What this report is about 

This report assesses how effectively SafeWork NSW, a part of the Department of Customer Service (DCS), has performed its regulatory compliance functions for work health and safety in New South Wales. 

The report includes a case study examining SafeWork NSW's management of a project to develop a realtime monitoring device for airborne silica in workplaces. 

Findings 

There is limited transparency about SafeWork NSW's effectiveness as a regulator. The limited performance information that is available is either subsumed within DCS reporting (or other sources) and is focused on activity, not outcomes. 

As a work health and safety (WHS) regulator, SafeWork NSW lacks an effective strategic and data-driven approach to respond to emerging WHS risks. 

It was slow to respond to the risk of respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone. 

SafeWork NSW is constrained by an information management system that is over 20 years old and has passed its effective useful life. 

While it has invested effort into ensuring consistent regulatory decisions, SafeWork NSW needs to maintain a focus on this objective, including by ensuring that there is a comprehensive approach to quality assurance. 

SafeWork NSW's engagement of a commercial partner to develop a real-time silica monitoring device did not comply with key procurement obligations. 

There was ineffective governance and process to address important concerns about the accuracy of the real-time silica monitoring device. 

As such, SafeWork NSW did not adequately manage potential WHS risks. 

Recommendations 

The report recommended that DCS should: 

• ensure there is an independent investigation into the procurement of the research partner for the real-time silica detector 
• embed a formal process to review and set its annual regulatory priorities 
• publish a consolidated performance report 
• set long-term priorities, including for workforce planning and technology uplift 
• improve its use of data, and start work to replace its existing complaints handling system 
• review its risk culture and its risk management framework 
• review the quality assurance measures that support consistent regulatory decisions

Read the PDF report.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #390 - released 27 February 2024
 

What the report is about

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

This audit examined whether TAFE NSW's annual advertising campaign in 2021–22:

1. was carried out effectively, economically, and efficiently
2. complied with regulatory requirements and the Government Advertising Guidelines.

What we found

TAFE NSW complied with Section 6 of the Act, prohibiting political content.

It also complied with most other advertising requirements.
 
An important exception was that the Managing Director certified that the campaign complied with regulatory requirements and was an efficient and cost-effective means of achieving its public purpose, before a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was completed.

We have found issues with agencies complying with CBA requirements in previous government advertising audits. This includes the failure to complete them before signing compliance certificates.

The policy owner, the Department of Customer Service (DCS), does not consider oversight of CBAs to be within the scope of their peer review process.  

TAFE NSW evaluated this advertising campaign by surveying a population significantly broader than the target audience. As such, survey results may not accurately reflect the views of the intended audience.

What we recommended

By 30 June 2023, TAFE NSW should:

1. implement processes that ensure:
   1. CBAs are completed before the launch of campaigns over $1 million
   2. compliance certificates are completed only after all regulatory requirements are met
2. consider adding to its current evaluation methods by surveying a population which closely reflects the age profile of its intended target audience.

By June 2023, DCS should:

3. improve whole‑of‑government reporting and monitoring processes to provide the NSW Government with a central view of compliance, including the completion of CBAs by agencies.

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) sets out requirements that must be followed by a government agency when it carries out a government advertising campaign. The requirements include an explicit prohibition on political advertising, as well as a need to complete a peer review and cost-benefit analysis before the campaign commences. The accompanying Government Advertising Regulation 2018 (the Regulation) and Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines) address further matters of detail.

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

This audit examined TAFE NSW's advertising campaign for the 2021–22 financial year. TAFE NSW is the NSW Government's public provider of vocational education and training. TAFE NSW carries out an advertising campaign every year. In 2021–22, it spent $15.16 million on developing and implementing advertising. TAFE NSW used channels such as television, radio, internet and social media, press, and out of home advertising in public settings such as bus stops. The advertising aimed to increase the percentage of people considering TAFE NSW for training or education, grow the percentage of people who consider TAFE NSW to be the preferred education provider in NSW, and maintain the proportion of people who are aware of TAFE NSW more generally.

There are a range of private service providers helping to deliver vocational education and training in NSW.

This part of the report sets out key aspects of TAFE NSW's compliance with the government advertising regulatory framework. It considers whether TAFE NSW complied with the:

• Government Advertising Act 2011
• Government Advertising Regulation 2018
• NSW Government Advertising Guidelines 2012 and other relevant policy.

This part of the report considers whether TAFE NSW's advertising program for 2021–22 was carried out in an effective, efficient, and economical manner.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – About the campaign

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #377 - released 28 February 2023

What the report is about

Sydney Metro is Australia’s largest public transport project. It requires the acquisition of many private properties, including residential and business properties.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the acquisition of private properties for the Sydney Metro project. The audited agencies were Sydney Metro, the Department of Planning and Environment (Valuer General NSW) and Transport for NSW (the Centre for Property Acquisition).

The audit assessed agencies against the framework for property acquisitions in New South Wales. It did not re-perform the valuations done for individual properties that were acquired by Sydney Metro.

