This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 25 largest agencies in the NSW public sector, excluding state owned corporations and public financial corporations, for the year ended 30 June 2021.

Our preferred approach is to table the ‘Report on State Finances’ in Parliament before any other cluster report. This is because the ‘Report on State Finances’ focuses on the audit results and observations relating to the Total State Sector Accounts, in effect a consolidation of all government agencies. This year the ‘Report on State Finances’ has been delayed due to significant accounting issues being considered in the Total State Sector Accounts and which may impact the Treasury and Transport clusters.

As there are no matters in this report impacting the Total State Sector Accounts we have decided to break with normal practice and table this report ahead of the ‘Report on State Finances’.

What the report is about

This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 25 largest agencies in the NSW public sector, excluding state owned corporations and public financial corporations, for the year ended 30 June 2021.

What we found

Internal control trends

The proportion of control deficiencies identified as high risk this year increased to 2.8 per cent (2.5 per cent in 2019–20). Six high risk findings related to financial controls while three related to IT controls. Two were repeat findings from the previous year.

Repeat findings of control deficiencies now represent 49 per cent of all findings (42 per cent in 2019–20).

Information technology

We continue to see a high number of deficiencies relating to IT general controls, particularly around user access administration and privileged user access which affected 82 per cent of agencies.

Cyber security

Agencies' self-assessed maturity levels against the NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) mandatory requirements are low. Although agencies are required to demonstrate continuous improvement against the CSP, 20 per cent have not set target levels and of those that have set target levels, 40 per cent have not met their target levels.

Policies, processes and definition around security incidents and data breaches lack consistency. Improvement is required to ensure breaches are recorded in registers and action taken to address the root cause of incidents.

Conflicts of interest

Agencies' policies generally meet the minimum requirements of the Ethical Framework set out in the Government Sector Employment Act 2013. However, few meet the Independent Commission Against Corruption's best practice guidelines. Policies could be strengthened in relation to requirements around annual declarations of interests from employees and contractors.

Masterfile management

Policies governing the management of supplier masterfiles and employee masterfiles existed in 79 per cent and 54 per cent of agencies respectively.

Weaknesses were identified in those policies. Access restriction, segregation of duties and record keeping were the most common opportunities for improvement.

Tracking recommendations

Most agencies do not maintain a register to monitor recommendations from performance audits and public inquiries. Registers of recommendations could be improved to include risk ratings and record revisions to due dates. While recommendations can take several years to fully address, the oldest open items were originally due for completion by June 2016.

What we recommended

Agencies should:

• prioritise actions to address repeat control deficiencies, particularly those that have been repeated findings for a number of years
• prioritise improvements to their cyber security and resilience as a matter of urgency
• formalise and implement policies on tracking and monitoring the progress of implementing recommendations from performance audits and public inquiries.

Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:

• operate effectively and efficiently
• produce reliable financial reports
• comply with laws and regulations
• support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of audit findings, the degree of risk those deficiencies pose to the agency, and a summary of the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this report presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

The scope of this year's report covers 25 general government sector agencies. Last year's report covered 40 agencies within the total state sector. For consistency and comparability, we have adjusted the 2020 results to include only the agencies remaining within scope of this year's report. Therefore, the 2020 figures will not necessarily align with those reported in our 2020 report.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agency controls to manage key financial systems.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agencies' cyber security planning and governance arrangements.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agencies' conflicts of interest management processes.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agency's management of supplier and employee masterfiles.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations arising from our review of agencies' processes to track and monitor the implementation of recommendations from performance audits and public inquiries.

What the report is about

The Government Advertising Act 2011 requires the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit on government advertising activities each financial year.

This audit looked at whether three campaigns run by Destination NSW (DNSW) during 2020–21 were carried out in an effective, economical and efficient manner:

• Love Sydney (comprising two sub campaigns being ‘Sydney - Love It Like You Mean It’ and ‘Get Your Sydney On’)
• Love NSW
• Road Trips. 

What we found

DNSW complied with section 6 of the Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act), prohibiting political content.

The Act requires the head of an agency to sign a compliance certificate that certifies that the campaign complies with the Act and is an efficient and cost effective means of achieving its public purpose. 

When the Acting Chief Executive of DNSW signed DNSW’s compliance certificate, evidence to support this certification was not available.

The Act requires a peer review and cost benefit analysis for campaigns over $1.0 million. DNSW did not complete the peer review or cost-benefit analysis for the audited advertising campaigns before they had concluded. 

The Department of Customer Service (DCS), which manages the peer review process, did not escalate the issue of the outstanding peer review documentation to senior DNSW staff. 

DNSW did not set targets for all measures established for the campaigns. This limits the ability to assess their effectiveness.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic likely contributed to the campaigns not meeting a substantial proportion of established outcome and impact targets.

None of the audited campaigns met the minimum requirement of 7.5 per cent for the allocation of the media budget for communications with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse and Aboriginal audiences.

What we recommended

DNSW should:

• implement processes for planning and delivering advertising campaigns delivered in urgent circumstances to bring them in line with NSW Government practice
• ensure that it establishes measurements and targets for outcomes and impacts of its advertising campaigns consistent with NSW Government evaluation frameworks and guidance.

The Department of Customer Service should:

• establish a policy and procedure for ensuring that campaign documentation is completed in a timely manner in the case of urgent campaigns, including establishing expectations around timeframes for the completion of peer review
• establish a procedure for escalating issues of outstanding documentation to ensure that the peer review is completed in line with reasonable expectations and timeframes.

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit on the activities of one or more government agencies in relation to government advertising campaigns in each financial year. The performance audit assesses whether a government agency or agencies have carried out activities in relation to government advertising in an effective, economical and efficient manner and in compliance with the Act, the regulations, other laws and the Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines). This audit examined three campaigns run by Destination NSW during the 2020–21 financial year:

• Love Sydney (comprising two sub-campaigns being ‘Sydney - Love It Like You Mean It’ and ‘Get Your Sydney On’), focussing on increasing visitor activity in Sydney
• Love NSW, focussing on increasing visitor activity in regional New South Wales
• Road Trips, focussing on encouraging visitor activity on iconic road trips in regional New South Wales.

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising. Under this section, material that is part of a government advertising campaign must not contain the name, voice or image of a minister, member of Parliament or a candidate nominated for election to Parliament or the name, logo or any slogan of a political party. Further, a campaign must not be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party.

The Act and associated regulations and the Guidelines also establish an accountability and compliance framework around the investment in advertising by NSW Government agencies.

The government's operating circumstances at the commencement of the 2020–21 financial year were highly challenging, with the 2019–20 bushfires being followed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This created new demands across a range of government services, and without any clear view on the severity of the pandemic and when it would end. This was the case for Destination NSW, which had to plan for its advertising activities in the context of an uncertain future for national border closures (impacting international in-bound travel) and lockdowns across Australia, including in New South Wales (impacting domestic travel). Further, the sudden nature of outbreaks and lockdowns meant that Destination NSW often was required to change the targeting of its campaigns and, in some situations, had to cease particular advertising activities until specific lockdowns had ended.

Campaign materials we reviewed did not contain political content

The audit team reviewed campaign materials developed as part of each of the paid advertising campaigns including radio transcripts, digital videos and display. See Appendix two for examples of campaign materials for this campaign.

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising as part of a government advertising campaign. A government advertising campaign must not:

• be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
• contain the name, voice or image of a minister, a member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
• contain the name, logo, slogan or any other reference to a political party.

The audit found no breaches of section 6 of the Act in the campaign material reviewed.

All reviewed campaigns were for purposes permitted by section 1.2 of the Guidelines

Section 4 of the Act states that government advertising campaigns are 'the dissemination to members of the public of information about a government program, policy or initiative, or about any public health or safety or other matter'. To support this, section 1.2 of the NSW Government Advertising Guidelines states that government advertising campaigns may only be used to achieve certain objectives. One of these objectives is to encourage changed behaviours or attitudes that will lead to improved public health and safety or quality of life.

The audit team considers that each of the reviewed advertising campaigns was consistent with this objective. This reflects the intent of each of the campaigns to increase economic activity driven by tourism activity in New South Wales, that contributes to improved quality of life for New South Wales residents.

The Acting Chief Executive signed Destination NSW's compliance certificate without supporting evidence

The Acting Chief Executive of Destination NSW signed a single compliance certificate for all Destination NSW campaigns for 2020–21 (including the three campaigns that are considered by this audit) on 28 February 2020. Evidence was not available at this date to support the statements included in the compliance certificate for the campaigns that were considered by this audit.

The compliance certificate is required by section 8 of the Act and states that the head of the agency confirms that a proposed government advertising campaign:

• complies with the Act, the regulations and the Guidelines, and
• contains accurate information, and
• is necessary to achieve a public purpose and is supported by analysis and research, and
• is an efficient and cost-effective means of achieving that public purpose.

At the time of signing the certificate in February 2020, Destination NSW had not conceived, designed or planned any of the campaigns that are considered by this audit, nor had it developed the relevant supporting information that would enable the agency to support these statements. As noted above, peer review had not commenced prior to this date. Further, Destination NSW had not completed a cost-benefit analysis or equivalent analysis.

Without any form of cost-benefit analysis or other evaluation for any of the campaigns prior to the date of signing of the compliance certificate, the Acting Chief Executive had no evidence that could support the certification that the campaigns were 'an efficient and effective means of achieving the public purpose'. The absence of peer review or a cost-benefit analysis also means that the Acting Chief Executive could not certify that the campaigns complied with the Act, the regulations or the Guidelines, nor that the campaign was supported by analysis and research.

Destination NSW did not complete peer reviews for the advertising campaigns before they ended, limiting assurance over campaign effectiveness, efficiency and economy

As all the campaigns subject to this audit were valued at over $250,000, each campaign was required to undergo peer review. The peer review is an independent review of the need for the proposed advertising campaign, the creative and media strategy (including objectives and target audiences) and how the agency will manage the campaign. Ordinarily, a peer review would be completed prior to a campaign commencing, however section 7(4) of the Act permits agencies to carry out a peer review after the advertising campaign commences 'if the head of the government agency concerned is satisfied that the campaign relates to an urgent public health or safety matter or is required in other urgent circumstances'.

DCS supported Destination NSW's assessment that these were urgent campaigns and that it would accept consideration of peer review components in parallel with the roll-out of the advertising campaigns, given the urgency of the need to generate economic activity, initially after the 2019–20 bushfires and then after the challenging circumstances brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is in line with section 7(4) of the Act.

Destination NSW presented and obtained clearance on creative materials and media planning on a timely basis for two of the three campaigns (but not for the Road Trips campaign), which would ordinarily form part of peer review. However, for all campaigns, the peer reviews were not completed or signed off by DCS prior to the completion of advertising campaigns. In particular, Destination NSW did not submit material related to the accountability for campaign effectiveness, including the campaign objectives and measures before the end of the campaigns.

The absence of peer review of much of the material prior to completion of the campaigns reduces the ability of the agency and government to be confident that the advertising expenditure was consistent with NSW Government requirements, or represented efficient, effective and economical use of funds.

Destination NSW noted that section 7(4) of the Act allows the peer review to be completed after the commencement of a campaign in urgent circumstances but places no requirement on it to be completed before the end of the campaign. The audit has determined that for the peer review to meet its intended purpose, being to inform the design and delivery of the advertising campaign, it needs to be completed prior to the end of the campaign, even in urgent circumstances. DCS has supported this intent of the framework.

By the end of September 2021, DCS advised Destination NSW that it would not consider any further material for peer review related to the 2020–21 advertising campaigns. At this time, DCS closed the peer review for the Love NSW and Road Trips campaigns and assessed them as incomplete. DCS assessed the Love Sydney peer review as complete, despite noting that the campaign evaluation was not complete and with no details or confirmation of meeting culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) advertising requirements, including for Aboriginal communities.

DCS did not escalate the issue of outstanding peer review materials

DCS worked at officer level to remind Destination NSW that peer review material was outstanding during the year. While this is appropriate as an initial point of escalation, at no time was the issue of non-compliance escalated to higher levels of management. DCS also never sent formal correspondence requesting the materials needed to ensure the completion of peer review.

DCS does not have a process for ensuring the timely completion of peer review in situations where urgency exemptions are used. There is an opportunity to formalise this process to ensure that there are appropriate escalation points and to ensure that compliance obligations are fulfilled in future.

Destination NSW did not meet the minimum requirement for allocation of the media budget for communications with CALD and Aboriginal audiences

The NSW Government 'CALD and Aboriginal Advertising Policy' stipulates that at least 7.5 per cent of an advertising campaign media budget is to be spent on direct communications to multicultural and Aboriginal audiences. Spend may be on media or non-media communication activities (e.g. events, participation at cultural festivals, direct mail, competitions and websites).

Destination NSW spent only 1.6 per cent of its media spend on culturally and linguistically diverse specific media placement on the 'Sydney - Love It Like You Mean It' campaign and none of its media placement for the other audited campaigns. This level of expenditure is substantially below the requirement.

Destination NSW could not demonstrate how its campaign designs or media placements effectively supported the cultural needs and issues of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. In connection with the 'Sydney - Love It Like You Mean It' campaign, it was noted that timeframes and production issues limited the ability to incorporate culturally diverse individuals in imagery.

Destination NSW advised that it believes the application of a 7.5 per cent threshold for specific audiences is not an effective way to reach these audiences. Destination NSW advised that its advertising was targeted at audiences with a propensity to travel, which did not necessarily include culturally diverse audiences, and its media channel research influenced its decision not to target specific CALD-focussed media channels.

None of the above factors negate Destination NSW's responsibility to ensure that the 'CALD and Aboriginal Advertising Policy' requirements are met.

In addition, Destination NSW also noted a number of non-media activities that supported culturally and linguistically diverse audiences, including translations on the sydney.com website, capturing of culturally and linguistically diverse audiences in production shooting and the production of a range of other collateral for culturally and linguistically diverse audiences. Despite these non-media activities, which Destination NSW did not quantify, the requirement for minimum expenditure in the reviewed campaigns for CALD audiences was not met by Destination NSW.

Destination NSW advised that it believes that the 7.5 per cent requirement does not apply to advertising outside of New South Wales, which the 'Get Your Sydney On', Love NSW and Road Trips campaigns targeted in whole or in part. The 'CALD and Aboriginal Advertising Policy' does not specifically limit its application to advertising for New South Wales residents.

Appendix one – Response to Destination NSW

Appendix two – Response from agencies

Appendix three – About the campaigns

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 #360 - released (23 December 2021).

