Reports
Mental health service planning for Aboriginal people in New South Wales
A report released by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, has found that NSW Health is not forming effective partnerships with Aboriginal communities to plan, design and deliver appropriate mental health services. There is limited evidence that NSW Health is using the knowledge and expertise of Aboriginal communities to guide how mental health care is structured and delivered.
Mental illness (including substance use disorders) is the main contributor to lower life expectancy and increased mortality in the Aboriginal population of New South Wales. It contributes to a higher burden of disease and premature death at rates that are 40 per cent higher than the next highest chronic disease group, cardiovascular disease.1
Aboriginal people have significantly higher rates of mental illness than non Aboriginal people in New South Wales. They are more likely to present at emergency departments in crisis or acute phases of mental illness than the rest of the population and are more likely to be admitted to hospital for mental health treatments.2
In acknowledgement of the significant health disparities between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people, NSW Health implemented the NSW Aboriginal Health Plan 2013 2023 (the Aboriginal Health Plan). The overarching message of the Aboriginal Health Plan is ‘to build respectful, trusting and effective partnerships with Aboriginal communities’ and to implement ‘integrated planning and service delivery’ with sector partners. Through the Plan, NSW Health commits to providing culturally appropriate and ‘holistic approaches to the health of Aboriginal people'.
The mental health sector is complex, involving Commonwealth, state and non government service providers. In broad terms, NSW Health has responsibility to support patients requiring higher levels of clinical support for mental illnesses, while the Commonwealth and non government organisations offer non acute care such as assessments, referrals and early intervention treatments.
The NSW Health network includes 15 Local Health Districts and the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network that provide care to patients during acute and severe phases of mental illness in hospitals, prisons and community service environments. This includes care to Aboriginal patients in the community at rates that are more than four times higher than the non Aboriginal population. Community services are usually provided as follow up after acute admissions or interactions with hospital services. The environments where NSW Health delivers mental health care include:
- hospital emergency departments, for short term assessment and referral
- inpatient hospital care for patients in acute and sub acute phases of mental illness
- mental health outpatient services in the community, such as support with medications
- custodial mental health services in adult prisons and juvenile justice centres.
The NSW Government is reforming its mental health funding model to incrementally shift the balance from hospital care to enhanced community care. In 2018–19, the NSW Government committed $400 million over four years into early intervention and specialist community mental health teams.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Health’s planning and coordination of mental health services and service pathways for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. We addressed the audit objective by answering three questions:
- Is NSW Health using evidence to plan and inform the availability of mental health services for Aboriginal people in New South Wales?
- Is NSW Health collaborating with partners to create accessible mental health service pathways for Aboriginal people?
- Is NSW Health collaborating with partners to ensure the appropriateness and quality of mental health services for Aboriginal people?
NSW Health is not meeting the objectives of the NSW Aboriginal Health Plan, to form effective partnerships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and Aboriginal communities to plan, design and deliver mental health services.
There is limited evidence that existing partnerships between NSW Health and Aboriginal communities meet its own commitment to use the ‘knowledge and expertise of the Aboriginal community (to) guide the health system at every level, including (for) the identification of key issues, the development of policy solutions, the structuring and delivery of services' 3 and the development of culturally appropriate models of mental health care.
NSW Health is planning and coordinating its resources to support Aboriginal people in acute phases of mental illness in hospital environments. However, it is not effectively planning for the supply and delivery of sufficient mental health services to assist Aboriginal patients to manage mental illness in community environments. Existing planning approaches, data and systems are insufficient to guide the $400 million investment into community mental health services announced in the 2018–19 Budget.
NSW Health is not consistently forming partnerships to ensure coordinated care for patients as they move between mental health services. There is no policy to guide this process and practices are not systematised or widespread.
In this report, the term ‘Aboriginal people’ is used to describe both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Audit Office of NSW acknowledges the diversity of traditional countries and Aboriginal language groups across the state of New South Wales.
2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data 2016–17 (unaudited).
3 NSW Health, The Aboriginal Health Plan 2013-2023.
In May 2019, the Audit Office of New South Wales invited Aboriginal mental health clinicians and policy experts from government and non-government organisations to attend a one-day workshop. Workshop attendees advised on factors that improve the quality and appropriateness of mental health care for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. They described appropriate mental health care as:
- culturally safe, allowing Aboriginal people to draw strength in their identity, culture and community
- person centred and focussed on individual needs
- delivered by culturally competent staff with no bias
- holistic, trauma-informed and focussed on early intervention where possible
- delivered in places that are appropriate including outreach to homes and communities
- welcoming of the involvement of local Aboriginal community and connected to local knowledge and expertise including totems and kinship structures.
The definition of 'appropriate' mental health care for Aboriginal people throughout this report is based on this advice.
Aboriginal people access emergency services at much higher rates than non-Aboriginal people
The choices that people make in relation to health service options provide some insight into the suitability and appropriateness of the service to their needs.
Aboriginal people have different mental health service use patterns than non-Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are much more likely to be in a crisis situation before receiving mental health services, usually in an emergency department of a hospital.
Aboriginal people make up three per cent of the total New South Wales population, but they constitute 11 per cent of emergency department presentations for mental health treatments. In regional areas, Aboriginal people make up 20.5 per cent of presentations at emergency departments for mental health reasons.
A number of factors help to explain Aboriginal mental health service usage patterns. According to government and non-government mental health organisations:
- emergency department services are better known to Aboriginal people than other mental health services
- community-based models of care are not appropriate for Aboriginal people
- Aboriginal people are reluctant to access community-based mental health services to prevent crisis situations
- community mental health services are not available for Aboriginal people after hours and during the weekend, so emergency services are the only option.