What we found

Acquisitions of private property for the Sydney Metro project were mostly effective in the sample of acquisitions we assessed. We found Sydney Metro:

• complied with legislative and policy requirements for compensation and communication with people subject to property acquisitions
• kept accurate records of its acquisitions and applied probity controls consistently
• did not complete detailed plans or negotiation strategies for the high-risk and high-value acquisitions we reviewed
• did not comply with legislative timelines for most compulsory acquisitions because of delays in receiving the required information from the Valuer General in these cases.

The Centre for Property Acquisition has overseen the implementation of reforms to residential acquisition processes, but its assessment of the effectiveness of these reforms has not been comprehensive.

What we recommended

The audit made four recommendations to the audited agencies to improve:

• plans and strategies for the acquisition of high-risk and high-value properties
• timeliness of issuing compensation determinations for compulsory acquisitions
• data quality on the experience of people subject to property acquisitions.

The NSW Government has the power to acquire land that is owned or leased by individuals or businesses, if it is needed for a public purpose. The power arises from the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Just Terms Act). Government agencies that have the power to compulsorily acquire private property are referred to as ‘acquiring authorities’. People who are subject to acquisitions are referred to as ‘affected parties’ and include property owners (business or residential), businesses with a commercial lease on a property, or individuals with residential tenancy leases. In recent years, the vast majority of acquisitions by the NSW Government have been for public transport or road projects.

Sydney Metro is a NSW Government agency with responsibility for building the Sydney Metro railway project. Sydney Metro is Australia’s largest public transport project. The project requires the acquisition of a large number of private properties. Sydney Metro has been one of the largest acquirers of private property in recent years, completing over 500 acquisitions between 2020 and mid-2022, with a total acquisition value of over $2 billion. Other agencies and statutory officers involved in the acquisition of property for the Sydney Metro project include:

• the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), which supports the minister responsible for the Just Terms Act. DPE also provides staff to the Valuer General of NSW
• the Valuer General of NSW, an independent statutory officer that determines compensation in cases where the acquiring authority and the affected party cannot agree on compensation for property that has been acquired
• Transport for NSW, which includes the Centre for Property Acquisition (CPA). The CPA does not have a direct role in acquiring properties, but its responsibilities include developing guidance for acquiring agencies and monitoring and reporting on their activities.

About this audit

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of acquisitions of private properties for Sydney Metro projects. The audit assessed agencies against the legislative and policy requirements in place for government acquisitions of private property in New South Wales. In line with the Audit Office's legislative mandate, the audit does not comment on the merits of the policy objectives reflected in the Just Terms Act.

The audit examined a sample of 20 property acquisitions. This was not a statistically representative sample. While our report provides comments on Sydney Metro’s overall acquisition processes, it does not provide assurance regarding the acquisitions that were not examined for this audit.

The audit did not re-perform the valuations done for individual properties that were acquired by Sydney Metro. Affected parties who disagree with the valuation of their property have the right to seek independent assessment of this via the Valuer General and the Land and Environment Court.

This chapter presents our findings on Sydney Metro's acquisition of industrial and commercial properties. Industrial properties include construction businesses and manufacturing facilities. Commercial properties were mostly properties such as shopping centres and office towers. Many of these acquisitions involve businesses and properties that are relatively complex and have high values. This means the valuation process can require multiple experts and can be lengthy and contested. Adherence to governance and probity requirements is important for these acquisitions in order to demonstrate that the acquiring authority has achieved value for money.

This chapter presents our findings on Sydney Metro's acquisition of residential properties, which include apartments and houses, and small business leases, which mostly affected businesses in small shopping centres or arcades. Most of these acquisitions were lower value compared to industrial and commercial property acquisitions and did not require as much expert advice on complex technical issues. However, residential property acquisitions can be personally distressing for the affected parties and require staff from the acquiring authority to provide support and show empathy while ensuring legislative compliance and value for money.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – About the audit 

Appendix three – Performance auditing 

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #375 - released 9 February 2023

What the report is about

The Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) is the State's custodian of rail assets. It is a state owned corporation and commenced operating on 1 July 2020.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. We audited TAHE, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and NSW Treasury.

Separate and related audits on TAHE are reported in 'State Finances 2022', 'State Finances 2021' and 'Transport and Infrastructure 2022' reports.

What we found

The design and implementation of TAHE, which spanned seven years, was not effective.

The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to support an accounting treatment to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments.

The benefits of TAHE were claimed in the 2015–16 NSW Budget before the enabling legislation was passed by Parliament in 2017. This committed the agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, regardless of any challenges that arose.

Rail safety arrangements were a priority throughout TAHE's design and implementation, and risks were raised and addressed.

Agencies relied heavily on consultants on matters related to the creation of TAHE, but failed to effectively manage these engagements. Agencies failed to ensure that consultancies delivered independent advice as an input to decision-making. A small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on the same topic. The final cost of TAHE-related consultancies was $22.6 million compared to the initial estimated cost of $12.9 million.