What the report is about

This audit assessed nine agencies’ compliance with the NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) including whether, during the year to 30 June 2020, the participating agencies:

• met their reporting obligations under the CSP
• reported accurate self-assessments of their level of maturity implementing the CSP’s requirements including the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s (ACSC) Essential 8.

What we found

Key elements to strengthen cyber security governance, controls and culture are not sufficiently robust and not consistently applied. The CSP is not achieving the objectives of improved cyber governance, controls and culture because:

• the CSP does not specify a minimum level for agencies to achieve in implementing the 'mandatory requirements' or the Essential 8
• the CSP does not require agencies to report their target levels, nor does it require risk acceptance decisions to be documented or formally endorsed
• each participating agency had implemented one or more of the mandatory requirements in an ad hoc or inconsistent basis
• none of the participating agencies had implemented all of the Essential 8 controls
• agencies tended to over-assess their cyber security maturity - all nine participating agencies were unable to support all of their self-assessments with evidence
• there is no monitoring of the adequacy or accuracy of agencies' self-assessments.

What we recommended

In this report, we repeat recommendations made in the 2019 and 2020 Central Agencies reports, that Cyber Security NSW and NSW Government agencies need to prioritise improvements to cyber security resilience as a matter of urgency.

Cyber Security NSW should:

• monitor and report compliance with the CSP
• require agencies to report the target and achieved levels of maturity
• require agencies to justify why it is appropriate to target a low level of maturity
• require the agency head to formally accept the residual risk
• challenge agencies' target maturity levels.

Agencies should resolve discrepancies between their reported level of maturity and the level they are able to support with evidence.

Separately, the agencies we audited requested that we not disclose our audit findings. We reluctantly agreed to anonymise our findings, even though they are more than 12 months old. We are of the view that transparency and accountability to the Parliament of New South Wales are part of the solution, not the problem.

The poor levels of agency cyber security maturity are a significant concern. Improvement requires leadership and resourcing.

This report assesses whether state government agencies are complying with the NSW Cyber Security Policy. The audit was based on the level of compliance reported at 30 June 2020.

Our audit identified non-compliance and significant weaknesses against the government’s policy.

Audited agencies have requested that we not report the findings of this audit to the Parliament of New South Wales, even though the findings are more than 12 months old, believing that the audit report would expose their weaknesses to threat actors.

I have reluctantly agreed to modify my report to anonymise agencies and their specific failings because the vulnerabilities identified have not yet been remedied. Time, leadership and prioritised action should have been sufficient for agencies to improve their cyber safeguards. I am of the view that transparency and accountability to the Parliament is part of the solution, not the problem.

The poor levels of cyber security maturity are a significant concern. Improvement requires dedicated leadership and resourcing. To comply with some elements of the government’s policy agencies will have to invest in technical uplift and some measures may take time to implement. However, other elements of the policy do not require any investment in technology. They simply require leadership and management commitment to improve cyber literacy and culture. And they require accountability and transparency. Transparent reporting of performance is a key means to improve performance.

Cyber security is increasingly a focus of governments around Australia. The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) is the Australian Government’s lead agency for cyber security and is part of the Australian Signals Directorate, a statutory authority within the Australian Government’s Defence portfolio. The ACSC has advised that government agencies at all levels, as well as individuals and other organisations were increasingly targeted over the 2021 financial year¹. The ACSC received over 67,500 cybercrime reports, a 13 per cent increase on the previous year. This equates to one reported cyber attack every eight minutes. They also noted that attacks by cyber criminals and state actors are becoming increasingly sophisticated and complex and that the attacks are increasingly likely to be categorised as ‘substantial’ in impact.

High profile attacks in Australia and overseas have included a sustained malware campaign targeted at the health sector², a phishing campaign deploying emotet malware, spear phishing campaigns targeting people with administrator or other high-level access, and denial of service attacks. The continuing trend towards digital delivery of government services has increased the vulnerability of organisations to cyber threats.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased these risks. It has increased Australian dependence on the internet – to work remotely, to access services and information, and to communicate and continue our daily lives. Traditional security policies within an organisation’s perimeter are harder to enforce in networks made up of home and other private networks, and assets the organisation does not manage. This has increased the cyber risks for NSW Government agencies.

In March 2020, Service NSW suffered two cyber security incidents in short succession. Technical analysis undertaken by the Department of Customer Service (DCS) concluded that these cyber breaches resulted from a phishing exercise through which external threat actors gained access to the email accounts of 47 staff members. These attacks resulted in the breach of a large amount of personal customer information contained in these email accounts. These attacks were the subject of the Auditor-General's report on Service NSW's handling of personal information tabled on 18 December 2020.

This audit also follows two significant performance audits. Managing cyber risks, tabled on 13 July 2021 found Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains were not effectively managing their cyber security risks. Integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register, tabled 7 April 2020 found that although there are controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the register, there were significant gaps in these controls.

The NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) was issued by Cyber Security NSW, a business unit within the Department of Customer Service, and took effect from 1 February 2019. It applies to all NSW Government departments and public service agencies, including statutory authorities. Of the 104 agencies in the NSW public sector that self-assessed their maturity implementing the mandatory requirements, only five assessed their maturity at level three or above (on the five point maturity scale). This means that, according to their own self-assessments, 99 agencies practiced requirements within the framework in what the CSP’s maturity model describes as an ad hoc manner, or they did not practice the requirement at all. Cyber Security NSW and NSW Government agencies need to prioritise improvements to their cybersecurity and resilience as a matter of priority.

This audit looks specifically at the compliance of nine key agencies with the CSP. It looks at their achievement implementing the requirements of the policy, the accuracy of their self-assessments and the attestations they made as to their compliance with the CSP.

The CSP outlines the mandatory requirements to which all NSW Government departments and public service agencies must adhere. It seeks to ensure cyber security risks to agencies’ information and systems are appropriately managed. The key areas of responsibility for agencies are:

• Lead - Agencies must implement cyber security planning and governance and report against the requirements outlined in the CSP and other cyber security measures.
• Prepare - Agencies must build and support a cyber security culture across their agency and NSW Government more broadly.
• Prevent - Agencies must manage cyber security risks to safeguard and secure their information and systems.
• Detect/Respond/Recover - Agencies must improve their resilience including their ability to rapidly detect cyber incidents and respond appropriately.
• Report - Agencies must report against the requirements outlined in the CSP and other cyber security measures.

DCS has only recommended, but not mandated the CSP for state owned corporations, local councils and universities.

NSW Government agencies must include an attestation on cyber security in their annual report and provide a copy to Cyber Security NSW by 31 August each year stating whether, for the preceding financial year, the agency has:

• assessed its cyber security risks
• appropriately addressed cyber security at agency governance forums
• a cyber incident response plan that is integrated with the security components of business continuity arrangements, and the response plan has been tested during the previous 12 months (involving senior business executives)
• certified the agency’s Information Security Management System (ISMS) or confirmed the agency’s Cyber Security Framework (CSF)
• a plan to continuously improve the management of cyber security governance and resilience.

The purpose of the attestation is to focus the agency's attention on its cyber risks and the mitigation of those risks.

Agencies assess their level of compliance in accordance with a maturity model. The CSP does not mandate a minimum maturity threshold for any requirement, including implementation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre's (ACSC) Essential 8 Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents (Essential 8).

Agencies are required to set a target maturity level based on their risk appetite for each requirement, seek continual improvement in their maturity, and annually assess their maturity on an ascending scale of one to five for all requirements (refer to Appendix two for the maturity model). Each control within the Essential 8 is assessed on an ascending scale of zero to three reflecting the agency's level of alignment with the strategy (refer to Appendix three for the maturity model).

Scope of this audit

We assessed whether agencies had provided accurate reporting on their level of maturity implementing the requirements of the CSP in a documented way and covering all their systems.

The scope of this audit covered nine agencies (the participating agencies). These agencies were selected because they are the lead agency in their cluster, or have a significant digital presence within their respective cluster. The list of participating agencies is in section 1.2. The audit aimed to determine whether, during the year to 30th June 2020, the participating agencies:

• met their reporting obligations under the CSP
• provided accurate reporting in self-assessments against the CSP’s mandatory requirements, including their implementation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s (ACSC) Essential 8
• achieved implementation of mandatory requirements at maturity levels which meet or exceed the ‘level three - defined’ threshold (i.e. are documented and practiced on a regular and consistent basis).

While the audit does assess the accuracy of agency self-assessed ratings, the audit did not assess the appropriateness of the maturity ratings.

1. Key findings

The CSP allows agencies to determine their own level of maturity to implement the 'mandatory requirements', which can include not practicing a policy requirement or implementing a policy requirement on an ad hoc basis. These determinations do not need to be justified

Agencies can decide not to implement requirements of the CSP, or they can decide to implement them only in an informal or ad-hoc manner. The CSP allows agencies to determine their desired level of maturity in implementing the requirements on a scale of one to five - level one being 'initial – not practiced' and level five being 'optimised'. The desired level of maturity is determined by the agency based on their own assessment of the risk of the services they provide and the information they hold.

The reporting template for the 2019 version of the CSP stated that level three maturity - where a policy requirement is practiced on a regular and consistent basis and its processes are documented - was required for compliance with the CSP. This requirement was removed in the 2020 revision of the reporting template.

This CSP does not require the decisions on risk tolerance, or the timeframes agencies have set to implement requirements to be documented or formally endorsed by the agency head. There is no requirement to report these decisions to Cyber Security NSW.

Some comparable jurisdictions require formal risk acceptance decisions where requirements are not implemented. The NSW CSP does not have a similar formal requirement

Some jurisdictions, with a similar policy framework to NSW, require agencies to demonstrate reasons for not implementing requirements, and require agency heads to formally acknowledge the residual risk. The NSW CSP does not require these considerations to be documented, nor does it require an explicit acknowledgement and acceptance of the residual risk by the agency head or Cyber Security NSW. The NSW CSP does not require that the records of how agencies considered and decided which measures to adopt to be documented and auditable, limiting transparency and accountability of decisions made.

All of the participating agencies had implemented one or more of the mandatory requirements in an ad hoc or inconsistent basis

All of the participating agencies had implemented one or more of the mandatory requirements at level one or two. Maturity below level three typically means not all elements of the requirement have been implemented, or the requirements have been implemented on an ad-hoc or inconsistent basis.

None of the participating agencies has implemented all of the Essential 8 controls at level one – that is, only partly aligned with the intent of the mitigation strategy

Eight of the nine agencies we audited had not implemented any of the Essential 8 strategies to level three – that is, fully aligned with the intent of the mitigation strategy. At the time of this audit the ACSC advised that:

as a baseline organisations should aim to reach to reach Maturity Level Three for each mitigation strategy³.

The Australian Signals Directorate⁴ currently advises that, with respect to the Essential 8:

[even] level three maturity will not stop adversaries willing and able to invest enough time, money and effort to compromise a target. As such, organisations still need to consider the remainder of the mitigation strategies from the Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and the Australian Government Information Security Manual

All agencies failed to reach even level one maturity for at least three of the Essential 8.

Cyber Security NSW modified the ACSC model for implementation of the Essential 8

The NSW maturity model used for the Essential 8 does not fully align with the ACSC’s model. At the time of this audit the major difference was the inclusion of level zero in the NSW CSP maturity scale. Level zero broadly means that the relevant cyber mitigation strategy is not implemented or is not applied consistently. Level zero had been removed by the ACSC in February 2019 and was not part of the framework at the time of this audit. It was re-introduced in July 2021 when the ACSC revised the detailed criteria for each element of the essential 8 maturity model. The indicators to reach level one on the new ACSC model are more detailed, specific and rigorous than those currently prescribed for NSW Government agencies. Cyber Security NSW asserted the level zero on the CSP maturity scale:

is not identical to the level zero of the ACSC’s previous Essential 8 maturity model, but is a NSW-specific inclusion designed to prevent agencies incorrectly assessing as level one when they have not achieved that level.

Attestations did not accurately reflect whether agencies implemented the requirements

Of the nine participating agencies, seven did not modify the proforma wording in their attestation to reflect their actual situation. Despite known gaps in their implementation of mandatory requirements, these agencies stated that they had 'managed cyber security risks in a manner consistent with the Mandatory Requirements set out in the NSW Government Cyber Security Policy'. Only two agencies modified the wording of the attestation to reflect their actual situation.

Attestations should be accurate so that agencies’ and the government’s response to the risk of cyber attack is properly informed by an understanding of the gaps in agency implementation of the policy requirements and the Essential 8. Without accurate information about these gaps, subsequent decisions as to prioritisation of effort and deployment of resources are unlikely to effectively mitigate the risks faced by NSW Government agencies.

Participating agencies were not able to support all of their self-assessments with evidence and had overstated their maturity assessments, limiting the effectiveness of agency risk management approaches

Seven of the nine participating agencies reported levels of maturity against both the mandatory requirements and the Essential 8 that were not supported by evidence.

Each of the nine participating agencies for this audit had overstated their level of maturity against at least one of the 20 mandatory requirements. Seven agencies were not able to provide evidence to support their self-assessed ratings for the Essential 8 controls.

Where agency staff over-assess the current state of their cyber resilience, it can undermine the effectiveness of subsequent decision making by Agency Heads and those charged with governance. It means that actions taken in mitigating cyber risks are less likely to be appropriate and that gaps in implementing cyber security measures will remain, exposing them to cyber attack.

Agencies' self-assessments across government exposed poor levels of maturity in implementing the mandatory requirements and the Essential 8 controls

We reviewed the data 104 NSW agencies provided to Cyber Security NSW. The 104 agencies includes nine audited agencies referred to in more detail in this report. Our review of the 104 agency self-assessment returns submitted to Cyber Security NSW highlighted that, consistent with previous years, there remains reported poor levels of cyber security maturity. We reported the previous years’ self-assessments in the Central Agencies 2019 Report to Parliament and the Central Agencies 2020 Report to Parliament.

Only five out of the 104 agencies self-assessed that they had implemented all of the mandatory requirements at level three or above (against the five point scale). Fourteen agencies self-assessed that they had implemented each of the Essential 8 controls at level one maturity or higher (using Cyber NSW’s four point scale). The remainder reported at level zero for implementation of one or more of the Essential 8 controls, meaning that for the majority of agencies the cyber mitigation strategy has not been implemented, or is applied inconsistently.

Where agencies had reported in both 2019 and 2020, agencies’ self-assessments showed little improvement over the previous year’s self-assessments:

• 14 agencies reported improvement across both the Essential 8 and the mandatory requirements
• 8 agencies reported a net decline in both the Essential 8 and the mandatory requirements.

