Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for State Finances 2018

State Finances 2018

Education
Finance
Community Services
Health
Justice
Industry
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Whole of Government
Environment
Financial reporting

Pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I present my Report on State Finances 2018.

I am pleased to once again report that I issued a clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements. This demonstrates the Government’s focus on preparing high quality information on the State’s financial position and performance for use by stakeholders.

However, there are two key areas I would like to see addressed to further support the preparation of the State’s financial statements.
Firstly, some complex accounting matters are not being resolved until late in the financial reporting cycle. This has contributed to an increase in the number of errors in the financial statements key agencies are submitting for audit, particularly around assessing the value of physical assets. Better planning and earlier resolution of these matters would lead to more efficient processes.

Secondly, the State needs to implement five new accounting standards over the next two years. Agencies will need to devote significant resources and effort to collect the necessary information and assess the impact at the whole of government level. I will work with Treasury and relevant agencies to help them improve quality assurance controls over their financial reporting.

Throughout 2017-18 my office worked with Treasury on reforms to improve financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements across the sector.

The Government Sector Finance Bill 2018 passed both houses of Parliament in June 2018. However, the Legislative Council returned other proposed changes to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 to the Legislative Assembly for further consideration. Most of these changes relate to the Public Accounts Committee. At the time of writing, the cognate Bill had not been debated.

The budget result was a $4.2 billion surplus. The consolidated financial statements at 30 June 2018 do not reflect the sale of 51 per cent of the State’s investment in Sydney Motorway Corporation for which it received $9.3 billion. The sale was announced on 31 August 2018.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff of Treasury for the way they approached the audit. Our partnership is critical to ensuring the quality of financial management and reporting.

Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General
19 October 2018

 

The State's financial statements given a clear audit opinion


Timely and accurate financial reporting enables informed decision making, effective management of public funds and enhances public accountability.

Since the introduction of mandatory ‘early close procedures’ in 2011-12, the number of significant errors in financial statements of agencies had fallen largely due to identifying and resolving complex accounting issues early.

In 2016-17, Treasury narrowed the scope of mandatory procedures to focus on physical asset valuations and pro-forma financial statements. Despite being broadened for 2017-18, we have observed an increase in the number of errors in agency financial statements.

In 2017-18, twenty-three errors exceeding $20 million were found in agencies’ financial statements that make up the State’s consolidated financial statements. This compares to only five in 2015-16.

The errors identified this year were the result of:

  • incorrectly applying Australian Accounting Standards
  • deficiencies in assessing the value of physical assets
  • using inappropriate and inaccurate assumptions when measuring liabilities
  • inaccurately reflecting inter-agency payables and receivables.

Quality financial reporting would be enhanced by responding to key accounting issues as soon as they are identified, and preparing accounting position papers for consideration by Treasury, agency Audit and Risk Committees and the Audit Office.

Key accounting matters addressed by the State in 2017-18.


Restatement of some of the State’s previously reported asset and liability values.

The state corrected the previously reported values of some long-term liabilities ($2 billion).

Accounting standards require the State to measure its long-term liabilities at the best estimate of the expenditures required to settle the obligations. The affected liabilities include claims liabilities of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW and the NSW Self Insurance Corporation, and scheme liabilities of the Long Service Corporation. The liabilities are adjusted by what is referred to as the ‘discount rate’ to reflect the decreasing value of money over time.

In the past, agencies used a variety of rates to discount these liabilities. Some liabilities were discounted using the estimated long-term fair value of 10-year TCorp bond yields while others were discounted using the expected
return on investments. These discount rates did not comply with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards and underestimated liabilities by $2.0 billion.

In 2017-18, the State assessed the discount rates previously used in the Sector. It determined the market yield on Commonwealth Bonds best met the Accounting Standard requirements and used this rate to discount similar liabilities in relevant agencies. This resulted in a $2.0 billion increase in the previously reported values of these liabilities and a similar decrease in retained earnings at 1 July 2016.

The State corrected previously reported values of certain Library assets ($1.1 billion).

The value of the Pictorial Collection of the Library Council of NSW (the Library) was reassessed at 31 January 2018. During the valuation process the Library identified three errors in the 2015 valuations which overstated the previously reported asset values. The errors included:

  • inconsistencies in the sampling technique ($583m)
  • double counting of some assets ($376m)
  • errors in population sizes ($164m).

This resulted in a $1.1 billion decrease in previously reported asset values and a corresponding decrease in the asset revaluation reserve at 1 July 2016.

 

Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.

TAFE NSW has experienced ongoing issues with its student administration system.

TAFE NSW has again implemented additional processes to verify the accuracy and completeness of revenue from student fees.

TAFE NSW expects to spend up to $89 million on a new information system to address these issues. Modules of the new student enrolment system are planned to be in place by May 2019

Risks to the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.


Challenges associated with valuing the State's physical assets.

When we audit financial statements we focus on areas we consider higher risk. These areas often require the use of estimates and judgements.

The valuation of the State’s physical assets is one such area. Fair value estimates are inherently complex and sensitive to assumptions and judgements. In the public sector, this may be exacerbated by the unique nature of its assets, such as land under roads, preserved plant specimens, cultural collections and other heritage assets.

In 2017-18, valuations of physical assets added $24.5 billion to the value of the State’s balance sheet. These assets are now valued at $339.2 billion. Our audits of these valuations identified:

The Library Council of NSW had three errors in the methodology previously used to value their pictorial assets ($1.1 billion error).
The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust did not previously recognise a value for their Herbarium assets ($284 million error).
Some revaluations within the Ministry of Health did not meet the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards or Treasury requirements ($159 million error).
The Department of Justice used an incorrect valuation
methodology ($83 million error).

Some important matters agencies should consider when planning/conducting asset valuations include:


STARTING OUT

  • Planning is important
  • Most effective revaluations include early engagement with all stakeholders, including auditors.
  • Determine who needs to be involved and advised of progress with the revaluation – e.g. finance, internal audit, audit and risk committee.
  • Ensure asset registers are complete and there is evidence to demonstrate the agency controls the assets.
  • The effective date of the valuation can be any date after the financial year commences, but well before year end.

MANAGEMENT'S ROLE

  • For large mass valuations consider using a suitable project management methodology to ensure the process remains ‘on track’ with sufficient oversight.
  • Consider engaging an expert to perform the valuation, but maintain responsibility for the outcomes. Ensure the outcomes are reasonable and quality review the results, including the appropriateness of inputs and key assumptions.
  • Compare pre and post valuation results on an individual asset basis. Where changes are significant and/or unexpected, document explanations from the valuer.
  • Start revaluations early so they are completed by early close (around March). The timetable must allow time for a quality review of results and for the results to be recorded in the financial records.
  • Revaluation workpapers must include the revaluation source data provided to the valuer and a reconciliation of the source data to the general ledger.

USING EXPERTS

  • The terms of engagement should be documented in an engagement letter, which clearly details the proposed valuation methodology. It’s important the valuer knows what is required from a policy perspective and clearly understands the accounting framework used to prepare the financial statements.
  • Valuation reports should detail the key assumptions used, explain why the valuation approach was adopted and how the use of relevant observable input was maximised.
  • Valuation reports should clearly differentiate between assets revalued using a cost approach and those using an income or market approach. They should explain why the approach used was the most relevant for the asset type.
  • Consider using representative/statistical sampling for mass valuations and determine the extent of physical inspections that may be required.
  • If a sampling technique is used, it should provide sufficient confidence that the sample is representative of the population.
  • Significant judgements should be supported by relevant benchmark data or other analysis and observations. A common example in the public sector is to discount asset values to reflect restrictions on use.
  • Ensure the valuer has considered the age and condition of the assets, and heritage/cultural aspects and/or other special factors.

WHAT ABOUT INTERVENING YEARS?

  • Perform revaluations with sufficient regularity to ensure asset carrying values in the financial statements reflect fair value.
  • Indexation alone is not normally a substitute for a full revaluation. A full revaluation may be needed to accurately establish fair values if asset values move significantly when indices are applied to them.
  • Where indexation is used between full revaluations, the indices should be appropriate for the type of asset being assessed.
  • Indexing can be unreliable in assessing whether the fair value of assets has moved over time. For example, some assets are valued based on re- collection cost estimates, which may fall over time due to improved re-collection methods and technology.

COMMUNICATION

  • For mass or complex valuations, key stakeholders, including auditors, should be involved at the scoping stage and invited to planning meetings with valuers.
  • Management should meet with the auditors regularly to discuss progress and outcomes.
  • When issues are identified, management should consult with and seek advice from Treasury.

 

The state will need to implement five new accounting standards over the next two years.

The State has started developing processes it considers necessary to effectively implement the requirements of five new accounting standards. The changes are significant and will impact the financial position and results of agencies and the State.

The new requirements increase the risk of errors in the financial statements. To minimise this risk, agencies will need to devote resources and effort to collect the necessary information and assess the impact of the accounting changes at the whole of government level.

Treasury is liaising with and obtaining information from agencies to assess the impact of the new standards at the whole of government level. Treasury is also liaising with other Treasuries throughout Australia on common implementation issues. To help agencies implement the new standards, Treasury is developing guidance, preparing position papers on proposed accounting treatments, and mandating options within the new standards that agencies need to adopt on transition.


 

A $4.2 billion surplus, $1.5 billion more than was budgeted


The Total State Sector comprises 304 entities controlled by NSW Government

The General Government Sector, which comprises 212 entities, generally provides goods and services funded centrally by the State.

The non-General Government Sector, which comprises 92 Government businesses, generally provides goods and services, such as water, electricity and financial services that consumers pay for directly.

A principal measure of a Government’s overall performance is its Net Operating Balance (Budget Result). This is the difference between the cost of General Government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors.

WHAT CHANGED FROM 2017 TO 2018?

$4.2b

2017-18 General Government Budget Result

Changes in revenues compared to 2016-17

   
Financial_performance_red_10x10cm_0.pngDividends and distributions

 

Due to: 

  • Increases in dividends from Sydney Water ($255 million), Water NSW ($60 million) and the Port Authority of NSW ($195 million).
  • An increase in the dividend from Landcom ($200 million) as profits retained in prior years to fund certain projects were not spent.
  • Returns from investments in managed funds increased by $649 million as the State increased the value of its investment using proceeds from the lease of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

2.4b

+1.3b

3.7b

 

   
Financial_performance_red_10x10cm_0.pngTaxation

 

Due to: 

  • Increases in land tax ($564 million) driven by land valuations used to calculate land tax assessments.
  • Increases in payroll tax ($553 million) and other taxes ($419 million).
  • Stamp duty receipts were $1.0 billion lower largely due to additional duty in the prior year of $718 million relating to the lease of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

30.8b

+537m

31.3b

 

   
Greek pantheon style front of building Grants & Subsidies

 

 Due to:

  • Increase in the receipt of general purpose grants relating to GST collected by the Australian Government ($753 million).
  • Decreases in national partnerships and specific purpose payments received from the Australian Government ($305 million), mainly due to the timing of major road projects.
  • An increase in Commonwealth Health Reform funding ($338 million).
  • An increase in grants associated with the National Education Reform Agreement for Education ($233 million).
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

31.4b

+509m

31.9b

 

   
red shopping tagsSale of Goods and services

 

Includes: 

  • Increases in education revenue ($133 million).
  • Higher fees for services in transport to produce property plant and equipment ($89 million).
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

8.2b

+349m

8.5b

5.5b

-185m

5.3b

Other revenues

Changes to expenses compared to 2016-17

   
institution_red_10x10cm_0.pngRecurrent Grants & Subsidies

 

Due to: 

  • A $613 million increase in grants for the delivery of aging, disability (including NDIS), homecare, community and public housing services.
  • Increase in grants paid to local government sector ($342 million).
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

12.6b

+1.3b

13.9b

 

   
group_red_10x10cm_0.pngEmployee costs

 

Due to: 

  • Wage inflation increases ($701 million).
  • Increased workers' compensation and long service leave costs ($337 million). 
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

34.9b

+1.2b

36.1b

 

   
red cogs with a dollar sign in the middleOther operating expenses

 

Includes: 

  • Increased expenditure by Transport for NSW ($283 million) for major rail projects and the new rail timetable.
  • Increased expenditure by the Department of Education ($165 million) to address the maintenance backlog, and higher school operating expenses.
2016-2017 Change 2017-2018

18.3b

+1.4b

19.7b

6.8b

+103m

6.9b

Other expenses

 

$5.7b

2016-17 General Government Budget Result

The State maintained its AAA credit rating.