The statewide proportions of Aboriginal people presenting at emergency departments for mental health treatments has been increasing over time (Exhibit 6).
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – The NSW Aboriginal Health Plan
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #326 - released 29 August 2019
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.
Contracting non-government organisations
This report found the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) needs to do more to demonstrate it is effectively and efficiently contracting NGOs to deliver community services in the Permanency Support Program (a component of out-of-home-care services) and Specialist Homelessness Services. It notes that FACS is moving to an outcomes-based commissioning model and recommends this be escalated consistent with government policy.
Government agencies, such as the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), are increasingly contracting non-government organisations (NGOs) to deliver human services in New South Wales. In doing so, agencies are responsible for ensuring these services are achieving expected outcomes. Since the introduction of the Commissioning and Contestability Policy in 2016, all NSW Government agencies are expected to include plans for customer and community outcomes and look for ways to use contestability to raise standards.
Two of the areas receiving the greatest funding from FACS are the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services. In the financial year 2017–18, nearly 500 organisations received $784 million for out-of-home care programs, including the Permanency Support Program. Across New South Wales, specialist homelessness providers assist more than 54,000 people each year and in the financial year 2017–18, 145 organisations received $243 million for providing short term accommodation and homelessness support, including Specialist Homelessness Services.
In the financial year 2017–18, FACS entered into 230 contracts for out-of-home care, of which 49 were for the Permanency Support Program, representing $322 million. FACS also entered into 157 contracts for the provision of Specialist Homelessness Services which totalled $170 million. We reviewed the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services for this audit.
This audit assessed how effectively and efficiently FACS contracts NGOs to deliver community services. The audit could not assess how NGOs used the funds they received from FACS as the Audit Office does not have a mandate that could provide direct assurance that NGOs are using government funds effectively.
|
Conclusion
FACS cannot demonstrate it is effectively and efficiently contracting NGOs to deliver community services because it does not always use open tenders to test the market when contracting NGOs, and does not collect adequate performance data to ensure safe and quality services are being provided. While there are some valid reasons for using restricted tenders, it means that new service providers are excluded from consideration - limiting contestability. In the service delivery areas we assessed, FACS does not measure client outcomes as it has not yet moved to outcomes-based contracts. FACS' procurement approach sometimes restricts the selection of NGOs for the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services
FACS has a procurement policy and plan which it follows when contracting NGOs for the provision of human services. This includes the option to use restricted tenders, which FACS sometimes uses rather than opening the process to the market. The use of restricted tenders is consistent with its procurement plan where there is a limited number of possible providers and the services are highly specialised. However, this approach perpetuates existing arrangements and makes it very difficult for new service providers to enter the market. The recontracting of existing providers means FACS may miss the opportunity to benchmark existing providers against the whole market. FACS does not effectively use client data to monitor the performance of NGOs funded under the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services
FACS' contract management staff monitor individual NGO performance including safety, quality of services and compliance with contract requirements. Although FACS does provide training materials on its intranet, FACS does not provide these staff with sufficient training, support or guidance to monitor NGO performance efficiently or effectively. FACS also requires NGOs to self-report their financial performance and contract compliance annually. FACS verifies the accuracy of the financial data but conducts limited validation of client data reported by NGOs to verify its accuracy. Instead, FACS relies on contract management staff to identify errors or inaccurate reporting by NGOs. FACS' ongoing monitoring of the performance of providers under the Permanency Support Program is particularly limited due to problems with timely data collection at the program level. This reduces FACS' ability to monitor and analyse NGO performance at the program level as it does not have access to ongoing performance data for monitoring service quality. In the Specialist Homelessness Services program, FACS and NGOs both provide the data required for the National Minimum Data Set on homelessness and provide it to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as they are required to do. However, this data is not used for NGO performance monitoring or management. FACS does not yet track outcomes for clients of NGOs
FACS began to develop an approach to outcomes-based contracting in 2015. Despite this, none of the contracts we reviewed are using outcomes as a measure of success. Currently, NGOs are required to demonstrate their performance is consistent with the measures stipulated in their contracts as part of an annual check of their contract compliance and financial accounts. NGOs report against activity-based measures (Key Performance Indicators) and not outcomes. FACS advises that the transition to outcomes-based contracting will be made with the new rounds of funding which will take place in 2020–2021 for Specialist Homelessness Services and 2023 for the Permanency Support Program. Once these contracts are in place, FACS can transition NGOs to outcomes based reporting. Incomplete data limits FACS' effectiveness in continuous improvement for the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services
FACS has policies and procedures in place to learn from past experiences and use this to inform future contracting decisions. However, FACS has limited client data related to the Permanency Support Program which restricts the amount of continuous improvement it can undertake. In the Specialist Homelessness Support Program data is collected to inform routine contract management discussions with service providers but FACS is not using this data for continuous improvement. |
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #323 - released 26 June 2019
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.
Development assessment: pre-lodgement and lodgement in Camden Council and Randwick City Council
The report found that both councils could do more to monitor and assess the effectiveness of their pre-lodgement and lodgement stages. The audit highlighted that Randwick City Council closely follows guidance designed to encourage good practice in these initial stages of its development assessments. It also demonstrated it was timely when processing lodgements. Camden Council is partially following the guidance and could not demonstrate that its lodgement stage was timely.
A development application is a formal application for development that requires consent under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is usually lodged with the local council for processing and determination, and consists of standard application forms, supporting technical reports and plans.
