Reports
Members' Additional Entitlements 2017
Progress and measurement of the Premier's Priorities
The Premier’s Implementation Unit uses a systematic approach to measuring and reporting progress towards the Premier’s Priorities performance targets, but public reporting needed to improve, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General of NSW, Margaret Crawford.
The Premier of New South Wales has established 12 Premier’s Priorities. These are key performance targets for government.
| The 12 Premier's Priorities | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Department of Premier and Cabinet, Premier’s Priorities website.
Each Premier’s Priority has a lead agency and minister responsible for achieving the performance target.
The Premier’s Implementation Unit (PIU) was established within the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) in 2015. The PIU is a delivery unit that supports agencies to measure and monitor performance, make progress toward the Premier’s Priorities targets, and report progress to the Premier, key ministers and the public.
This audit assessed how effectively the NSW Government is progressing and reporting on the Premier's Priorities.
The Premier’s Implementation Unit (PIU) is effective in assisting agencies to make progress against the Premier’s Priorities targets. Progress reporting is regular but transparency to the public is weakened by the lack of information about specific measurement limitations and lack of clarity about the relationship of the targets to broader government objectives.The PIU promotes a systematic approach to measuring performance and reporting progress towards the Premier’s Priorities’ performance targets. Public reporting would be improved with additional information about the rationale for choosing specific targets to report on broader government objectives.
The PIU provides a systematic approach to measuring performance and reporting progress towards the Premier's Priorities performance targets. Public reporting would be improved with additional information about the rationale for choosing specific targets to report on broader government objectives. The data used to measure the Premier’s Priorities comes from a variety of government and external datasets, some of which have known limitations. These limitations are not revealed in public reporting, and only some are revealed in progress reported to the Premier and ministers. This limits the transparency of reporting.
The PIU assists agencies to avoid unintended outcomes that can arise from prioritising particular performance measures over other areas of activity. The PIU has adopted a collaborative approach to assisting agencies to analyse performance using data, and helping them work across organisational silos to achieve the Premier’s Priorities targets.
Data used to measure progress for some of the Premier’s Priorities has limitations which are not made clear when progress is reported. This reduces transparency about the reported progress. Public reporting would also be improved with additional information about the relationship between specific performance measures and broader government objectives.
The PIU is responsible for reporting progress to the Premier, key ministers and the public. Agencies provide performance data and some play a role in preparing progress reports for the Premier and ministers. For 11 of the Premier's Priorities, progress is reported against measurable and time-related performance targets. For the infrastructure priority, progress is reported against project milestones.
Progress of some Priorities is measured using data that has known limitations, which should be noted wherever progress is reported. For example, the data used to report on housing completions does not take housing demolitions into account, and is therefore overstating the contribution of this performance measure to housing supply. This known limitation is not explained in progress reports or on the public website.
Data used to measure progress is sourced from a mix of government and external datasets. Updated progress data for most Premier’s Priorities is published on the Premier’s Priorities website annually, although reported to the Premier and key ministers more frequently. The PIU reviews the data and validates it through fieldwork with front line agencies. The PIU also assists agencies to avoid unintended outcomes that can arise from prioritising single performance measures. Most, but not all, agencies use additional indicators to check for misuse of data or perverse outcomes.
We examined the reporting processes and controls for five of the Premier’s Priorities. We found that there is insufficient assurance over the accuracy of the data on housing approvals.
The relationships between performance measures and broader government objectives is not always clearly explained on the Premier’s Priority website, which is the key source of public information about the Premier’s Priorities. For example, the Premier’s Priority to reduce litter volumes is communicated as “Keeping our Environment Clean.” While the website explains why reducing litter is important, it does not clearly explain why that particular target has been chosen to measure progress in keeping the environment clean.
By December 2018, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:
- improve transparency of public reporting by:
- providing information about limitations of reported data and associated performance
- clarifying the relationship between the Premier’s Priorities performance targets and broader government objectives.
- ensure that processes to check and verify data are in place for all agency data sources
- encourage agencies to develop and implement additional supporting indicators for all Premier’s Priority performance measures to prevent and detect unintended consequences or misuse of data.
The Premier's Implementation Unit is effective in supporting agencies to deliver progress towards the Premier’s Priority targets.
The PIU promotes a systematic approach to monitoring and reporting progress against a target, based on a methodology used in delivery units elsewhere in the world. The PIU undertakes internal self-evaluation, and commissions regular reviews of methodology implementation from the consultancy that owns the methodology and helped to establish the PIU. However, the unit lacks periodic independent reviews of their overall effectiveness. The PIU has adopted a collaborative approach and assists agencies to analyse performance using data, and work across organisational silos to achieve the Premier’s Priorities targets.
Agency representatives recognise the benefits of being responsible for a Premier's Priority and speak of the value of being held to account and having the attention of the Premier and senior ministers.
By June 2019, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:
- establish routine collection of feedback about PIU performance including:
- independent assurance of PIU performance
- opportunity for agencies to provide confidential feedback.
Appendix one: Response from agency
Appendix three: About the audit
Appendix four: Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #307 - released 13 September 2018
Matching skills training with market needs
In 2012, governments across Australia entered into the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. Under the National Partnership Agreement, the Australian Government provided incentive payments to States and Territories to move towards a more contestable Vocational Education and Training (VET) market. The aim of the National Partnership Agreement was to foster a more accessible, transparent, efficient and high quality training sector that is responsive to the needs of students and industry.
The New South Wales Government introduced the Smart and Skilled program in response to the National Partnership Agreement. Through Smart and Skilled, students can choose a vocational course from a list of approved qualifications and training providers. Students pay the same fee for their chosen qualification regardless of the selected training provider and the government covers the gap between the student fee and the fixed price of the qualification through a subsidy paid to their training provider.
Smart and Skilled commenced in January 2015, with the then Department of Education and Communities having primary responsibility for its implementation. Since July 2015, the NSW Department of Industry (the Department) has been responsible for VET in New South Wales and the implementation of Smart and Skilled.
The NSW Skills Board, comprising nine part-time members appointed by the Minister for Skills, provides independent strategic advice on VET reform and funding. In line with most other States and Territories, the Department maintains a 'Skills List' which contains government subsidised qualifications to address identified priority skill needs in New South Wales.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department in identifying, prioritising, and aligning course subsidies to the skill needs of NSW. To do this we examined whether:
- the Department effectively identifies and prioritises present and future skill needs
- Smart and Skilled funding is aligned with the priority skill areas
- skill needs and available VET courses are effectively communicated to potential participants and training providers.
Smart and Skilled is a relatively new and complex program, and is being delivered in the context of significant reform to VET nationally and in New South Wales. A large scale government funded contestable market was not present in the VET sector in New South Wales before the introduction of Smart and Skilled. This audit's findings should be considered in that context.