The poor levels of maturity in implementing the Essential 8 over the last couple of years is an area of significant concern that requires better leadership and resourcing to prioritise the required significant improvement in agency cyber security measures.

2. Recommendations

Cyber Security NSW should:

1. monitor and report compliance with the CSP by:

• obtaining objective assurance over the accuracy of self-assessments
• requiring agencies to resolve inaccurate or anomalous self-assessments where these are apparent

2. require agencies to report:

• the target level of maturity for each mandatory requirement they have determined appropriate for their agency
• the agency head's acceptance of the residual risk where the target levels are low

3. identify and challenge discrepancies between agencies' target maturity levels and the risks of the information they hold and services they provide

4. more closely align their policy with the most current version of the ACSC model.

Participating agencies should:

5. resolve the discrepancies between their reported level of maturity and the level they are able to demonstrate with evidence, and:

• compile and retain in accessible form the artefacts that demonstrate the basis of their self-assessments
• refer to the CSP guidance when determining their current level of maturity
• ensure the attestations they make refer to departures from the CSP
• have processes whereby the agency head and those charged with governance formally accept the residual cyber risks.

Repeat recommendation from the 2019 Central Agencies report and the 2020 Central Agencies report

6. Cyber Security NSW and NSW Government agencies need to prioritise improvements to their cyber security and resilience as a matter of urgency.

The objective of the CSP is to ensure cyber security risks are appropriately managed. However, meeting this objective depends on the requirements being implemented at all agencies to a level of maturity that addresses their specific cyber security risks. Agency systems and data are increasingly interconnected. If an agency does not implement the requirements, or implements them only in an ad-hoc or informal way, an agency is more susceptible to their systems and data being compromised, which may affect the confidentiality of citizens' data and the reliability of services, including critical infrastructure services.

Agencies determine their own target level of maturity, which may mean the requirement is not addressed, or is addressed in an ad hoc or inconsistent way

While the CSP is mandatory for all agencies, it does not set a minimum maturity threshold for agencies to meet.

The reporting template issued in 2019 stated that agencies were required to reach level three maturity in order to comply with the CSP. The 2020 revision⁶ of the CSP and guidance indicates that level three maturity may not be sufficient to mitigate risks. It advises the agency may determine the level to which it believes it is suitable to implement the requirements, and allows for an agency to aim for a target level of maturity less than level three. The agency can set its optimal maturity level with reference to its risk tolerance with the objective that that aim ‘to be as high as possible’. However, ‘as high as possible’ does not necessarily mean ‘fully implemented’. The CSP contemplates that a lower level of maturity is sufficient if it aligns with the agency's risk tolerance.

The Department of Customer Service asserts that while the quotes above were part of their annual templates and policy documents, their documents were incorrect. They assert that the policy has never required a minimum level of maturity to be reached. They have responded to our enquiries that:

…a level three maturity was not a requirement of the Policy or Maturity Model’ and ‘it is misleading to suggest it was a requirement of the Policy.

This audit found that, based on the 2020 reporting template there is no established minimum baseline. Consequently, because the Department of Customer Service had not established a minimum baseline agencies are able to target lower levels (providing they were within the agency’s own risk appetite), which includes targeting to not practice a CSP policy requirement, or to practice a CSP policy requirement on an ad hoc basis.

Where requirements are not implemented, documentation of formal acceptance of the residual risks by the agency head is not required

The New Zealand Government has an approach that is not dissimilar to NSW, in that it also identifies 20 mandatory requirements and allows for a risk based approach to implementation. However, the New Zealand approach puts more rigor around risk acceptance decisions.

The New Zealand Government requires that agencies that do not implement the requirements must demonstrate that a measure is not relevant for them. It requires agencies to document the rationale for not implementing the measure, including explicit acknowledgement of the residual risk by the agency head. They require these records to be auditable.

A security measure with a ‘must’ or ‘must not’ compliance requirement is mandatory. You must implement or follow mandatory security measures unless you can demonstrate that a measure is not relevant in your context.

Not using a security measure without due consideration may increase residual risk for your organisation. This residual risk needs to be agreed and acknowledged by your organisation head.

A formal auditable record of how you considered and decided which measures to adopt is required as part of the governance and assurance processes within your organisation.

The NSW CSP does not require these considerations to be documented or auditable and does not require an explicit acknowledgement or acceptance of the residual risk by the agency head.

None of the participating agencies achieved level three implementation for all mandatory risk prevention and mitigation requirements

Maturity level three is the minimum level whereby an agency has implemented documented processes that are practiced on a regular basis across their environment. An agency has not reached level three if the requirement is implemented on an ad-hoc or inconsistent basis, or if not all elements of the requirement have been implemented.

None of the participating agencies achieved level three implementation for all mandatory requirements.

The requirements of the CSP are organised into five sections. Agency implementation of these requirements is discussed in the next five sections of this report.

• Lead: Planning and governance requirements. Section 2.1
• Prepare: Cyber security culture requirements. Section 2.2
• Prevent: Managing cyber incident prevention requirements. Section 2.3
• Detect/Respond/Recover: Resilience requirements. Section 2.4
• Report: Reporting requirements. Section 2.5.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – The maturity model for the mandatory requirements

Appendix three – Essential 8 maturity model

Appendix four – About the audit

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.

What the report is about

This audit assessed how effectively Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Sydney Trains identify and manage their cyber security risks.

The NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP) sets out 25 mandatory requirements for agencies, including implementing the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s Essential 8 strategies to mitigate cyber security incidents, and identifying the agency’s most vital systems, their ‘crown jewels’. 

The audited agencies have requested that we do not disclose detail of the significant vulnerabilities detected during the audit, as these vulnerabilities are not yet remediated. We provided a detailed report to the agencies in December 2020 outlining significant issues identified in the audit. We have conceded to the agencies' request but it is disappointing that transparency to the Parliament and the public on issues that potentially directly affect them needs to be limited in this way.

What we found

TfNSW and Sydney Trains are not effectively managing their cyber security risks.

Both agencies have assessed their cyber security risks as unacceptably high and both agencies had not identified all of the risks we detected during this audit – some of which are significant.

Both agencies have cyber security plans in place that aim to address cyber security risks. TfNSW and Sydney Trains have combined this into the Transport Cyber Defence Rolling Program, part of the Cyber Defence Portfolio (CDP). 

However, neither agency has reached its target ratings for the CSP and the Essential 8 and maturity is low in relation to significant risks and vulnerabilities exposed.

Further, neither agency is fostering a culture where cyber security risk management is an important and valued aspect of decision-making.

TfNSW is not implementing cyber security training effectively across the cluster with only 7.2% of staff having completed basic cyber security training.

What we recommended

TfNSW and Sydney Trains should:

• develop and implement a plan to uplift the Essential 8 controls to the agency's target state
• as a matter of priority, address the vulnerabilities identified as part of this audit and previously described in a detailed Audit Office report provided to both agencies
• ensure cyber security risk reporting to executives and the Audit and Risk Committee
• collect supporting information for the CSP self assessments 
• classify all information and systems according to importance and integrate this with the crown jewels identification process
• require more rigorous analysis to re-prioritise CDP funding 
• increase uptake of cyber security training.

TfNSW should assess the appropriateness of its target rating for each of the CSP mandatory requirements.

Department of Customer Service should:

• clarify the requirement for the CSP reporting to apply to all systems
• require agencies to report the target level of maturity for each mandatory requirement.

Response to requests by audited agencies to remove information from this report

In preparing this audit report, I have considered how best to balance the need to support public accountability and transparency with the need to avoid revealing information that could pose additional risk to agencies’ systems. This has involved an assessment of the appropriate level of detail to include in the report about the cyber security vulnerabilities identified in this audit.

In making this assessment, the audit team consulted with Transport for NSW (TfNSW), Sydney Trains, and Cyber Security NSW to identify content which could potentially pose a threat to the agencies’ cyber security.

In December 2020, my office also provided TfNSW and Sydney Trains with a detailed report of many of the significant vulnerabilities identified in this audit, to enable the agencies to address the cyber security risks identified. The detailed report was produced as a result of a 'red team' exercise, which was conducted with both agencies' knowledge and consent. The scope of this exercise reflected the significant input provided by both agencies. More information on this exercise is at page 12 of this report.

TfNSW and Sydney Trains have advised that in the six months from December 2020 and at the time of tabling this audit report, they have not yet remediated all the vulnerabilities identified. As a result, they, along with Cyber Security NSW, have requested that we not disclose all information contained in this audit report to reduce the likelihood of an attack on their systems and resulting harm to the community. I have conceded to this request because the vulnerabilities identified have not yet been remediated and leave the agencies exposed to significant risk.

It should be stressed that the risks identified in the detailed report exist due to the continued presence of these previously identified vulnerabilities, rather than due to their potential publication. The audited agencies, alone, are accountable for remediating these vulnerabilities and addressing the risks they pose.

It is disappointing that transparency to the Parliament and the public on issues that potentially directly affect them needs to be limited in this way.

That said, the conclusions drawn in this report are significant in terms of risk and remain valid, and the recommendations should be acted upon with urgency.

Cyber security risk is an increasing area of concern for governments in Australia and around the world. In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile cyber security attacks on government entities in Australia, including in New South Wales. Malicious cyber activity in Australia is increasing in frequency, scale, and sophistication. The Audit Office of New South Wales is responding to these risks with a program of audits in this area, which aim to identify the effectiveness of particular agencies in managing cyber risks, as well as their compliance with relevant policy.

Cyber Security NSW, part of the Department of Customer Service (DCS) releases and manages the NSW Cyber Security Policy (CSP). The CSP sets out 25 mandatory requirements for agencies, including making it mandatory for agencies to implement the Australian Cyber Security Centre Essential 8 Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents (the Essential 8). The Essential 8 are key controls which serve as a baseline set of protections which agencies can put in place to make it more difficult for adversaries to compromise a system. Agencies are required to self-assess their maturity against the CSP and the Essential 8, and report that assessment to Cyber Security NSW annually.

The CSP makes agencies responsible for identifying and managing their cyber security risks. The CSP sets out responsibilities and governance regarding risk identification, including making agencies responsible for identifying their 'crown jewels', the agency's most valuable and operationally vital systems. Once these risks are identified, agencies are responsible for developing a cyber security plan to mitigate those risks.

This audit focussed on two agencies: Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Sydney Trains. TfNSW is the lead agency for the Transport cluster and provides a number of IT services to the entire cluster, including Sydney Trains. This audit focussed on the activities of TfNSW's Transport IT function, which is responsible for providing cyber security across the cluster, as well as directly overseeing four of TfNSW's crown jewels. Sydney Trains is one of the agencies in the Transport cluster. While it receives some services from TfNSW, it is also responsible for implementing its own IT controls, as well as controls to protect its Operational Technology (OT) environment. This OT environment includes systems which are necessary for the operation and safety of the train network.

To test the mitigations in place and the effectiveness of controls, this audit involved a 'red team' simulated exercise. A red team involves authorised attackers seeking to achieve certain objectives within the target's environment. The red team simulated a determined external cyber threat actor seeking to gain access to TfNSW's systems. The red team also sought to test the physical security of some Sydney Trains' sites relevant to the agency's cyber security. The red team exercise was conducted with the knowledge of TfNSW and Sydney Trains.

This audit included the Department of Customer Service as an auditee, as they have ownership of the CSP through Cyber Security NSW. This audit did not examine the management of cyber risk in the Department of Customer Service.

This audit assessed how effectively selected agencies identify and manage their cyber security risks. The audit assessed this with the following criteria:

• Are agencies effectively identifying and planning for their cyber security risks?
• Are agencies effectively managing their cyber security risks?

Following this in-depth portfolio assessment, the Auditor-General for NSW will also table a report on NSW agencies' compliance with the CSP in the first quarter of 2021–22.

Agencies have assessed their cyber risks as being above acceptable levels

An agency's risk tolerance is the amount of risk which the agency will accept or tolerate without developing further strategies to modify the level of risk. Risks that are within an agency's risk tolerance may not require further mitigation and may be deemed acceptable, while risks which are above the agency's risk tolerance likely require further mitigation before they become acceptable to the agency.

Both agencies have defined their risk tolerance and have identified risks which are above this level, indicating that they are unacceptable to the agency. TfNSW has defined 'very high' risks as generally intolerable and 'high' risks as undesirable. Its risk tolerance is 'medium'. Sydney Trains has four classifications of risk: A, B, C and D. A and B risks are deemed 'unacceptable' and 'undesirable' respectively, while C risks are considered 'tolerable'. This aligns with the TfNSW definition of a medium risk tolerance.

Transport IT reported five enterprise-level cyber security risks through its enterprise risk reporting tool in September 2020, all of which relate to cyber security or have causes relating to cyber security. These risks are in aggregate form, rather than relating to specific vulnerabilities. At the time of the audit, one of these risks was rated as very high and the other four rated as high. At this time, Transport IT had identified a further seven divisional-level risks which were above the agency’s risk tolerance.

Similarly, Sydney Trains has identified one main cyber security risk in its IT enterprise-level risk register and another with a potential cyber cause. Both of these IT risks are deemed to have a residual risk of ‘unacceptable’.

Similarly, two cyber-related OT risks have been determined to be above the agency's risk tolerance. One risk is rated as 'unacceptable'. Another risk, while not entirely cyber rated, is rated 'undesirable' and is deemed to have some causes which may stem from a cyber-attack.

Agencies have assessed their current cyber risk mitigations as requiring improvement

In addition to the risk ratings stated above, at the time of the audit neither agency believed that its controls were operating effectively. Transport IT had rated the control environments for its cyber security enterprise risks as 'requires improvement'. Mitigations were listed in the risk register for these risks but, in some cases, they were unlikely to reduce the risk to the target state or by the target date. For example, one risk had actions listed as 'under review' and no further treatment actions listed, but a due date of July 2021, while another risk was being treated by the CDP with a due date of July 2021. The CDP identified in May 2020 that while the average risk identified as part of that program will be reduced to a medium level by this date, ten high risks will still remain. Given the delays in the program, this number may be higher. As such, it seems unlikely that the enterprise risk will be reduced to below a 'high' level by July 2021.

Sydney Trains’ IT and OT risk registers cross-reference controls and mitigations against the causes and consequences. The IT cyber security risk identified in the register had causes with no mitigations designed for them. Further, some of these causes did not have future mitigations designed for them. This risk also had controls in place which are identified as partially effective. For the unacceptable OT risk noted above, while there was a control designed for each of the potential causes, Sydney Trains had identified all of the controls in place as either partially effective or ineffective. This indicates that Sydney Trains was not effectively mitigating the causes of its cyber risks and, even where it had designed controls or mitigations, these were not always implemented to fully mitigate the cause of the risk.