In March 2017, the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)1 released the ‘Development Assessment Best Practice Guide' designed to help councils assess development applications in a timely manner and provide a better experience for applicants.
DPE's guide describes the development assessment process in five stages.
According to the Guidance, councils should systematically measure, monitor and review development assessment outcomes and timeframes against performance targets to ensure the process is transparent, accountable and outcome-focused.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Council's alignment with the guidance
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #322 - released 20 June 2019
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.
Domestic waste management in Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, today released a report on Domestic waste management in Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council.The report found that both Councils collect and transport domestic kerbside waste effectively and process it at a low cost. The Councils also effectively process waste placed in green-lid and yellow-lid bins, but neither Council has been able to enforce their contracts for processing red-lid bin waste. As a result, almost all such waste goes straight to landfill.
Local councils provide waste management services to their residents. They collect domestic waste primarily through kerbside services, but also at council drop off facilities. Waste management is one of the major services local councils deliver. Each year, councils collectively manage an estimated 3.5 million tonnes of waste generated by New South Wales residents.
Waste disposed of in landfills attracts a NSW Government waste levy. Councils’ kerbside services help residents to separate recyclable and non recyclable waste. This reduces the cost of waste disposed to landfill. These services typically provide yellow-lid bins for dry recyclables, green-lid bins for garden organics and red-lid bins for residual waste. To increase the level of recycling, some councils deliver residual waste to alternative waste treatment facilities for processing. This can involve composting and the recovery of resources, including plastics and metals, which can be recycled.
Appendix one - Responses from local councils
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #320 - released 5 June 2019
Universities 2018 audits
The Acting Auditor General of New South Wales, Ian Goodwin, released a report today on the results of financial audits of NSW universities for the year ended 31 December 2018.
All ten NSW universities received unqualified audit opinions.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the ten NSW universities for the year ended 31 December 2018. The table below summarises our key observations.
This report provides Parliament with the results of our financial audits of New South Wales universities and their controlled entities in 2018, including our analysis, observations and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- internal controls and governance
- teaching and research.
Financial reporting is an important element of governance. Confidence and transparency in university sector decision making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial reporting of NSW universities for 2018.
Appropriate and robust internal controls help reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and administration of NSW universities.
This chapter outlines the internal controls related observations and insights across NSW universities for 2018, including overall trends in findings, level of risk and implications.
Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. The more significant issues and risks are included in this chapter. These along with the less significant ones are reported to universities for them to address.
Universities' primary objectives are teaching and research. They invest most of their resources to achieve quality outcomes in academia and student experience. Universities have committed to achieving certain government targets and compete to advance their reputation and international and Australian rankings.
This chapter outlines teaching and research outcomes for NSW universities for 2018.
Workforce reform in three amalgamated councils
The Inner West Council and the Snowy Monaro and Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Councils have all made progress towards efficient organisational structures following the amalgamation of their former council areas in 2016, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General of New South Wales.
All three councils are now operating with a single workforce and have largely achieved the milestones they planned for the first stage of their amalgamations. None have finished reviewing and aligning services across their former council areas nor integrated their ICT systems. They need to do this to be in a position to implement an optimal structure.
On 12 May 2016, the NSW Government announced the amalgamation of 42 councils into 19 new councils. This followed a period of 18 months during which the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) had assessed councils' ‘fitness for the future’, and communities were consulted about proposed mergers. A further amalgamated council was created on 9 September 2016.
Upon amalgamation, existing elected councils were abolished, interim General Managers appointed, and Administrators engaged to undertake the role of the previously elected councils until Local Government elections were held 18 months later. During the period of administration, councils were asked to report on the progress of their amalgamations to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC).
Council amalgamations not only require a re-drawing of boundaries, but re-establishment of local representation, decisions about alignment of services across the former council areas, and establishment of an amalgamated workforce.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether three councils, Inner West Council, Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council and Snowy Monaro Regional Council, are effectively reforming their organisation structures to realise efficiency benefits from amalgamation and managing the impact on staff.
Following amalgamation, all three councils developed detailed plans to bring their former workforces together, review positions and salaries, amalgamate salary structures and align human resources policies. All three councils have largely achieved the milestones included in these plans.
Benefits realisation plans show that councils did not expect to achieve material savings or efficiencies from workforce reform within the first three years of amalgamation.
Administrators at all three councils endorsed lower savings targets than the NSW Government’s early analysis suggested may be possible. All three councils have plans or strategies to progress and achieve benefits from the amalgamation. However, Inner West Council and Snowy Monaro Regional Council could more clearly link their reform initiatives with expected benefits and include this in public reporting.
Amalgamations represent a substantial period of change for affected communities and amalgamated councils should be routinely reporting to their communities about the costs and benefits of amalgamation.
Councils have not yet determined their future service offerings and service levels nor completed integration of ICT systems. These decisions need to be made before an optimal organisation structure can be implemented.
Before amalgamated councils can implement an optimal organisation structure, they need to review and confirm their customer service offerings and service levels in consultation with their communities. This work is underway but is not yet complete in any of the councils.
Progress towards an efficient structure has been slowed by staff protections in the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) and a range of logistical and administrative issues associated with amalgamation. These include multiple IT systems and databases that need to be integrated and different working conditions, policies and practices in the former councils that are not yet fully
harmonised.
The councils implemented legislated staff protections and focused on the people side of change but cannot reliably measure the impact of their change management efforts.
The Act provides protections that reduce the impact of amalgamations on staff. Beyond implementing these protections, the councils have communicated with staff, sought to prepare them for change, and involved staff in key decisions. All councils have conducted staff surveys over time. However, at this stage these staff surveys have not provided an effective or reliable measure of the impact of change management efforts.