What we recommended

We recommended that the audited agencies should:

• improve accountability and transparency for major new fiscal transformation initiatives
• ensure entities do not reflect the financial impact of significant initiatives in the Budget when there is uncertainty, or it creates perverse incentives
• review record keeping practices, systems and policies to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998, and the NSW Government Information Classification, Labelling and Handling Guidelines
• review procurement policies to ensure that consultant use complies with all NSW Government policy requirements.

The NSW Government established the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE), a statutory State Owned Corporation (SOC), on 1 July 2020 to replace the former rail infrastructure owner – RailCorp. It is the State's custodian of rail network assets, including rail tracks and other infrastructure, rolling stock, land, train stations and facilities, retail space, and signal and power systems, within metropolitan and regional New South Wales. It is responsible for $2.8 billion of major capital projects in 2022–23.

TAHE was established under Part 2 of the Transport Administration Act 1988 and is governed by a decision-making board. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Employee Relations are the Shareholding Ministers of TAHE, and they annually agree performance expectations articulated in a Statement of Corporate Intent.

Whereas TAHE is the custodian of rail assets, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains operate public rail services. TAHE does not have responsibility for the operation of the heavy rail network or train services, nor does it have network control functions. TAHE, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains are in the Transport and Infrastructure cluster in the public sector (formerly the Transport cluster and renamed in April 2022), which also includes Sydney Metro and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

TfNSW leads the Transport and Infrastructure cluster. Its role is to set the strategic direction for transport across the State. This involves the shaping of planning, policy, strategy, regulation, resource allocation and other service and non-service delivery functions for all modes of transport.

TAHE's Operating Licence is granted by the Portfolio Minister and authorises the entity to perform the functions required to acquire, develop, finance, divest and hold assets, pursuant to the Transport Administration Act 1988. The Portfolio Minister also issues a Statement of Expectations which outlines the government’s expectation for the business for the next three to five years.

TAHE's original Portfolio Minister was the Minister for Transport who approved, on 30 June 2020, the issuing of an interim 12-month Operating Licence to enable TAHE to commence operating on 1 July 2020. The Portfolio Minister then granted TAHE's current Operating Licence in 2021. After TAHE requested a 12-month extension to its current Operating Licence, its next Operating Licence is due on 1 July 2024. The current Portfolio Minister is the Minister for Infrastructure, Cities and Active Transport.

About this audit

This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. In making this assessment, we considered whether: 

• the process of designing and implementing TAHE was cohesive and transparent, and delivered an effective outcome
• agencies' roles and responsibilities were clear in the planning of TAHE
• agencies effectively identified and managed certain risks.

Appendix one – Responses from audited agencies, and Audit Office clarification of matters raised in the TAHE formal response 

Appendix two – Classification of government entities 

Appendix three – About the audit 

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #372 - released 24 January 2023

What the report is about

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act) provides land rights over certain Crown land for Aboriginal Land Councils in NSW.

If a claim is made over Crown land (land owned and managed by government) and meets other criteria under the Act, ownership of that land is to be transferred to the Aboriginal Land Council.

This process is intended to provide compensation for the dispossession of land from Aboriginal people in NSW. It is a different process to the recognition of native title rights under Commonwealth law.

We examined whether relevant agencies are effectively facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes. The relevant agencies are:

• Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
• Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)
• NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC).

We consulted with Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and other Aboriginal community representative groups to hear about their experiences.

What we found

Neither DPC nor DPE have established the resources required for the NSW Government to deliver Aboriginal land claim processes in a coordinated way, and which transparently commits to the requirements and intent of the Act.

Delays in determining land claims result in Aboriginal Land Councils being denied the opportunity to realise their statutory right to certain Crown land. Delays also create risks due to uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land.

DPC has not established governance arrangements to ensure accountability for outcomes under the Act, and effective risk management.

DPE lacks clear performance measures for the timely and transparent delivery of its claim assessment functions. DPE also lacks a well-defined framework for prioritising assessments.

LALCs have concerns about delays, and lack of transparency in the process.

Reviews since at least 2014 have recommended actions to address numerous issues and improve outcomes, but limited progress has been made.

The database used by DPC (Office of the Registrar) for the statutory register of land claims has not been upgraded or fully validated since the 1990s.

In 2020, DPE identified the transfer of claimable Crown land to LALCs to enable economic and cultural outcomes as a strategic priority. DPE has some activities underway to do this, and to improve how it engages with Aboriginal Land Councils – but DPE still lacks a clear, resourced strategy to process over 38,000 undetermined claims within a reasonable time.

What we recommended

In summary:

• DPC should lead strategic governance to oversee a resourced, coordinated program that is accountable for delivering Aboriginal land claim processes
• DPE should implement a resourced, ten-year plan that increases the rate of claim processing, and includes an initial focus on land grants
• DPE and DPC should jointly establish operational arrangements to deliver a coordinated interagency program for land claim processes
• DPC should plan an interagency, land claim spatial information system, and the Office of the Registrar should remediate and upgrade the statutory land claims register
• DPC and NSWALC should implement an education program (for state agencies and the local government sector) about the Act and its operations
• DPE should implement a five-year workforce development strategy for its land claim assessment function
• DPE should finalise updates to its land claim assessment procedures
• DPE should enhance information sharing with Aboriginal Land Councils to inform their claim making
• NSWALC should enhance information sharing and other supports to LALCs to inform their claim making and build capacity.