Additional information on gaps in cyber mitigations which were exposed in the course of this audit has been detailed to both agencies. The Foreword of this report provides information about why this detail is not included here.

Essential 8 maturity is low across TfNSW and Sydney Trains and little progress was made in 2020

CSP mandatory requirement 3.2 states that agencies must implement the ACSC Essential 8. Agencies must also rate themselves against each of the Essential 8 on a maturity scale from zero to three and report this to Cyber Security NSW. A full list of the Essential 8 can be found in Exhibit 1. Both agencies have a low level of maturity against the Essential 8 not just in comparison to the targets they have set, but also in relation to the risks and vulnerabilities exposed. Both agencies have set target maturity ratings for the Essential 8 but none of the Essential 8 ratings across either agency are currently implemented to this level. Having a low level of Essential 8 maturity exposes both agencies to significant risks and vulnerabilities. Little progress was made between the 2019 and 2020 attestation periods.

Transport IT has set a target rating of three across all of the Essential 8. Sydney Trains has set a target rating of three for its IT systems. Sydney Trains had an interim target of two for its OT systems in 2020 and advised that this has since increased to three. It should be noted that not all the Essential 8 are applicable to OT systems.

None of the Essential 8 ratings across either agency are currently implemented to the target levels. Given that the Essential 8 provide the controls which are most commonly able to deter cyber-attacks, having maturity at a low level potentially exposes agencies to a cyber security attack.

Some work is underway across both TfNSW and Sydney Trains to improve the Essential 8 control ratings. The CDP provided some resources to the Essential 8 over 2019–20, with uplift focusing on specific systems. The CDP work in 2019 and 2020 relevant to the Essential 8 largely focussed on determining the current state of the Essential 8 and creating a target state roadmap. As a result, there was little improvement between the 2019 and 2020 attestation periods. The CDP has a workstream for the Essential 8 in its FY 2020–21 funding allocation, however as noted above in Exhibit 6 this was delayed as resources were redeployed to Project La Brea. Regardless, work on some specific aspects of the Essential 8 remain part of the 2020–21 CDP allocation, with workstreams allocated to improving three of the Essential 8. In addition, some work from Project La Brea should lead to an improvement in the Essential 8.

Sydney Trains' Cyber Uplift Program included a workstream which had in scope the uplift in the Essential 8 in IT. There were also other workstreams which aimed to improve some of the Essential 8 for OT systems. Work is also ongoing as part of the CDP to uplift these scores in Sydney Trains.

TfNSW and Sydney Trains have not reached their target maturity across the CSP mandatory requirements and TfNSW has not evaluated its cluster-wide target to ensure it is appropriate

Cyber Security NSW allows each agency to determine its target level of maturity for the first 20 CSP mandatory requirements. Agencies can tailor their target levels to their risk profile. Not reaching the target rating of the CSP mandatory requirements risks information and systems being managed inconsistently or not in alignment with good governance principles.

Sydney Trains has set its target level of maturity for IT and OT. All of Sydney Trains' target maturity levels are at least a three (defined), with a target of four (quantitatively managed) for many of the mandatory requirements. While Cyber Security NSW does not currently mandate a minimum level of maturity, in 2019 there was a requirement for each agency to target a minimum level of three.

Sydney Trains has not met its target ratings across the mandatory requirements.

The Transport Cyber Defence Rolling Program has a program KPI to ensure that the entire cluster reaches a minimum maturity level of three against all the CSP requirements by 2023. TfNSW has not reviewed its CSP mandatory requirement targets to determine if a three is desirable for all requirements or if a higher target level may be more appropriate. It is important for senior management to set cyber security objectives as a demonstration of leadership and a commitment to cyber security.

TfNSW has not met its target ratings across the mandatory requirements for its Group IT ISMS, which was the focus of this audit.

Both agencies claimed progress in their implementation of the mandatory requirements between 2019 and 2020. The audit did not seek to verify the self-assessed results from either agency.

Both agencies operate ISMS in line with the CSP

CSP mandatory requirement 3.1 requires agencies to implement an Information Security Management System (ISMS) or Cyber Security Framework (CSF), with scope at least covering systems identified as the agency's ‘crown jewels’. The ISMS or CSF should be compliant with, or modelled on, one or more recognised IT or OT standard. As noted in the introduction, an ISMS ‘consists of the policies, procedures, guidelines, and associated resources and activities, collectively managed by an organisation, in the pursuit of protecting its information assets.’ Both agencies operate an ISMS compliant with the CSP requirement.

As noted in the introduction, TfNSW operates four ISMS. The Transport IT ISMS is certified against ISO27001, the most common standard for ISMS certification. Three of TfNSW’s six crown jewels are managed within this ISMS. The other ISMS are not certified to relevant standards, though TfNSW claims that they align with relevant controls. This is sufficient for the purposes of the CSP.

Sydney Trains operates two ISMS, one for IT and another for OT. Neither of these are certified to relevant ISMS Standards, however there have been conformance reviews of both IT and OT with relevant standards. These ISMS cover all crown jewels in the agency.

There are currently 11 ISMS in operation across the Transport cluster. TfNSW has proposed moving towards a holistic approach to these ISMS, with the CDP Board responsible for governing the available security controls and directing agency IT and OT teams to implement these.

Agencies are not routinely conducting audits of third-party suppliers to ensure compliance with contractual obligations

CSP mandatory requirement 1.5 makes agencies accountable for the cyber risks of their ICT service providers and ensuring that providers comply with the CSP and any other relevant agency security policies. The ACSC has provided advice on what organisations should do when managing third party suppliers of ICT. The ACSC advises that organisations should use contracts to define cyber security expectations and seek assurance to ensure that these contract expectations are being met. While both agencies usually include specific cyber security expectations in contracts, neither is routinely seeking assurance that these expectations are being met.

The NSW Government has mandated the use of the 'Core& One' contract template for low-value IT procurements and the Procure IT contract template for high-value IT procurements. Both of these contracts contain space for the procuring agency to include cyber security controls for the contractor to implement. The Procure IT contract template also includes a right-to-audit clause which allows agencies to receive assurance around the implementation of these controls. TfNSW and Sydney Trains used the mandated contracts for relevant contracts examined as part of this audit.

TfNSW included security controls in all the contracts examined as part of this audit. Compliance with ISO27001 was the most commonly stated security expectation. Of the contracts examined as part of this audit, only one contract did not have a right-to-audit clause. This contract was signed in October 2016. While these clauses are in place, TfNSW rarely conducted these audits on its third-party providers. Of the eight TfNSW contracts examined in detail, only two of these had been audited to confirm compliance with the stated security controls.

Sydney Trains included security controls in all but one of the contracts examined as part of this audit. Sydney Trains did not require contractors to be compliant with ISO27001, but only required compliance with whole-of-government policies. Sydney Trains does not routinely conduct audits of its third-party suppliers, however it did conduct deep-dive risk analyses of its top ten highest risk IT suppliers. This involved a detailed review of both the suppliers' security posture and also the contract underpinning the relationship with the supplier.

The CDP funding for 2020–21 includes a workstream for strategic third-party contract remediation. This funding is to conduct some foundational work which will allow the CDP to make further improvements in future years. While this funding will not address gaps in contract requirements or management across all contracts, this workstream aims to reduce the risks posed by strategic suppliers covering critical assets. Similarly, work is currently underway as part of the CDP to conduct OT risk assessments for key suppliers to Sydney Trains in a similar way to the work undertaken for IT suppliers.

Sydney Trains has risk assessed its third-party suppliers but TfNSW has not done so

It is important to conduct a risk assessment of suppliers to identify high-risk contractors. This allows agencies to identify those contractors who may require additional controls stated in the contract, those who require additional oversight, and also where auditing resources are best targeted.

Sydney Trains has risk assessed all its IT suppliers and, as noted above, has conducted a deep-dive risk analysis of its top ten highest risk suppliers. TfNSW has not undertaken similar analysis of its key suppliers, however it has identified risks attached to each of its strategic suppliers and has documented these. As a result of not risk assessing its suppliers, TfNSW cannot take a targeted approach to its contract management.

TfNSW demonstrated poor records handling relating to the contracts examined as part of this audit

TfNSW was not able to locate one of the contracts requested as part of the audit's sample. Other documentation, such as contract management plans, could not be located for many of the other contracts requested as part of this audit. These poor document handling practices limits TfNSW's ability to effectively oversee service providers and ensure that they are implementing agreed controls. It also limits public transparency on the effectiveness of these controls.

The Transport cluster is not effectively implementing cyber security awareness training

Agencies are responsible for implementing regular cyber security education for all employees and contractors under mandatory requirement 2.1 in the CSP. TfNSW is responsible for delivering this training to the whole Transport cluster, including Sydney Trains. The Transport cluster has basic cyber awareness training available for all staff. TfNSW also offers additional training provided by Cyber Security NSW targeted at executives and executive assistants. While TfNSW has training available to staff, it is not delivering this effectively. TfNSW does not make training mandatory for most staff nor does it require staff to repeat training regularly. Even among those staff who have been assigned the training, completion rates are low, meaning that delivery is not effectively monitored. Cyber security training is important for building and supporting a cyber security culture.

TfNSW is responsible for creating and rolling out all forms of training to agencies within the Transport cluster. Both TfNSW and Sydney Trains have the same mandatory cyber awareness training that is automatically assigned to new starters. At the time of the audit, this training was not mandatory for ongoing staff. TfNSW does make additional cyber security training available to staff who can choose to undertake the training themselves, or can be assigned the training by their manager. All TfNSW cyber security training is delivered via online modules and it is the responsibility of managers to ensure that it is completed.

Cyber security training completion rates for both TfNSW and Sydney Trains are low. Only 13.5 per cent of staff across the Transport cluster had been assigned the Cyber Safety for New Starters training as of January 2021. Although this course is mandatory for new starters, only 53 per cent of staff assigned the Cyber Safety for New Starters training module had completed the course by January 2021. As a result, only 7.2 per cent of staff across the entire Transport cluster had completed this training at that time. In Sydney Trains, less than one per cent of staff had completed this training as at January 2021 and a further 7.6 per cent of staff have completed the 'Cyber Security: Beyond the Basics' training. These low completion rates indicate that TfNSW is not effectively rolling out cyber security training across the cluster.

In October 2020, the Department of Customer Service released 'DCS-2020-05 Cyber Security NSW Directive - Practice Requirement for NSW Government', which made annual cyber security training mandatory for all staff from 2021. In line with this requirement, TfNSW has advised that it will be gradually implementing mandatory annual training from July 2021 for all staff.

The Transport cluster undertakes activities to build a cyber-aware culture in accordance with the CSP, but awareness remains low

Increasing staff awareness of cyber security risks and maintaining a cyber secure culture are both mandatory requirements of the CSP. While TfNSW does undertake some activities to build a cyber aware culture, awareness of cyber security risks remains low. This can be demonstrated by the low training rates outlined above, and the 'Spot the Scammer' exercise, described in Exhibit 7. TfNSW is responsible for delivering these awareness raising activities across the cluster.

TfNSW frequently communicates with staff across the Transport cluster about various cyber security risks through multiple avenues. Both agencies use the intranet, emails and other awareness raising activities to highlight the importance for staff to be aware of the seriousness of cyber risks. Advice given on the intranet includes tips for spotting scammers on mobile phones, promoting the cluster-wide training courses, as well as various advice that staff could use when dealing with cyber risks in the workplace.

In addition to these awareness raising activities, TfNSW has also undertaken a cluster-wide phishing email exercise called 'Spot the Scammer'. This is outlined in Exhibit 7. This exercise was carried out in 2019 and 2020 and allowed the Transport cluster to measure the degree to which staff were able to identify phishing emails. As can be seen in Exhibit 7, the results of this exercise indicate that staff awareness of phishing emails remains low.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Cyber Security Policy mandatory requirements

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #353 - released (13 July 2021).

What the report is about

Results of the financial statement audits of the public universities in NSW for the year ended 31 December 2020.

What we found

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all ten universities.

Two universities reported retrospective corrections of prior period errors.

Universities were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with student enrolments decreasing in 2020 compared to 2019 by 10,032 (3.3 per cent). Of this decrease 8,310 students were from overseas.

In response to the pandemic, each university provided welfare support, created student hardship funds, provided accommodation and flexibility on payment of course fees. State and Commonwealth governments provided additional support to the sector.

Six universities recorded negative net operating results in 2020 (two in 2019). The combined revenues of the ten universities from fees and charges decreased by $361 million (5.8 per cent).

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will continue to impact the financial results of universities in 2021, enrolments of overseas students in semester one of 2021 increased at two universities. This growth meant that total overseas student enrolments increased by 7,944 or 5.8 per cent across the sector as a whole. However, eight universities experienced decreases in overseas student enrolments compared to semester one of 2020. All universities have experienced growth in domestic student enrolments.

What the key issues were

There were 110 findings reported to universities in audit management letters.

Three high risk findings were identified. One related to the continued work by the University of New South Wales to assess its liability for underpayment of casual staff entitlements. The other two deficiencies were at Charles Sturt University, relating to financial reporting implications of major contracts, and resolving issues identified by an internal review of its employment contracts to reliably quantify the university’s liability to its employees.

What we recommended

Universities should prioritise actions to address repeat findings. Forty-five findings were repeated from 2019, of which 23 related to information technology.

Further information

Please contact Ian Goodwin, Deputy Auditor-General on 9275 7347 or by email.

This report analyses the results of our audits of the financial statements of the ten universities in NSW for the year ended 31 December 2020. The table below summarises our key observations.

1. Financial reporting

2. Internal controls and governance

3. Teaching and research

This report provides Parliament with the results of our financial audits of universities in NSW and their controlled entities in 2020, 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 universities in NSW for 2020.

Financial results

The graph below shows the net results of individual universities for 2020.

Appropriate and robust internal controls help reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and administration of universities.

This chapter outlines the internal controls related observations and insights across universities in NSW for 2020, 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 matters are reported to universities for management 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 their standing in international and Australian rankings.

This chapter outlines teaching and research outcomes for universities in NSW for 2020.

Appendix one – Status of 2019 recommendations

Appendix two – Universities' controlled entities

What the report is about

The report examined whether Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Infrastructure NSW (INSW) effectively assessed and justified major scope changes to the WestConnex project since 2014.