Appendix one - Response from councils and Office of Local Government
Appendix two - Compliance with staff protections in the Local Government Act 1993
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #317 - released 1 May 2019
Governance of Local Health Districts
The main roles, responsibilities and relationships between Local Health Districts (LHDs), their Boards and the Ministry of Health are clear and understood, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. However, there are opportunities to achieve further maturity in the system of governance and the audit report recommended a series of actions to further strengthen governance arrangements.
Fifteen Local Health Districts (LHDs) are responsible for providing public hospital and related health services in NSW. LHDs are:
- established as statutory corporations under the Health Services Act 1997 to manage public hospitals and provide health services within defined geographical areas
- governed by boards of between six and 13 people appointed by the Minister for Health
- managed by a chief executive who is appointed by the board with the concurrence of the Secretary of NSW Health
- accountable for meeting commitments made in annual service agreements with the NSW Ministry of Health.
The NSW Ministry of Health (the Ministry) is the policy agency for the NSW public health system, providing regulatory functions, public health policy, as well as managing the health system, including monitoring the performance of hospitals and health services.
The current roles and responsibilities of LHDs and the Ministry, along with other agencies in NSW Health, were established in 2011 following a series of reforms to the structure and governance of the system. These reforms began with the report of the 'Special Commission of Inquiry into Acute Care Services in NSW Public Hospitals' ('the Garling Inquiry'), which was released in 2008, and were followed by reforms announced by the incoming coalition government in 2011.
These reforms were intended to deliver greater local decision making, including better engagement with clinicians, consumers, local communities, and other stakeholders in the primary care (such as general practitioners) and non-government sectors.
The reforms empowered LHDs by devolving some management and accountability from the Ministry for the delivery of health services in their area. LHDs were made accountable for meeting annual obligations under service agreements.
This audit assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the governance arrangements for LHDs. We answered two questions:
- Are there clear roles, responsibilities and relationships between the Ministry of Health and LHDs and within LHDs?
- Does the NSW Health Performance Framework establish and maintain accountability, oversight and strategic guidance for LHDs?
- continued progress in moving toward patient experience, outcome, and quality and safety measures
- improving the Health Performance Framework document to ensure it is comprehensive, clear and specifies decision makers
- greater clarity in the nexus between underperformance and escalation decisions
- including governance-related performance measures
- more rigour in accountability for non-service activity functions, including consumer and community engagement
- ensuring that performance monitoring and intervention is consistent with the intent of devolution.
NSW Health is large and complex system, operating in a dynamic environment. The governance reforms introduced in 2011 were significant and it is reasonable that they take time to mature.
The main roles of LHDs and the Ministry are clear and well-understood, and there is good collaboration between different parts of the system. This provides a sound foundation on which to further mature the governance arrangements of LHDs.
While the broad roles of LHDs, their boards, and the Ministry are well understood by stakeholders in the system, there are matters of detail and complexity that create ambiguity and uncertainty, including:
- the roles and relationships between the LHDs and the Pillars
- to what extent LHDs have discretion to pursue innovation
- individual responsibility and obligations between chairs, boards, executive staff, and the Ministry.
These should be addressed collaboratively between boards, their executives, and the Ministry, and should be informed by a statement of principles that guides how devolved decision making should be implemented.
Better clinician engagement in health service decision making was a key policy driver for devolution. Priority should be given by LHDs and the Ministry to ensuring that clinicians are adequately engaged in LHD decision making. It appears that in many cases they are not, and this needs to be addressed.
The quality of board decision making depends on the information they are provided and their capacity to absorb and analyse that information. More can be done to promote good decision making by improving the papers that go to boards, and by ensuring that board members are well positioned to absorb the information provided. This includes ensuring that the right type and volume of information are provided to boards, and that members and executive managers have adequate data literacy skills to understand the information.
Recommendations
- By December 2019, the Ministry of Health should:
- work with LHDs to identify and overcome barriers that are limiting the appropriate engagement of clinicians in decision making in LHDs
- develop a statement of principles to guide decision making in a devolved system
- provide clarity on the relationship of the Agency for Clinical Innovation and the Clinical Excellence Commission to the roles and responsibilities of LHDs.
- By June 2020, LHDs boards, supported where appropriate by the Ministry of Health, should address the findings of this performance audit to ensure that local practices and processes support good governance, including:
- providing timely and consistent induction; training; and reviews of boards, members and charters
- ensuring that each board's governance and oversight of service agreements is consistent with their legislative functions
- improving the use of performance information to support decision making by boards and executive managers.
This cultural shift has achieved greater recognition of the importance of transparency in how well LHDs perform. However, as NSW Health is a large, complex and dynamic system, it is important that these accountability and oversight mechanisms continue to evolve to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to support good governance.
There are areas where accountability and oversight can be improved including:
- continued progress in moving toward patient experience, outcome and value-based measures
- improving the Health Performance Framework document to ensure it is comprehensive, clear and specifies decision makers
- greater clarity in the nexus between underperformance and escalation decisions
- by adding governance-related performance measures to service agreements
- more rigour in accountability for non-service activity functions, such as consumer and community engagement
- ensuring that performance monitoring and intervention is consistent with the intent of devolution.