The Department needs to better use the data it has, and collect additional data, to support its analysis of priority skill needs in New South Wales, and direct funding accordingly.
- funding scholarships and support for disadvantaged students
- funding training in regional and remote areas
- providing additional support to deliver some qualifications that the market is not providing.
The Department needs to evaluate these funding strategies to ensure they are achieving their goals. It should also explore why training providers are not delivering some priority qualifications through Smart and Skilled.
Training providers compete for funding allocations based on their capacity to deliver. The Department successfully manages the budget by capping funding allocated to each Smart and Skilled training provider. However, training providers have only one year of funding certainty at present. Training providers that are performing well are not rewarded with greater certainty.
The Department needs to improve its communication with prospective students to ensure they can make informed decisions in the VET market.
The Department also needs to communicate more transparently to training providers about its funding allocations and decisions about changes to the NSW Skills List.
The Department relies on stakeholder proposals to update the NSW Skills List. Stakeholders include industry, training providers and government departments. These stakeholders, particularly industry, are likely to be aware of skill needs, and have a strong incentive to propose qualifications that address these needs. The Department’s process of collecting stakeholder proposals helps to ensure that it can identify qualifications needed to address material skill needs.
It is also important that the Department ensures the NSW Skills List only includes priority qualifications that need to be subsidised by government. The Department does not have robust processes in place to remove qualifications from the NSW Skills List. As a result, there is a risk that the list may include lower priority skill areas. Since the NSW Skills List was first created, new additions to the list have outnumbered those removed by five to one.
The Department does not always validate information gathered from stakeholder proposals, even when it has data to do so. Further, its decision making about what to include on, or delete from, the NSW Skills List is not transparent because the rationale for decisions is not adequately documented.
The Department is undertaking projects to better use data to support its decisions about what should be on the NSW Skills List. Some of these projects should deliver useful data soon, but some can only provide useful information when sufficient trend data is available.
Recommendation
The Department should:
- by June 2019, increase transparency of decisions about proposed changes to the NSW Skills List and improve record-keeping of deliberations regarding these changes
- by December 2019, use data more effectively and consistently to ensure that the NSW Skills List only includes high priority qualifications
Only qualifications on the NSW Skills List are eligible for subsidies under Smart and Skilled. As the Department does not have a robust process for removing low priority qualifications from the NSW Skills list, some low priority qualifications may be subsidised.
The Department allocates the Smart and Skilled budget through contracts with Smart and Skilled training providers. Training providers that meet contractual obligations and perform well in terms of enrolments and completion rates are rewarded with renewed contracts and more funding for increased enrolments, but these decisions are not based on student outcomes. The Department reduces or removes funding from training providers that do not meet quality standards, breach contract conditions or that are unable to spend their allocated funding effectively. Contracts are for only one year, offering training providers little funding certainty.
Smart and Skilled provides additional funding for scholarships and for training providers in locations where the cost of delivery is high or to those that cater to students with disabilities. The Department has not yet evaluated whether this additional funding is achieving its intended outcomes.
Eight per cent of the qualifications that have been on the NSW Skills List since 2015 are not delivered under Smart and Skilled anywhere in New South Wales. A further 14 per cent of the qualifications that are offered by training providers have had no student commencements. The Department is yet to identify the reasons that these high priority qualifications are either not offered or not taken up by students.
Recommendation
The Department should:
- by June 2019, investigate why training providers do not offer, and prospective students do not enrol in, some Smart and Skilled subsidised qualifications
- by December 2019, evaluate the effectiveness of Smart and Skilled funding which supplements standard subsidies for qualifications on the NSW Skills List, to determine whether it is achieving its objectives
- by December 2019, provide longer term funding certainty to high performing training providers, while retaining incentives for them to continue to perform well.
In a contestable market, it is important for consumers to have sufficient information to make informed decisions. The Department does not provide some key information to prospective VET students to support their decisions, such as measures of provider quality and examples of employment and further education outcomes of students completing particular courses. Existing information is spread across numerous channels and is not presented in a user friendly manner. This is a potential barrier to participation in VET for those less engaged with the system or less ICT literate.
The Department conveys relevant information about the program to training providers through its websites and its regional offices. However, it could better communicate some specific information directly to individual Smart and Skilled training providers, such as reasons their proposals to include new qualifications on the NSW Skills List are accepted or rejected.
While the Department is implementing a communication strategy for VET in New South Wales, it does not have a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled which comprehensively identifies the needs of different stakeholders and how these can be addressed.
Recommendation
By December 2019, the Department should develop and implement a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled to:
- support prospective student engagement and informed decision making
- meet the information needs of training providers
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #305 - released 26 July 2018
HealthRoster benefits realisation
The HealthRoster system is delivering some business benefits but Local Health Districts are yet to use all of its features, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. HealthRoster is an IT system designed to more effectively roster staff to meet the needs of Local Health Districts and other NSW health agencies.
The NSW public health system employs over 100,000 people in clinical and non-clinical roles across the state. With increasing demand for services, it is vital that NSW Health effectively rosters staff to ensure high quality and efficient patient care, while maintaining good workplace practices to support staff in demanding roles.
NSW Health is implementing HealthRoster as its single state-wide rostering system to more effectively roster staff according to the demands of each location. Between 2013–14 and 2016–17, our financial audits of individual LHDs had reported issues with rostering and payroll processes and systems.
NSW Health grouped all Local Health Districts (LHDs), and other NSW Health organisations, into four clusters to manage the implementation of HealthRoster over four years. Refer to Exhibit 4 for a list of the NSW Health entities in each cluster.
- Cluster 1 implementation commenced in 2014–15 and was completed in 2015–16.
- Cluster 2 implementation commenced in 2015–16 and was completed in 2016–17.
- Cluster 3 began implementation in 2016–17 and was underway during the conduct of the audit.
- Cluster 4 began planning for implementation in 2017–18.
Full implementation, including capability for centralised data and reporting, is planned for completion in 2019.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the HealthRoster system in delivering business benefits. In making this assessment, we examined whether:
- expected business benefits of HealthRoster were well-defined
- HealthRoster is achieving business benefits where implemented.
The HealthRoster project has a timespan from 2009 to 2019. We examined the HealthRoster implementation in LHDs, and other NSW Health organisations, focusing on the period from 2014, when eHealth assumed responsibility for project implementation, to early 2018.
Business benefits identified for HealthRoster accurately reflect business needs.
NSW Health has a good understanding of the issues in previous rostering systems and has designed HealthRoster to adequately address these issues. Interviews with frontline staff indicate that HealthRoster facilitates rostering which complies with industrial awards. This is a key business benefit that supports the provision of quality patient care. We saw no evidence that any major business needs or issues with the previous rostering systems are not being addressed by HealthRoster.