The object of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 is to maintain the State’s AAA credit rating.

The Government manages NSW’s finances in alignment with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 (the Act).

The Act establishes the framework for fiscal responsibility and the strategy to protect the State’s AAA credit rating and service delivery
to the people of NSW.

The legislation sets out targets and principles for financial management to achieve this.

New South Wales has credit ratings of AAA/ Stable from Standard & Poor’s and Aaa/ Stable from Moody’s Investors Service.

THE FISCAL TARGETS FOR ACHIEVING THIS OBJECTIVE ARE:

General Government annual expenditure growth is lower than long term average revenue growth.

General Government expenditure grew by 5.4 per cent in 2017-18. This was lower than the long-term revenue growth rate of 5.6 per cent.

Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.

The Act sets a target to eliminate unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.

The State’s funding plan is to contribute amounts escalated by five per cent each year so the schemes will be fully funded by 2030. In 2017-18, the State made employer contributions of $1.7 billion, which is largely consistent with contributions over the past five years. Treasury expects superannuation liabilities will be fully funded by 2030 based on the funding program at the last triennial review (December 2015).

For fiscal responsibility purposes, the State uses AASB 1056: Superannuation Entities. This standard discounts superannuation liabilities using the expected return on assets backing the liability.

Using this method, the State’s unfunded superannuation liability was $14.0 billion at 30 June 2018 ($15.0 billion at 30 June 2017). The unfunded liability is $3.4 billion less than it was when the Act was introduced.


 

Revenues increased by $3.2 billion to $86.7 billion in 2017-18.


Revenues were underpinned by growth in taxation and Australian Government grant revenues, but stamp duties fell.

Tax revenue for the Total State Sector increased by $746 million, or 2.5 per cent compared to 2016-17, primarily due to a:

  • $582 million increase in land tax from growth in land values
  • $562 million increase in payroll tax from NSW employment and wages growth
  • $1 billion decrease in stamp duty due to lower than expected growth in property market transactions, volumes and prices. In 2016-17, stamp duty included $718 million from the leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.

The State expects total stamp duties will fall to $9.5 billion in 2018-19, a decrease of almost $2.0 billion from 2016-17.

The State received Australian Government grants and subsidies of $30.9 billion in 2017-18.
The State received $444 million more in grants and subsidies from the Australian Government than it did in 2016-17. This was due to increases in GST revenues ($753 million) and special purpose payments ($683 million).
There was a decrease in National Partnership payments ($992 million), mainly due to the timing of major road projects including the Pacific Highway (Woolgoolga to Ballina), WestConnex and Western Sydney Infrastructure Program.

In 2017-18, sales of goods and services were $1.1 billion higher than in 2016-17. This reflected increased transaction revenue at Sydney Water ($139 million), the Department of Education ($133 million), WestConnex ($145 million), Department of Finance, Services and Innovation ($111 million) and Sydney Trains ($83 million).

Other dividends and distributions were $803 million higher than in 2016-17 mainly reflecting higher investment returns on TCorp investments.

$

83.5b

+3.9%

86.7b

Total Revenue

Key revenues include:

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
red gavel

35.4b

+2.8

36.3b

Taxation, Fees, Fines, and other
institution_red_10x10cm_0.png

31.4b

+1.6

31.9b

Grants & Subsidies
tags_red_10x10_0.png

14.1b

+8.1

15.2b

Sale of Goods and Services

Expenses increased $4.9 billion to $84.2 billion in 2017-18


Overall expenses increased 6.1 per cent compared to 2016-17. Most of the increase was due to higher employee and operating costs.

$

79.3b

+6.1%

84.2b

Total Expenses

Salaries and wages increased by 3.6 per cent compared to 2016-17.

Salaries and wages increased to $31.1 billion from $30 billion. This was due to inflation linked salary and wage increases and a reported increase in front line staff.

The Government wages policy aims to limit growth in employee remuneration and other employee related costs to no more than 2.5 per cent per annum.

Operating expenses increased by 7.8 per cent from 2016-17.

Within operating expenses, payments for supplies, services and other expenses increased, in part, due to:

  • increased costs of major rail projects, WestConnex, B-Line bus program and a new rail timetable
  • addressing the maintenance backlog and higher school operating expenses of the Department of Education.

Key expenses include:

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
group_red_10x10cm_0.png

32.8b

+3.8

34.1b

Employee Expenses
Financial_controls_red_10x10cm_0.png

21.6b

+7.8

23.3b

Operating Costs
institution_red_10x10cm_0.png

9.7b

+12.7

10.9b

Grants & Subsidies
down arrow red

7.2b

+6.6

7.6b

Depreciation
red briefcase

4.6b

+2.8

4.7b

Superannuation Expense

Health costs remain the highest expense of the State.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics introduced a revised Classification of the Function of Government Australia Framework (COFOG-A) effective 1 July 2017. This resulted in some re-classification of expenditure between purposes and now shows State expenses are highest in:

  • Health (25.5 per cent)
  • General Public Services (25.0 per cent)
  • Education (19.6 per cent).

General Public Services includes the executive and legislative branches, financial affairs, public debt transactions and general public service transactions.

The graph highlights the annual expenditure by function and the value of assets to deliver those services.

Assets grew by $35.6 billion to $443 billion in 2017-18


Valuing the State’s physical assets.

The State had physical assets with a fair value of $339 billion at 30 June 2018. This includes land and buildings ($161.6b) and Infrastructure ($160.2b).

Our audits assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of assumptions used to value physical assets. This includes obtaining an understanding of the valuation methodologies used and judgements made. We also review the completeness of asset registers and the mathematical accuracy of valuation models.

Net movements between years include additions, disposals, depreciation and valuations. This year, revaluations of physical assets added $24.5 billion to the value of the State’s assets. This was mainly attributable to the following agencies:

  • Department of Education - $8.5 billion
  • Roads and Maritime Services - $7.4 billion.

The State’s financial assets increased by $308 million in 2017-18 ($27.5 billion in 2016-17).

In 2016-17, the significant increase in financial assets was primarily from the sale or lease of the following government assets and businesses:

  • In June 2017, the Government leased 50.4 per cent of Endeavour Energy assets, which followed the long-term lease 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid’s assets in December 2016. The Government received proceeds of $24.0 billion from these transactions.
  • A 35-year concession for providing titling and registry services, effective 30 June 2017, was granted to a private sector operator. The Government received $2.6 billion cash for the concession.

The Government implemented reforms relating to the use the State’s financial assets.

In 2017-18, the Asset and Liability Committee, which advises the Government on balance sheet management, recommended the following policy actions and frameworks to help manage the State’s financial risks and opportunities:

  • expanding the scope of cash management reforms to give the State a whole-of-government view on the use of surplus funds. Treasury advises these reforms have centralised funds management of approximately $3.0 billion
  • endorsing a new whole-of-government Foreign Exchange (FX) Risk Policy (effective 1 July 2018) to effectively manage the State’s FX risk
  • expanding management of the State’s debt portfolio to minimise interest rate risks, reduce interest costs where possible, and extend the average weighted life of the General Government’s debt portfolio towards eight years
  • endorsing establishment of a ‘sustainability bond’ program to further diversify and expand the State’s bond investor base and raise awareness of the Government’s social and environmental initiatives.

The State has established the NSW Generations Fund to maintain debt at sustainable levels.

The State established the NSW Generations Funds (NGF) in June 2018 to support debt retirement and to fund community-focused initiatives. The Government has indicated it will initially capitalise the NGF with $3.0 billion from its reserves.

The NSW Generations Funds Act 2018 requires an audit of each NSW Generations Fund by the Auditor- General (including a report by the Auditor-General on whether payments from the Funds have been made in accordance with the Act). The first audit of the fund will be for the period up to 30 June 2019.
 

$

407b

+8.7%

443b

Total Assets

Key assets include: 

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
Physical Assets      
road_red_10x10_0.png

147.0b

+9.0

160.2b

Infrastructure
factory red

143.4b

+12.7

161.6b

Land and Buildings
Financial Assets      
scales of justice red

27.7b

- 4.6

26.4b

Equity investments
Financial_performance_red_10x10cm_0.png

20.6b

- 5.2

19.5b

Cash and Recievables
red pillar building - partheon

40.5b

+6.5

41.3b

Investments and Placements

Liabilities increased $5.1 billion to $189 billion in 2017-18


Valuing the State’s liabilities relies on actuarial assessments.

Nearly half of the State’s liabilities relate to its employees. They include unfunded superannuation, and employee benefits, such as long service and recreation leave.

Valuing these obligations involves complex estimation techniques and significant judgements. Small changes in assumptions can materially impact the values and the financial statements.

The State’s superannuation obligations fell $2.2 billion in 2017-18.

The State’s $56.4 billion unfunded superannuation liability represents obligations to past and present employees less the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations. The unfunded superannuation liability fell from $58.6 billion to $56.4 billion in 2017-18.

The State’s borrowings at 30 June 2018 were $700 million higher than they were at 30 June 2017.

The State’s borrowings totalled $71.3 billion at 30 June 2018.

TCorp issues bonds to raise funds for NSW Government agencies. These are actively traded in financial markets, which provides price transparency and liquidity to public sector borrowers and institutional investors. All TCorp bonds are guaranteed by the NSW Government.

The Government manages its debt liabilities through its balance sheet management strategy. The strategy extends to TCorp, which applies an active risk management strategy to the Government’s debt portfolio.

General Government Sector debt has been restructured by replacing shorter-term debt with longer-term debt. This lengthens the portfolio to match liabilities with the funding requirements for infrastructure assets.

$

184b

+2.8%

189b

Total Liabilities

Key liabilities include: 

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
briefcase_red_10x10cm_0.png

58.6b

- 3.7

56.4b

Unfunded Superannuation
group_red_10x10cm_0.png

18.3b

+4.7

19.1b

Other Employee Benefits
institution red - pantheon style building

70.6b

+1.0

71.3b

Borrowings

Published

Actions for Managing Antisocial behaviour in public housing

Managing Antisocial behaviour in public housing

Community Services
Asset valuation
Infrastructure
Regulation
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) has not adequately supported or resourced its staff to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing according to a report released today by the Deputy Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin. 

In recent decades, policy makers and legislators in Australian states and territories have developed and implemented initiatives to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing environments. All jurisdictions now have some form of legislation or policy to encourage public housing tenants to comply with rules and obligations of ‘good neighbourliness’. In November 2015, the NSW Parliament changed legislation to introduce a new approach to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing. This approach is commonly described as the ‘strikes’ approach. 

When introduced in the NSW Parliament, the ‘strikes’ approach was described as a means to:

  • improve the behaviour of a minority of tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour 
  • create better, safer communities for law abiding tenants, including those who are ageing and vulnerable.