Recommendations
3. By June 2020, the Ministry of Health should improve accountability and oversight mechanisms by:
a) revising the Health Performance Framework so that it is a cohesive and comprehensive document
b) clarifying processes and decision making for managing performance concerns
c) developing a mechanism to adequately hold LHDs accountable for non-service activity functions
d) reconciling performance monitoring and intervention with the policy intent of devolution.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Functions of a Local Health District
Appendix three - Functions of a Local Health District Board
Appendix four - Routine performance monitoring and reporting
Appendix five - Escalation model for the NSW Health Performance Framework
Appendix six - About the audit
Appendix seven - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #316 - released 18 April 2019
Local Government 2018
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on the Local Government sector. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the 2017-18 financial audits of 135 councils in New South Wales and the 2016-17 audit of Bayside Council. The report also includes commentary on three performance audits published in 2018.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the 2017-18 financial statements of 135 councils. The audit opinion for Bayside Council’s 2016–17 financial statements was disclaimed as management were unable to confirm that the financial statements present fairly the performance and position of the Council. A further 24 councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements. Three audits are still in progress and will be included in next year’s report.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of local councils for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key observations and recommendations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in Local Government decision making is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our financial reporting audit observations across councils for 2018.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
|---|---|
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
|
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 135 out of 138 council's financial statements. The audits of three councils are in progress. Three councils, with previously qualified audit opinions, resolved those issues during 2017–18. |
Sufficient audit evidence was obtained to conclude the financial statements for 135 councils were free of material misstatement. |
|
A disclaimed audit opinion was issued for Bayside Council’s 30 June 2017 financial statements as management were unable to confirm that the financial statements present fairly the performance and position of the Council. We were unable to obtain enough evidence to support the financial results reported. |
Bayside Council did not resolve all issues related to the former councils, resulting in a disclaimed audit opinion. |
|
The 30 June 2018 financial audits reported:
|
Our audits continue to identify opportunities to improve the quality of councils’ financial reporting. |
| We reported 95 instances in our management letters where councils could be better prepared for the upcoming changes to accounting standards. | To help councils implement the new standards, the Office of Local Government is running workshops, developing guidance and mandating options with the new standards for councils to adopt on transition. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| One hundred and eleven councils lodged their 30 June 2018 audited financial statements to the Office of Local Government by the statutory deadline. | Eleven more councils submitted financial statements on-time compared with the prior year. |
| Almost half of councils performed early financial reporting procedures including valuing IPPE before 30 June 2018. | Councils performing early financial reporting procedures improved the timeliness of their financial reporting. |
Strong governance systems and internal controls reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and delivering services to ratepayers.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for council controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies. Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present heightened risks for councils to address.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
|---|---|
| 3.1 Internal controls | |
| The 30 June 2018 financial audits reported 83 high-risk findings. | Recommendation: Councils should reduce risk by addressing high-risk findings as a priority. |
| Thirty-nine of these high-risk findings related to information technology. See Chapter 4. | Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting. |
| Several internal control findings were common across councils. | There may be opportunities for councils to work together to address common findings through Joint Organisations or other avenues. |
| 3.2 Governance | |
| Ninety-seven councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (85 at 30 June 2017). | Proposed legislative changes will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021. |
| Ninety-two councils have an internal audit function (86 at 30 June 2017). | It is envisaged that the Local Government Act 1993 will require the establishment of an internal audit function in each council to support the work of the audit, risk and improvement committee. |
| Eighty-three councils do not have a legislative compliance policy and 94 councils do not have a legislative compliance register. | Councils can improve their monitoring of compliance with key laws and regulations. |
| Eighteen councils do not have a risk management policy and 38 councils do not have a risk register. | Risk is better managed when there is a fit-for-purpose risk management framework, register and policy to outline how risks are identified and managed. |
| Most councils have a procurement policy, a manual, and are providing training to relevant staff. Only 34 per cent of councils have a contract management policy. | Councils with effective procurement and contract management reduce risks of error and fraud and achieve better outcomes for ratepayers. |
Councils increasingly rely on information technology (IT) to deliver services and manage information. While IT delivers considerable benefits, it also presents risks that council needs to address.
Our audits reviewed whether councils have effective governance and controls in place to manage key financial systems and IT service providers. This chapter summarises the following IT findings:
- governance
- IT general controls
- managing service providers.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
|---|---|
| 4.1 Governance | |
| Ninety-four councils have not formalised all policies which manage key information technology (IT) processes. Of those policies that are formalised, 78 are not reviewed to ensure they are up to date. | A lack of IT policies increases the risk of inappropriate and inconsistent practices. |
| Sixty-five councils do not register their IT risks and 44 councils do not regularly report IT risks to management and those charged with governance. | Risks that are not communicated to senior management and those charged with governance may not be assessed and managed appropriately. |
| 4.2 IT general controls | |
| Most internal control deficiencies related to information technology processes and control environment. | Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting. |
| 4.3 Managing service providers | |
Seventy-two councils outsource at least one IT function to a third-party service provider. Of these:
|
Councils can more effectively manage IT service provider by:
|
Councils are responsible for planning and managing a significant range of assets on behalf of the community. This chapter outlines our asset management observations across councils for 2018.