In the period examined in this audit since 2015, NSW Health has applied appropriate project management and governance structures to ensure that risks and issues are well managed during HealthRoster implementation.
HealthRoster has had two changes to its budget and timeline. Overall, the capital cost for the project has increased from $88.6 million to $125.6 million (42 per cent) and has delayed expected project completion by four years from 2015 to 2019. NSW Health attributes the increased cost and extended time frame to the large scale and complexity of the full implementation of HealthRoster.
NSW Health has established appropriate governance arrangements to ensure that HealthRoster is successfully implemented and that it will achieve business benefits in the long term. During implementation, local steering committees monitor risks and resolve implementation issues. Risks or issues that cannot be resolved locally are escalated to the state-wide steering committee.
NSW Health has grouped local health districts, and other NSW Health organisations, into four clusters for implementation. This has enabled NSW Health to apply lessons learnt from each implementation to improve future implementations.
NSW Health has a benefits realisation framework, but it is not fully applied to HealthRoster.
NSW Health can demonstrate that HealthRoster has delivered some functional business benefits, including rosters that comply with a wide variety of employment awards.
NSW Health is not yet measuring and tracking the value of business benefits achieved. NSW Health did not have benefits realisation plans with baseline measures defined for LHDs in cluster 1 and 2 before implementation. Without baseline measures NSW Health is unable to quantify business benefits achieved. However, analysis of post-implementation reviews and interviews with frontline staff indicate that benefits are being achieved. As a result, NSW Health now includes defining baseline measures and setting targets as part of LHD implementation planning. It has created a benefits realisation toolkit to assist this process from cluster 3 implementations onwards.
NSW Health conducted post-implementation reviews for clusters 1 and 2 and found that LHDs in these clusters were not using HealthRoster to realise all the benefits that HealthRoster could deliver.
By September 2018, NSW Health should:
- Ensure that Local Health Districts undertake benefits realisation planning according to the NSW Health benefits realisation framework
- Regularly measure benefits realised, at state and local health district levels, from the statewide implementation of HealthRoster
- Review the use of HealthRoster in Local Health Districts in clusters 1 and 2 and assist them to improve their HealthRoster related processes and practices.
By June 2019, NSW Health should:
- Ensure that all Local Health Districts are effectively using demand based rostering.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #301 - released 7 June 2018
Regional Assistance Programs
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.
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
- By June 2018, Infrastructure NSW should:
- ensure probity reports address whether all elements of the probity plan have been effectively implemented.
- 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
- 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
- By December 2018, Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW should:
- incorporate a benefits realisation framework as part of the detailed application.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix two - Maps of funded projects
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #300 - released 17 May 2018
Council reporting on service delivery
New South Wales local government councils’ could do more to demonstrate how well they are delivering services in their reports to the public, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. Many councils report activity, but do not report on outcomes in a way that would help their communities assess how well they are performing. Most councils also did not report on the cost of services, making it difficult for communities to see how efficiently they are being delivered. And councils are not consistently publishing targets to demonstrate what they are striving for.
I am pleased to present my first local government performance audit pursuant to section 421D of the Local Government Act 1993.
My new mandate supports the Parliament’s objectives to:
- strengthen governance and financial oversight in the local government sector
- improve financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability for how councils use citizens’ funds.
Performance audits aim to help councils improve their efficiency and effectiveness. They will also provide communities with independent information on the performance of their councils.
For this inaugural audit in the local government sector, I have chosen to examine how well councils report to their constituents about the services they provide.
In this way, the report will enable benchmarking and provide improvement guidance to all councils across New South Wales.
Specific recommendations to drive improved reporting are directed to the Office of Local Government, which is the regulator of councils in New South Wales.
Councils provide a range of services which have a direct impact on the amenity, safety and health of their communities. These services need to meet the needs and expectations of their communities, as well as relevant regulatory requirements set by state and federal governments. Councils have a high level of autonomy in decisions about how and to whom they provide services, so it is important that local communities have access to information about how well they are being delivered and meeting community needs. Ultimately councils should aim to ensure that reporting performance is subject to quality controls designed to provide independent assurance.
Councils report extensively on the things they have done, but minimally on the outcomes from that effort, efficiency and performance over time.
Councils could improve reporting on service delivery by more clearly relating the resources needed with the outputs produced, and by reporting against clear targets. This would enable communities to understand how efficiently services are being delivered and how well councils are tracking against their goals and priorities.
Across the sector, a greater focus is also needed on reporting performance over time so that communities can track changes in performance and councils can demonstrate whether they are on target to meet any agreed timeframes for service improvements.
The degree to which councils demonstrate good practice in reporting on service delivery varies greatly between councils. Metropolitan and regional town and city councils generally produce better quality reporting than rural councils. This variation indicates that, at least in the near-term, OLG's efforts in building capability in reporting would be best directed toward rural councils.
Recommendation
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- assist rural councils to develop their reporting capability.
The Framework which councils are required to use to report on service delivery, is intended to drive good practice in reporting. Despite this, the Framework is silent on a number of aspects of reporting that should be considered fundamental to transparent reporting on service delivery. It does not provide guidance on reporting efficiency or cost effectiveness in service delivery and provides limited guidance on how annual reports link with other plans produced as part of the Framework. OLG's review of the Framework, currently underway, needs to address these issues.
Recommendation
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- issue additional guidance on good practice in council reporting, with specific information on:
- reporting on performance against targets
- reporting on performance against outcome
- assessing and reporting on efficiency and cost effectiveness
- reporting performance over time
- clearer integration of all reports and plans that are required by the Framework, particularly the role of End of Term Reporting
- defining reporting terms to encourage consistency.
The Framework is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reports
The guidelines produced by OLG in 2013 to assist councils to implement their Framework requirements advise that performance measures should be included in all plans. However, the Framework does not specifically state that efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators should be included as part of this process. This has been identified as a weakness in the 2012 performance audit report and the Local Government Reform Panel review of reporting by councils on service delivery.
The Framework and supporting documents provide limited guidance on reporting
Councils' annual reports provide a consolidated summary of their efforts and achievements in service delivery and financial management. However, OLG provides limited guidance on:
- good practice in reporting to the community
- how the annual report links with other plans and reports required by the Framework.
Further, the Framework includes both Annual and End of Term Reports. However, End of Term reports are published prior to council elections and are mainly a consolidation of annual reports produced during a council’s term. The relationship between Annual reports and End of Term reports is not clear.
OLG is reviewing the Framework and guidance
OLG commenced work on reviewing of the Framework in 2013 but this was deferred with work re‑starting in 2017. The revised guidelines and manual were expected to be released late in 2017.
OLG should build on the Framework to improve guidance on reporting on service delivery, including in annual reports
The Framework provides limited guidance on how best to report on service delivery, including in annual reports. It is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reporting, which are fundamental aspects of performance reporting. Councils we consulted would welcome more guidance from OLG on these aspects of reporting.