What we found

NSW Government decisions to fund WestConnex-related projects outside WestConnex's $16.812 billion budget have reduced transparency and understate the full cost of WestConnex.

The NSW Government's decision to separate Sydney Gateway from WestConnex has reduced transparency over the cost of the road component of Sydney Gateway. $1.76 billion of the cost to complete Sydney Gateway is funded outside the WestConnex budget.

Network integration costs, currently estimated at $2.3 billion, are also funded outside the WestConnex budget. Many of these costs are directly attributable to WestConnex and ought to be included in the reported budget.

The Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program, costing $198 million, should also be included as part of the WestConnex reported budget.

Decisions to exclude or remove these elements from WestConnex without justification have seen $4.26 billion of projects funded outside the $16.8 billion budget.

Positively, robust analysis was used to develop and incorporate design improvements into the 2015 WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case.

The separate components of WestConnex underwent all required assurance reviews. However, the NSW Government's assurance framework does not require ongoing ‘whole-of-program’ assurance for large and complex projects like WestConnex. The absence of a holistic review of WestConnex allows for some costs and benefits to avoid scrutiny.

What we recommended

TfNSW should:

• review the impact of scope changes on project objectives, costs and benefits for complex infrastructure projects
• ensure that estimated costs and benefits of works which are reasonably required to meet consent conditions are included in business cases for complex large infrastructure projects
• establish centralised and project specific record keeping for major infrastructure projects.

Infrastructure NSW should provide transparent whole of program assurance on total costs and benefits when complex projects are split into sub-projects.

Government should consider enhancing public transparency of existing infrastructure assurance processes by requiring that large complex infrastructure programs undergo periodic review at a whole-of-program level.

WestConnex

WestConnex is a 33 km motorway network that will link the western and south‑western suburbs with the Sydney CBD and the Airport and Port Botany precinct. It will also connect with proposed future motorway links to the north shore, northern beaches, and southern Sydney. The project is being delivered in three stages, with completion scheduled for 2023.

When first conceived by Infrastructure NSW (INSW) in 2012, WestConnex was described as a single integrated concept. In August 2013, government approved a business case for an integrated concept of WestConnex, with an estimated cost of $14.881 billion (in nominal outturn costs). Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is the government agency (sponsor agency) accountable for the delivery of WestConnex in accordance with the business case. In August 2014, the NSW Government established the Sydney Motorway Corporation to fund, deliver and operate WestConnex.

In November 2015, the NSW Government publicly released an updated WestConnex business case with greater detail and design enhancements, which increased the estimated cost to $16.812 billion.

Subsequent to this update, further changes were made to the design, including realignment of the M4 to M5 Link connection to the Western Harbour Tunnel project, an expanded interchange at Rozelle, the deletion of the Camperdown Intersection, and the addition of the Iron Cove Link. The reported budget for WestConnex was not changed as a result of these design updates.

To fund WestConnex, Sydney Motorway Corporation consolidated a concessional loan of $2 billion from the Australian Government, private sector debt and equity funding from the State. The Australian Government also provided a $1.5 billion contribution to the State to partially fund construction of WestConnex.

In August 2018, the NSW Government sold 51 per cent of its stake in Sydney Motorway Corporation for $9.26 billion. At the time of writing, the NSW Government is in the process of selling its remaining 49 per cent stake of Sydney Motorway Corporation.

About this audit

In the course of delivering a complex major infrastructure project, it is reasonable to expect changes to the original design and scope. Changes may occur as the design moves from a high‑level concept to a detailed design for project delivery, as new risks or issues are identified, as demands change, or as other interdependent projects are approved. Changes can also occur in response to potential cost or delivery overruns which arise as a result of planning deficiencies. Where design and scope changes significantly change the project costs and/or expected benefits, the justification for these changes should be robust and transparent.

Following our 2014 performance audit, 'WestConnex: Assurance to the government', the NSW Government established the Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework (IIAF) to improve accountability and transparency over major projects that are developed, procured, or delivered by government agencies. Under the framework, TfNSW, as project sponsor, is responsible for ensuring the WestConnex project meets all IIAF requirements. These include ensuring the project remains strategically aligned and viable, and benefits are on track. INSW is responsible for coordinating the assurance review process and reporting directly to NSW Cabinet on project delivery against time, budget and risks to project delivery.

The objective of this performance audit is to assess whether TfNSW and INSW effectively assessed and justified major scope changes to the WestConnex project since 2014.

1. Key findings

Government decisions to fund WestConnex related projects outside of WestConnex's $16.812 billion reported budget have reduced transparency over costs and understate the full cost of WestConnex

In 2015, the work required to integrate WestConnex with existing roads ('network integration') was funded as a separate project with an estimated cost of $1.534 billion outside the 2015 WestConnex budget of $16.812 billion. TfNSW then created the Network Integration Program to respond to the conditions of planning approval for WestConnex. The current estimated cost to deliver all network integration works is $2.3 billion.

Since the 2015 WestConnex Business Case, the NSW Government has removed several elements from the scope of WestConnex and funded them as separate projects, while keeping the published WestConnex budget at an estimated $16.812 billion. Projects removed include:

• Sydney Gateway, currently costed at $2.56 billion (with an $800 million contribution from WestConnex)
• Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program, costed at $198 million in late 2018 and funded though new funding to the Greater Sydney Commission.

Together, these projects represent costs of $4.26 billion that are not included in the WestConnex budget, but are required for WestConnex to achieve the objectives of the 2013 and 2015 WestConnex Business Cases. The costs of these elements in supporting the objectives of WestConnex is not tracked centrally, and there is no single point of oversight over them. Exhibit 1 compares total WestConnex forecast costs (including related projects) between November 2015 and April 2021.

Many network integration costs are directly attributable to WestConnex and ought to be included in the reported budget for WestConnex

Prior to 2015, the scope of WestConnex included enabling works needed before or during construction, as well as funding for future works to address any adverse traffic outcomes created by WestConnex which become apparent after its opening. These works are also known as network integration works.

When government approved the 2015 WestConnex Business Case, it noted that the project would require $1.534 billion for network integration works to address the impacts of WestConnex on the road network. However, the WestConnex project budget of $16.812 billion did not include funding for network integration works. Instead, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS, now TfNSW) was to fund network integration through its normal budget allocation.

It is important to recognise these costs as part of the total WestConnex project cost because:

• TfNSW created the Network Integration Program to respond to network traffic and transport elements of the planning conditions of approval for WestConnex granted by the then NSW Department of Planning and Environment under the Environment, Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
• NSW Treasury guidelines for business cases note that accurate cost estimates include assessment of the financial impact of meeting the conditions of planning approval.
• Travel time and vehicle operating cost benefits attributed to the WestConnex project in the 2015 WestConnex Business Case assume that some network integration works, then costed at $373 million, were in place.

Refer to Appendix two for more detail on network integration works.

Some of the projects in the WestConnex Network Integration Program provide community and place benefits, such as parklands and cycleways. These benefits have not been attributed to WestConnex. Additionally, some network integration works are likely to deliver additional traffic related benefits to WestConnex. As the Network Integration Program’s primary purpose is to meet the conditions of planning approval for WestConnex, TfNSW should attribute all the costs and benefits of the program to WestConnex.

To September 2021, the total funded cost of the Network Integration Program is approximately $2.077 billion. TfNSW estimates that it will need a further $222 million to complete all expected network integration works.

The NSW Government's decision to separate Sydney Gateway from WestConnex has reduced transparency and accountability for TfNSW's underestimation of the cost of the road component of Sydney Gateway

Sydney Gateway is a high‑capacity connection between the new St Peters Interchange and the Sydney Airport and Port Botany precinct. It includes a road and rail components. The road component was included in the scope of WestConnex in the 2015 WestConnex Business Case. The November 2015 design, which TfNSW costed at $800 million, involved separate roadways from the St Peters Interchange to the International terminal, and to the domestic terminals and Mascot airport precinct.

By October 2016, TfNSW was aware that the $800 million budget for Sydney Gateway was insufficient and revised the forecast cost for the road component to $1.8 billion. The original cost estimate did not sufficiently consider the cost of:

• constructing a complex design adjacent to the airport precinct
• obtaining access to land required for the project
• managing environmental contamination.

On 9 August 2017, the then Minister for WestConnex announced that the Sydney Gateway project was not part of WestConnex.

The 2015 WestConnex Business Case notes that material changes to the WestConnex budget, funding, scope, or timeframe are subject to Cabinet approval processes. It states that, when seeking approval for material changes, the portfolio Minister will make a submission to the relevant Cabinet Committee. Changes in project scope required the approval of the then Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure and should have been endorsed by the WestConnex Interdepartmental Steering Committee.

TfNSW and the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) assert that there is no documentation to support the government’s decision to separate Sydney Gateway from the WestConnex Program, or the WestConnex Interdepartmental Steering Committee's endorsement of a submission to Cabinet seeking approval for the separation.

The established governance processes for major scope changes were not followed in this instance. The lack of transparency regarding government's decision to separate Sydney Gateway from WestConnex also reduces visibility of TfNSW's underestimation of the cost of delivering the road component of Sydney Gateway.

The November 2018 Final Business Case for Sydney Gateway, which was approved by the government, included an estimate of $2.45 billion (nominal outturn cost) for the road component. This estimate included an $800 million contribution from WestConnex. A more recent estimate (late 2020) for this project is $2.56 billion (nominal outturn cost).

The Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program should be included as part of the WestConnex budget

A specific objective of the 2015 WestConnex Business Case was the creation of opportunities for urban renewal along and around Parramatta Road. The business case included an allocation of $198 million in the $16.812 billion WestConnex budget for the Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement program, designed to implement aspects of the objective. In November 2018, the NSW Government removed the Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program from the WestConnex program of works and reallocated the $198 million (inside the $16.812 billion WestConnex budget) for urban renewal works around the Rozelle Interchange. As part of this decision, government approved new funding of $198 million to the Greater Sydney Commission for the urban amenity program, outside the $16.812 billion WestConnex budget. This understates the cost of WestConnex meeting its objectives by $198 million.

There is no requirement for ongoing ‘whole‑of‑program’ assurance of the WestConnex program of works, including related projects

In August 2015, INSW conducted its first Gateway Review of WestConnex as a program consisting of composite projects. Following that review, TfNSW registered each of the components of WestConnex with INSW as individual projects, rather than keeping WestConnex registered as a program or mega‑project. This is not inconsistent with the IIAF and all WestConnex related projects, including Sydney Gateway and the Network Integration Program, have undergone independent assurance reviews as individual projects under the IIAF.

Once a program like WestConnex is broken down into its composite parts, there is no requirement for the sponsor agency (TfNSW) or INSW to provide independent assurance on the program as a whole until it is completed. This is then done as part of the Gateway review for benefits realisation, which examines whether project benefits are being measured and meet expectations. These individual projects are, in themselves, significant in scale and complexity. While addressing them as discrete components for the purposes of the assurance review process can be justified, the absence of strategic, holistic reviews of WestConnex allows for total costs and benefits to become opaque and avoid scrutiny. Programs of this scale require greater ongoing transparency on total costs and benefits in order to ensure confidence they will meet intended objectives within budget.

There is a lack of public transparency on the total costs and benefits of the WestConnex project

Prior to 2018, the Audit Office provided assurance on costs borne and levied by Sydney Motorway Corporation and its controlled entities. Since the NSW Government sold 51 per cent of its stake in WestConnex in August 2018, the Auditor‑General no longer has the mandate to provide this assurance. The Audit Office is also unable to provide any assurance regarding the performance of tolling concessions.

This means that the total costs of WestConnex, including those levied on road users through tolling, are not reported alongside the full cost of delivering the project. This information, and independent assurance over that information, would provide transparency and context to the outcome of government's sale of its interest in WestConnex.

To enhance the transparency of existing infrastructure assurance processes, government could consider requiring large and complex infrastructure programs to undergo periodic review at a whole‑of‑program level. This could take the form of annual reports to Parliament on the total costs and benefits of selected large and complex projects by the responsible agency. The reports could include an assessment of the cost to government and cost to the community of funding and financing. Independent assurance of the agency report would provide Parliament with greater confidence that infrastructure is delivered economically and providing value for money for the people of NSW.

The Australian National Audit Office provides similar assurance on selected Department of Defence acquisition projects as part of its annual Major Projects Report.

Design enhancements included in the 2015 WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case were supported by robust analysis

The 2015 WestConnex Business Case contained more detail than the 2013 WestConnex business case. Design enhancements were made as a result of modelling analysis conducted over the two years since the 2013 business case. Enhancements included a full underground link between Kingsgrove and St Peters as part of the New M5 and re‑alignment of the M4‑M5 link tunnel (Stage 3) to include the Rozelle Interchange. The Rozelle Interchange will provide a direct connection to the Anzac Bridge and Victoria Road, and will enable a connection to the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link. A map and description of these elements can be found at Exhibits 2 and 3 of this report.

In 2016, TfNSW revised the design of the M4‑M5 Link and Rozelle to address traffic and integration issues

As part of preparing the 2015 WestConnex Business Case, TfNSW prepared a Project Definition and Delivery Report (PDDR) for the M4‑M5 Link. This report describes the scope of the project, including a high‑level concept design. TfNSW identified limitations with the proposed design of the M4‑M5 in the PDDR, which it would need to address as the project moved to a detailed design stage. In particular, these limitations included:

• poor integration with the Bays Precinct masterplan
• traffic capacity constraints on Victoria Road and Anzac Bridge
• construction complexity.

Following a comprehensive review in mid‑2016, TfNSW changed the design of the M4‑M5 Link and Rozelle Interchange to address these limitations. These changes included:

• deletion of the Camperdown intersection to improve traffic conditions on Parramatta Road
• a fully underground and larger Rozelle Interchange with 10‑hectare dedicated parklands
• a toll‑free tunnel link from Iron Cove Bridge to Anzac Bridge
• increasing the lanes in the dual tunnels from three to four each way.

TfNSW documented, but did not publish, the rationale for the design changes, including how the changes addressed the limitations of the previous design while providing increased community benefit through the creation of open space. TfNSW undertook cost comparison studies which estimated that these changes would have a neutral impact on the estimated project cost while achieving the same or improved benefits.

TfNSW's record‑keeping systems for large infrastructure investments negatively impact accountability and transparency

In response to our formal requests for relevant information, made during the conduct of this audit, TfNSW advised that complete and valid records of key decision‑making processes, analysis and advice were unavailable. Additionally, TfNSW often provided information that was incomplete or unverifiable (for instance, unsigned briefing notes). This is not consistent with accepted governance practices and does not comply with the requirements of the State Records Act 1998.