| Observation | Conclusion and recommendation |
|---|---|
| 5.1 Asset management planning | |
| All but six councils have an asset management strategy, policy and plan. However, 11 councils have not reviewed their asset management strategy, policy and plan in the last five years. | Recommendation: Councils’ asset management policy, strategy and plan should comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines issued by the Office of Local Government. |
| We found 86 instances where asset management strategies, policies and plans do not comply with the essential elements in the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines released by the Office of Local Government. | |
| 5.2 Asset valuation process | |
Our audits found:
|
Deficiencies in the asset valuation process can result in significant errors to the financial statements. |
| The deficiencies in the asset valuation process resulted in errors in financial statements of $2.6 billion, including $1.9 billion of prior period errors. | |
We also identified:
|
Depreciation may not be accurately recorded in the financial statements. It may also impact key sustainability indicators reported by the council. |
| 5.3 Asset management systems | |
Our audits identified 64 instances where councils:
|
Weaknesses in asset management systems can impact the accuracy and completeness of asset data, resulting in errors to the financial statements. |
|
Our audits identified discrepancies between the Councils' Crown land asset records and the Crown Land Information Database (CLID) managed by the NSW Department of Industry. Five councils corrected $225 million of previously unrecorded Crown land assets. |
Councils should regularly reconcile asset registers to the CLID and investigate discrepancies to ensure Crown land under their care and control is captured. |
| 5.4 Rural fire-fighting equipment | |
|
Inconsistent practices remain across the Local Government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment. A number of councils do not record rural fire-fighting equipment, meaning that a significant portion of rural fire-fighting equipment continues to not be recorded in either State or council financial records. |
The Office of Local Government should continue to address the different practices across the Local Government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment. In doing so, the Office of Local Government should continue to work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole of-government approach. |
Asset overview
Councils own and manage a diverse range of assets to deliver services to the community. As at 30 June 2018, the combined carrying value of NSW council assets was $140 billion.
Strong and sustainable financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to community needs.
This chapter outlines our audit observations on the performance of councils against the Office of Local Government's (OLG) performance indicators.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
|---|---|
| 6.1 Operating performance and revenue measures | |
Nineteen amalgamated councils received significant one-off grant funding in 2016–17. In 2017–18:
|
The overall operating performance and revenue measures in 2017–18 for amalgamated councils were impacted by lower operational grant income. |
| Thirty-five of the 56 rural councils did not meet the benchmark for own source revenue (41 in 2016–17). | The ability to generate own source revenue remains a challenge for rural councils. Rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets covering large areas, less ratepayers and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources compared with metropolitan councils. |
| 6.2 Liquidity and working capital performance measures | |
| Most councils met the liquidity and working capital performance measures over the last two years. | Most councils:
|
| Nineteen additional councils would not meet the cash expense cover ratio benchmark when externally restricted funds are excluded. | Councils with a higher proportion of restricted funds have less flexibility to pay operational expenses than the cash expense cover ratio suggests. |
Each local council has unique characteristics such as its size, location and services provided to their communities. These differences may affect the nature of each council's assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses,and in turn the financial performance measures against which it reports.
The Office of Local Government prescribes performance indicators for council reporting.
The analysis in this chapter is based on performance measures prescribed in OLG’s Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (the Code).
Council’s audited financial statements report performance against six financial sustainability measures.
Operating performance and revenue measures
| Operating performance |
Measures how well councils keep operating expenses within operating revenue |
| Own source operating revenue | Measures council’s fiscal flexibility and the degree to which it can generate own source revenue compared with the total revenue from all sources |
Liquidity and working capital measures
| Unrestricted current ratio | Measures a council’s ability to meet its short-term obligations as they fall due |
| Debt service cover ratio | Measures the operating cash to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments |
| Rates and annual charges outstanding percentage | Assesses how successful councils are in collecting rates and annual charges |
| Cash expense cover ratio | Estimates the number of months a council can continue paying its expenses without additional cash inflow |
| Building and infrastructure renewals ratio | Assesses the rate at which infrastructure assets are being renewed against the rate at which they are depreciating |
| Infrastructure backlog ratio | Shows the amount of infrastructure backlog expenditure relative to the total net book value of a council's infrastructure assets |
| Asset maintenance ratio | Compares a council’s actual asset maintenance expenditure to the amount planned in their asset management plans |
| Cost to bring assets to agreed service level | Compares the estimated cost to renew or rehabilitate existing infrastructure assets, that have reached the condition-based intervention level adopted by a council, to the gross replacement cost of all infrastructure assets |
Each audited measure and three of the four unaudited measures has a prescribed benchmark.
Appendix one - Response from the Office of Local Government
Appendix two - List of 2018 recommendations
Appendix three - Status of 2017 recommendations
Appendix four - Sources of information and council classifications
Appendix five - Financial data
Appendix six - Status of audits
Appendix seven - List of Joint Organisations and their member councils
Appendix nine - OLG’s performance indicators from the audited financial statement - Descriptions
Appendix ten - OLG’s performance indicators from the unaudited Special Schedule 7 - Descriptions
Auditor‑General’s Report to Parliament
Report on Local Government 2018
Executive Summary
The second point ‘Governance’ under point 3 ‘Governance and internal controls’ on page 2 should read:
There has been an increase in the number of councils with an audit, risk and improvement committee or an internal audit function compared with the prior year. Seventy per cent of councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (62 per cent at 30 June 2017) and 67 per cent of councils have an internal audit function (62 per cent at 30 June 2017).
Chapter 3 Governance and Internal Controls
The two observations under 3.2 Governance on page 21 should read:
Ninety-seven councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (85 at 30 June 2017).
Ninety-two councils have an internal audit function (86 at 30 June 2017).
Section 3.2 Governance on page 26 should read:
Twelve more councils established audit, risk and improvement committees during 2017–18 resulting in 97 councils having committees.
Six more councils established an internal audit function during 2017–18 resulting in 92 councils having an internal audit function.
Appendix three: Status of 2017 recommendations
Under the heading ‘Governance and internal controls’ on page 62, the two points in the right-hand column should read:
Twelve more councils established audit, risk and improvement committees during 2017–18 resulting in 97 councils having committees. Please refer to Section 5.2 for more details.