Our consultation with councils highlighted that many council staff would welcome a set of reporting principles that provide guidance to councils, without being prescriptive. This would allow councils to tailor their approach to the individual characteristics, needs and priorities of their local communities.
Consolidating what councils are required to report to state agencies would reduce the reporting burden and enable councils to better report on performance. Comparative performance indicators are also needed to provide councils and the public with a clear understanding of councils' performance relative to each other.
Recommendations
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- commence work to consolidate the information reported by individual councils to NSW Government agencies as part of their compliance requirements.
- progress work on the development of a Performance Measurement Framework, and associated performance indicators, that can be used by councils and the NSW Government in sector-wide performance reporting.
Streamlining the reporting burden would help councils improve reporting
The NSW Government does not have a central view of all local government reporting, planning and compliance obligations. A 2016 draft IPART ‘Review of reporting and compliance burdens on Local Government’ noted that councils provide a wide range of services under 67 different Acts, administered by 27 different NSW Government agencies. Consolidating and coordinating reporting requirements would assist with better reporting over time and comparative reporting. It would also provide an opportunity for NSW Government agencies to reduce the reporting burden on councils by identifying and removing duplication.
Enabling rural councils to perform tailored surveys of their communities may be more beneficial than a state-wide survey in defining outcome indicators
Some councils use community satisfaction survey data to develop outcome indicators for reporting. The results from these are used by councils to set service delivery targets and report on outcomes. This helps to drive service delivery in line with community expectations. While some regional councils do conduct satisfaction surveys, surveys are mainly used by metropolitan councils which generally have the resources needed to run them.
OLG and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have explored the potential to conduct state-wide resident satisfaction surveys with a view to establishing measures to improve service delivery. This work has drawn from a similar approach adopted in Victoria. Our consultation with stakeholders in Victoria indicated that the state level survey is not sufficiently detailed or specific enough to be used as a tool in setting targets that respond to local circumstances, expectations and priorities. Our analysis of reports and consultation with stakeholders suggest that better use of resident survey data in rural and regional areas may support improvements in performance reporting in these areas. Rural councils may benefit more from tailored surveys of groups of councils with similar challenges, priorities and circumstances than from a standard state-wide survey. These could potentially be achieved through regional cooperation between groups of similar councils or regional groups.
Comparative reporting indicators are needed to enable councils to respond to service delivery priorities of their communities
The Local Government Reform Panel in 2012 identified the need for ‘more consistent data collection and benchmarking to enable councils and the public to gain a clear understanding of how a council is performing relative to their peers’.
OLG commenced work in 2012 to build a new performance measurement Framework for councils which aimed to move away from compliance reporting. This work was also strongly influenced by the approach used in Victoria that requires councils to report on a set of 79 indicators which are reported on the Victorian 'Know your council' website. OLG’s work did not fully progress at the time and several other local government representative bodies have since commenced work to establish performance measurement frameworks. OLG advised us it has recently recommenced its work on this project.
Our consultation identified some desire amongst councils to be able to compare their performance to support improvement in the delivery of services. We also identified a level of frustration that more progress has not been made toward establishment of a set of indicators that councils can use to measure performance and drive improvement in service delivery.
Several councils we spoke with were concerned that the current approaches to comparative reporting did not adequately acknowledge that councils need to tailor their service types, level and mix to the needs of their community. Comparative reporting approaches tend to focus on output measures such as number of applications processed, library loans annually and opening hours for sporting facilities, rather than outcome measures. These approaches risk unjustified and adverse interpretations of performance where councils have made a decision based on community consultation, local priorities and available resources. To mitigate this, it is important to
- adopt a partnership approach to the development of indicators
- ensure indicators measure performance, not just level of activity
- compare performance between councils that are similar in terms of size and location.
It may be more feasible, at least in the short term, for OLG to support small groups of like councils to develop indicators suited to their situation.
Based on our consultations, key lessons from implementing a sector-wide performance indicator framework in Victoria included the benefits of:
- consolidation of the various compliance data currently being reported by councils to provide an initial platform for comparative performance reporting
- adopting a partnership approach to development of common indicators with groups of like councils.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Service delivery categorisation
Appendix three - Reporting targets and performance over time
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Appendix five - About the audit
Parliamentary reference - Report number #296 - released 1 February 2018
Internal Controls and Governance 2017
Agencies need to do more to address risks posed by information technology (IT).
Effective internal controls and governance systems help agencies to operate efficiently and effectively and comply with relevant laws, standards and policies. We assessed how well agencies are implementing these systems, and highlighted opportunities for improvement.
1. Overall trends
|
New and repeat findings |
The number of reported financial and IT control deficiencies has fallen, but many previously reported findings remain unresolved. |
|
High risk findings |
Poor systems implementations contributed to the seven high risk internal control deficiencies that could affect agencies. |
|
Common findings |
Poor IT controls are the most commonly reported deficiency across agencies, followed by governance issues relating to cyber security, capital projects, continuous disclosure, shared services, ethics and risk management maturity. |
2. Information Technology
|
IT security |
Only two-thirds of agencies are complying with their own policies on IT security. Agencies need to tighten user access and password controls. |
|
Cyber security |
Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
|
Other IT systems |
Agencies can improve their disaster recovery plans and the change control processes they use when updating IT systems. |
3. Asset Management
|
Capital investment |
Agencies report delays delivering against the significant increase in their budgets for capital projects. |
|
Capital projects |
Agencies are underspending their capital budgets and some can improve capital project governance. |
|
Asset disposals |
Eleven per cent of agencies were required to sell their real property through Property NSW but didn’t. And eight per cent of agencies can improve their asset disposal processes. |
4. Governance
|
Governance arrangements |
Sixty-four per cent of agencies’ disclosure policies support communication of key performance information and prompt public reporting of significant issues. |
|
Shared services |
Fifty-nine per cent of agencies use shared services, yet 14 per cent do not have service level agreements in place and 20 per cent can strengthen the performance standards they set. |
5. Ethics and Conduct
|
Ethical framework |
Agencies can reinforce their ethical frameworks by updating code‑of‑conduct policies and publishing a Statement of Business Ethics. |
|
Conflicts of interest |
All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
6. Risk Management
|
Risk management maturity |
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity. |
|
Risk management elements |
Many agencies can improve risk registers and strengthen their risk culture, particularly in the way that they report risks to their lead agency. |
This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2016–17 financial audits related to the internal controls and governance of the 39 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. These agencies represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW agencies and were considered to be a large enough group to identify common issues and insights.
The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2017 cluster financial audit reports tabled in Parliament from October to December 2017.