The return of land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the Act) is intended to provide compensation for the dispossession of land from Aboriginal people in New South Wales. A claim on Crown land¹ made by an Aboriginal Land Council that meets criteria under the Act is to be transferred to the claimant council as freehold title. The 2021 statutory review of the Act recognises the spiritual, social, cultural and economic importance of land to Aboriginal people.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs administers the Act, with support from Aboriginal Affairs NSW (AANSW) in the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). AANSW also leads the delivery of Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility and Empowerment (OCHRE), the NSW Government's plan for Aboriginal affairs, and assists the Minister to implement the National Agreement on Closing the Gap – which includes a target for increasing the area of land covered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's legal rights or interests.

The Act gives responsibility for registering land claims to an independent statutory officer, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (the Registrar), whose functions are supported by the Office of the Registrar (ORALRA) which is resourced by AANSW.²

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has stated that there is an implied obligation for land claims to be determined within a reasonable time. The Minister administering the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW) is responsible for determining land claims. This function is supported by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE),³ whose staff assess and recommend claims for determination based on the criteria under section 36(1) of the Act. There is also a mechanism under the Act for land claims to be negotiated in good faith through an Aboriginal Land Agreement.

The NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) is a statutory corporation constituted under the Act with a mandate to provide for the development of land rights for Aboriginal people in NSW, in conjunction with the network of 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs). LALCs are constituted over specific areas to represent Aboriginal communities across NSW. Both NSWALC and LALCs can make land claims.

DPC and DPE are responsible for governance and, in partnership with NSWALC, operational and information-sharing activities that are required to coordinate Aboriginal land claim processes. LALCs, statutory officers, government agencies, local councils, and other parties need to be engaged so that these processes are coordinated effectively and managed in a way that is consistent with the intent of the Act, and other legislative requirements.

The first land claim was lodged in 1983. The number of undetermined land claims has increased over time, and at 31 December 2021 DPE data shows 38,257 undetermined claims.

The issue of undetermined land claims has been publicly reported by the Audit Office since 2007. Recommendations to agencies to better facilitate processes and improve how functions are administered have been made in multiple reviews, including two Parliamentary inquiries in 2016.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether relevant agencies are effectively facilitating and administering Aboriginal land claim processes. In making this assessment, we considered whether:

• agencies (DPE, DPC (AANSW and ORALRA) and NSWALC) coordinate information and activities to effectively facilitate Aboriginal land claim processes
• agencies (DPE and DPC (ORALRA)) are effectively administering their roles in the Aboriginal land claim process.

We consulted with LALCs to hear about their experiences and priorities with respect to Aboriginal land claim processes and related outcomes. We have aimed to incorporate their insights into our understanding of their expectations of government with respect to delivering requirements, facilitating processes, and identifying opportunities for improved outcomes. 

Since 1983, 53,861 Aboriginal land claims have been lodged with the Registrar.²⁵

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has stated there is an implied obligation on the Crown Lands Minister to determine land claims within a reasonable time.²⁶

As at 31 December 2021, DPE has processed less than a third (31 per cent) of these land claims: 14,273 were determined by the Crown Lands Minister (that is, granted or refused, in whole or part) and 2,562 were withdrawn. This amounts to 16,835 claims processed, including the negotiated settlement of 15 claims through three Aboriginal Land Agreements. As a result, DPE reports that approximately 163,900 hectares of Crown land has been granted to Aboriginal Land Councils since 1983 up to 31 December 2021.

There are 38,257 land claims awaiting determination, which cover about 1.12 million hectares of Crown land.

The 2017 report on the statutory review of the Act noted that the land claims ‘backlog’ was one of the ‘Top 5’ priorities identified by LALCs during consultations. The importance of this issue is consistent with findings from our consultations with LALCs in 2021 (see Exhibit 7).

Delays in delivering on the statutory requirement to determine land claims, and limited use of other mechanisms to process claims in consultation or agreement with NSWALC and LALCs, undermines the beneficial and remedial intent of Aboriginal land rights under the Act. It also:

• impacts negatively on DPE’s ability to comply with the statutory requirement to determine land claims, because often the older a claim becomes the more difficult it can be to gather the evidence required to assess it
• creates uncertainty around the ownership, use and development of Crown land, which can have financial impacts on Aboriginal Land Councils, government agencies, local councils and developers.

Risks that arise in the context of undetermined claims are discussed further in section 3.3.

NSW Treasury describes public sector governance as providing strategic direction, ensuring objectives are achieved, and managing risks and the use of resources responsibly with accountability.

Consistent with the NSW Treasury’s Risk Management Toolkit (TPP-12-03b), governance arrangements for Aboriginal land claim processes should ensure their effective facilitation and administration. That is, arrangements are expected to contribute to and oversee the performance of administrative processes and service delivery towards outcomes, and ensure that legal and policy compliance obligations are met consistent with community expectations of accountability and transparency.

