounts may not add due to rounding.
Source: Audit Office analysis of data provided by the Department of Planning and Environment.

In 2019 the department commissioned a review to explore opportunities to better identify, monitor and realise the benefits of the ePlanning program. Using this work, the department updated the expected benefits for business cases 1 and 2 to take account of:

  • errors and miscalculations in the original benefits calculations
  • slower delivery of the portal and changes to the take-up of portal services by councils
  • changes to the services supported by the portal.
Exhibit 7: Summary of the financial benefits expected for business case 1 and 2 after the 2019 update
  Original business case 1 and 2 (combined)
($ million)
New business case 1 and 2 (combined)
($ million)
Benefits 134.3 210.6
Costs 72.7 96.3
Net benefits 61.7 114.3

Note: Benefits and costs are incremental. All amounts are calculated over ten years. Amounts for the original business case 1 and 2 are expressed in 2013 and 2015 dollars respectively. The new combined amount is expressed in 2019 dollars. All amounts are discounted or inflated at seven per cent to show their value at the time when they were calculated. Amounts may not add due to rounding.
Source: Audit Office analysis of data provided by the Department of Planning and Environment.

Reported benefits significantly exceed the current targets

In September 2021, the department reported that the program had achieved $334 million of benefits over the three financial years up to June 2021 plus the first two months of 2021–22. These reported benefits were significantly higher than expected. 

Exhibit 8: Reported financial benefits from the ePlanning program
  2018–19
($ million)
2019–20
($ million)
2020–21
($ million)
July to August 2021
($ million)
Total
($ million)
Benefits 5.2 68.8 214.7 45.1 333.8
Target 2.5 14.4 56.7 19.2 92.8
Amount and per cent above target 2.7
108%
54.4
378%
158
279%
25.9
135%
241
260%

Source: Audit Office analysis of data provided by the Department of Planning and Environment.

The department attributes the higher-than-expected financial benefits to the following:

  • benefit targets have not been updated to reflect the impact of the 2019 decision to mandate the use of the portal for all development applications. This decision brought forward the expected benefits as well as potential costs of the program. However, the department did not update its third business case which was draft at the time. The business case was subsequently approved in July 2020
  • one-off cost savings for agencies not having to develop their own systems
  • public exhibitions of planning proposals continuing to be available online during 2020 when some newspapers stopping printing due to COVID-19.

The calculation of benefits is overstated

The department reported $334 million of benefits in September 2021 due to the ePlanning program. This calculation is overstated because:

  • a proportion of reported benefits is likely to be due to other planning reforms
  • the calculation of the largest single benefit is incorrect
  • the reported benefits may not fully account for dis-benefits reported by some stakeholders.

The program’s benefits are calculated primarily from changes in planning performance data, such as the time it takes to determine a planning development application. The department currently attributes the benefits from shorter planning cycles entirely to the effect of the ePlanning program. However, planning cycles are impacted by many other factors such as the complexity of planning regulations and the availability of planning professionals. Planning cycles may also be impacted by other departmental initiatives which are designed to improve the time that it takes for a planning application to be evaluated. The Introduction describes some of these initiatives.

The largest contribution to the department’s September 2021 benefit report was an estimated saving of $151 million for developers due to lower costs associated with holding their investment for a shorter time. However, the department’s calculation of this benefit assumes a high baseline for the time to determine a development application. It also assumes that all development applications except for additions or alterations to existing properties will incur financing costs. However, a small but material number of these applications will be self-financed. The calculation also includes several data errors in spreadsheets.

The calculation of some benefits relies upon an extrapolation of the benefits experienced by a small number of early-adopter councils, including lower printing and scanning costs, fewer forms and quicker processing times. However, some councils report that their costs have increased following the introduction of the portal, primarily because aspects of the portal duplicate work that they carry out in their own systems. The portal has also required some councils to re-engineer aspects of their own systems, such as the integration of their planning systems with other council systems such as finance or property and rating systems. It has also required councils to create new ways of integrating council information systems with the planning portal.