This new report offers strategic insight on the public sector as a whole
In previous years, we have commented on internal control and governance issues in the volumes we published on each ‘cluster’ or agency sector, generally between October and December. To add further value, we then commented more broadly about the issues identified for the public sector as a whole at the start of the following year.
This year, we have created this report dedicated to internal controls and governance. This will help Parliament to understand broad issues affecting the public sector, and help agencies to compare their own performance against that of their peers.
Without strong control measures and governance systems, agencies face increased risks in their financial management and service delivery. If they do not, for example, properly authorise payments or manage conflicts of interest, they are at greater risk of fraud. If they do not have strong information technology (IT) systems, sensitive and trusted information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.
These problems can in turn reduce the efficiency of agency operations, increase their costs and reduce the quality of the services they deliver.
Our audits do not review every control or governance measure every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present the most significant risks that agencies should mitigate. This report divides these into the following six areas:
- Overall trends
- Information technology
- Asset management
- Governance
- Ethics and conduct
- Risk management.
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this volume then illustrates this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
|
Issues |
Recommendations |
|
1.1 New and repeat findings |
|
|
The number of internal control deficiencies reduced over the past three years, but new higher-risk information technology (IT) control deficiencies were reported in 2016–17. Deficiencies repeated from previous years still make up a sizeable proportion of all internal control deficiencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should focus on emerging IT risks, but also manage new IT risks, reduce existing IT control deficiencies, and address repeat internal control deficiencies on a more timely basis. |
|
1.2 High risk findings |
|
|
We found seven high risk internal control deficiencies, which might significantly affect agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should rectify high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority |
|
1.3 Common findings |
|
|
The most common internal control deficiencies related to poor or absent IT controls. We found some common governance deficiencies across multiple agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should coordinate actions and resources to help rectify common IT control and governance deficiencies. |
Information technology (IT) has become increasingly important for government agencies’ financial reporting and to deliver their services efficiently and effectively. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place over their IT systems. We found that IT security remains the source of many control weakness in agencies.
| Issues | Recommendations |
2.1 IT security |
|
|
User access administration While 95 per cent of agencies have policies about user access, about two-thirds were compliant with these policies. Agencies can improve how they grant, change and end user access to their systems. |
Recommendation Agencies should strengthen user access administration to prevent inappropriate access to sensitive systems. Agencies should:
|
|
Privileged access Sixty-eight per cent of agencies do not adequately manage who can access their information systems, and many do not sufficiently monitor or restrict privileged access. |
Recommendation Agencies should tighten privileged user access to protect their information systems and reduce the risks of data misuse and fraud. Agencies should ensure they:
|
|
Password controls Forty-one per cent of agencies did not meet either their own standards or minimum standards for password controls. |
Recommendation Agencies should review and enforce password controls to strengthen security over sensitive systems. As a minimum, password parameters should include:
|
2.2 Cyber Security |
|
|
Cyber security framework Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
Recommendation The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should revisit its existing framework to develop a shared cyber security terminology and strengthen the current reporting requirements for cyber incidents. |
|
Cyber security strategies While 82 per cent of agencies have dedicated resources to address cyber security, they can strengthen their strategies, expertise and staff awareness. |
Recommendations The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
Agencies should ensure they adequately resource staff dedicated to cyber security. |
2.3 Other IT systems |
|
|
Change control processes Some agencies need to improve change control processes to avoid unauthorised or inaccurate system changes. |
Recommendation Agencies should consistently perform user acceptance testing before system upgrades and changes. They should also properly approve and document changes to IT systems. |
|
Disaster recovery planning Agencies can do more to adequately assess critical business systems to enforce effective disaster recovery plans. This includes reviewing and testing their plans on a timely basis. |
Recommendation Agencies should complete business impact analyses to strengthen disaster recovery plans, then regularly test and update their plans. |
Agency service delivery relies on developing and renewing infrastructure assets such as schools, hospitals, roads, or public housing. Agencies are currently investing significantly in new assets. Agencies need to manage the scale and volume of current capital projects in order to deliver new infrastructure on time, on budget and realise the intended benefits. We found agencies can improve how they:
- manage their major capital projects
- dispose of existing assets.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
3.1 Capital investment |
|
|
Capital asset investment ratios Most agencies report high capital investment ratios, but one-third of agencies’ capital investment ratios are less than one. |
Recommendation Agencies with high capital asset investment ratios should ensure their project management and delivery functions have the capacity to deliver their current and forward work programs. |
|
Volume of capital spending Most agencies have significant forward spending commitments for capital projects. However, agencies’ actual capital expenditure has been below budget for the last three years. |
Conclusion The significant increase in capital budget underspends warrant investigation, particularly where this has resulted from slower than expected delivery of projects from previous years. |
3.2 Capital projects |
|
|
Major capital projects Agencies’ major capital projects were underspent by 13 percent against their budgets. |
Conclusion The causes of agency budget underspends warrant investigation to ensure the NSW Government’s infrastructure commitment is delivered on time. |
|
Capital project governance Agencies do not consistently prepare business cases or use project steering committees to oversee major capital projects. |
Conclusion Agencies that have project management processes that include robust business cases and regular updates to their steering committees (or equivalent) are better able to provide those projects with strategic direction and oversight. |
3.3. Asset disposals |
|
|
Asset disposal procedures Agencies need to strengthen their asset disposal procedures. |
Recommendations Agencies should have formal processes for disposing of surplus properties. Agencies should use Property NSW to manage real property sales unless, as in the case for State owned corporations, they have been granted an exemption. |
Governance refers to the high-level frameworks, processes and behaviours that help an organisation to achieve its objectives, comply with legal and other requirements, and meet a high standard of probity, accountability and transparency.
This chapter sets out the governance lighthouse model the Audit Office developed to help agencies reach best practice. It then focuses on two key areas: continuous disclosure and shared services arrangements. The following two chapters look at findings related to ethics and risk management.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
4.1 Governance arrangements |
|
|
Continuous disclosure Continuous disclosure promotes improved performance and public trust and aides better decision-making. Continuous disclosure is only mandatory for NSW Government Businesses such as State owned corporations. |
Conclusion Some agencies promote transparency and accountability by publishing on their websites a continuous disclosure policy that provides for, and encourages:
|
4.2 Shared services |
|
|
Service level agreements Some agencies do not have service level agreements for their shared service arrangements. Many of the agreements that do exist do not adequately specify controls, performance or reporting requirements. This reduces the effectiveness of shared services arrangements. |
Conclusion Agencies are better able to manage the quality and timeliness of shared service arrangements where they have a service level agreement in place. Ideally, the terms of service should be agreed before services are transferred to the service provider and:
|
|
Shared service performance Some agencies do not set performance standards for their shared service providers or regularly review performance results. |
Conclusion Agencies can achieve better results from shared service arrangements when they regularly monitor the performance of shared service providers using key measures for the benefits realised, costs saved and quality of services received. Before agencies extend or renegotiate a contract, they should comprehensively assess the services received and test the market to maximise value for money. |
All government sector employees must demonstrate the highest levels of ethical conduct, in line with standards set by The Code of Ethics and Conduct for NSW government sector employees.