Six more councils established an internal audit function during 2017–18 resulting in 92 councils having an internal audit function.
The above changes are reflected on the Audit Office website, and should be considered the true and accurate version.
Transport Access Program
The following report is available in an Easy English version that is intended to meet the needs of some people with lower literacy skills, some people with an intellectual disability and some people from different cultural backgrounds.
View the Easy English version of the Transport Access Program report
Transport for NSW’s process for selecting and prioritising projects for the third stage of its Transport Access Program balanced compliance with national disability standards with broader customer outcomes. Demographics, deliverability and value for money were also considered. However, Transport for NSW does not know the complete scope of work required for full compliance, limiting its ability to demonstrate that its approach is effective, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford.
Access to transport is critical to ensuring that people can engage in all aspects of community life, including education, employment and recreation. People with disability can encounter barriers when accessing public transport services. In 2015, there were 1.37 million people living with disability in New South Wales.
Accessible public transport is about more than physical accessibility. It also means barrier-free access for people who have vision, hearing or cognitive impairments. All users, not just people with disability, benefit from improvements to the accessibility and inclusiveness of transport services.
Transport for NSW has an obligation under Australian Government legislation to provide accessible services to people with disabilities in a manner which is not discriminatory. Under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (the DSAPT - an instrument of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (the Act) (Commonwealth)), there is a requirement to modify and develop new infrastructure, means of transport and services to provide access for people with disabilities. All public transport operators are required to ensure that at least 90 per cent of their networks met DSAPT by December 2017 and the networks will need to be 100 per cent compliant with all parts of the standards by 31 December 2022. Trains are not required to be fully compliant with DSAPT until December 2032.
The Transport Access Program (TAP) is Transport for NSW's largest program with a specific focus on improving access to public transport for people with disability. The TAP is a series of projects to upgrade existing public transport infrastructure across four networks: Sydney Trains, Intercity Trains, Regional Trains and Sydney Ferries. Transport for NSW established the TAP as a rolling program and, to date, it has delivered the first tranche of TAP (TAP 1) and is completing the final projects for the second tranche (TAP 2). NSW budget papers estimate that by 30 June 2018, Transport for NSW had spent $1.2 billion in the TAP since its commencement in 2011-12.
After the completion of TAP 1 and TAP 2 (as well as through other transport infrastructure programs), Transport for NSW estimates that 58.5 per cent of the Sydney Trains, Regional Trains and Intercity Trains networks, and 66 per cent of the Sydney Ferries network, will be accessible. To close the significant gap in compliance with the DSAPT target, the objective for TAP 3 is ‘to contribute to Disability Discrimination Act 1992 related targets through DSAPT compliance upgrades’.
The audit assessed whether Transport for NSW has an effective process to select and prioritise projects as part of the TAP, with a specific focus on the third tranche of TAP funding.
In August 2018, at the commencement of this audit, Transport for NSW intended to complete the selection of projects for the TAP 3 final business case in December 2018. Transport for NSW advise that it now intends to complete the development stage and final business case in the first quarter of 2019, prior to the final investment decision of the TAP program. This report is based on the TAP 3 strategic business case and information provided by Transport for NSW up to December 2018.
Transport for NSW’s process for selecting and prioritising projects for TAP 3 balanced DSAPT compliance goals with broader customer outcomes. It also considered demographics, deliverability and value for money. However, Transport for NSW does not know the complete scope of work required for full DSAPT compliance, and this limits its ability to demonstrate that its approach is effective.
In 2015, there were 1.37 million people living with disability in New South Wales. Access to transport is critical to ensuring that people can engage in all aspects of community life, including education, employment and recreation. People with disability can encounter barriers when accessing public transport services.
The social model of disability, outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, views people with disability as not disabled by their impairment but by the barriers in the community and environment that restrict their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
Accessible public transport is more than the provision of physical access to premises and conveyances, it provides barrier-free access for people who have vision, hearing or cognitive impairments. All users, not just people with disability, benefit from improvements to the accessibility and inclusiveness of transport services.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the main types of difficulties experienced by people with disability when using public transport relate to steps (39.9 per cent), difficulty getting to stops and stations (25 per cent), fear and anxiety (23.3 per cent) and lack of seating or difficulty standing (20.7 per cent).
Transport for NSW has a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (the Action Plan) 2018-2022 that sets an overall framework for planning, delivering and reporting on initiatives to increase accessibility of the transport network. It covers all elements of the journey experienced when using public transport, including journey planning, staff training, customer services and interaction between the physical environment and modes of transport. Appendix five outlines the guiding principles of the Action Plan.
Transport for NSW's Transport Social Policy branch developed the Action Plan in consultation with internal and external stakeholders. The director of the Transport Social Policy branch is a member of the TAP executive steering committee, which supports alignment between the Action Plan and TAP.
Transport for NSW's Disability Inclusion Action Plan describes a customer focussed approach to accessibility
One of the guiding principles of the Action Plan is ‘intelligent compliance’. Transport for NSW describes this as compliance that prioritises customer-focused outcomes over a narrow focus on legal compliance with accessibility standards. As well as being compliant, infrastructure should be practical, usable, fit for purpose and convenient.
The TAP prioritisation and selection methodology reflects Transport for NSW’s focus on intelligent compliance. We consider this a reasonable approach as had Transport for NSW focussed exclusively on achieving compliance with the DSAPT targets by upgrading the most affordable infrastructure, some locations, that are used by more customers, would remain inaccessible to people with disability. However, this approach should not be seen as an alternative to Transport for NSW meeting its DSAPT compliance obligations.