DPC and DPE are responsible for governance and, in partnership with NSWALC, operational and information-sharing activities required to coordinate Aboriginal land claim processes. LALCs, statutory officers, government agencies, local councils, and other parties (such as native title groups and those with an interest in development on Crown land) need to be engaged so that these processes are coordinated effectively with risks managed – consistent with the intent of the Act, and other legislative requirements.

Policy commitments to Aboriginal people and communities made by the NSW Government in the OCHRE Plan and Closing the Gap priority reforms establish an expectation for culturally informed governance.

The Crown Lands Minister, supported by DPE, is required to determine whether Aboriginal land claims meet the criteria to be ‘claimable Crown lands’ under section 36(1) of the Act. DPE staff within its Crown Lands division are responsible for assessing land claims and preparing recommendation briefs to the Crown Lands Minister, or their delegate, on determination outcomes. That is, on whether to grant or refuse the claim.³⁸ DPE staff also make decisions about which land claims within the large number of undetermined claims should be processed first.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

Banner image used with permission.
Title: Forces of Nature
Artist: Lee Hampton – Koori Kicks Art

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #365 - released 28 April 2022.

What the report is about

The report focuses on how effectively the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) led reforms addressing the unsafe use of combustible external cladding on existing residential and public buildings.

Nine local councils were included in the audit because they have responsibilities and powers needed to implement the NSW Government’s reforms.

What we found

After the June 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London, the NSW Government committed to a ten-point action plan, which included establishing the NSW Cladding Taskforce, chaired by DCS, and with DPE as a key member. The Taskforce co-ordinates and oversees the implementation of the plan.

Depending on the original source of development approval, either individual local councils or DPE are responsible for ensuring that buildings are identified, assessed, and remediated. NSW Government-owned buildings are the responsibility of each department.

Identifying buildings potentially at risk was complex and resource intensive. However, on balance, it is likely that most affected buildings have now been identified.

By October 2021, around 40 per cent of assessed high-risk buildings that are the responsibility of local councils had either been remediated or found not to pose an unacceptable fire risk.

By February 2022, almost 50 per cent of affected NSW Government-owned buildings, and 90 per cent of buildings that are the responsibility of DPE, have either been cleared or are in the process of being remediated.

Earlier guidance on some key issues could have been provided by DCS and DPE in the two years after the Grenfell Tower fire. This may have reduced confusion and inconsistency across local councils we audited, and in some NSW Government departments. This especially relates to the application of the Fair Trading Commissioner's product use ban.

Given the inherent risks posed by combustible external cladding, buildings initially assessed as low-risk may also still warrant further action.

While most high-risk buildings have likely been identified, poor information handling makes it difficult to keep track of all buildings from identification, through to risk assessment and remediation.

What we recommended

DCS and DPE should:

1. address the confusion surrounding the application of the Commissioner for Fair Trading's product use ban for aluminium composite panels with polyethylene content greater than 30 per cent
2. develop an action plan to address buildings assessed as low-risk
3. improve information systems to track all buildings from identification through to remediation.

NSW Government's response to the risks posed by combustible external cladding

The NSW Government first became aware of the potential heightened risks posed by combustible external cladding on building exteriors after the 2014 Lacrosse Tower fire in Melbourne. However, it was the tragic loss of life from the Grenfell Tower fire in London, in June 2017, that gave added urgency to the need to address these risks.

Within six weeks of the London fire, the NSW Government committed to a ten-point plan of action for NSW to:

• identify and remediate any buildings with combustible external cladding
• ensure that regulation prevented the unsafe use of such cladding
• ensure that experts involved in providing advice and certifying fire safety measures had the necessary skills and experience.

One of the actions in the ten-point plan was the creation of the NSW Government's Fire Safety and External Wall Cladding Taskforce (the Cladding Taskforce) chaired by the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) as a key member.

The ten-point plan also specified that NSW Government departments would be responsible, in regard to buildings they owned to '…audit their buildings and determine if they have aluminium cladding'.

Local councils play a key role in implementing the Government's reforms, given their responsibilities and powers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and Local Government Act 1993 (Local Government Act) to approve building works (as 'consent authorities'), as well as to ensure fire safety standards are met. DPE plays an equivalent role for a smaller number of 'State Significant Developments' for which it is the consent authority under delegation from the Minister for Planning.

Commissioner for Fair Trading's building product use ban

On 18 December 2017, the Building Products (Safety) Act 2017 (BPS Act) came into effect in NSW, introducing new laws to prevent the use of unsafe building products. Notably, the BPS Act gave the Secretary of DCS and the Commissioner for Fair Trading the power to ban unsafe uses of building products.