This chapter looks at how well agencies are managing these requirements, and where they can improve their policies and processes.
We found that agencies mostly have the appropriate codes, frameworks and policies in place. But we have highlighted opportunities to improve the way they manage those systems to reduce the risks of unethical conduct.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
5.1 Ethical framework |
|
|
Code of conduct All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
Recommendation Agencies should regularly review their code-of-conduct policies and ensure they keep their codes of conduct up-to-date. |
|
Statement of business ethics Most agencies maintain an ethical framework, but some can enhance their related processes, particularly when dealing with external clients, customers, suppliers and contractors. |
Conclusion Agencies can enhance their ethical frameworks by publishing a Statement of Business Ethics, which communicates their values and culture. |
5.2 Potential conflicts of interest |
|
|
Conflicts of interest All agencies have a conflicts-of-interest policy, but most can improve how they identify, manage and avoid conflicts of interest. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage conflicts of interest, particularly by:
|
|
Gifts and benefits While all agencies already have a formal gifts-and-benefits policy, we found gaps in the management of gifts and benefits by some that increase the risk of unethical conduct. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage gifts and benefits by promptly updating registers and providing annual training to staff. |
Risk management is an integral part of effective corporate governance. It helps agencies to identify, assess and prioritise the risks they face and in turn minimise, monitor and control the impact of unforeseen events. It also means agencies can respond to opportunities that may emerge and improve their services and activities.
This year we looked at the overall maturity of the risk management frameworks that agencies use, along with two important risk management elements: risk culture and risk registers.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
6.1 Risk management maturity |
|
|
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity in their application. Agencies’ averaged a score of 3.1 out of five across five critical assessment criteria for risk management. While strategy and governance fared best, the areas that most need to improve are risk culture, and systems and intelligence. |
Conclusion Agencies have introduced risk management frameworks and practices as required by the Treasury’s:
However, more can be done to progress risk management maturity and embed risk management in agency culture. |
6.2 Risk management elements |
|
|
Risk culture Most agencies have started to embed risk management into the culture of their organisation. But only some have successfully done so, and most agencies can improve their risk culture.
|
Conclusion Agencies can improve their risk culture by:
|
|
Risk registers and reporting Some agencies do not report their significant risks to their lead agency, which may impair the way resources are allocated in their cluster. Some agencies do not integrate risk registers at a divisional and whole-of-enterprise level. |
Conclusion Agencies not reporting significant risks at the cluster level increases the likelihood that significant risks are not being mitigated appropriately. |
Effective risk management can improve agency decision-making, protect reputations and lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings. By embedding risk management directly into their operations, agencies can also derive extra value for their activities and services.
Industry 2017
The following report highlights the results of the financial audits of NSW Government entities in the Industry cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these entities.
The report notes that TAFE NSW will continue to incur extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information due to deficiencies in its student administration system. TAFE NSW plans to replace its Student Administration and Learning Management system in 2018-19 at an estimated cost of $89 million.
1. Financial reporting and controls
|
Financial reporting |
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 44 out of 48 financial statement audits with four audits incomplete. Early close procedures continue to promote earlier and better quality financial reporting. |
| Financial performance | The cluster recorded a net deficit of $107 million in 2016–17 ($78.0 million in 2015–16). Contributing to the overall cluster net deficit was the Department's $226 million net deficit offset by net surpluses at Water NSW and the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. |
| TAFE NSW continues to experience system issues | TAFE NSW incurs extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information due to deficiencies in its student administration system. TAFE NSW plans to replace its Student Administration and Learning Management system in 2018–19 at an estimated cost of $89 million. |
| Internal controls |
We identified 180 internal control issues, including 61 repeat issues across the cluster. We rated four of these issues as 'high' risk, 98 as ‘moderate’ risk and 78 as ‘low’ risk. Of the 180 issues raised, 37 related to financial reporting and 52 related to controls over processes such as procurement and fixed assets. Some internal control issues and recommendations identified in previous years, have been repeated and should be addressed promptly to reduce risks and improve processes. |
| Deficient user administration access | Agencies need to strengthen user access administration to critical financial systems. |
2. Service delivery
| Premier and State Priorities |
Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Premier's priority for job creation has been achieved. While performance has declined for the State priority to increase the proportion of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships, the Department advises it has initiatives in place to achieve this State priority, and the State priority for New South Wales to lead Australia in business confidence. |
| Crown land | The Department is working to respond to the recommendations from a Parliamentary Inquiry into Crown Land and to implement the revised framework contained in the Crown Land Management Act 2016. |
| Aboriginal land claims |
Despite a continued focus, the Department has been unsuccessful in reducing the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. The Department should continue to implement measures to reduce the backlog of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
This report focuses on agencies in the Industry cluster. The report focuses on audit results, observations, conclusions and recommendations for financial reporting and controls, and service delivery.
This cluster leads the State's promotion of New South Wales as the place to invest and produce goods and services. Significant cluster agencies deliver services in the following areas:
Confidence in public sector decision-making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies.
This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for the financial reporting and controls of agencies in the cluster for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 44 out of 48 financial statement audits. Four audits are continuing. | Ongoing improvements in the preparation of financial statements helped identify and resolve material issues. |
| The number of misstatements within the cluster fell from 104 in 2015–16 to 70 in 2016–17. | The ‘early close procedures’ initiative introduced by the Treasury in 2011–12 has reduced the number of misstatements each year. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Most agencies complied with the Treasury’s early close procedures and the timetable for the preparation and audit of financial statements. | Greater focus on financial reporting and effective early close procedures has improved the timeliness of financial reporting, but further improvements are required. |
| 2.3 Key financial issues from cluster agencies | |
| The Department of Industry completed a revaluation of Crown land and continues work on improving the accounting for Crown land. | The value of Crown land recognised in the Department's financial statements at 30 June 2017 was $5.3 billion. The revaluation was carried out using a revised mass valuation approach which reduced complexity and subjectivity and improved transparency. |
| There is no process in place to ensure agencies recognise all the Crown land they manage and control. | Recommendation: The Department should confirm the completeness and accuracy of the Crown land database with other organisations that manage and control Crown land to improve the reliability of its records. |
| TAFE NSW incurred approximately $6 million of direct costs to deal with issues in its student administration system and establish the integrity of its financial data for 2016–17. | TAFE NSW will continue to incur extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information. TAFE NSW advises it intends to replace the Student Administration and Learning Management system it jointly implemented with the Department of Education three years ago at a cost $40.2 million. TAFE plans to implement the new system in 2018–19 at an estimated cost of $89 million. |
| 2.4 Key financial information | |
| The cluster recorded a net deficit of $107 million in 2016–17 ($78.0 million in 2015–16). | The overall cluster net deficit included the Department's $226 million net deficit which was partly offset by net surpluses in a number of other agencies, including Water NSW and the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. Most agencies in the cluster, including the Department, but excluding the State owned corporations, are dependent on the NSW Government for the majority of their revenue. |
| 2.5 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| We assessed the performance of certain agencies against key financial sustainability indicators. This identified four agencies with adjusted net deficits and two agencies with liquidity ratios below one. | Overall, based on our analysis these agencies are not at high risk of sustainability concerns. |
| 2.6 Internal controls | |
| A significant number of repeat internal control issues were again raised with management for certain agencies in the cluster. |
Recommendation (repeat issue): Internal control issues and recommendations from previous years should be addressed promptly to reduce risks and improve processes. |
| User access administration over financial systems needs to be improved. 17 moderate risk issues related to user access administration across nine agencies were identified. |
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure administration of user access to critical systems
|
Government outcomes can be achieved by delivering services through a mix of the public, private or not-for-profit sectors. Service delivery reform is most successful if there is clear accountability for service delivery outcomes, decisions are aligned to the government's strategic direction, and performance and value for money are monitored and evaluated.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for the service delivery of agencies in the cluster for 2016–17.