We also requested that TfNSW provide a list of relevant documents held by the Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC). While TfNSW acknowledged that SMC may hold material relevant to the audit, TfNSW did not have a list or description of these documents. As SMC is now a majority privately held entity, both the Audit Office and TfNSW have limited power to require SMC to provide documentation.

The delivery timeframe for large and complex infrastructure projects such as WestConnex frequently exceeds five years, and some projects can take over a decade to deliver. These projects represent a significant investment of public resources and government agencies should expect independent review and assurance activities such as performance audits. The establishment of dedicated record keeping facilities for major infrastructure projects, such as data rooms, would improve transparency and accountability. This would ensure that the use of public resources is fully auditable in line with public expectations and the requirements of the Government Sector Finance Act 2018, the State Records Act 1998 and the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.

2. Recommendations

By December 2021, TfNSW should:

1. review the impact of scope changes on project objectives, costs and benefits for complex infrastructure projects

2. when preparing business cases for complex large infrastructure projects, ensure that the estimated costs and benefits of works which are reasonably expected to meet consent conditions are included in the overall project cost and its benefits (as per Treasury guidelines)

3. establish and maintain centralised and project‑specific record keeping, including through dedicated project data rooms, to ensure major infrastructure projects can readily be subject to external oversight and assurance.

By June 2022, INSW should:

4. provide transparent whole‑of‑program assurance on total costs and benefits throughout the project life‑cycle when complex projects are split into sub‑projects.

By June 2022, NSW Government should:

5. consider enhancing the public transparency of existing infrastructure assurance processes by requiring that large complex infrastructure programs undergo periodic review at a whole‑of‑program level. This could take the form of reports to Parliament on the total costs and benefits on selected large and complex projects by the responsible agency, including cost to government and cost to community of funding and financing, as well as an accompanying independent assessment of the agency report.

Following our 2014 performance audit report 'WestConnex: Assurance to the government', the NSW Government established the Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework (IIAF). INSW is responsible for the development, implementation and administration of the IIAF. The assurance framework involves gateway reviews, health checks, deep dive reviews, and project monitoring and reporting at various stages in the lifecycle of a project. The main aims of the IIAF are to help ensure major infrastructure projects are delivered on time and on budget, and to ensure that reports are regularly monitored by the Cabinet of the NSW Government. The IIAF gateway review process is compulsory for all significant investments and expenditure under the NSW Treasury Gateway Policy.

In accordance with the IIAF, INSW is responsible for the following:

• providing a dedicated Assurance Team including Gateway Review Managers to coordinate Reviews
• determining appropriate expert reviewers, and manages scheduling, commissioning and administration of Assurance Review reports. Infrastructure NSW is independent of the Expert Review Team
• monitoring Tier 1 – High Profile/High Risk projects, Tier 2 and Tier 3 (if required) project performance through independent Assurance Reviews
• providing independent analysis and advice on key risks and any corrective actions recommended for Tier 1 – High Profile/High Risk, Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects
• escalating projects to Infrastructure Investor Assurance Committee (IIAC) and Cabinet where projects present ‘red flag issues’ and where corrective action is needed
• working with delivery agencies to register all capital projects with an estimated cost greater than $10.0 million and ensures they are risk profiled and assigned a risk‑based project tier with an endorsed IIAF Project Registration report
• preparing forward looking annual Cluster Assurance Plans
• maintaining and continuously improves the IIAF process
• reporting to the IIAC, Cabinet and Infrastructure NSW Board
• regularly report to NSW Treasury on the performance of the IIAF.

In relation to WestConnex, TfNSW is the sponsor agency responsible for meeting relevant IIAF requirements, including:

• registering and risk profiling projects
• IIAF gateway, health check, and deep dive assurance reviews
• regular reporting.

Under the IIAF, it is mandatory for all capital projects valued over $10.0 million to be registered with INSW. Capital projects can be registered either as a program (comprising of a group of related projects or activities) or as a project (which may or may not be part of a program).

According to the IIAF, programs tend to have a lifespan of several years and aim to deliver outcomes and benefits related to an organisation's strategic objectives. Projects tend to have a shorter lifespan, and deal with outputs. Projects can, however, be grouped under a single program if they are similar in nature or if they are aimed at collectively achieving a strategic objective. Complex projects can be delivered in multiple stages, under different contracts, and across different time periods.

The last assurance review of the entire WestConnex program of works as a whole was in 2015

INSW conducted the first IIAF gateway review of WestConnex in August 2015. TfNSW developed a draft WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case to consolidate the latest analysis on WestConnex, and to confirm that the project remained fit for purpose, economically viable, and financially deliverable. The review followed a recommendation in our 2014 performance audit report that business cases be thoroughly revisited.

During September 2015, INSW conducted additional informal reviews to identify strategic risks associated with public release of the WestConnex business case. Subsequently, INSW gave the Premier of NSW its views on the draft business case, including the following points:

• The $398 million budget for Sydney Gateway was insufficient to meet the benefits claimed in the business case for a ‘functional’ connection to Sydney Airport and Port Botany. INSW studies indicate a future‑proof solution would require a minimum spend of $755 million.
• Enabling works for WestConnex estimated at $1.534 billion were excluded from the cost of WestConnex. Significant work remained for RMS to identify mitigation measures to address planning approvals and network performance issues.
• Enabling works (a Southern Connector), an access ramp and surface road improvements within St Peters were excluded from the draft 2015 business case despite their inclusion in the WestConnex scope in the 2014–15 State Budget.
• The overall cost of works not funded within the WestConnex budget ranged from $2.011 billion to $2.196 billion. This included the enabling works, access ramp and surface road improvements and the shortfall for Sydney Gateway.

All WestConnex related projects, including Sydney Gateway have undergone independent assurance reviews under the IIAF

Since INSW submitted the first WestConnex progress update report to Cabinet in June 2015, INSW has been reporting monthly on the different stages of the WestConnex Program, including Sydney Gateway, as the projects were registered with INSW as High‑Profile, High‑Risk projects. Separate reporting enabled INSW to report and review each stage with more detailed scrutiny, compared to the reporting and reviewing at a program level.

WestConnex Stage 2 (New M5) underwent both mandatory and non‑mandatory reviews at key points in the project lifecycle. Three mandatory gateway reviews – at Gate 2 (Final business case), Gate 3 (Readiness for market), and Gate 4 (Tender evaluation) – were conducted by TfNSW before the introduction of IIAF. Four non‑mandatory health check reviews and one non‑mandatory deep dive review were conducted after the introduction of the IIAF managed by INSW.

Similarly, WestConnex Stage 3 projects – M4‑M5 link, M4‑M5 Tunnels, and Rozelle Interchange – also underwent mandatory and non‑mandatory reviews at key points in their lifecycle under IIAF.

The M4‑M5 Link had two mandatory gateway reviews and one non‑mandatory health check review under IIAF. These reviews were conducted before Stage 3 was split into two stages, due to major design changes to the Rozelle Interchange and the M4‑M5 tunnels.

The M4‑M5 tunnels had two mandatory gateway reviews (at Gates 3 and 4), one non‑mandatory health check review, and one non‑mandatory deep dive review under IIAF.

Rozelle Interchange also underwent three mandatory gateway reviews at Gate 3 (part 1), Gate 3 (part 2), and Gate 4, two non‑mandatory health check reviews, and one non‑mandatory deep dive review under IIAF.

Since mid‑2017, the Sydney Gateway project has undergone required independent assurance reviews, as well as a number of optional assurance reviews

In November 2016, INSW conducted a mandatory Gate 1 gateway review on a strategic business case for the Sydney Gateway Project. TfNSW did not proceed with this business case. Following the separation of Sydney Gateway from WestConnex in mid‑2017, TfNSW developed a new business case for Sydney Gateway. It has undergone the required Gate 1, Gate 2, and Gate 3 gateway reviews, as well as two non‑mandatory health check reviews, and three non‑mandatory deep dive reviews under IIAF.

Network integration works have undergone all IIAF required assurance reviews

TfNSW completed a strategic business case for the Network Integration Program in August 2020, and INSW completed a gateway review in November 2020. This is despite network integration projects starting as early as 2015, with $645 million having been spent by June 2020. The strategic business case included a prioritisation process for completing remaining works in the program. Prior to November 2020, TfNSW registered individual network integration projects with INSW, and these projects have undergone gateway reviews where required.

The Network Integration Program strategic business case does not include Rozelle interchange network integration works ($353 million) and additional network integration works to settle a contractor claim adjacent to St Peters Interchange ($190 million). These were excluded from the business case on the basis they had already been approved by government, and as such were not subject to the prioritisation elements of the business case. TfNSW has not developed separate business cases for these works, although the scope of the St Peters Interchange works was developed through a negotiated process.

TfNSW did not prepare business cases for some network integration works which have commenced, including the $323 million Campbell Road/Euston Road works

Prior to its development of the August 2020 strategic business case, TfNSW did not prepare business cases for many network integration works that have commenced, and in some instances were completed, before 2019. Significantly, TfNSW did not prepare a business case for the Campbell Road/Euston Road works, which cost $323 million and have been completed.

In 2016, TfNSW’s Business Case Policy requires the creation of business cases for capital projects costing over $1.0 million. At the time of writing this report, TfNSW’s draft policy requires full business cases for capital projects costing $10.0 million or more.

There is no requirement for ongoing ‘whole‑of‑program’ assurance of the WestConnex program of works, including related projects

INSW conducted its first gateway review of WestConnex (as a program, which consisted of composite projects) in August 2015. Following that review, TfNSW registered each of the components of WestConnex with INSW as individual projects, rather than keeping WestConnex registered as a program or complex project. The IIAF allows this to occur.

Separate registration enabled INSW to report and review each stage with more scrutiny compared to whole‑of‑program level review.

Such an approach has merit, considering the individual stages (and components of these stages) are multi‑million dollar works in their own right. Each project has its own timing for gateway reviews at stages such as 'Readiness for Market' and 'Tender Evaluation'.

Once a program such as WestConnex is broken down into its composite parts, there is no requirement for the sponsor agency (TfNSW) or INSW to conduct independent assurance on the program of works as a whole until the whole program is completed as part of the Benefits Realisation (Gate 6) gateway review. The absence of strategic, holistic reviews of projects of the scale and complexity such as WestConnex during their delivery allows for total costs and benefits to become opaque and avoid scrutiny. Projects of this scale require greater ongoing transparency on total costs and benefits in order to ensure confidence they will meet intended objectives within budget.

INSW has advised us that it has prepared a proposal to expand its assurance function to include whole‑of‑program review of inter‑related infrastructure projects.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – Network integration works

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #351 - released (17 June 2021).

What the report is about

Results of the local government sector council financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2020.

What we found

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 127 councils, 9 county councils and 13 joint organisation audits in 2019–20. A qualified audit opinion was issued for Central Coast Council.

Councils were impacted by recent emergency events, including bushfires 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 1,435 findings reported to councils in audit management letters.

One extreme risk finding was identified related to Central Coast Council’s use of restricted funds for general purposes.

Fifty-three high risk matters were identified across the sector:

• 21 high risk matters relating to asset management
• 14 high risk matters relating to information technology
• 7 high risk matters relating to financial reporting
• 4 high risk matters to council governance procedures
• 3 high risk matters relating to financial accounting
• 3 high risk matters relating to purchasing and payables
• 1 high risk matter relating to cash and banking.

More can be done to reduce the number of errors identified in financial reports. 61 councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements.

Rural fire fighting equipment

Sixty-eight councils did not record rural fire fighting equipment worth $119 million in their financial statements.

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.

What we recommended

The Office of Local Government should communicate the State's view that rural firefighting equipment is controlled by councils in the local government sector, and therefore this equipment should be properly recorded in their financial statements.

Central Coast Council

A qualified opinion was issued for Central Coast Council (the Council) relating to two matters.

Council did not conduct the required revaluation to support the valuation of roads.

Council also disclosed a prior period error relating to restrictions of monies collected for their water, sewer, and drainage operations, which, based on the NSW Crown Solicitor’s advice, should be considered a change in accounting policy.

What we recommended

The Office of Local Government should clarify the legal framework relating to restrictions of water, sewerage and drainage funds (restricted reserves) by either seeking an amendment to the relevant legislation or by issuing a policy instrument to remove ambiguity from the current framework.

Further information

Please contact Ian Goodwin, Deputy Auditor-General on 9275 7347 or by email.

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.

Recent emergency events, including drought, bushfires, floods and the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted councils.

This chapter will provide insights into how these events have impacted councils, including:

• financial implications of the emergency events
• changes to councils' operating models, processes and controls
• accessibility to technology and the maturity of councils' systems and controls to prevent unauthorised and fraudulent access to data
• receipt and delivery of stimulus packages or programs at short notice.

Recent emergency events significantly impacted councils

Recent emergencies, including drought, bushfires, floods and the COVID-19 pandemic have brought particular challenges for councils and their communities.

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 2019–20. It also includes the findings reported in the 2018–19 audits of Hilltops, MidCoast and Murrumbidgee councils as these audits were finalised after the Report on Local Government 2019 was published.

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.

Total number of findings reported in audit management letters decreased

In 2019–20, 1,435 findings were reported in audit management letters (2018–19: 1,985 findings). An extreme risk finding was also identified this year related to Central Coast Council's use of restricted funds. The total number of high-risk findings decreased to 53 (2018–19: 82 high-risk findings).

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

• new findings were first reported in 2019–20 audits
• repeat findings were first reported in prior year audits, but remain unresolved in 2019–20
• ongoing findings were first reported in prior year audits, but the action due dates to address the findings are after 2019–20.

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 findings across these areas are explored further in this chapter.

Audit Office’s work plan for 2020–21 onwards

Focus on local council's response and recovery from recent emergencies

Local councils and their communities will continue to experience the effects of recent emergency events, including the bushfires, floods and the COVID 19 pandemic for some time. The full extent of some of these events remain unclear and will continue to have an impact into the future. The recovery is likely to take many years.

The Office of Local Government (OLG) within the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is working with other state agencies to assist local councils and their communities to recover from these unprecedented events.

These events have created additional risks and challenges, and changed the way that councils deliver their services.

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' preparedness for emergencies
• its initial responses to support people and communities impacted by the 2019–20 bushfires and floods, and COVID-19
• the governance and oversight risks that arise from the need for quick decision making and responsiveness to emergencies
• the 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.