The department has published information to help councils and certifiers to automatically integrate their systems with the planning portal. This approach uses application programming interfaces (or APIs) which are an industry-standard way for systems to share information. In April and May 2021, the government granted $4.8 million to 96 regional councils to assist with the cost of developing, implementing and maintaining APIs. The maximum amount of funding for each council was $50,000. The department is closely monitoring the implementation of APIs by councils and other portal users. Once they are fully implemented the department expects APIs to reduce costs incurred by stakeholders.

The department has not yet measured stakeholder costs. It was beyond the scope of this audit to validate these costs.

The department has not independently assured the calculation of reported benefits

In 2020 the department appointed an external provider to calculate the benefits achieved by the ePlanning program. The department advised that it chose to outsource the calculation of benefits because the provider had the required expertise and because it wanted an independent calculation of the benefits. The process involves:

  • extraction and verification of planning performance data by the department
  • population of data input sheets by the department
  • calculation of benefits by the external provider using the data input
  • confirmation by the department that the calculation includes all expected benefit sources.

The department does not have access to the benefits calculation model which is owned and operated by the external provider. The department trusts that the provider correctly calculates the benefits and does not verify the reported benefit numbers. However, as the benefits model involves many linked spreadsheets and approximately 300 individual data points, there is a risk that the calculation model contains errors beyond those discussed in this audit.

The reported benefits have only been calculated since 2019

The department originally intended to track benefits from October 2014. However, it only started to track benefits in 2019 when it appointed an external provider to calculate the benefits achieved by the portal. Any benefits or dis-benefits between the introduction of the portal and 2019 are unknown and not included in the department’s calculation of benefits.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

 

Copyright notice

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #366 - released 21 June 2022

Published

Actions for COVID-19: response, recovery and impact

COVID-19: response, recovery and impact

Community Services
Education
Health
Justice
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Whole of Government
Cross-agency collaboration
Financial reporting
Management and administration
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration

What the report is about

This report draws together the financial impact of COVID-19 on the agencies integral to responses across the state government sector of New South Wales.

What we found

Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit NSW in January 2020, and until 30 June 2021, $7.5 billion was spent by state government agencies for health and economic stimulus. The response was largely funded by borrowings.

The key areas of spending since the start of COVID-19 in NSW to 30 June 2021 were:

  • direct health response measures – $2.2 billion
  • personal protective equipment – $1.4 billion
  • small business grants – $795 million
  • quarantine costs – $613 million
  • increases in employee expenses and cleaning costs across most agencies
  • vaccine distribution, including vaccination hubs – $71 million.

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the financial performance and position of state government agencies.

Decreases in revenue from providing goods and services were offset by increases in appropriations, grants and contributions, for health and economic stimulus funding in response to the pandemic.

Most agencies had expense growth, due to additional operating requirements to manage and respond to the pandemic along with implementing new or expanded stimulus programs and initiatives.

Response measures for COVID-19 have meant the NSW Government is unlikely to meet targets in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 being:

  • annual expense growth kept below long-term average revenue growth
  • elimination of State’s unfunded superannuation liability by 2030.

 Fast facts

  • First COVID-19 case in NSW on 25 January 2020
  • COVID-19 vaccinations commenced on 21 February 2021
  • By 31 December 2021, 25.2 million PCR tests had been performed in NSW and 13.6 million vaccines administered, with 93.6% of the 16 and over population receiving two doses
  • During 2020–21, NSW Health employed an extra 4,893 full-time staff and incurred $28 million in overtime mainly in response to COVID-19
  • During 2020–21, $1.2 billion was spent on direct health COVID-19 response measures and $532 million was spent on quarantine for incoming international travellers

Section highlights

  • Up to 30 June 2021, $7.5 billion has been spent by state government agencies for health and economic stimulus.
  • Revenue increased for most agencies as falling revenue from providing goods and services was offset by additional funding from appropriations, grants and contributions.
  • Expenses increased as most agencies incurred additional costs to manage and respond to the pandemic along with delivering stimulus and support programs.
  • Borrowings of $7.5 billion over the last two years helped to fund the response to COVID-19.

Section highlights

  • NSW Government unlikely to meet targets in Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012.