| Issues | Conclusion or recommendation |
|
3.1 Measuring and reporting on performance |
|
| The Department is responsible for two State priorities (increasing apprenticeships and business confidence) and the Premier's priority of creating jobs. The Department also supports four state priorities. | Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Premier's priority for job creation continues to be achieved. The Department reported that the number of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships had declined to 59 per cent against a 2019 target of 65 per cent, while the State was ranked first or second on a range of business confidence indicators. |
|
3.2 Improvements required in the administration of Crown land |
|
| The Department faces many challenges in the administration of Crown land. These challenges range from inadequate systems and processes through to satisfying competing commercial, environmental, and community interests. |
The Department has implemented, or is implementing the recommendations from a performance audit on the Sale and Lease of Crown land and the Parliamentary Inquiry into Crown land. It is also implementing the revised framework for Crown land contained in the Crown Land Management Act 2016. |
|
3.3 Aboriginal land claims over Crown land |
|
| The number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims continues to increase. Work on finalising Aboriginal Land Agreements, which may help address the claims backlog, is continuing. | Recommendation (repeat Issue): The Department should continue to implement measures to reduce the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
|
3.4 Skills development |
|
| Eleven contracted Smart and Skilled service providers had their contracts cancelled for quality issues. There were 391 providers of Smart and Skilled qualifications as at October 2017. | The Department of Industry spent $1.4 billion on the provision of vocational education and training. The Department has controls in place to monitor the performance of contracted service providers to ensure quality delivery of training. |
Health 2017
The following report highlights results of the financial audits of entities in the NSW health cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these entities.
The report also includes a range of findings on service delivery. Overall, NSW Health is achieving most of their targets. Some local health districts are continuing to experience increased demand for their services and are finding it more difficult to meet their targets. For example, three local health districts had not achieved some emergency department response time targets for three consecutive years.
1. Financial reporting and controls
| Financial Reporting |
All health cluster entities received unqualified audit opinions and the quality of financial reporting remains high across the cluster. Early close procedures were largely completed and all financial statements were submitted by the deadlines. |
| Financial performance |
Overall, NSW Health recorded an operating surplus of $407 million in 2016–17. Eleven local health districts/specialty networks recorded operating deficits in 2016–17, four more than 2015–16. Expenses across NSW Health increased by 4.4 per cent in 2016–17 (6.0 per cent in 2015–16), lower than the expected long term annual expense growth rate. |
| Excess annual leave | Managing excess annual leave is a continual challenge for NSW Health, with thirty–five per cent of the workforce having excess balances. |
| Overtime payments | NSW Health entities are generally managing overtime well; however NSW Ambulance’s overtime payments, $74.6 million in 2016–17, remain significantly higher than other health entities. |
| Time and leave recording practices | Unapproved employee timesheets continue to be a problem for health entities. Weak timesheet approval controls increase the risk of staff claiming and being paid for hours they have not worked. There is also an increased risk of high volumes of roster adjustments, manual pays, salary overpayments and leave not being recorded accurately. |
2. Service Delivery
| Service Agreements | Most of the service agreements between the Secretary of NSW Health and health entities were signed earlier than prior years. |
| Performance monitoring | Five NSW Health entities are not meeting the Ministry of Health’s performance expectations at 30 June 2017. |
| Emergency department performance | Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Health, on average, met emergency department triage response time targets across all triage categories for the fourth consecutive year. |
| Ambulance response times | Data provided by the Ministry shows NSW Ambulance response times for imminently life‑threatening incidents of 7.5 minutes in 2016–17 was within the Ministry’s target of 10.0 minutes. Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Ambulance response times for potentially life‑threatening incidents did not improve in 2016–17. The median response time of 11.1 minutes in 2016–17 was similar to 2015–16 (11.0 minutes). This is despite the number of Priority 1 responses reducing by 4.3 per cent. |
| Unplanned hospital re-admissions | Data provided by the Ministry shows eight local health districts achieved the Ministry of Health’s unplanned hospital re‑admissions target in 2016–17. The target is for local health districts to reduce re‑admission rates from the previous financial year. |
This report sets out the results of the 30 June 2017 financial statement audits of Health cluster entities.
The report has been structured into two chapters focusing on:
- Financial reporting and controls
- Service delivery.
This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations related to financial reporting and internal controls of entities for 2016-17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
|
2.1 Quality of financial reporting |
|
| All cluster entities received unqualified audit opinions and misstatements identified in financial statements fell. | The quality of financial reporting remains high across the cluster. |
|
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting |
|
| Early close procedures were largely completed and all financial statements were submitted by the deadlines. | Health entities controlled by the Ministry of Health continued submitting their financial statements well ahead of the statutory deadlines. |
|
2.4 Financial and sustainability analysis |
|
|
NSW Health recorded an operating surplus of $407 million in 2016–17.
|
The statewide operating surplus was $84 million higher than 2015–16. Net surpluses contribute to NSW Health’s ability to invest in new facilities, upgrades and redevelopments. The 2016–17 financial results were once again impacted by the NSW Government initiative to improve cash management across the sector. |
| 2.5 Performance against budget | |
| Ten local health districts/specialty networks’ expense budget variance was outside performance expectations agreed with the Ministry at the beginning of 2016–17. | The Ministry continues to manage performance across NSW Health to improve the accuracy of budgeting practices. |
| 2.7 Human Resources | |
|
Thirty-five per cent of NSW Health’s workforce have excess annual leave balances.