After an extensive consultative process, the Commissioner for Fair Trading used these powers to issue a product use ban on 15 August 2018. This banned the use of external wall cladding of aluminium composite panels with a core comprised of more than 30 per cent polyethylene by mass on new buildings, unless the proposed use was subject to independent fire propagation testing of the specific product and method of application to a building in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

Buildings occupied before the product use ban came into force are not automatically required to have the banned product removed. Under the BPS Act, consent authorities may determine necessary actions to eliminate or minimise the risk posed by the banned material on existing buildings.

Project Remediate

Project Remediate is a three-year NSW Government program announced in November 2020. The program was designed by the NSW Government to assist building owners of multi-storey apartments (two storeys or more) with high-risk combustible cladding to remediate their building to a high standard and for a fair price.

The scheme is voluntary and includes government paying for the interest on ten-year loans, as well as incorporating assurance and project management services to provide technical and practical support to owners’ corporations and strata managing agents. Building remediations under the program are expected to commence in 2022.

About this audit

This audit assessed whether DCS and DPE effectively led reforms to manage the fire safety risk of combustible external cladding on existing residential and public buildings.

In making this assessment, we considered whether the expressed policy intent of the NSW Government's ten-point plan for fire safety reform had been achieved by asking:

• are the fire safety risks of combustible external cladding on existing buildings identified and remediated?
• is there a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products on existing buildings?
• is fire safety certification for combustible external cladding on existing buildings carried out impartially, ethically and in the public interest by qualified experts?

Consistent with the focus of the Cladding Taskforce on multi-storey residential buildings and public buildings, the scope of our audit is limited to buildings categorised under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) as class 2, 3 and 9. These classes are defined in detail in section 1.2, but include: multi-unit residential apartments, hotels, motels, hostels, back-packers, and buildings of a public nature, including health care buildings, schools, and aged care buildings. The scope was also limited to existing buildings, which is defined as buildings occupied by 22 October 2018.

Auditees

The Department of Customer Service chairs the NSW Government's Cladding Taskforce, which is responsible for coordinating the combustible external cladding reforms. The Commissioner of Fair Trading sits within DCS and DCS regulates the industry accreditation scheme for fire safety practitioners, as well as administering the BPS Act.

The Department of Planning and Environment administers the EPA Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation), which regulate the building development process. As well as being the delegated consent authority for State Significant Developments, DPE is also responsible for maintaining the mandatory cladding register requiring building owners of multi-storey (BCA class 2, 3 or 9) buildings to register buildings with combustible external cladding on an online portal.

Functions and responsibilities between DCS and DPE varied over time. For example, in October 2019, the DPE building policy team responsible for co-ordinating the DPE response to the combustible cladding issue was transferred to DCS, following changes to agency responsibilities resulting from machinery of government changes. DPE advised this resulted in a lessening of DPE's subsequent policy work on combustible cladding and its involvement in the Cladding Taskforce.

While the focus of the audit was on the oversight and coordination provided by DCS and DPE, nine councils were also auditees for this performance audit. Councils play an essential part as consent authorities for building development approvals in NSW, as well as having responsibilities and powers to ensure fire safety standards. To fully understand how well their activities were overseen and coordinated, a sample of councils was included as auditees.

Nine councils were selected to represent both metropolitan and regional areas, noting that there are very few in-scope buildings in rural areas. The audited councils were:

• Bayside Council
• City of Canterbury Bankstown Council
• Cumberland City Council
• Liverpool City Council
• City of Newcastle Council
• City of Parramatta Council
• City of Ryde Council
• City of Sydney Council
• Wollongong City Council.

Terminology

The two NSW Government department auditees have, over time, been subject to machinery of government changes, which have changed some of their functions and what the departments are called.

Relevant to this audit, the effect of these changes has been:

• the Department of Finance, Services, and Innovation (DFSI) became the Department of Customer Services (DCS) on 1 July 2019
• on 1 July 2019, the Department of Planning and Environment became the Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment (DPIE)
• on 21 December 2021, DPIE became the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).

To avoid confusion, we use the titles by which these departments are known at the date of this report: the Department of Customer Service and the Department of Planning and Environment.

This chapter considers the part played by DCS and DPE as key members of the Cladding Taskforce in ensuring that buildings with combustible external cladding were effectively identified and remediated through processes implemented by:

• local councils or DPE, where those bodies were consent authorities under the EPA Act for the relevant buildings
• in the case of NSW Government buildings, the departments that owned those buildings.

This chapter considers what has been done to deliver a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products.

This chapter considers whether reforms have ensured that only people with the necessary skills and experience are certifying buildings and signing off on fire-safety.

Inspections of existing buildings and development of any subsequent action plans to address combustible external cladding are not activities covered by accreditation or registration schemes for building certifiers

Almost all the risk assessment and remediation work done on buildings in the scope of this audit have been undertaken under fire safety orders issued by consent authorities using their powers under the EPA Act. This has been the recommended approach by DPE and DCS since at least 2016 (that is, before the Grenfell Tower fire in London).

While there have been reforms to certifier registrations scheme, these were not intended to ensure that combustible cladding-remediation on existing buildings is supported by people with the necessary skills and experience in fire safety under the fire safety order process. Instead, they are focused on offering better assurance for work done in respect to new building projects where accredited experts certify that building work is carried out in accordance with BCA under the DCS managed certifier registration schemes.