FACS has a number of tasks as a landlord, including a responsibility to collect rent and organise housing maintenance. FACS also has a role to support tenants with complex needs and manage antisocial behaviour. These roles have some inherent tensions. The FACS antisocial behaviour management policy aims are: 

to balance the responsibilities of tenants, the rights of their neighbours in social housing, private residents and the broader community with the need to support tenants to sustain their public housing tenancies.

This audit assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the ‘strikes’ approach to managing antisocial behaviour in public housing environments.

We examined whether:

  • the approach is being implemented as intended and leading to improved safety and security in social housing environments
  • FACS and its partner agencies have the capability and capacity to implement the approach
  • there are effective mechanisms to monitor, report and progressively improve the approach.
Conclusion

FACS has not adequately supported or resourced its staff to implement the antisocial behaviour policy. FACS antisocial behaviour data is incomplete and unreliable. Accordingly, there is insufficient data to determine the nature and extent of the problem and whether the implementation of the policy is leading to improved safety and security

FACS management of minor and moderate incidents of antisocial behaviour is poor. FACS has not dedicated sufficient training to equip frontline housing staff with the relevant skills to apply the antisocial behaviour management policy. At more than half of the housing offices we visited, staff had not been trained to:

  • conduct effective interviews to determine whether an antisocial behaviour complaint can be substantiated

  • de escalate conflict and manage complex behaviours when required

  • properly manage the safety of staff and tenants

  • establish information sharing arrangements with police

  • collect evidence that meets requirements at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

  • record and manage antisocial behaviour incidents using the information management system HOMES ASB.

When frontline housing staff are informed about serious and severe illegal antisocial behaviour incidents, they generally refer them to the FACS Legal Division. Staff in the Legal Division are trained and proficient in managing antisocial behaviour in compliance with the policy and therefore, the more serious incidents are managed effectively using HOMES ASB. 


FACS provides housing services to most remote townships via outreach visits from the Dubbo office. In remote townships, the policy is not being fully implemented due to insufficient frontline housing staff. There is very limited knowledge of the policy in these areas and FACS data shows few recorded antisocial behaviour incidents in remote regions. 


The FACS information management system (HOMES ASB) is poorly designed and has significant functional limitations that impede the ability of staff to record and manage antisocial behaviour. Staff at most of the housing offices we visited were unable to accurately record antisocial behaviour matters in HOMES ASB, making the data incorrect and unreliable.

Published

Actions for Performance audit insights: key findings from 2014-2018

Performance audit insights: key findings from 2014-2018

Whole of Government
Compliance
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Procurement
Project management

A report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, presents key findings from four years of performance audits. The report findings are presented around six areas of government activity including planning for the future, meeting community expectations for key services, investment in infrastructure, managing natural resources, ensuring good governance and digital disruption.

In this report, we present common findings and lessons from the past four years of performance audits, and offer insights to the public sector on elements of effective performance. We have analysed the key findings and recommendations from 61 performance audits tabled in the NSW Parliament between July 2014 and June 2018, spanning varied areas of government activity. We will also use this report to help determine areas of unaddressed risk across all parts of government, and to shape our future audit priorities.

Governments play an important stewardship role. Their decisions need to consider intergenerational equity by ensuring that investment strategies are sustainable. Governments also need to consider the impact of their decisions on different parts of the community. We recognise that governments face challenges in delivering programs and services, targeting complex social issues with finite resources.

Governments are changing how they deliver services to respond to citizen needs and deliver greater value for money. In this section, we reflect on audits that looked at how government entities are planning their activities to meet the needs of the community into the future.

State and local government exist to provide services to citizens, and citizens are playing a greater role in defining what services they want or need. Expectations about consultation, ease of access, timeliness, and customisation of services are rising. Governments face challenges to continually improve the way they plan and deliver services to meet these expectations. Governments also need to provide quality services for a growing and ageing population whilst working within a constrained financial environment.

Over the past four years, our performance audits have assessed aspects of State and local government services, including education, health services, disability support, corrective services, and many others. In this section, we draw together common findings that government entities should reflect on when providing services to the community.

The NSW Government’s 2018–19 Budget forecasts an $87.2 billion infrastructure investment program over the next four years. Infrastructure investment of this size carries significant opportunities and risks. Competition for resources is high and maintaining the capability to manage and deliver projects effectively is challenging. Governments also need to plan effectively to ensure infrastructure built today will meet future needs.

Over the past four years, we have looked at some of the ways NSW Government agencies justify and prioritise projects for funding, work with contractors to deliver projects, and track and report on progress. In this section, we draw together common findings from our audits that government entities should consider when planning future infrastructure projects.

Governments face challenges in balancing the use of natural resources to meet diverse interests, while supporting a sustainable natural environment for the future. They need to supply communities with water, produce energy, protect natural habitats, and support farming, industry, and economic development.

Some of our recent audits have considered how government agencies are managing natural resources and protecting the environment for future generations. In this section, we have drawn together common findings across our audits that government entities should consider in managing the environment and natural resources.

A range of checks and balances is needed to support public confidence in government decision making. To maintain trust, government agencies should act transparently, and in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. This is particularly important as the public sector increasingly engages with external partners to deliver services and provide a more contestable environment.

Good governance arrangements should result in improved service delivery and more effective and efficient use of resources. Our audits have looked at many different elements of governance, including making sure the necessary processes and workplace cultures are in place to help government entities achieve their aims. In this section, we have drawn together various aspects of governance that government entities should consider.

The global increase in digital technology provides governments with opportunities to interact with citizens in more immediate and responsive ways than was previously possible. Data can be used in powerful ways such as predicting future demand for services, targeting interventions, responding to crises, and evaluating outcomes. Governments face challenges in doing this while maintaining secure digital environments that protect citizen interests, privacy, and autonomy.

Our audits have assessed some of the ways that government entities are incorporating digital change into their work. In this section, we draw together common themes that governments could consider in protecting their digital assets, or expanding their digital capabilities.
 

Published

Actions for Universities 2017

Universities 2017

Universities
Asset valuation
Compliance
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Information technology
Internal controls and governance

The Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford released her report today on the results of financial audits of NSW universities for the year ended 31 December 2017. No qualified audit opinions were issued for any university and the quality and timeliness of financial reporting continues to improve.

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the ten NSW universities and their controlled entities for the year ended 31 December 2017. The table below summarises our key observations.

This report focuses on our observations on the common issues identified in our audits of the financial statements of the ten NSW universities and their controlled entities in 2017. The universities and controlled entities are listed in Appendix three and four respectively.

The report provides our analysis of universities’ results and findings in the following areas:

  • Financial reporting and performance
  • Teaching and research
  • Financial controls and governance.

Accurate and timely financial reporting is important for universities to make efficient and effective economic decisions. Sound financial performance provides the platform for universities to deliver high quality teaching and research outcomes. 

This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial reporting and performance of NSW universities for 2017.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
3.1 Financial reporting
Audit results
The financial statements of all ten NSW universities and 66 out of 69 of their controlled entities received unmodified audit opinions. Two controlled entities did not fully comply with the financial reporting and audit requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 as they did not submit their financial statements to the Auditor-General. One of these entities was audited under the requirements applicable in its foreign jurisdiction. A third controlled entity submitted financial statements, but only after the statutory due date.
Quality and timeliness of financial reporting
The number of uncorrected misstatements continues to decrease. The quality of financial statements of the universities improved in 2017.
Two universities simplified disclosures in their financial statements. The financial statements of the University of Sydney and Macquarie University are more concise, readable and understandable than those of other universities. 
Six universities finalised their financial statements earlier than in previous years. Universities that performed aspects of early close procedures improved the timeliness of their financial reporting and helped us conclude our audits earlier. 
Eight universities are yet to quantify the impact of new accounting standards applicable in future years.  The two universities that have assessed the impact of the new accounting standards believe the impact will be material.
An accounting issue was identified relating to the recognition and measurement of payroll tax liabilities on employees' defined benefit superannuation contributions payable to the superannuation funds. Recommendation: NSW universities should clarify the recognition and measurement of their liability for payroll tax on their defined benefit superannuation obligations before 31 December 2018. 
3.2 Financial performance
Sources of revenue from operations
Government grants as a proportion of total revenue decreased over the past five years by 6.4 per cent.

The Australian Government announced funding freezes to Australian Government grants revenue for the next two years.

Universities are expanding other revenue streams to decrease their reliance on grant funding. The revenue stream that has increased the most significantly over the past five years is overseas student revenue.

Revenue from overseas student course fees increased by 23 per cent in the last year and contributed $2.8 billion to the NSW university sector in 2017. Overseas student revenue exceeded domestic student revenue by 37 per cent, and comprised over a quarter of NSW universities' total revenues in 2017. The growth in overseas student revenue has not been shared equally in the sector. Some universities are more dependent on overseas student revenue than others.
Revenue from overseas students from four countries comprised 37 per cent of total student revenues for all NSW universities.  Recommendation: NSW universities should assess their student market concentration risk where they rely heavily on students from a single country of origin. This increases their sensitivity to economic or political changes in that country.
Universities' data shows as much as 71 per cent of their overseas student revenue comes from a single country of origin. 
Research income of NSW universities was $1.1 billion in 2016 and has grown by 9.8 per cent between 2012 and 2016. Two universities attracted 65.2 per cent of the total research income received by all NSW universities.
Other revenues
Total philanthropic revenue increased by 1.0 per cent to $151 million in 2017.

Philanthropic revenue has been increasing for the past five years.

Two universities attracted 76.8 per cent of the total philanthropic dollars received by all NSW universities.

Average investment returns fell from 7.0 per cent in 2013 to 5.8 per cent in 2017, while total investments grew to $5.4 billion in 2017 from $3.5 billion in 2013.

Universities have structured their investment portfolios between fixed and non-fixed income assets, seeking to optimise their returns in a low interest rate environment within the limits of their risk management strategies.

Investment income is a significant source of revenue for some, but not all universities. Two universities' investment funds represented 52.3 per cent of the total investment funds of all NSW universities combined.

Low interest rates have made investment in fixed income assets less attractive for universities. Over the last five years universities have increased their investment in non-fixed income (or market based) assets by 67.1 per cent.  
Most NSW universities have established investment governance frameworks.  
Financial sustainability indicators
Operating expenditure per equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) increased by 3.0 per cent in 2017. The universities that have been able to attract international students to grow their operational revenues have been able to leverage economies of scale to maximise their average margin per EFTSL. Other universities have had to rely on containing costs to achieve higher EFTSL margins.
For six universities, the growth in operating expenditure has exceeded the growth in operating revenue, reducing operating margins. The risk associated with narrowing margins is compounded where universities have a high reliance on student revenues from a single source. Sudden changes in demand can challenge the ability of those universities to adjust their cost structures.

As the margin between operating revenue and operating expenditure decreases, operational results are more at risk from unexpected fluctuations, such as Australian Government higher education reforms and reduced overseas student enrolments.

Smaller operating margins reduce the funds available to invest in upgrading infrastructure and implement corporate strategies to meet future challenges.

Eight universities have current ratios greater than one in 2017.    
Controlled entities
Sixteen of the universities' 58 controlled entities that operate business activities reported losses in 2017 (15 in 2016). Overall, the financial performance of controlled entities operating business activities was positive, but results in 2017 were lower than in 2016. 
The total profit of controlled entities operating business activities decreased 5.5 per cent to $77.5 million in 2017 ($82.6 million in 2016). Universities may be able to improve their overall performance by reassessing the viability of business ventures that continue to make losses and/or rely on them for financial support. 
Eighteen controlled entities relied on guarantees of financial support from their parent entity in 2017 (19 in 2016).  