NSW Ambulance had the highest average sick leave rate in NSW Health of 85.2 hours per FTE in 2016–17 (78.7 hours in 2015–16). This was higher than the statewide average of 62.1 hours (62.0 hours in 2015–16).
Unapproved employee timesheets continue to be a problem for health entities. Weak timesheet approval controls increase the risk of staff claiming and being paid for hours they have not worked.
|
Managing excess annual leave is a continual challenge for health entities.
Recommendation: NSW Ambulance should further review the effectiveness of its rostering practices to identify strategies to reduce excessive overtime payments. Recommendation: Health entities should conduct a risk‑based review of time and leave recording practices to ensure control weaknesses are identified and fixed. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations relating to service delivery for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 3.1 Service agreements in NSW Health | |
|
Most of the service agreements between the Secretary of NSW Health and health entities were signed earlier than prior years. Thirteen local health districts/specialty networks signed their service agreements by the 31 July 2017 due date. This is a significant improvement with only seven local health districts/specialty networks meeting the date in 2015–16. |
Having service agreements signed as close as possible to the start of each year provides the Ministry and NSW Health entities with clarity around roles, responsibilities, performance measures, budgets, and service volumes and levels. |
| 3.2 Performance of NSW Health entities | |
| Five NSW Health entities were not meeting the Ministry’s performance expectations at 30 June 2017. | The Ministry is managing the five entities in accordance with its performance review process. |
| 3.4 Emergency department response times | |
|
Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Health again, on average, met emergency department triage response time targets across all triage categories for the fourth consecutive year. The Ministry manages performance across NSW Health to ensure patients presenting at emergency departments receive care in a clinically appropriate timeframe. |
Based on the Ministry’s data, local health districts/specialty networks are, on average, meeting triage targets despite increasing emergency department attendances. The data shows eleven local health districts met all triage targets in 2016–17, compared to eight in |
| 3.5 Emergency treatment performance | |
|
The Ministry manages public patient access to emergency services in public hospitals. It has an emergency treatment performance target of 81 per cent of patients leaving emergency departments within four hours. |
Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Health maintained its overall emergency treatment performance in 2016–17, but did not achieve its target. The State average emergency treatment performance was 74.2 per cent (74.2 per cent in 2015–16). Based on the Ministry’s data, only four local health districts achieved the target in 2016–17, five in |
| 3.6 Ambulance response times | |
| NSW Ambulance has a response time target of 10.0 minutes for imminently life‑threatening incidents in New South Wales. | Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Ambulance response times for imminently life-threatening incidents of 7.5 minutes in 2016–17 was within the Ministry’s target. |
| 3.7 Transfer of care | |
| The Ministry has a target of 90 per cent for the number of ambulance arrivals within a 30 minute ‘transfer of care’ timeframe. | Data provided by the Ministry indicates the rate of ambulance arrivals within a 30 minute 'transfer of care' timeframe improved from 87.6 per cent in 2015–16 to 91.7 per cent in 2016–17, exceeding the Ministry’s target. |
| 3.8 Average length of stay in hospital | |
| Based on the Ministry’s 2016–17 data, the average length of stay for acute episodes was 3.0 days. The average length of stay in New South Wales hospitals is lower than the national average of 3.2 days (in 2015–16). | The Ministry’s data shows the average length of stay by patients for acute episodes has remained stable in New South Wales hospitals for four years. |
| 3.9 Elective surgery access performance | |
| Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Health continues to manage waiting times for elective surgery in public hospitals. | The Ministry’s data shows NSW Health improved on‑time admission of patients for elective surgery in 2016–17 despite a 1.8 per cent increase in admissions. While the result improved, only one of the three targets for elective surgery waiting times was met in 2016–17. |
| 3.10 Unplanned hospital re-admissions | |
|
Data provided by the Ministry indicates NSW Health, on average, did not reduce the rate of unplanned hospital re‑admissions in 2016–17. The Ministry has a target of reducing unplanned hospital re‑admissions compared to the previous financial year. Low re‑admission rates may indicate good patient management practices and post-discharge care. |
The Ministry’s data shows eight local health district met the target to reduce the rate of re‑admissions compared to the previous financial year. The statewide average rate increased from 6.3 per cent to 6.4 per cent. |
| 3.11 Post discharge care for acute mental health patients | |
| NSW Health has a goal to increase community-based care to acute mental health patients after they are discharged. Continuity of care in the community can lead to reduced symptom severity, lower re‑admission rates, and improved quality of life. | The Ministry’s 2016–17 data shows the statewide average for post discharge follow-up of acute mental health patients within seven days was 70.0 per cent (66.0 per cent in 2015–16). The statewide average improved and met the NSW Health target of 70 per cent. Nine local health districts exceeded the NSW Health target. |
| 3.12 Mental health acute re-admissions | |
| NSW Health has a goal to reduce acute public sector mental health re-admissions. High re‑admission rates may indicate deficiencies in inpatient treatment and follow up care. | The Ministry’s data shows twelve local health districts did not achieve the NSW Health target of 13 per cent mental health acute re‑admissions in 2016–17. |
| 3.13 Unplanned and emergency re‑presentations | |
|
NSW Health aims to reduce the number of unplanned and emergency re‑presentations to emergency departments. The Ministry’s 2016–17 data shows the State average of emergency department re‑presentations decreased marginally from 5.0 per cent in 2015–16 to 4.9 per cent. |
Patients attending rural emergency departments are more likely to re‑present within 48 hours of being discharged than those in regional or metropolitan emergency departments. |
| 3.14 Healthcare associated infection | |
| The national target for the rate of Staphylococcus aureus (golden staph) bloodstream infection is two cases per 10,000 bed days. | Data provided by the Ministry indicates the rate of golden staph bloodstream infection in New South Wales hospitals continues to be well below the target and national benchmark at 0.72 cases per 10,000 bed days in 2016–17 (0.75 in 2015–16). |
| 3.15 Patient experience and satisfaction | |
|
The Bureau of Health Information analyses and reports on the results of patient surveys. The Bureau’s survey shows 65 per cent of adult admitted patients rated the care they received in hospital as ‘very good’ and 29 per cent rated it as ‘good’. |
NSW Health recognises that patient surveys are an important feedback mechanism on the health care system that can only come from personal experiences. |
Agency compliance with NSW Government travel policies
Overall, agencies materially complied with NSW Government travel policies.
However, the Auditor-General found some agencies:
- did not always book official travel through the approved supplier
- had weaknesses in their travel approval processes
- had travel policies that were inconsistent with the NSW Government policy
- did not adequately manage their travel records.
We asked the 15 participating agencies to complete a self assessment of the processes they have implemented to comply with the new policy. The key observations are summarised below.