Planned financial audit focus areas in Local Government

During 2020–21, the financial audits will focus on the following key areas:

• cybersecurity, including:
  • cybersecurity framework, policies and procedures
  • assessing the controls management has to address the risk of cybersecurity incidents
  • whether cybersecurity risks represent a risk of material misstatement to council's financial statements
• budget management
• financial sustainability
• quality and timeliness of financial reporting
• infrastructure, property, plant and equipment
• information technology general controls.

Audit, risk and improvement committees

All councils are required to have an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2022

The requirement for all councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee was deferred by 12 months to March 2022 due to the COVID 19 pandemic.

Audit, risk and improvement committees are an important contributor to good governance. They help councils to understand strategic risks and how they can mitigate them. An effective committee helps councils to build community confidence, meet legislative and other requirements and meet standards of probity, accountability and transparency.

Local Government elections

Local Government elections were postponed for one year due to the COVID 19 pandemic

The Local Government elections were deferred for one year due to the COVID 19 pandemic and will now be held on 4 September 2021. As the statutory deadline for the 2020–21 financial statements is 30 October 2021, some of the newly elected councillors will be required to endorse them.

Implementation of AASB 1059

Accounting standards implementation continue next year

AASB 1059 is effective for councils for the 2020–21 financial year.

A service concession arrangement typically involves a private sector operator that is involved with designing, constructing or upgrading assets used to provide public services. They then operate and maintain those assets for a specified period of time and is compensated by the public sector entity in return. Examples of potential service concession arrangements impacting councils include roads, community housing, childcare services and nursing homes.

AASB 1059 may result in councils recognising more service concession assets and liabilities in their financial statements.

Appendix one – Response from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Appendix two – NSW Crown Solicitor’s advice

Appendix three – Status of 2019 recommendations

Appendix four – Status of audits

© 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.

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, has today released a report on Transport for NSW’s (TfNSW) acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue in Camellia.

This audit, which was requested on 17 November 2020 by the Hon. Andrew Constance MP, the Minister for Transport and Roads, examined:

• whether TfNSW conducted an effective process to purchase 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia
• whether TfNSW has effective processes and procedures to identify and acquire property required to deliver the NSW Government’s major infrastructure projects.

The audit found that TfNSW conducted an ineffective process when it purchased 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia. The audit also found that TfNSW’s internal policies and procedures to guide the transaction were, and continue to be, insufficient.

The Auditor-General has made seven recommendations to address the issues identified in the report.

On 17 November 2020, the Hon. Andrew Constance MP, the Minister for Transport and Roads, requested this audit under section 27B(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.

On 15 June 2016, Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) acquired 6.3 hectares of land at 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia, by agreement from Grand 4 Investments Pty Ltd. Grand 4 Investments was a business entity established by the owners of Billbergia Pty Ltd, a property development and investment company.

TfNSW paid Grand 4 Investments $53.5 million and assumed liability for addressing environmental issues and contamination associated with the site. This took place seven months after the vendor acquired the land as part of a competitive Expression of Interest process, in which TfNSW also participated, for $38.15 million.

TfNSW is the NSW Government agency responsible for most major transport infrastructure projects in New South Wales. TfNSW acquired the Camellia site for use as a stabling and maintenance depot to support the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) project.

Consistent with the minister’s request, this audit assessed:

• whether TfNSW conducted an effective process to purchase 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia
• whether TfNSW has effective processes and procedures to identify and acquire property required to deliver the NSW Government’s major infrastructure projects.

In considering the effectiveness of the processes for this purchase, the audit considered:

• the requirements of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Act)
• the application of sound processes to manage risk to the NSW Government and to achieve value for money
• the application of disciplines associated with complex procurement, such as probity, in a NSW Government context.

In 2015, TfNSW identified that it would require a stabling and maintenance depot in the Camellia area for the Parramatta Light Rail

In 2014, TfNSW commissioned an external engineering consultancy to undertake a feasibility design study for the Parramatta Light Rail - the Parramatta Transport Corridor Strategy Feasibility Design study (herein referred to as ‘the feasibility study’). In early 2015, TfNSW received the feasibility study, which was one of several key sources that informed the development of business cases for the PLR.

The feasibility study recommended that TfNSW should consolidate the maintenance and cleaning operations with overnight stabling facilities on one site. The study noted that the optimal location for any such site would be in close proximity to the proposed network, and noted that the site must have access to road connections to accommodate access for cars and trucks.

The study found that a centrally located stabling and maintenance facility would be required for all routes serving the Parramatta CBD, and that the Camellia industrial area was a preferred location for such a facility. The study noted that the Camellia area was contaminated.

The feasibility study notes that its conclusions were based on assumptions about the light rail system adopted and decisions made by the future operator of the system, who had not yet been selected or appointed.

TfNSW's decision to progress a potential acquisition in 2015 considered the risk that the site may not be required

TfNSW's FIC was responsible for making decisions on funding allocations at a whole of program level within TfNSW. FIC was also responsible for approving ‘high-risk/high-value’ variations to program budgets. Members of the FIC included:

• Secretary of Transport for NSW
• Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services
• Deputy Secretary, Freight, Strategy and Planning
• Deputy Secretary, Customer Services
• Deputy Secretary Finance and Investment
• Deputy Secretary People and Corporate Services.

An April 2015 submission, from the then Deputy Director-General to the agency’s FIC, sought authorisation and funding approval to participate in an Expression of Interest sale process. It noted the risk that the project may not go ahead. The submission advised that:

By acquiring a strategic site now, it reduces the risk of having to pay an improved value or a value that may be subject to rapidly improving land values due to changes in land use and rezoning.

The property can be acquired for the project, held strategically and income generated by leasing the site as hardstand ¹ space until the project requires the land for the Parramatta Light Rail project.

If the project does not proceed in the medium to longer term, the property can be sold at a premium to what has been paid today as property fundamentals improve.

This submission acknowledged the risks associated with environmental contamination and proposed that these risks would be managed by negotiating a contract where the remediation and associated expenses would be at the landowner’s cost. 

TfNSW assessed the 4–6 Grand Avenue site as one of several sites in Camellia that was a feasible location for a stabling and maintenance facility

The Departmental feasibility study assessed six potential sites for a stabling and maintenance facility, including 4–6 Grand Avenue, noting strengths and weaknesses of each site. A different site on Grand Avenue was assessed as the ‘base case’ option (1 Grand Avenue). The study’s comments on the 4–6 Grand Avenue site included the following:

With an area of approximately 63,000m², this site has sufficient space for a depot with the required stabling yard and maintenance facilities. The location allows for good road access and LRT [light rail transit] access would be from Grand Avenue, which may require a road crossing or signalised intersection. The site has been used for general industrial uses; however the land has been cleared and is currently undergoing remediation ². The site is not affected by flooding based on one in 100-year flood data.

In early 2015, once the opportunity to acquire 4–6 Grand Avenue emerged, TfNSW commissioned a specific feasibility study of the 4–6 Grand Avenue site. The feasibility studies clearly documented the existence of environmental contamination. In April 2015, the report concluded:

Given the limitations of this report and within the parameters that have been set it is concluded that from a spatial and geographic perspective the site at 6 Grand Avenue would be suitable as a stabling and maintenance depot for the Parramatta light rail project. There are few engineering and environmental constraints that would affect the feasibility level analysis of this site and all issues identified, within this desk study, are considered to be resolvable. However this being said there is a significant amount of work necessary to reach the final layout and definition of the stabling and maintenance depot. There are numerous items which require further consideration and conformation; planning approvals could impose restrictions on building heights, noise mitigation measures, light and visual impact requirements all of which can have significant impacts on the spatial requirements of any stabling and maintenance depot. 

The acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue was not informed by a Property Acquisition Strategy

For major projects, TfNSW typically requires the project team to complete a Property Acquisition Strategy, which is intended to guide both process as well as specific acquisition issues expected to be faced during the project. The Property Acquisition Strategy is not a mandated document but is a recommended tool to support property acquisition as part of major projects.

TfNSW did not have a Property Acquisition Strategy in place to guide the 2015 Expression of Interest process. On 6 November 2015, the then Project Director for the PLR project emailed the property team, noting a need to develop a Property Acquisition Strategy to close off the scoping design and preliminary business case.

In January 2016, TfNSW developed a draft Property Acquisition Strategy for the Parramatta Light Rail Project, although it was silent on the potential sites for the stabling and maintenance facility.

TfNSW focussed on 4–6 Grand Avenue because it was available and aligned to TfNSW's strategic interests

In early 2015, officials commenced monitoring the market for industrial real estate in the Camellia area and surrounds for possible sites for a stabling and maintenance facility.

In March 2015, then owner of the site, Akzo Nobel Pty Limited released the 4–6 Grand Avenue site through an Expression of Interest process managed by CBRE.

TfNSW’s then Deputy Director-General, Planning, sought approval from FIC to lodge an Expression of Interest up to $30.0 million. Approval was sought on the basis that it would ‘provide certainty for the Parramatta Light Rail project by allowing for a depot site in a suitable location and potentially avoid higher costs or longer timeframes associated with compulsory acquisition following completion of the project’s business case’. FIC approved the request at its meeting on 9 April 2015.

At this time, TfNSW had not conducted any analysis of financial or operational benefits and costs of the potential sites identified in earlier feasibility studies. TfNSW staff advised us that the decision to participate in the Expression of Interest process for 4–6 Grand Avenue was because it was available. There is no documentation substantiating this statement, which TfNSW staff provided verbally as part of this audit.

In November 2015, TfNSW was advised that it was unsuccessful in the Expression of Interest process and that Grand 4 Investments (a related entity of Billbergia) had purchased 4–6 Grand Avenue. TfNSW did not conduct any further analysis of alternative potential sites in Camellia between this date and commencing discussions with Grand 4 Investments in April 2016. In that time there had been some movement on other properties that were included in the feasibility study, including 37–39a Grand Avenue being under offer in September 2015.

In March 2016, TfNSW approached CBRE to organise a meeting with Grand 4 Investments. On 1 April 2016, TfNSW met with Grand 4 Investments.

TfNSW advises that a perceived benefit of the 4–6 Grand Avenue site was that it was not subject to other uses or leaseholds that would increase the cost of compulsory acquisition. Officers involved in the acquisition advised that other nominated sites in the feasibility study were subject to other uses or leaseholds. 

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 #349 - released (18 May 2021).

The State Insurance Regulatory Authority’s (SIRA) ‘green slip refund’ campaign, and the TAFE semester one 2018 student recruitment campaign, complied with most requirements of the Government Advertising Act 2011 and the Government Advertising Guidelines, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford.

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit on the activities of one or more government agencies in relation to government advertising campaigns in each financial year. The performance audit assesses whether a government agency or agencies has carried out activities in relation to government advertising in an effective, economical and efficient manner and in compliance with the Act, the regulations, other laws and the Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines).

This audit examined two campaigns conducted in 2017–18:

• the 'Green slip refund' campaign run by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA)
• the semester one component of the 'TAFE NSW 2018 Student Recruitment Annual Campaign Program' run by the NSW TAFE Commission (TAFE).

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising. Under this section, material that is part of a government advertising campaign must not contain the name, voice or image of a minister, member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament or the name, logo or any slogan of a political party. Further, a campaign must not be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party.

The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) conducted the 'Green slip refund' campaign between March and June 2018. SIRA ran this campaign to raise awareness of the Compulsory Third Party (CTP) refunds and reforms after the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 commenced in December 2017. SIRA's view is that the reforms include a reduced cost for CTP insurance, benefits for at-fault drivers, reduced opportunity for fraud and attempts to lower insurance company profits. Green slip holders are also able to claim partial refunds on their 2017 green slip insurance premium. The campaign aimed to make green slip holders aware of the refunds available, encourage them to claim online and to inform people about the changes to the green slip scheme. The campaign focused on the first two of these objectives. The total cost of the campaign was $1.9 million. See Appendix two for more details on this campaign.

Campaign materials we reviewed did not breach section 6 of the Act

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising as part of a government advertising campaign. A government advertising campaign must not:

• be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
• contain the name, voice or image of a minister, a member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
• contain the name, logo, slogan or any other reference to a political party.

The audit team found no breaches of section 6 of the Act in the campaign material we reviewed.
 
Before the start of the campaign, SIRA conducted a survey which asked people whether they agreed ‘that the NSW Government is helping to reduce the cost of living by making positive reforms to:

• reduce the cost of green slips
• reduce the cost of health insurance
• increase the number of jobs
• increase investment in the state.'

SIRA's initial submission to peer review listed one of the campaign objectives as improving the perception of the government as a positive reformer. DPC advised SIRA that this should not be included. SIRA removed this objective.

Even though SIRA appropriately removed this objective, the post-campaign evaluation still measured agreement with the above statements, three of which did not relate to this campaign or SIRA's responsibilities. SIRA advised that these three additional statements were included to provide a broader context for any change in the green slip campaign survey results. For example, if all four measures reported an increase in positive responses of roughly the same size, then the increase may have been due to factors other than the advertising campaign.

This is not an appropriate use of the post-campaign evaluation, which should measure the success of the campaign against its stated objectives. The Guidelines list the purposes that government advertising may serve and none of these relate to improving the perception of the government. The inclusion of the above questions in SIRA's post-campaign evaluation creates a risk that the results may be used for party political purposes.

The campaign met most targets, however some were not challenging to achieve

The post-campaign evaluation demonstrated that the campaign met the targets for 12 of its 13 objectives including the targets relating to raising awareness of the refunds and the proportion of people claiming their refunds online. A fourteenth objective, the percentage of people aware that they should contact SIRA after a road accident injury, did not have a target set, meaning that it is not possible to say whether the campaign had the desired impact in this case.

In August 2017, before the campaign commenced, SIRA conducted a survey to determine the baselines for some of its objectives. This is a good practice to support an effective post campaign evaluation process. The survey found that 20 per cent of people were aware of the green slip reforms. SIRA's objective was to raise this to 25 per cent, which represents a small gain relative to the proposed campaign expenditure. The campaign aimed for 40 per cent of motorists to be aware of refunds, which is very low given that this was the primary focus of the campaign. SIRA followed the advice of its survey provider when setting these targets. 

In the survey carried out after the campaign, 66 per cent of people were aware of the availability of green slip refunds for most motorists. The campaign also aimed to get 83 per cent of motorists to claim their refunds via online channels. It met this target, with a total of 84 per cent. Finally, 62 per cent of people in the post-campaign survey were aware of the green slip reforms. This result is discussed further below.

The overall target for total number of refunds claimed is 85 per cent of eligible drivers, that is to say CTP holders. SIRA will evaluate the results of this objective after the conclusion of the refund period in June 2019.