Teaching and research are key objectives of universities and they invest most of their resources in achieving high quality academic and research outcomes to maintain or advance their reputations and rankings in Australia and abroad. Universities have also committed to achieving certain government objectives.

This chapter outlines teaching and research outcomes for NSW universities for 2017.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
4.1 Teaching outcomes
Achieving Australian Government target
NSW universities met the Australian Government target of having 40 per cent of 25 to 34 year-olds with bachelor degrees ten years earlier than the original target date of 2025.

The proportion of 25 to 34 year-olds in NSW holding a bachelor degree increased to 43.4 per cent in 2017.

In 2009, when the target was originally set, only 35.5 per cent of 25 to 34 year-olds held a bachelor degree.

Graduate employment rates

Seven universities exceeded the national average of 71.8 per cent for the proportion of their undergraduates who obtain full-time employment.

Four universities achieved better than the national average of 86.1 per cent for the proportion of their postgraduates who obtain full-time employment.

Most NSW universities' employment outcomes are better than the national average.
Student enrolments by field of education
NSW universities have increased enrolments in fields of study that align with known skills shortages in NSW identified by the Australian Government for 2016 and 2017. Alignment of student intake with identified shortages helps ensure graduates secure timely employment on completion of their studies. 
Achieving diversity outcomes

NSW universities agreed to targets set by the Australian Government for enrolments of students from low socio economic status (SES) and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds.

NSW universities can improve outcomes for these students by implementing policies to increase enrolments and support students to graduation.

Three universities exceeded the target of 20 per cent of low SES student enrolments in 2017.

Six universities met their Indigenous student enrolment target in 2017. The target is having a growth rate in the enrolment of Indigenous students that is more than 50 per cent higher than the growth rate of non-Indigenous student enrolments.

At the current rate, it is unlikely most universities will reach the agreed low SES target by 2020.

Appropriate financial controls help ensure efficient and effective use of resources, and the implementation and monitoring of university policies. Governance consists of frameworks, processes and behaviours that enable the universities to operate effectively and comply with relevant laws and policies.

This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial control and governance of NSW universities for 2017.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
5.1 Internal controls
Internal control findings

Eighty-three internal control deficiencies were identified during our audits, of which 40 related to Information Technology (IT).
High risk
We identified a high risk finding in relation to storage of unencrypted username and password information on a database without appropriate access restrictions. We performed additional audit procedures to conclude that the control deficiency did not present a risk of material misstatement in the university's financial statements.
Moderate risk
Forty-three moderate risk control deficiencies were identified, of which 22 related to IT and 21 related to governance and financial reporting.

Recommendation: NSW universities should ensure controls, including information technology controls, are properly designed and operate effectively to protect intellectual property, staff and student data, and assets. Universities should rectify identified deficiencies in a timely manner.
Repeat findings
Twenty-four findings were repeat internal control deficiencies, of which 18 related to IT. 
IT issues can take some time to rectify because specialist skill and/or partnering with software suppliers is often required to implement new controls. However, until rectified, the vulnerabilities those control deficiencies present can be significant.
Cyber security
Our audits identified opportunities to improve cyber security controls and processes to reduce risks, including risks relating to financial loss, reputational damage and breaches of privacy laws.

Recommendation: NSW universities should strengthen their cyber security frameworks to manage cyber security risks. This includes developing:

  • procedures, protocols and supporting systems to effectively identify, report and respond to cyber security threats and incidents
     
  • staff awareness training and programs, including programs tailored for a range of audiences.

Use of credit card and work-related travel
All NSW universities had appropriate published policies on the use of credit cards, and have internal controls and processes to implement those policies.

The risks of unauthorised use can be mitigated by regular monitoring, and reporting breaches for investigation and disciplinary action.

Appropriately designed and implemented preventive and detective controls are most effective when enforcement and disciplinary activities are oversighted by university audit and risk committees. 

Published

Actions for Regional Assistance Programs

Regional Assistance Programs

Premier and Cabinet
Planning
Transport
Compliance
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Project management

Infrastructure NSW effectively manages how grant applications for regional assistance programs are assessed and recommended for funding. Its contract management processes are also effective. However, we are unable to conclude whether the objectives of these programs have been achieved as the relevant agencies have not yet measured their benefits, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. 

In 2011, the NSW Government established Restart NSW to fund new infrastructure with the proceeds from the sale and lease of government assets. From 2011 to 2017, the NSW Government allocated $1.7 billion from the fund for infrastructure in regional areas, with an additional commitment of $1.3 billion to be allocated by 2021. The NSW Government allocates these funds through regional assistance programs such as Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads. NSW councils are the primary recipients of funding provided under these programs.

The NSW Government announced the Resources for Regions program in 2012 with the aim of addressing infrastructure constraints in mining affected communities. Infrastructure NSW administers the program, with support from the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

The NSW Government announced the Fixing Country Roads program in 2014 with the aim of building more efficient road freight networks. Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW jointly administer this program, which funds local councils to deliver projects that help connect local and regional roads to state highways and freight hubs.

This audit assessed whether these two programs (Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads) were being effectively managed and achieved their objectives. In making this assessment, we answered the following questions:

  • How well are the relevant agencies managing the assessment and recommendation process?
  • How do the relevant agencies ensure that funded projects are being delivered?
  • Do the funded projects meet program and project objectives?

The audit focussed on four rounds of Resources for Regions funding between 2013–14 to 2015–16, as well as the first two rounds of Fixing Country Roads funding in 2014–15 and 2015–16.

Conclusion
Infrastructure NSW effectively manages how grant applications are assessed and recommended for funding. Infrastructure NSW’s contract management processes are also effective. However, we are unable to conclude on whether program objectives are being achieved as Infrastructure NSW has not yet measured program benefits.
While Infrastructure NSW and Transport for NSW managed the assessment processes effectively overall, they have not fully maintained all required documentation, such as conflict of interest registers. Keeping accurate records is important to support transparency and accountability to the public about funding allocation. The relevant agencies have taken steps to address this in the current funding rounds for both programs.
For both programs assessed, the relevant agencies have developed good strategies over time to support councils through the application process. These strategies include workshops, briefings and feedback for unsuccessful applicants. Transport for NSW and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have implemented effective tools to assist applicants in demonstrating the economic impact of their projects.
Infrastructure NSW is effective in identifying projects that are 'at‑risk' and assists in bringing them back on track. Infrastructure NSW has a risk‑based methodology to verify payment claims, which includes elements of good practice in grants administration. For example, it requires grant recipients to provide photos and engages Public Works Advisory to review progress claims and visit project sites.
Infrastructure NSW collects project completion reports for all Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads funded projects. Infrastructure NSW intends to assess benefits for both programs once each project in a funding round is completed. To date, no funding round has been completed. As a result, no benefits assessment has been done for any completed project funded in either program.
 

The project selection criteria are consistent with the program objectives set by the NSW Government, and the RIAP applied the criteria consistently. Probity and record keeping practices did not fully comply with the probity plans.

The assessment methodology designed by Infrastructure NSW is consistent with2 the program objectives and criteria. In the rounds that we reviewed, all funded projects met the assessment criteria.

Infrastructure NSW developed probity plans for both programs which provided guidance on the record keeping required to maintain an audit trail, including the use of conflict of interest registers. Infrastructure NSW and Transport for NSW did not fully comply with these requirements. The relevant agencies have taken steps to address this in the current funding rounds for both programs.

NSW Procurement Board Directions require agencies to ensure that they do not engage a probity advisor that is engaged elsewhere in the agency. Infrastructure NSW has not fully complied with this requirement. A conflict of interest arose when Infrastructure NSW engaged the same consultancy to act as its internal auditor and probity advisor.

While these infringements of probity arrangements are unlikely to have had a major impact on the assessment process, they weaken the transparency and accountability of the process.

Some councils have identified resourcing and capability issues which impact on their ability to participate in the application process. For both programs, the relevant agencies conducted briefings and webinars with applicants to provide advice on the objectives of the programs and how to improve the quality of their applications. Additionally, Transport for NSW and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have developed tools to assist councils to demonstrate the economic impact of their applications.

The relevant agencies provided feedback on unsuccessful applications to councils. Councils reported that the quality of this feedback has improved over time.

Recommendations

  1. By June 2018, Infrastructure NSW should:
    • ensure probity reports address whether all elements of the probity plan have been effectively implemented.
  1. By June 2018, Infrastructure NSW and Transport for NSW should:
    • maintain and store all documentation regarding assessment and probity matters according to the State Records Act 1998, the NSW Standard on Records Management and the relevant probity plans

Infrastructure NSW is responsible for overseeing and monitoring projects funded under Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads. Infrastructure NSW effectively manages projects to keep them on track, however it could do more to assure itself that all recipients have complied with funding deeds. Benefits and outcomes should also start to be measured and reported as soon as practicable after projects are completed to inform assessment of future projects.

Infrastructure NSW identifies projects experiencing unreasonable delays or higher than expected expenses as 'at‑risk'. After Infrastructure NSW identifies a project as 'at‑risk', it puts in place processes to resolve issues to bring them back on track. Infrastructure NSW, working with Public Works Advisory regional offices, employs a risk‑based approach to validate payment claims, however this process should be strengthened. Infrastructure NSW would get better assurance by also conducting annual audits of compliance with the funding deed for a random sample of projects.

Infrastructure NSW collects project completion reports for all Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads funded projects. It applies the Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework to Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads at a program level. This means that each round of funding (under both programs) is treated as a distinct program for the purposes of benefits realisation. It plans to assess whether benefits have been realised once each project in a funding round is completed. As a result, no benefits realisation assessment has been done for any project funded under either Resources for Regions or Fixing Country Roads. Without project‑level benefits realisation, future decisions are not informed by the lessons from previous investments.

Recommendations

  1. By December 2018, Infrastructure NSW should:
    • conduct annual audits of compliance with the funding deed for a random sample of projects funded under Resources for Regions and Fixing Country Roads
    • publish the circumstances under which unspent funds can be allocated to changes in project scope
    • measure benefits delivered by projects that were completed before December 2017
    • implement an annual process to measure benefits for projects completed after December 2017
  1. By December 2018, Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW should:
    • incorporate a benefits realisation framework as part of the detailed application.

Published

Actions for Internal Controls and Governance 2017

Internal Controls and Governance 2017

Finance
Education
Community Services
Health
Justice
Whole of Government
Asset valuation
Compliance
Cyber security
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Project management
Risk

Agencies need to do more to address risks posed by information technology (IT).

Effective internal controls and governance systems help agencies to operate efficiently and effectively and comply with relevant laws, standards and policies. We assessed how well agencies are implementing these systems, and highlighted opportunities for improvement.
 

1. Overall trends

New and repeat findings

The number of reported financial and IT control deficiencies has fallen, but many previously reported findings remain unresolved.

High risk findings

Poor systems implementations contributed to the seven high risk internal control deficiencies that could affect agencies.

Common findings

Poor IT controls are the most commonly reported deficiency across agencies, followed by governance issues relating to cyber security, capital projects, continuous disclosure, shared services, ethics and risk management maturity.

2. Information Technology

IT security

Only two-thirds of agencies are complying with their own policies on IT security. Agencies need to tighten user access and password controls.

Cyber security

Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat.

Other IT systems

Agencies can improve their disaster recovery plans and the change control processes they use when updating IT systems.

3. Asset Management

Capital investment

Agencies report delays delivering against the significant increase in their budgets for capital projects.

Capital projects

Agencies are underspending their capital budgets and some can improve capital project governance.

Asset disposals

Eleven per cent of agencies were required to sell their real property through Property NSW but didn’t. And eight per cent of agencies can improve their asset disposal processes.

4. Governance

Governance arrangements

Sixty-four per cent of agencies’ disclosure policies support communication of key performance information and prompt public reporting of significant issues.