TAP program staff consult with the Accessible Transport Advisory Committee
The Accessible Transport Advisory Committee (ATAC) has representatives from disability and ageing organisations, who provide expert guidance to Transport for NSW on access and inclusion. The ATAC provide guidance and feedback on projects and project solutions, including user testing where appropriate. TAP program staff provide regular updates at ATAC meetings, which include briefings on progress. The ATAC also provides feedback and suggestions to TAP program staff, which is considered and sometimes included in current and future projects.For example, in March 2017 the TAP program team briefed the ATAC on the challenges with respect to a number of ferry wharves and sought support for DSAPT exemptions proposed in the TAP 3 strategic business case.
| In June 2018, the Program team sought feedback on a variety of lift button options to improve accessibility on future TAP projects. In September 2018, during the ATAC meeting attended by the Audit Office, the program team sought feedback on the standard designs for TAP 3. Some ATAC members noted that the standard design included Braille lettering on the lift buttons, and that this was not good practice because people can accidently press the button while reading it. As a result, Transport for NSW are incorporating this feedback into design requirements for the lifts for TAP 3, which will consider larger buttons, clearer Braille and Braille signage adjacent to the button. |
Transport for NSW has not briefed the Advisory Committee on the outcome of the prioritisation and selection process
TAP program staff briefed the Advisory Committee about the prioritisation and selection methodology, after the Minister approved it in 2016. However, Transport for NSW have not briefed or consulted the Advisory Committee on the outcome of the prioritisation process. Infrastructure NSW noted this issue during its review of the strategic business case.
Transport for NSW advised us that it established the ATAC as an advisory group, and that Transport for NSW does not disclose sensitive information to it. Transport for NSW intends to share the outcome of the prioritisation process following the completion of the TAP 3 development stage and final investment decision.
The TAP communication plan does not fully meet the requirements of the Disability Inclusion Action Plan
The Disability Inclusion Action Plan includes an action item to ‘provide a listing of stations and wharves to be upgraded with estimated time of construction as each new tranche of the Transport Access Program is announced’ The TAP Communication Plan that we reviewed does not include this provision instead focussing on communication on a per project basis. Given the long timeframes associated with improving transport infrastructure, this information is important as it allows people to make informed decisions about where they live, work or study.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Compliance requirements of Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport
Appendix three - TAP 1 and TAP 2 sub-programs
Appendix four - Prioritisation Assessment for the TAP 3 Strategic Business Case
Appendix five - The guiding principles of Transport for NSW's Disability Inclusion Action Plan
Appendix six - Transport projects and programs that contribute to DSAPT compliance
Appendix seven - About the audit
Appendix eight - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference - Report number #314 - released 19 February 2019.
Planning and Environment 2018
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on the NSW Planning and Environment cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial audits of these agencies. Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements. However, some cultural institutions had challenges valuing collection assets in 2017–18. These issues were resolved before the financial statements were finalised.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the Planning and Environment cluster for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key observations.
This report provides parliament and other users of the Planning and Environment cluster agencies' financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations
- service delivery.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision making is 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 for 2018.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements. | The quality of financial reporting remains high across the cluster. |
| 2.2 Key accounting issues | |
| There were errors in some cultural institutions' collection asset valuations. | Recommendation: Collection asset valuations could be improved by:
|
| 2.3 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Except for two agencies, the audits of cluster agencies’ financial statements were completed within the statutory timeframe. | Issues with asset revaluations delayed the finalisation of two environment and heritage agencies' financial statement audits. |
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 for 2018
- the areas of focus identified in the Audit Office work program.
The Audit Office annual work program provides a summary of all audits to be conducted within the proposed time period as well as detailed information on the areas of focus for each of the NSW Government clusters.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
| 3.1 Internal controls | |
| One in five internal control weaknesses reported in 2017–18 were repeat issues. | Delays in implementing audit recommendations can prolong the risk of fraud and error. Recommendation (repeat issue): Management letter recommendations to address internal control weaknesses should be actioned promptly, with a focus on addressing repeat issues. |
| One extreme risk was identified relating to the National Art School. The School does not have an occupancy agreement for the Darlinghurst campus. | Lack of formal agreement creates uncertainty over the School's continued occupancy of the Darlinghurst site. The School should continue to liaise with stakeholders to formalise the occupancy arrangement. |
| 3.2 Information technology controls | |
| The controls and governance arrangements when migrating payroll data from the Aurion system to SAP HR system were effective. | Data migration from the Aurion system to SAP HR system had no significant issues. |
| The Department can improve controls over user access to SAP system. | The Department needs to ensure the SAP user access controls are appropriate, including investigation of excess access rights and resolving segregation of duties issues. |
| 3.3 Annual work program | |
| Agencies used different benchmarks to monitor their maintenance expenditure. | The cluster agencies under review operate in different industries. As a result, they do not use the same benchmarks to assess the adequacy of their maintenance spend. |
This chapter outlines certain service delivery outcomes for 2017–18. The data on activity levels and performance is provided by cluster agencies. The Audit Office does not have a specific mandate to audit performance information. Accordingly, the information in this chapter is unaudited.
We report this information on service delivery to provide additional context to understand the operations of the Planning and Environment cluster, and to collate and present service information for different segments of the cluster in one report.
In our recent performance audit, ‘Progress and measurement of Premier's Priorities’, we identified 12 limitations of performance measurement and performance data. We recommended the Department of Premier and Cabinet ensure that processes to check and verify data are in place for all relevant agency data sources.