No steps have been taken to ensure the quality of the work done by experts inspecting, assessing the fire risk and developing action plans to address combustible external cladding on existing buildings, other than where consent authorities have chosen to exercise their discretion. This includes requiring fire safety experts to be appropriately qualified and requiring peer review of some cladding risk assessments and remediation plans.

Consent authorities determine whether individuals with accreditation are required for combustible cladding inspection, risk assessments and remediation on existing buildings

Whether an individual with certifier accreditation participates in a cladding inspection, risk assessment, or remediation for an existing building will be determined by what councils as consent authorities specify in their fire safety orders unless building owners opt to use such experts without being directed to do so by the consent authority.

As discussed earlier, councils acting as consent authorities vary in whether they require building owners to engage individuals with certifier accreditation. In most of the councils we audited, A1 or C10 accredited experts were either required, or recommended, to perform functions such as auditing suspected combustible cladding, or conducting fire safety risk assessments and developing plans to rectify combustible cladding.

However, these types of work are not functions covered by the accreditation or registration schemes that apply to building and development certifiers.

Certifier accreditation schemes do not cover cladding remediation work done under fire safety orders

While councils may require or recommend that independent accredited A1 or C10 certifiers be engaged by building owners for cladding risk assessment and remediation, they are not performing those functions as certifiers — they are, in effect, more akin to expert consultants. Accordingly, how they perform their functions and duties is not covered by the legislation supporting the accreditation scheme for certifiers that was operated until July 2020 by the Building Professional Board.

Instead, their use in this process is a convenient and practical way for consent authorities to ensure that building owners use appropriate experts who have the qualifications, skills and experience needed to investigate and identify combustible cladding, and then to formulate appropriate action to deal with such cladding. However, these individuals are not performing regulated or accredited work, are not subject to regulatory oversight, and are not accountable to any accreditation body for the quality of the work they perform.

While councils could (and sometimes do) choose to decline poor quality or incomplete cladding-related work prepared by A1 or C10 certifiers, the burden of resolving poor quality would fall on the building owner, who would have to seek amended or additional risk assessments or rectification plans.

In the absence of regulatory oversight, disincentives for poor quality cladding-related work, may include litigation being commenced by the property owner, harm to the expert's reputation in a small and competitive market, and the potential impact on whether the individual could retain their professional indemnity insurance at a reasonable cost (especially in an environment when many insurance providers withdrew coverage for cladding related work).

Reforms impact on regulated experts doing work on new buildings

The reforms that commenced on 1 July 2020, replaced categories of accreditation with classes of registration, and varied the classes such that:

• accredited building surveyor category A1 became registered building surveyor-unrestricted
• accredited certifier—fire safety engineer category C10 became registered certifiers-fire safety.

The legislation that introduced these reforms, the Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018, also repealed the pre-existing Building Professionals Act 2005 and abolished the Building Professionals Board. The new Act was accompanied by the Building and Development Certifiers Regulation 2020.

While the scope of this audit is limited to existing buildings, we note that there are buildings with combustible external cladding that are yet to be remediated. Just as these processes previously drew on the expertise of A1 and C10 category certifiers, it seems inevitable that the remediation of existing buildings will continue to draw on the expertise of the equivalent new classes of registered building surveyor-unrestricted and registered certifier-fire safety.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #364 - released 13 April 2022.

What the report is about

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

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

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

What we found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we recommended

DNSW should:

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

The Department of Customer Service should:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign materials we reviewed did not contain political content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCS did not escalate the issue of outstanding peer review materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix one – Response to Destination NSW

Appendix two – Response from agencies

Appendix three – About the campaigns

Appendix four – About the audit

Appendix five – Performance auditing

Copyright notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #360 - released (23 December 2021).

What the report is about

The report examined whether NSW Treasury, Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service effectively administered grants programs funded under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund, including:

• $10,000 Small Business Support Grant
• $3,000 Small Business Recovery Grant.

What we found

The agencies effectively implemented the grants within required timeframes, reflecting the NSW Government’s decision to deliver urgent financial support to small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

NSW Treasury met urgent timeframes to design the grants and Service NSW made timely payments in line with the grants' objectives and eligibility criteria.

Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service strengthened processes to detect and minimise fraud in response to identified external fraud risks, and to investigate suspected fraudulent applications.

Fraud security checks and investigations are ongoing, and the agencies will not know the full extent of fraud across the grants until these processes have been completed.

The agencies regularly monitored and reported on the timeliness of payments to small business applicants but have not yet measured all benefits of the grants programs.

The $10,000 Support Grant and the $3,000 Recovery Grant have provided around $630 million in one off grant payments to eligible small businesses.

What we recommended

NSW Treasury should finalise and implement an evaluation of both grants programs, including obtaining feedback from businesses.

Service NSW should develop a framework that documents expected controls for how it administers grants, including business processes, fraud control and governance and probity requirements.

Service NSW should publish information on all grants programs, including grants distribution and uptake.