Shared services

Fifty-nine per cent of agencies use shared services, yet 14 per cent do not have service level agreements in place and 20 per cent can strengthen the performance standards they set.

5. Ethics and Conduct

Ethical framework

Agencies can reinforce their ethical frameworks by updating code‑of‑conduct policies and publishing a Statement of Business Ethics.

Conflicts of interest

All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour.

6. Risk Management 

Risk management maturity

All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity.

Risk management elements

Many agencies can improve risk registers and strengthen their risk culture, particularly in the way that they report risks to their lead agency.

This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2016–17 financial audits related to the internal controls and governance of the 39 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. These agencies represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW agencies and were considered to be a large enough group to identify common issues and insights.

The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2017 cluster financial audit reports tabled in Parliament from October to December 2017.

This new report offers strategic insight on the public sector as a whole

In previous years, we have commented on internal control and governance issues in the volumes we published on each ‘cluster’ or agency sector, generally between October and December. To add further value, we then commented more broadly about the issues identified for the public sector as a whole at the start of the following year.

This year, we have created this report dedicated to internal controls and governance. This will help Parliament to understand broad issues affecting the public sector, and help agencies to compare their own performance against that of their peers.

Without strong control measures and governance systems, agencies face increased risks in their financial management and service delivery. If they do not, for example, properly authorise payments or manage conflicts of interest, they are at greater risk of fraud. If they do not have strong information technology (IT) systems, sensitive and trusted information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.

These problems can in turn reduce the efficiency of agency operations, increase their costs and reduce the quality of the services they deliver.

Our audits do not review every control or governance measure every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present the most significant risks that agencies should mitigate. This report divides these into the following six areas:

  1. Overall trends
  2. Information technology
  3. Asset management
  4. Governance
  5. Ethics and conduct
  6. Risk management.

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

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

This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this volume then illustrates this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

Issues

Recommendations

1.1 New and repeat findings

The number of internal control deficiencies reduced over the past three years, but new higher-risk information technology (IT) control deficiencies were reported in 2016–17.

Deficiencies repeated from previous years still make up a sizeable proportion of all internal control deficiencies.

Recommendation

Agencies should focus on emerging IT risks, but also manage new IT risks, reduce existing IT control deficiencies, and address repeat internal control deficiencies on a more timely basis.

1.2 High risk findings

We found seven high risk internal control deficiencies, which might significantly affect agencies.

Recommendation

Agencies should rectify high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority

1.3 Common findings

The most common internal control deficiencies related to poor or absent IT controls.

We found some common governance deficiencies across multiple agencies.

Recommendation

Agencies should coordinate actions and resources to help rectify common IT control and governance deficiencies.

Information technology (IT) has become increasingly important for government agencies’ financial reporting and to deliver their services efficiently and effectively. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place over their IT systems. We found that IT security remains the source of many control weakness in agencies.

Issues Recommendations

2.1 IT security

User access administration

While 95 per cent of agencies have policies about user access, about two-thirds were compliant with these policies. Agencies can improve how they grant, change and end user access to their systems.

Recommendation

Agencies should strengthen user access administration to prevent inappropriate access to sensitive systems. Agencies should:

  • establish and enforce clear policies and procedures
  • review user access regularly
  • remove user access for terminated staff promptly
  • change user access for transferred staff promptly.

Privileged access

Sixty-eight per cent of agencies do not adequately manage who can access their information systems, and many do not sufficiently monitor or restrict privileged access.

Recommendation

Agencies should tighten privileged user access to protect their information systems and reduce the risks of data misuse and fraud. Agencies should ensure they:

  • only grant privileged access in line with the responsibilities of a position
  • review the level of access regularly
  • limit privileged access to necessary functions and data
  • monitor privileged user account activity on a regular basis.

Password controls

Forty-one per cent of agencies did not meet either their own standards or minimum standards for password controls.

Recommendation

Agencies should review and enforce password controls to strengthen security over sensitive systems. As a minimum, password parameters should include:

  • minimum password lengths and complexity requirements
  • limits on the number of failed log-in attempts
  • password history (such as the number of passwords remembered)
  • maximum and minimum password ages.

2.2 Cyber Security

Cyber security framework

Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat.

Recommendation

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should revisit its existing framework to develop a shared cyber security terminology and strengthen the current reporting requirements for cyber incidents.

Cyber security strategies

While 82 per cent of agencies have dedicated resources to address cyber security, they can strengthen their strategies, expertise and staff awareness.

Recommendations

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:

  • mandate minimum standards and require agencies to regularly assess and report on how well they mitigate cyber security risks against these standards
  • develop a framework that provides for cyber security training.

Agencies should ensure they adequately resource staff dedicated to cyber security.

2.3 Other IT systems

Change control processes

Some agencies need to improve change control processes to avoid unauthorised or inaccurate system changes.

Recommendation

Agencies should consistently perform user acceptance testing before system upgrades and changes. They should also properly approve and document changes to IT systems.

Disaster recovery planning

Agencies can do more to adequately assess critical business systems to enforce effective disaster recovery plans. This includes reviewing and testing their plans on a timely basis.

Recommendation

Agencies should complete business impact analyses to strengthen disaster recovery plans, then regularly test and update their plans.

Agency service delivery relies on developing and renewing infrastructure assets such as schools, hospitals, roads, or public housing. Agencies are currently investing significantly in new assets. Agencies need to manage the scale and volume of current capital projects in order to deliver new infrastructure on time, on budget and realise the intended benefits. We found agencies can improve how they:

  • manage their major capital projects
  • dispose of existing assets.
Issues Recommendations or conclusions

3.1 Capital investment

Capital asset investment ratios

Most agencies report high capital investment ratios, but one-third of agencies’ capital investment ratios are less than one.

Recommendation

Agencies with high capital asset investment ratios should ensure their project management and delivery functions have the capacity to deliver their current and forward work programs.

Volume of capital spending

Most agencies have significant forward spending commitments for capital projects. However, agencies’ actual capital expenditure has been below budget for the last three years.

Conclusion

The significant increase in capital budget underspends warrant investigation, particularly where this has resulted from slower than expected delivery of projects from previous years.

3.2 Capital projects

Major capital projects

Agencies’ major capital projects were underspent by 13 percent against their budgets.

Conclusion

The causes of agency budget underspends warrant investigation to ensure the NSW Government’s infrastructure commitment is delivered on time.

Capital project governance

Agencies do not consistently prepare business cases or use project steering committees to oversee major capital projects.

Conclusion

Agencies that have project management processes that include robust business cases and regular updates to their steering committees (or equivalent) are better able to provide those projects with strategic direction and oversight.

3.3. Asset disposals

Asset disposal procedures

Agencies need to strengthen their asset disposal procedures.

Recommendations

Agencies should have formal processes for disposing of surplus properties.

Agencies should use Property NSW to manage real property sales unless, as in the case for State owned corporations, they have been granted an exemption.

Governance refers to the high-level frameworks, processes and behaviours that help an organisation to achieve its objectives, comply with legal and other requirements, and meet a high standard of probity, accountability and transparency.

This chapter sets out the governance lighthouse model the Audit Office developed to help agencies reach best practice. It then focuses on two key areas: continuous disclosure and shared services arrangements. The following two chapters look at findings related to ethics and risk management.

Issues Recommendations or conclusions

4.1 Governance arrangements

Continuous disclosure

Continuous disclosure promotes improved performance and public trust and aides better decision-making. Continuous disclosure is only mandatory for NSW Government Businesses such as State owned corporations.

Conclusion

Some agencies promote transparency and accountability by publishing on their websites a continuous disclosure policy that provides for, and encourages:

  • regular public disclosure of key performance information
  • disclosure of both positive and negative information
  • prompt reporting of significant issues.

4.2 Shared services

Service level agreements

Some agencies do not have service level agreements for their shared service arrangements.

Many of the agreements that do exist do not adequately specify controls, performance or reporting requirements. This reduces the effectiveness of shared services arrangements.

Conclusion

Agencies are better able to manage the quality and timeliness of shared service arrangements where they have a service level agreement in place. Ideally, the terms of service should be agreed before services are transferred to the service provider and:

  • specify the controls a provider must maintain
  • specify key performance targets
  • include penalties for non-compliance.

Shared service performance

Some agencies do not set performance standards for their shared service providers or regularly review performance results.

Conclusion

Agencies can achieve better results from shared service arrangements when they regularly monitor the performance of shared service providers using key measures for the benefits realised, costs saved and quality of services received.

Before agencies extend or renegotiate a contract, they should comprehensively assess the services received and test the market to maximise value for money.

All government sector employees must demonstrate the highest levels of ethical conduct, in line with standards set by The Code of Ethics and Conduct for NSW government sector employees.

This chapter looks at how well agencies are managing these requirements, and where they can improve their policies and processes.

We found that agencies mostly have the appropriate codes, frameworks and policies in place. But we have highlighted opportunities to improve the way they manage those systems to reduce the risks of unethical conduct.

Issues Recommendations or conclusions

5.1 Ethical framework

Code of conduct

All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour.

Recommendation

Agencies should regularly review their code-of-conduct policies and ensure they keep their codes of conduct up-to-date.

Statement of business ethics

Most agencies maintain an ethical framework, but some can enhance their related processes, particularly when dealing with external clients, customers, suppliers and contractors.

Conclusion

Agencies can enhance their ethical frameworks by publishing a Statement of Business Ethics, which communicates their values and culture.

5.2 Potential conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest

All agencies have a conflicts-of-interest policy, but most can improve how they identify, manage and avoid conflicts of interest.

Recommendation

Agencies should improve the way they manage conflicts of interest, particularly by:

  • requiring senior executives to make a conflict-of-interest declaration at least annually
  • implementing processes to identify and address outstanding declarations
  • providing annual training to staff
  • maintaining current registers of conflicts of interest.

Gifts and benefits

While all agencies already have a formal gifts-and-benefits policy, we found gaps in the management of gifts and benefits by some that increase the risk of unethical conduct.

Recommendation

Agencies should improve the way they manage gifts and benefits by promptly updating registers and providing annual training to staff.

Risk management is an integral part of effective corporate governance. It helps agencies to identify, assess and prioritise the risks they face and in turn minimise, monitor and control the impact of unforeseen events. It also means agencies can respond to opportunities that may emerge and improve their services and activities.

This year we looked at the overall maturity of the risk management frameworks that agencies use, along with two important risk management elements: risk culture and risk registers.

Issues Recommendations or conclusions

6.1 Risk management maturity

All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity in their application.

Agencies’ averaged a score of 3.1 out of five across five critical assessment criteria for risk management. While strategy and governance fared best, the areas that most need to improve are risk culture, and systems and intelligence.

Conclusion

Agencies have introduced risk management frameworks and practices as required by the Treasury’s:

  • 'Risk Management Toolkit for the NSW Public Sector'
  • 'Internal Audit and Risk Management Policy for the NSW Public Sector'.

However, more can be done to progress risk management maturity and embed risk management in agency culture.

6.2 Risk management elements

Risk culture

Most agencies have started to embed risk management into the culture of their organisation. But only some have successfully done so, and most agencies can improve their risk culture.

 

 

Conclusion

Agencies can improve their risk culture by:

  • setting an appropriate tone from the top
  • training all staff in effective risk management
  • ensuring desired risk behaviours and culture are supported, monitored, and reinforced through business plans, or the equivalent and employees' performance assessments.

Risk registers and reporting

Some agencies do not report their significant risks to their lead agency, which may impair the way resources are allocated in their cluster. Some agencies do not integrate risk registers at a divisional and whole-of-enterprise level.