The campaign did little to inform the public about the broader green slip reforms

One objective of the green slip refund campaign was to inform the public about the green slip reforms. The final campaign creative material focused almost entirely on the green slip refunds rather than the range of other reforms. This was because the peer review raised concerns that the creative material was attempting to deliver too many messages. 
 
The campaign submission stated that the advertising campaign would raise awareness of the broader reforms to the CTP scheme, citing several examples such as reduced opportunities for fraud and reduced insurer profits. SIRA also advised the Minister for Finance, Services and Property that secondary messaging in the campaign would benefit public understanding of the reforms.

Some of the television and radio advertisements referred to ‘more protection’ or ‘better protection’ for people injured on New South Wales roads, however advertisements did not refer to other elements of the reforms. Other campaign creative materials contained messages solely relating to the green slip refund and made no further reference to the broader reforms. SIRA used other communication channels, such as giving wallet cards to health service providers, to spread these messages to people, particularly those who had been injured.

Sixty two per cent of people in the post-campaign survey were aware of the green slip reforms. SIRA asked these people which benefits they associated with the reforms. The results of this survey are in Exhibit 4. Seventy-one per cent of this sample identified the reduced costs of green slips as one of the changes, but awareness of other elements of the reforms remains low. Though 29 per cent of people perceive the reforms to make the green slip scheme ‘fairer’, no more than 15 per cent of people could list a specific benefit which did not relate to insurance prices.

Another campaign target was to ensure that people understood that they should contact SIRA in case of an injury. None of the campaign creative materials contained this information. SIRA did some limited work to inform the public about this through its social media channels. One of the pieces of creative material directed the reader to SIRA's website for further information on the reforms, which contained this information. During the campaign period, there was an increase in the number of calls received by SIRA's CTP Assist phone line. However, in the post-campaign evaluation, only two per cent of surveyed people identified that they should contact SIRA in case of an injury.

The media plan allowed sufficient time for cost-efficient media placement

During the peer review process, DPC provides advice to agencies about the time they should allow to ensure cost-efficient media placement. For example, DPC advise that agencies book television advertising six to 12 weeks in advance and that agencies book radio advertising two to eight weeks in advance.

SIRA allowed sufficient time between the completion of the peer review process and the commencement of the first advertising. SIRA signed the agreement with the approved Media Agency Services provider eight weeks before the campaign started, meaning that it could achieve cost-efficient media placement for all types of media used in this campaign.

SIRA directly negotiated with a single supplier, making it difficult to demonstrate value for money

SIRA directly negotiated with a single supplier to procure the campaign's creative material. A direct negotiation occurs when an agency negotiates with a proponent without first undergoing a competitive process. It is difficult to demonstrate value for money using direct negotiation due to the lack of competition. 

ICAC's 'Guidelines for managing risks in direct negotiations' (ICAC Guidelines) provide guidance on how to undertake direct negotiations. SIRA has a direct negotiation checklist that aligns to the ICAC Guidelines. The SIRA checklist advises that staff should confirm that existing New South Wales prequalification schemes cannot provide the procurement before undertaking a direct negotiation. SIRA did not do this.

To procure creative materials, agencies can access the Advertising and Digital Communication Services prequalification scheme (the prequalification scheme). Using the prequalification scheme allows agencies to quickly seek quotes from suppliers who have a demonstrated track record and expertise. While agencies are not required to use the prequalification scheme, the NSW Procurement Board advises that agencies should use prequalification schemes where they are available to promote competition. 

By using direct negotiation when the prequalification scheme was available, and by not seeking quotes from other suppliers, SIRA was acting in a way that reduced competition. This increases the risk that SIRA did not achieve value for money in its procurement of creative materials.

SIRA advised that it sought to ensure value for money by comparing the quote from its selected supplier with the amount spent on creative materials in other campaigns of similar size. SIRA did not document this analysis at the time or include it as part of the briefing note staff used to seek approval for undertaking direct negotiation. As a result, decision-makers were not fully informed when approving this engagement. 

SIRA reported in a briefing note that it engaged in direct negotiations because:

• it believed that the original timeframe did not allow for a competitive tender process
• the supplier had done previous work on a related campaign for SIRA
• the supplier provided sample work which received positive feedback from focus groups.

In July 2017, when peer review commenced, SIRA planned to launch the campaign in November 2017 to coincide with the beginning of the green slip reforms. SIRA believed that this timeframe was narrow enough to warrant entering direct negotiations. The ICAC Guidelines advise that a narrow timeframe is not a valid reason to enter into a direct negotiation. In late October 2017, the campaign launch was delayed until March 2018 to stagger the demand on the resources of Service NSW, which is administering the refund. 

The ICAC Guidelines also advise against re-appointing a supplier because it has performed previous work. Instead, agencies could consider previous experience as one of several factors when deciding between quotes. In cases where an agency asks a supplier to provide sample work, the ICAC Guidelines advise that agencies should request sample work from multiple potential suppliers to promote competition.

The campaign's cost benefit analysis complied with the Act and Guidelines 

The Act requires a cost benefit analysis (CBA) for any government advertising campaign likely to exceed $1.0 million in value. Section six of the Guidelines set out the requirements for a government advertising CBA. The campaign's CBA complied with the requirements of the Act and the Guidelines.

The campaign CBA could have demonstrated further cost effectiveness if it considered alternative media mixes as outlined in NSW Treasury's 'Cost Benefit Analysis Framework for Government Advertising and Information Campaigns'. This would also have been consistent with the Handbook.

The cluster Secretary signed the compliance certificate instead of the head of SIRA

The Act requires the head of the agency running the campaign to sign a compliance certificate. 

The Secretary of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, the cluster to which SIRA belongs, signed the campaign's compliance certificate. However, section 17(2) of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 states that SIRA is ‘for the purposes of any Act, a NSW Government agency.’ Given this, the Chief Executive of SIRA was responsible for signing the compliance certificate for this campaign.

This is a minor non-compliance with the Act because the Chief Executive had reviewed the campaign and recommended that the Secretary sign the compliance certificate.  

The NSW TAFE Commission (TAFE) ran the 'TAFE NSW 2018 Student Recruitment Annual Campaign Program' from November 2017 to September 2018. The aim of the campaign was to assist TAFE in achieving its 2018 student enrolment target by improving the perception of TAFE's brand and generating student enquiries. This is the first state-wide campaign run by TAFE operating under the One TAFE model. Previously, each TAFE Institute ran its own campaigns. The total budget of the campaign was $19.5 million. This audit examined only the semester one 2018 component of the campaign, which ran from November 2017 to April 2018 at a total cost of $9.5 million. See Appendix two for more details on this campaign.

The campaign materials we reviewed did not breach section 6 of the Act

Section 6 of the Act prohibits political advertising as part of a government advertising campaign. A government advertising campaign must not:

• be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
• contain the name, voice or image of a minister, a member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
• contain the name, logo, slogan or any other reference to a political party.

The audit team found no breaches of section 6 of the Act in the campaign material we reviewed.

The campaign achieved 16 of 24 objectives, but did not reach its enrolment target

The campaign had 24 objectives which had a target for semester one. TAFE set these targets using a combination of previous experience, corporate objectives and brand surveys.

The overall objective of the combined semester one and two campaigns was to support TAFE achieving its 2018 total enrolment target of 549,636. TAFE's semester one target was 361,350, which it did not achieve. This indicates that the campaign was not fully effective.

The campaign achieved 11 of its 16 output objectives. The output targets related to TAFE's media placements and ability to reach an audience efficiently. TAFE tracked progress against many of the campaign's output objectives daily. TAFE altered its media channels throughout the campaign meaning that some of the output objectives were not met because TAFE decided to focus on alternative media channels. The campaign also achieved all seven of its outcome objectives. The outcome objectives related to changing the public perception of TAFE.

TAFE's initial media plan allowed for efficient media placement

During the peer review process, DPC provides advice to agencies about the time they should allow to ensure cost-efficient media placement. For example, DPC advise that agencies book television advertising six to 12 weeks in advance and that agencies book radio advertising two to eight weeks in advance. 

While TAFE's initial media plan allowed sufficient time between the approval of the campaign and its launch, a delay in receiving final approval for the campaign meant TAFE could not purchase media placements until two months later than planned. Most purchases still remained within DPC's recommended timeframes, but Indigenous television advertisements and metropolitan out of home advertisements both fell outside DPC's recommended time periods by one week. These delays did not impact on TAFE's efficiency.

TAFE re-used many creative materials, achieving some cost-savings

Rather than commissioning new creative materials, TAFE re-used many creative materials from the previous campaign and supplemented these with a selection of new creative materials. TAFE advised that this led to a cost saving of approximately $130,000.
TAFE sought quotes from suppliers on the government's Advertising and Digital Communication Services prequalification scheme for two creative material contracts. These contracts covered updates to existing materials and a selection of new materials.

The campaign's cost-benefit analysis did not comply with three requirements of the Guidelines

The Act requires an agency to conduct a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) if the cost of an advertising campaign is likely to exceed $1.0 million. The Guidelines set out the requirements of this CBA. TAFE did not comply with three of these requirements, outlined in Exhibit 5.

In this circumstance, section 6.2 of the Guidelines required the CBA to identify the number of enrolments TAFE would expect if it did not advertise. TAFE advised us that it is not possible to say what this scenario would look like because there had always been some degree of advertising, however, this argument is not reflected in the CBA. 

TAFE used 2017 as the baseline in the CBA. In 2017, TAFE spent $13.2 million on advertising. As such, the CBA was only able to isolate the impact of the increased expenditure rather than the impact of the campaign's entire $19.5 million expenditure. TAFE advised that 2017 had the most reliable state-wide data and this contributed to the decision to use it as the baseline.

During the audit, TAFE sought advice from NSW Treasury regarding whether a 2017 baseline was appropriate and NSW Treasury advised that it was. Regardless, TAFE did not receive this advice prior to writing the CBA and did not put commentary around this in the CBA. This would also not be sufficient for fulfilling the requirements of the Guidelines.

The CBA did not comply with sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the Guidelines. The CBA briefly considered the impact of spending the campaign budget directly on new training courses, however there was no sustained analysis of this option. TAFE staff advised that there are no realistic alternatives to advertising for achieving the campaign's objectives. However we did not see analysis to support this conclusion in documents provided to us. 

The campaign CBA could have better demonstrated cost effectiveness if it considered alternative media mixes as outlined in NSW Treasury's 'Cost Benefit Analysis Framework for Government Advertising and Information Campaigns'. This would also have been consistent with the Handbook.

TAFE made one inaccurate claim in its advertising and overstated a second

The Guidelines set out rules regarding the content of a government advertising campaign. Exhibit 6 sets out one of the principles with which agencies must comply.

TAFE made one inaccurate claim in its advertising and overstated a second.

In some campaign creative material, TAFE claimed that 78 per cent of its own graduates are employed after training (Exhibit 15 in Appendix 2). According to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 78 per cent of New South Wales Vocational Education and Training (VET) graduates (i.e. from all training providers) are employed after training. The result for TAFE graduates is 70.4 per cent.

One of the campaign's television advertisements refers to TAFE as ‘Australia's most reputable education provider’. This statement referred to a survey of current TAFE students who were asked where they would consider studying in future: TAFE, University or a private college. The current TAFE students selected TAFE by a large margin. The limited scope of TAFE's student survey and its results do not support the claim that it is ‘Australia's most reputable education provider’.

DPC did not consistently communicate the transitional arrangements for the Brand Guidelines and as such much of TAFE's creative material did not comply at campaign launch

On 7 August 2017, the government released the NSW Government Brand Guidelines (Brand Guidelines), setting out how agencies use the NSW Government logo. The Brand Guidelines replaced the Branding Style Guide which had been in place since September 2015. Some agencies were exempt from using the Branding Style Guide and the introduction of the new Brand Guidelines required these agencies to apply for a new exemption.

TAFE had recently commenced the peer review process for this campaign when the Brand Guidelines were released. TAFE was exempt from the requirements of the Branding Style Guide and as such the material which TAFE was planning to re-use in the new campaign did not contain the NSW Government logo.

Communication about how long agencies had to make themselves compliant with the Brand Guidelines was unclear. On 11 August 2017, the Chair of the Cabinet Standing Committee on Communication and Government Advertising (the Committee) sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Industry informing him that the Department must update all its material to be compliant with the Brand Guidelines ‘as soon as practicable within an 18-month transition period’. The Department of Industry advised TAFE that new advertising would need to be immediately compliant, however it was not clear if this included materials which agencies were re-using from previous campaigns. DPC advised the audit team that it expected re-used materials to be compliant when agencies launched new campaigns. DPC provided this advice to some agencies but did not communicate it more broadly. We could not source evidence that DPC provided this advice to TAFE.

DPC ran workshops to explain the transitional arrangements in September 2017 for the changes in the Brand Guidelines, however these did not specifically address the transitional timeframes for new advertising campaigns.

The Department of Industry, on behalf of TAFE, applied to the Committee for approval to co-brand the TAFE logo with the NSW Government logo. This was approved in October 2017. The requirements for co-branding are in Exhibit 7.

Appendix one - Responses from agencies 

Appendix two - About the campaigns

Appendix three - About the audit

Appendix four - Performance auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #311 - released 18 December 2018

The urban renewal projects on former railway land in the Newcastle city centre are well targeted to support the objectives of the Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program (the Program), according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. The planned uses of the former railway land achieve a balance between the economic and social objectives of the Program at a reasonable cost to the government. However, the evidence that the cost of the light rail will be justified by its contribution to the Program is not convincing.

The Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program (the Program) is an urban renewal and transport program in the Newcastle city centre. The Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation (HCCDC) has led the Program since 2017. UrbanGrowth NSW led the Program from 2014 until 2017. Transport for NSW has been responsible for delivering the transport parts of the Program since the Program commenced. All references to HCCDC in this report relate to both HCCDC and its predecessor, the Hunter Development Corporation. All references to UrbanGrowth NSW in this report relate only to its Newcastle office from 2014 to 2017.

This audit had two objectives:

1. To assess the economy of the approach chosen to achieve the objectives of the Program.
2. To assess the effectiveness of the consultation and oversight of the Program.

We addressed the audit objectives by answering the following questions:

a) Was the decision to build light rail an economical option for achieving Program objectives?
b) Has the best value been obtained for the use of the former railway land?
c) Was good practice used in consultation on key Program decisions?
d) Did governance arrangements support delivery of the program?

Appendix one - Response from agencies    

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #310 - released 12 December 2018