Conclusion

Agencies not reporting significant risks at the cluster level increases the likelihood that significant risks are not being mitigated appropriately.

Effective risk management can improve agency decision-making, protect reputations and lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings. By embedding risk management directly into their operations, agencies can also derive extra value for their activities and services.

Published

Actions for Planning and Environment 2017

Planning and Environment 2017

Planning
Environment
Asset valuation
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Project management

The following report highlights results of financial audits of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these agencies.

The audits were completed for most agencies in the cluster and unqualified audit opinions issued. Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven small agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline, and six of these remain incomplete. Apart from these small agencies, the quality of financial reporting across the cluster remained at a high standard.

1. Financial reporting and controls

Financial reporting Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 39 of the 45 cluster agencies. Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven small agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline. Six of these audits remain incomplete at the date of this report.
  Agencies completed early close procedures mandated by the Treasury. We noted opportunities for agencies to improve the effectiveness of these procedures.
Internal Controls One in six internal control weaknesses identified during the financial audits were repeat issues. Agencies should action audit recommendations promptly.
  User administration over financial systems needs to be strengthened to prevent inappropriate access to financial information.

2. Service Delivery

 
Housing completions Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates the Department of Planning and Environment achieved the Premier's priority for housing completions in 2016–17. 
Increasing housing supply Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Department of Planning and Environment achieved the annual target of delivering over 50,000 housing approvals over the past three years.
Major project assessment Progress against the State priority target to reduce time taken to assess planning applications for State significant developments is difficult to determine as the measure is unclear.
Litter management The Environment Protection Authority's data indicates that progress towards the Premier's priority target for litter reduction slowed in 2016–17.
Cultural participation The Department of Planning and Environment’s data indicates overall attendance at cultural venues and events in New South Wales increased by 16 per cent in 2015–16.

This report provides Parliament and others with the audit results, observations and recommendations for Planning and Environment cluster agencies. The report has been structured into two chapters focussing on financial reporting and controls and service delivery.

The Planning and Environment cluster plays a role in ensuring each community across New South Wales receives the services and infrastructure it needs.

This chapter outlines our audit observations and recommendations related to financial reporting and controls of Planning and Environment cluster agencies for 2016–17.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation

2.1 Quality of financial reporting

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 39 of the 45 cluster agencies' financial statements.

Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven smaller agencies delayed their completion. Six audits remain incomplete at the date of this report.

Apart from these seven small agency audits, the quality of financial reporting across the cluster remained at a high standard.

2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting

Seven agencies' financial statement audits were not completed by the statutory deadline with six audits incomplete at the date of this report.

Issues identified during the financial statement audits of seven smaller agencies delayed their finalisation beyond the statutory deadline. These agencies would benefit from performing additional early close procedures in future reporting periods.

2.3 Financial and sustainability analysis

Water and Electricity utility agencies continue to operate with low liquidity ratios.

A liquidity ratio below one is an indicator that an entity may not be able to pay its debts as and when they fall due.

Whilst liquidity ratios were below one, utility agencies demonstrated they can continue to support ongoing operations due to:

  • access to regulated revenue streams

  • assets with long useful lives to generate revenue

  • debt funding limits approved by the NSW Treasurer under the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Act 1987.

2.5 Internal controls

One in six internal control weaknesses reported in 2016–17 were repeat issues.

Delays in implementing audit recommendations can prolong the risk of fraud and error.

Recommendation (repeat issue): anagement letter recommendations to address internal control weaknesses should be actioned promptly, with a focus on addressing repeat issues.

Nine of these internal control weaknesses related to the creation, modification, deletion and review of user access to financial systems.

These control weaknesses may compromise the integrity and security of financial data.

Recommendation (repeat issue): Management of user administration over financial systems should be strengthened to prevent inappropriate access to financial information.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations relating to service delivery for 2016–17.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation

3.1 Premier's and State priorities

The Planning and Environment cluster is responsible for delivering five Premier's and State priorities.

One priority target was achieved in 2016–17, two targets are on track to be achieved and progress towards one target slowed.

Progress against one target cannot be determined.

3.2 Planning

Housing Completion

 
There were 63,506 housing completions in
2016–17. This was 4.1 per cent above the Premier’s priority target of delivering 61,000 housing completions per year.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the housing completions target was achieved in
2016–17.

Housing supply

The number of approvals for new houses in
2016–17 was 72,472 against the State priority target of more than 50,000 approvals per year.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates the housing approvals target was achieved in
2016–17.

Major project assessment

 
State significant developments are not clearly defined for the purposes of reporting against the State priority target. The Department of Planning and Environment will clarify with the Department of Premier and Cabinet which developments are captured by the State priority target.
The Department of Planning and Environment’s data shows the time taken to assess complex State significant developments increased by 16 per cent in 2016–17 while the time taken to assess less complex developments reduced by 20 per cent. The Department of Planning and Environment considers it is on track to meet the State priority target of halving the time taken to assess State significant developments, despite uncertainty over the target measure.

Housing acceleration fund

 

Program business cases were not developed for projects in Housing Acceleration Fund Rounds 1 to 4.

The Department advised a program business case will be developed for Housing Acceleration Fund Round 5 projects.

A program business case is necessary to ensure related projects are evaluated, managed and coordinated effectively.
 

A benefit realisation review process has not yet been approved for Housing Acceleration Fund projects.

The Department of Planning and Environment advised it is developing a benefit realisation review process.

A benefit realisation review process is necessary to determine whether funded projects achieved intended outcomes.

Greater Sydney Commission

 
The Greater Sydney Commission forecasts a further 725,000 dwellings in the greater Sydney region will be required up to 2036 to meet housing demand. In response to population growth, the Commission has set a five-year housing supply target of 189,100 houses across the five Greater Sydney Commission districts.

ePlanning system

 
The Department of Planning and Environment did not perform a benefit realisation review for phase one of the ePlanning project. It has committed to performing a benefit realisation review after completion of phase two in 2018. It cannot be determined if phase one of the project delivered expected outcomes as a benefit realisation review was not performed.

3.3. Environment and Heritage

Litter volume in New South Wales was 6.6 litres per 1,000 square metres in 2016–17, an increase of 16 per cent from the prior year. This is above the Premier's priority litter volume target of 4.2 litres per 1,000 square metres by 2020. The Environment Protection Authority's data indicates the progress towards the target of reducing the volume of litter by 40 per cent by 2020 has slowed.
The NSW Government plans to invest $240 million to facilitate strategic biodiversity conservation on private land. Performance measures have not yet been developed for the private land conservation program.

3.4 Water

IPART reduced water usage charges for most Sydney Water Corporation customers in 2016–17. Water usage prices in New South Wales compare favourably to larger water utilities in other jurisdictions.

Hunter Water Corporation's water recycling and water conservation performance has been stable over recent years.

The volume of Sydney Water Corporation’s recycled water reduced by 12 per cent in 2016–17 compared to the previous year.

Sydney Water Corporation experienced reduced industry demand for recycled water. Several large industrial customers relocated away from Sydney.

3.5 Arts and culture

A State priority target is to increase overall attendance at cultural venues and events in New South Wales by 15 per cent from 2014–15 levels by 2019. The Department of Planning and Environment's data indicates overall attendance increased by 16 per cent in 2015–16, although attendance fluctuated across individual venues and events. This indicates progress towards achieving the overall target by 2019.

Published

Actions for Family and Community Services 2017

Family and Community Services 2017

Community Services
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Procurement
Project management

The following report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of agencies in the Family and Community Services cluster.

The report includes a range of findings on service delivery. The Department of Family and Community Services' data indicates that family preservation programs are having a positive impact on children and young people entering statutory care. On the other hand, waiting times for social housing applicants increased in 2016-17.
 

1. Financial reporting and controls

Quality of financial reporting Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' financial statements.   
Timeliness of financial reporting Agencies completed mandatory early close procedures and all but one agency submitted financial statements by the statutory deadline.
Internal controls The 2016–17 audits reported 29 internal control improvements to cluster agencies’ management. None of these findings were high risk. Eleven related to information technology control weaknesses in key financial business systems.

2. Service Delivery

Commissioning Non-government organisations (NGOs) received $2.6 billion in 2016–17 to deliver services.
Children and young people

The Department of Family and Community Services data indicates that family preservation programs are reducing the number of children and young people entering statutory care.

The Department's data shows 86 per cent of children and young people in statutory care had their placements reviewed in the 12 months to 30 June 2017. Legislation requires all placements are reviewed at least every 12 months.

Social Housing The Department's data shows waiting times for social housing applicants are longer than last year.
People with disability Under the current timetable for implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Department plans to transfer direct disability services to NGOs by 30 June 2018.

This report provides Parliament and others with the audit results, observations, conclusions and recommendations for Family and Community Services cluster agencies. The report has been structured into two chapters focusing on financial reporting and controls and service delivery.

The Family and Community Services cluster works with children, adults, families and communities to improve lives and help people realise their potential.

This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations related to the financial reporting and controls of agencies in the Family and Community Services cluster for 2016–17.

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

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

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
2.1 Quality of financial reporting
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all cluster agencies' financial statements. The quality of financial reporting remains high across the cluster.
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting
Agencies completed mandatory early close procedures and all but one submitted financial statements by the deadline. Early close procedures continue to allow issues and financial reporting risk areas to be addressed early in the audit process. There are opportunities to improve effectiveness of early close procedures.
2.3 Internal controls
The 2016–17 audits reported 29 internal control weaknesses. While none were high risk, the Department had five repeat issues.

 
Management accepted the audit findings and advised they are actioning recommendations. Timely action is important to ensure internal controls operate effectively.
Eleven of these internal control weaknesses were related to IT system user access administration and security over financial systems.

Controls weaknesses may compromise the integrity and security of financial data.

Recommendation

Agencies should:

  • ensure policies for creating, modifying and deactivating user access are documented
  • enhance the current user access review process
  • log and monitor highly privileged user account activity
  • ensure timely removal of access to business systems for terminated and casual employees
  • ensure password parameters comply with internal policies.

Government outcomes can be improved by delivering the right mix of services, whether from the public, private or not for profit sectors. Service delivery reform will be most successful if there is clear accountability for service delivery outcomes, decisions are aligned to strategic direction and performance is monitored and evaluated.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations related to service delivery by agencies in the Family and Community Services cluster for 2016–17.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation

3.1 Commissioning

Non-government organisations (NGOs) received $2.6 billion funding in 2016–17 to deliver services. Commissioning of service delivery can change the profile of risks that need to be managed. The Department has established a Commissioning Division and developed its ‘Commissioning for Better Outcomes Framework’. 

3.2 Children and young people

All the Department's Districts are accredited to provide out-of-home care services.

The Department's data indicates 66 more children and young people were in statutory care at 30 June 2017 compared to 30 June 2016. This contrasts to the previous year where 1,150 more children were in statutory care at 30 June 2016 than at 30 June 2015.

The Department is complying with out-of-home care service standards, but one District has an additional condition attached to its accreditation.

Department’s data indicates that family preservation programs are having a positive impact..

The Department's data shows 86 per cent of children and young people in statutory care had their placement reviewed at 30 June 2017.

The Department’s data shows, at 30 June 2017, 41 per cent of children and young people with closed case plans for the 12 months ended 30 June 2016 were re-reported at risk of significant harm.

The Department did not meet the legislative requirement to review the placement of all children and young people in statutory care annually.

The number of children being re-reported at risk of significant harm is above the Premier’s Priority target of 34 per cent by June 2019.
 

3.3. Social Housing

Waiting time for priority and non-priority social housing applicants increased in 2016–17, by 19 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. Some factors impacting waiting time for social housing applicants are outside the control of the Department.

3.4 People with disability

A Bilateral Agreement between the Australian and NSW Governments sets out how eligible persons access the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2018.
 
Under the timetable for the NDIS, the Department plans to transfer direct disability services to NGOs.
 

Published

Actions for State Finances 2017

State Finances 2017

Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Local Government
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Universities
Whole of Government
Environment
Asset valuation
Financial reporting
Information technology
Internal controls and governance

Total State Sector Accounts received an unqualified audit opinion for the fifth consecutive year.

There was a $5.7 billion State budget surplus and continued investment in new infrastructure, in part funded by the long-term leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets. This report also comments on key accounting matters, including the correction of some previously reported balances and the first time reporting of combined Cabinet members’ compensation in the Total State Sector Accounts.

Pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I present my Report on State Finances 2017.

You will note that the format of this report has changed from previous years.

The intent of this change is to draw attention to the key matters that have been the focus of our audit and highlight significant factors that have contributed to the outcome.

First, it is pleasing to report once again that I issued a clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements. This outcome demonstrates the Government’s continued focus on the quality of financial reporting across the NSW public sector.

High quality financial management and reporting are crucial to properly inform the public and build community confidence in our system of government.

The Treasury’s Financial Management Transformation program also aims to improve financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements across the sector. My Office is working collaboratively with The Treasury on reforms to reduce the burden of reporting, without weakening established safeguards.

The reforms should include measures to provide independent assurance of the budget process, of outcome reporting by agencies, and the power to “follow the dollar” given the increasing use of non-government organisations to deliver Government programs.

This Report also highlights another year of strong financial performance. The State’s budget result was a $5.7 billion surplus, and investment in new infrastructure has continued, in part funded by the long-term leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.

Finally, could I take this opportunity to thank the staff of The Treasury for the way they approached this audit. Our partnership is critical to ensuring NSW is an exemplar of quality financial management and reporting.

02_Margaret_signature.jpg

Margaret Crawford 
24 October 2017

A clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements was issued.

Timely and accurate financial reporting is essential for informed decision making, effective management of public funds and enhancing public accountability.

This year’s clear audit opinion reflects the Government’s continued efforts to improve the quality of financial reporting across the NSW public sector.

Since the introduction of ‘early close procedures’ in 2011-12, the number of significant errors in financial statements of agencies has generally fallen largely due to identifying and resolving complex accounting issues early. Agencies’ 2016-17 financial statements submitted for audit contained nine errors exceeding $20 million. All errors were subsequently corrected in the individual agencies financial statements.

Agencies should continue to respond to key accounting issues as soon as they are identified. Where issues are identified, accounting position papers should be prepared for consideration by the Audit Office, their Audit and Risk Committee members, and when relevant, The Treasury.

The State addressed the following key accounting matters during 2016-17. 

The State recognised rail tunnels and earthworks valued at $8.5 billion.

Some rail tunnels and earthworks have never been valued by the State. These include the City Circle, the country rail network and other tunnels and earthworks built before the year 2000. Some of these tunnels and earthworks date back to the early 1900s.

For many years, the State did not account for these assets as they believed that their value could not be reliably measured. This year an independent valuer was engaged to perform a comprehensive valuation. The methodology used demonstrated
that the assets could have been reflected in the financial statements earlier.

The State recorded an additional $8.5 billion to correct the value of infrastructure assets at 1 July 2016.

Cabinet member’s compensation and related party transactions were reviewed.

Due to changes in Accounting Standards, the State had to consider 'related party information' in the financial statements. Previously this only applied to for-profit entities.

This year, requirements to report related party information extended to members of Cabinet, considered to be “key management personnel” of the State, as defined by Accounting Standards.

The Treasury implemented a process to assess and report Cabinet member’s compensation, and transactions between Cabinet members and/or their close family members, and government agencies.

Collectively, Cabinet members’ remuneration was $8.8 million, which was mainly salaries and allowances, and $3.5 million of non-monetary benefits such as security and drivers. The Treasury determined there were no other specific “related party” transactions or balances that required disclosure in the State’s financial statements.

Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.

TAFE NSW has experienced ongoing issues with its student administration system.

TAFE NSW has again implemented additional processes to verify the accuracy and completeness of revenue from sales of goods and services.

TAFE NSW expects to spend up to $89 million on a new information system to address these issues. Modules of the new student enrolment system are expected to be in place for the 2018 enrolment period.

Restatements relating to the General Government Sector's investment in the commercial sector.

The State corrected two previously reported balances relating to the General Government Sector’s investment in the commercial sector.

Accounting Standards require the General Government Sector to effectively store gains or losses related to its investment in the commercial sector in reserves until the investment is derecognised.

When these investments are disposed of, the cumulative gains and losses must be cleared and recognised in the operating result. However, the Government had previously cleared the cumulative gains and losses directly to Accumulated Funds within equity.

To comply with Accounting Standards, a total of $6 billion previously reported as a movement in equity  at 30 June 2016, has now been corrected to the operating result.

In addition, Accounting Standards only allow gains or losses on its investments to be stored in reserves. In past years, the State recognised all changes in the value of its investment in Available for Sale Reserves, including the capital contributed to establish the State’s investment. In 2016-17, a total of $23.4 billion of contributed capital was corrected to accumulated funds at 1 July 2015.

The State’s budget result was a $5.7 billion surplus, $2.0 billion higher than the budget estimate.

The Total State Sector comprises 310 entities controlled by the NSW Government.

Of the total, the General Government Sector comprises 215 entities that provide goods and services not directly paid for by consumers.

The non-General Government Sector comprises 95 Government businesses that provide goods and services such as water and electricity, or financial services.

A principal measure of a Government’s overall performance is its Net Operating Balance, or Budget Result. The Net Operating Balance reports the difference between the cost of General Government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors.

The State has recorded budget surpluses and exceeded the original budget result in nine of the last ten years.

The State maintained its AAA credit rating.

The object of the Act is to maintain the AAA credit rating.

NSW’s finances are managed in alignment with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 (the Act).

The Act established the framework for fiscal responsibility and strategy needed to protect the State’s AAA credit rating and service delivery to the people of NSW.

The purpose of maintaining the AAA credit rating is to reduce the cost of, and ensure the broadest access to, borrowings.

A triple-A credit rating also helps maintain business and consumer confidence so economic activity and employment are sustained. The legislation sets out targets and principles for financial management to achieve this.

New South Wales has credit ratings of AAA/Negative from Standard & Poor’s and Aaa/Stable from Moody’s Investors Service.

The fiscal targets for achieving this objective are:

General Government expenditure growth is lower than long term revenue growth.

General Government expenditure growth was 4.2 per cent in 2016-17, below the long-term revenue growth of 5.6 per cent.

Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.

The Act sets a target of eliminating unfunded defined benefit superannuation liabilities by 2030. The State’s net superannuation liability was $58.6 billion at 30 June 2017 ($71.2 billion at 30 June 2016).

The Government predicts the 2030 target will be achieved. The State’s funding plan is to contribute amounts escalated by five per cent each year so the schemes will be fully funded by 2030. In 2016-17, the State made employer contributions of $1.5 billion, which is largely consistent with contributions over the past five years.

The liability values in the graph below do not reflect the values recorded in the Total State Sector Accounts. For financial reporting purposes, Accounting Standards (AASB 119 Employee Benefits) require the State to discount its superannuation liability using the government bond rate (refer to page 10 of this report). 

The relevant government bond rate in the current economic climate is 2.62 per cent.

The State’s target for the unfunded superannuation liability is measured using AASB 1056 Superannuation Entities. This is because it adopts a measurement basis that reflects expected earnings on fund assets, which are currently between 5.9 and 7.4 per cent. Using these rates, the liability is $15.0 billion at 30 June 2017 ($16.1 billion at 30 June 2016). The unfunded liability is $2.4 billion less than when the Act was introduced.

The State’s assets grew by $31.6 billion during 2016-17 to $409 billion.

Valuing the State’s physical assets.

When we audit the financial statements, we focus on areas we consider as higher risk. These areas are often complex, and require the use of estimates and judgements.

The State has $307.2 billion of physical assets measured at fair value in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards. Fair value calculations are inherently complex and sensitive to assumptions and estimates, increasing the risk these assets are incorrectly valued.

In our audits, we assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of assumptions used in valuing physical assets. This includes obtaining an understanding of the valuation methodologies applied and judgements made. We also review the completeness of asset registers, and the mathematical accuracy of valuation models.

Net movements between years includes additions, disposals, depreciation and valuations. This year, valuations of physical assets added $16.2 billion to the State’s assets, comprising: 

  • Transport for NSW and Railcorp $8.5 billion

  • New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation $4.8 billion

  • Roads and Maritime Services $930 million

  • Crown Entity $400 million.    

The State’s financial assets increased $27.5 billion in 2016-17

The State’s financial assets have increased by 88 per cent over the past four years. In 2016-17, financial assets increased primarily due to proceeds from the sale of government assets and businesses.

The Government implemented reforms to better use the State’s financial assets. A key element was the creation of an Asset and Liability Committee (ALCO) to provide advice on ways to improve balance sheet management.

Since the creation of the ALCO, reforms include:

  • Establishment of the New South Wales Infrastructure Future Fund (NIFF). The net proceeds from the State’s asset recycling program are invested into the NIFF, which is managed by TCorp, with a balance of $14.6 billion by 30 June 2017. Funds raised are invested through the NIFF until the Government requires them for critical infrastructure projects that are part of the Restart NSW and Rebuilding NSW program of works. ALCO and TCorp provide advice on the NIFF’s performance and management

  • Establishment of the Social and Affordable Housing Fund ($1.1 billion at 30 June 2017). ALCO oversees the Fund to ensure an appropriate investment approach that will maintain funding certainty for new social and affordable housing stock

  • Cash and liquidity management reforms to centralise cash previously held by agencies in the Treasury Banking System. This reform is designed to ensure agencies have adequate levels of liquidity but with surplus funds invested centrally for better returns.

The State’s liabilities decreased by $13.1 billion during 2016-17 to $182 billion.

Valuing the State’s liabilities relies on an actuarial assessment.

Nearly half of the State’s liabilities relate to its employees. This includes unfunded superannuation, and employee benefits, such as long service and recreation leave.

Valuation of these obligations is subject to complex estimation techniques and significant judgements. Small changes in assumptions can materially impact the financial statements.

We address the risk associated with auditing these balances:

  • using actuarial specialists

  • testing controls around underlying employee data used in data models, and testing the accuracy of the calculations

  • evaluating assumptions applied in calculating employee entitlements such as the discount rate and the probability of long service leave vesting conditions being met.

The State’s superannuation obligations reduced by $12.6 billion in 2016-17.

The State’s $58.6 billion superannuation liability represents obligations for past and present employees, less the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations. The superannuation liability decreased from $71.2 billion to $58.6 billion, largely due to an increase in the discount rate from 1.99 per cent to 2.62 per cent. This alone reduced the liability by $9.2 billion

The State’s borrowings totalled $70.6 billion at 30 June 2017.

The State’s borrowings totalled $70.6 billion at 30 June 2017, $9.5 billion less than the previous year. This was largely due to the repayment of borrowings when the assets of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy were leased to the private sector.

TCorp issues bonds to raise funds for NSW Government agencies. The bonds are actively traded in financial markets providing price transparency and liquidity to public sector borrowers and institutional investors. All TCorp bonds are guaranteed by the NSW Government.

The Government manages its debt liabilities through its balance sheet management strategy. The strategy extends to TCorp, which applies an active risk management strategy to the Government’s debt portfolio.

General Government Sector debt is being restructured by replacing shorter-term debt with longer-term debt. This lengthens the portfolio to better match liabilities with the funding requirements of infrastructure assets and reduces refinancing risks. It also allows the Government to take advantage of the low interest rate environment.

The State recorded revenue of $83.5 billion in  2016-17, an increase of $5.3 billion from 2015-16.

The State’s results are underpinned by revenue growth in taxation, fees and fines.

Taxation, fees, fines and other revenue comprises $30.5 billion of taxation ($28.7 billion in 2015-16) and $5.3 billion of fees, fines and other revenue ($4.6 billion).

Tax revenue for the Total State Sector increased by $1.8 billion, or 6.4 per cent compared to 2015-16, primarily due to:

  • one-off business asset sales and lease transactions, including $718 million in transfer duty from the Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy lease transactions

  • $385 million increase in payroll tax from growth in NSW employment and average employee compensation

  • a $426 million increase in land taxes.

Growth in stamp duty is expected to slow over the next 4 years.

General Government Sector stamp duties have increased from $6.2 billion in 2012-13 to $11.5 billion in 2016-17, an annual average growth rate of 16.5 per cent. The Government’s budget forecasts the growth in stamp duties to decline, to an average annual growth rate of 2.6 per cent between 2016-17 and 2020-21.

The State received Commonwealth grants and subsidies of $30.8 billion in 2016-17.

The State received $30.8 billion from the Commonwealth Government in 2016-17, $1.6 billion more than in 2015-16. This was primarily due to transaction based asset recycling grants of $1.0 billion and a $720 million increase in national land transport grants. This increase was offset by a $435 million decrease in General Purpose Grants, which mainly comprises New South Wales’ share of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). 

The State spent $79.4 billion in 2016-17 to deliver services to the community, an increase of $3.9 billion from 2015-16.

Overall expenses increased 5.2 per cent from last year. Most of the increase was due to higher employee costs and operating costs.

Total salaries and wages increased by 4.2 per cent from 2015-16.

Total salaries and wages increased to $30 billion from $28.8 billion in 2015-16. The Government wages policy aims to limit the growth in remuneration and other employee costs to no more than 2.5 per cent per annum.

Operating expenses increased by 12.4 per cent from 2015-16.

Within operating expenses, payments for supplies, services and other expenses increased, in part, due to the State:

  • reacquiring mining licenses worth $482 million and additional land remediation costs of $101 million

  • spending more on health including additional drug supplies relating to Hepatitis C.

State spend on transport and communications increased by 68.1 per cent since 2012-13.

While spending on health and education remain the largest functional areas provided by Government, expenditure on transport and communication increased, on average, by 13.9 per cent annually between 2012-13 and 2016-17. This increase reflects the Government’s investment in transport infrastructure such as the Sydney Metro and Westconnex. Over the same period, spending on health increased by $3.9 billion.

Expenditure on fuel and energy has decreased by an average of 44.7 per cent since 2012-13, reflecting the State’s leases of electricity network assets.

In 2011, the Government established Restart NSW to fund high priority infrastructure projects.

Restart NSW projects are primarily funded from the proceeds from the asset recycling program enabling Government to deliver new infrastructure investment.

Restart NSW provides funding for the delivery of Rebuilding NSW, which is the Government’s 10-year plan to invest $20 billion in new infrastructure.

The State finalised long-term leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.

In June 2017, the Government finalised its long-term lease of 50.4 per cent of Endeavour Energy. This transaction follows on from the long-term leases of TransGrid in December 2015 and 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid in December 2016. Net proceeds of $15.0 billion were paid into Restart NSW relating to these transactions.

The Government also finalised an arrangement for the private sector to provide land titling and registry services to the public for 35 years. The State, through Restart NSW, received an upfront payment of $2.6 billion from the new operator.

Restart NSW is funding $29.8 billion of new infrastructure.

The Government has detailed its plan to invest $20 billion into the Rebuilding NSW plan from Restart NSW.

At 30 June 2017, around $2.9 billion has already been spent on Rebuilding NSW projects from Restart NSW, with a further $9 billion included in the budget aggregates. The Government has also earmarked a further $8.1 billion in Restart NSW for future projects.

The most significant project is the Sydney Metro. The Government has committed $7.0 billion from Restart NSW to build a 30-kilometre metro line, linking Sydney Metro Northwest at Chatswood, through new stations in the lower North Shore, the Sydney CBD and southwest to Bankstown. At 30 June 2017, $2.4 billion has been spent on this project from Restart NSW.

Other significant projects funded by Restart NSW include a $1.8 billion contribution to WestConnex and reserved funding of $1 billion towards the State’s Major Stadia Network program.

The Treasury initiated the Financial Management Transformation (FMT) program with the aim of changing and improving financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements of the New South Wales public sector.

FMT aims to deliver better outcomes for the people of New South Wales and focuses on transparency and accountability for expenditure, and better value for money.

New Financial Management System

PRIME is the Information Technology (IT) solution component of the FMT program, replacing several historical systems. PRIME will provide both financial and performance information within one IT platform for all agencies in the NSW public sector.

It is expected to give Government more timely information to plan and deliver its policy priorities and the budget.

Independent assurance over the budget process would improve confidence in the reliability of the State’s financial information.

Published

Actions for Energy rebates for low income households

Energy rebates for low income households

Planning
Industry
Compliance
Fraud
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

The Department of Planning and Environment provides more than $245 million in energy rebates to around 27 percent of NSW households. This report highlights that the department is not monitoring the rebate schemes to understand whether they are delivering the best outcomes.

Most rebates are ongoing payments applied directly to energy bills reducing the amount payable by the householder. The structure of these rebates is complex and can be inequitable. Some households are eligible for four different rebates, each with its own eligibility criteria.  Also, some households in very similar circumstances receive different levels of support depending on what type of energy is used in their home or which adult in the house is the energy account holder. For example, a household using both electricity and gas receives more assistance than a household with electricity alone even if total energy bills are the same. 

The Department of Planning and Environment (Department) administers five energy rebate schemes targeted to low-income households. The five rebates are of two key types:

1. Ongoing support to pay energy bills
2. Crisis Support  

More than one million rebates are paid each year to over 800,000, or around 27 per cent, of NSW households. Households learn about rebates from a variety of sources including: Service NSW, government and energy retailer websites, energy retailer welcome packs, Department marketing efforts, information on energy bills, and Centrelink.  

The budget for energy rebates is increasing every year and in 2017–18 is more than $245 million. The Department delivers most rebates through a network of partnership arrangements with:

  • energy retailers, who apply rebates directly onto energy bills
  • more than 340 charities and other NGOs who assess households' eligibility for crisis support and distribute support through the Energy Accounts Payment Assistance scheme (EAPA)
  • Service NSW, who informs NSW households about rebates through their call centre.

The energy rebates budget is substantial and the distribution arrangements are complex. The objective of the audit was to assess whether the current design and distribution of energy rebates schemes is effective.

Conclusion
The Department administers the rebate schemes using partners to ensure funds are directed towards energy bills as intended. Ongoing support schemes provide assistance to low-income households as intended, but have no measurable objectives or outcome measures and therefore can't be assessed for their effectiveness. Crisis support (EAPA) has a clear objective, to keep households experiencing financial crisis connected to energy services, but the Department does not monitor the performance of EAPA against this objective.  

The structure of rebates providing ongoing support is complex and can be inequitable for some households. Reducing the number of separate schemes and simplifying eligibility requirements offers the most scope for improving effectiveness of ongoing support schemes.  

The growth of embedded networks1 represents a future administrative risk to the Department.

Partnering with energy retailers, charities and NGOs delivers advantages, but stronger oversight is required over partner organisations.

The Department and partner organisations administer the rebate schemes as designed

The Department oversees a complex package of rebate schemes in partnership with 25 retailers and around 340 charities and NGOs. The partnership arrangements ensure that funds are distributed directly to energy bills as intended. The schemes provide support to recipients and are administered in line with government decisions about eligibility.  

Communication about rebates does not reach all eligible households

Households learn about rebate schemes through a mix of communication channels including retailer websites and call centres, Department websites, Centrelink, financial counsellors, EAPA Providers, the Energy and Water Ombudsman and Service NSW. Some low-income groups, such as those with poor English language skills, do not find out about energy rebates.

Scheme objectives are not measurable

Rebate schemes that provide ongoing support do not have measurable objectives or outcome measures. Without clear and measurable objectives, the Department cannot report to government on whether the schemes are achieving the intended policy outcomes, nor recommend improvements to ensure the schemes deliver the greatest benefit to the most financially vulnerable households.

The EAPA crisis support scheme has a clearer objective in that it aims to keep households experiencing financial crisis connected to energy services. However, the Department does not measure outcomes from providing this type of support, and does not know if the crisis support achieves this objective.  

The structure of rebate schemes for ongoing support is complex

The Low Income Household Rebate accounts for 80 per cent of the budget for ongoing support rebates. The remaining 20 per cent of the budget is administered through four separate schemes: Gas Rebate, Medical Energy Rebate, Family Energy Rebate and Life Support Rebate.

Each of these rebates has its own eligibility criteria and some require separate application processes. The Family Energy Rebate is complex to access and apply for, and around one third of households do not reapply each year. Eligible households that receive energy through embedded networks apply directly to the Department for rebates, which are paid by the Department into bank accounts. Embedded networks are energy supply arrangements where the manager of a residential facility such as a caravan park, retirement village or apartment block, buys energy in bulk and then on-sells it to residents. The Department is yet to develop strategies to address a forecast increase in such households.

The design of the rebate schemes creates some inequities

Households in similar circumstances can receive different levels of assistance depending on which adult in the house is the energy account holder, the mix of energy types used in the home, or the EAPA Provider they turn to when in financial crisis.

Households with both gas and electricity connections receive more assistance than those with only electricity. Households in rural and regional areas receive the same value rebate as households closer to Sydney, despite higher distribution charges. Family Energy Rebate is a two-tier payment, with a higher amount available to families with greater means. Lower-income families receive a much smaller Family Energy Rebate on the assumption that they already receive Low Income Household Rebate. Charities and NGOs distributing EAPA crisis support apply inconsistent standards when assessing household need, which leads to inequitable levels of assistance.

Departmental oversight of energy retailers and EAPA Providers is not strong enough

While partnering with energy retailers and EAPA Providers delivers advantages, stronger management is needed to ensure that partners follow Departmental guidelines and to minimise the potential for fraud. The Department's accreditation process for potential EAPA Providers does not consider the applicant's financial governance standards and the most recent audit of EAPA Providers was 2013.


[1] Embedded networks are energy supply arrangements where the manager of a residential facility such as a caravan park, retirement village or apartment block, buys energy in bulk and then on-sells it to residents.

By September 2018, the Department of Planning and Environment should:

  1. Ensure effective strategies are in place to make information about rebates available to all eligible, low-income households
     
  2. Evaluate alternative models and develop advice for government to reduce complexity and improve equity of ongoing rebates
     
  3. Establish measurable objectives for schemes that provide ongoing support, and monitor and measure performance of all schemes against objectives and outcome measures
     
  4. Assess the impacts of the forecast increase in embedded networks and develop strategies to manage any increased administrative risk
     
  5. Strengthen assurance that EAPA is being provided in accordance with its objectives and guidelines by implementing accreditation and compliance programs
     
  6. Ensure those eligible for EAPA financial support are not disadvantaged by inflexible payments, inconsistent provider practices, or inability to access an EAPA provider in a timely manner. Options include:
    • moving from a fixed-value voucher to a flexible payment based on need irrespective of energy type
    • establishing a ‘Provider of Last Resort’ facility for households that cannot access an EAPA Provider.

Appendix one - Response from the Agency

Appendix two - About the audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #292 - released 19 September 2017