The Department of Customer Service should ensure its processes for managing conflicts of interest meets its policy requirements.

Upcoming performance audit

The Audit Office is conducting a further performance audit into grants administration for disaster relief focussing on bushfire grants. This is planned to complete in 2021-22.

Further information

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

The NSW Government responded to the partial shutdown of the NSW economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 by, among other measures, announcing on 3 April 2020 that it would place $750 million into the Small Business Support Fund (the Fund).

Under the Fund, the NSW Government would pay one-off grants of up to $10,000 to small business impacted by the shutdown. The objectives of the $10,000 Small Business Support Grant ($10,000 Support Grant) were to:

• ease the pressure on small businesses that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic
• support the ongoing operations of small businesses highly impacted by the COVID-19 restrictions
• deliver cash-flow into small businesses as soon as possible so that small businesses could meet pressing financial needs.

Grant applications were assessed against eligibility criteria that were determined by the NSW Government. The eligibility criteria for the $10,000 Support Grant required an employing small business to demonstrate it was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic by self-declaring or demonstrating a significant decline of 75 per cent or more in turnover compared to 2019. Documentation requirements were relaxed for small businesses within highly impacted industries.

In June 2020, the NSW Government announced a second round of one-off grants of up to $3,000 to small businesses that were highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic ($3,000 Recovery Grant). The objective of the $3,000 Recovery Grant was to help small businesses in 'highly impacted industries' — those directly impacted by the restrictions and closures put in place under the Public Health Orders — to meet the costs of safely reopening or scaling up operations.

The eligibility criteria for the $3,000 Recovery Grant required that a small business be in a highly impacted industry, demonstrate that it was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic by declaring a significant decline in turnover, and had costs associated with reopening under the 'COVID-Safe' requirements.

NSW Treasury and Service NSW implemented both grants on behalf of the NSW Government. The process of applying for a grant was intended to be quick and easy, with Service NSW using automated assessments and simple online application forms to process applications. Applicants applied for the $10,000 Support Grant through the Service NSW website between 14 April 2020 to 30 June 2020 and applied for the $3,000 Small Business Recovery Grant between 1 July 2020 and 31 August 2020.

At May 2021, around $520 million has been paid to over 52,500 grant applicants under the $10,000 Support Grant and around $109 million had been paid to around 36,700 grant applicants under the $3,000 Recovery Grant.

The Audit Office plans to undertake a performance audit into grants administration for disaster relief focussing on bushfire grants in 2021–22.

This audit assessed whether the grants funded under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund were effectively administered and implemented to provide disaster relief. It addressed the following questions:

• Were funded grants programs planned, designed and targeted effectively?
• Were funded grants programs implemented in line with the objectives and criteria and delivery requirements?
• Have agencies established measures to monitor intended benefits and outcomes?

This audit did not seek to assess the effectiveness of any other grant programs or stimulus measures. It also did not seek to assess the impact of the funding on applicants, or the future prospects of small businesses that received support.

1. Key findings

Around $630 million in timely one-off grant payments have been made to small businesses

Service NSW and NSW Treasury have paid around $630 million in one-off grant payments to small businesses via two grants administered under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund. At May 2021:

• around $520 million has been paid to over 52,500 grant applications received for the $10,000 Small Business Support Grant ($10,000 Support Grant)
• around $109 million has been paid to 36,700 grant applications received for the $3,000 Small Business Recovery Grant ($3,000 Recovery Grant).

Across both grants, over 65,000 small businesses received a payment across either grant, and over 23,000 businesses received payments under both grants.

NSW Treasury advise that, while no data was collected on the time to pay applicants for the $10,000 Support Grant, from its monitoring of the grants' outputs it was satisfied that payment timeframes met its expectations. Service NSW met its targeted time to pay applicants with payments made within ten days for the $3,000 Recovery Grant.

Funds for both grants were not fully spent due to limitations in data and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact. At May 2021, the final demand for the $10,000 Support Grant was around 30 per cent less than initially anticipated and the final demand for the $3,000 Recovery Grant was around 40 per cent less than initially anticipated.

NSW Treasury developed proposals establishing high level design and delivery expectations within rapid timeframes

NSW Treasury put forward proposals to the NSW Government for the two grants administered under the $750 million Small Business Support Fund. It met rapid timeframes for producing this advice: within one day for the $10,000 Support Grant and within four days for the $3,000 Recovery Grant. NSW Treasury's advice to the NSW Government on how to best target the total funding, eligibility criteria and the feasibility of delivering the grants through Service NSW was based on comparable grants programs – including the $10,000 Small Business Bushfire Support Grant – which at that time were ongoing.

The proposals established, at a high-level, the rationale for the grants, expected financial costs, risks and analysis on budget impacts, and confirmation that Service NSW could deliver the grants applications platform. NSW Treasury's demand projections were uncertain due to limited data in the early stages of the pandemic regarding potential economic impact.

Given the tight timeframes, the proposals did not fully consider all planning and design aspects for both grants. For example, there was minimal identification of the costs and benefits of the programs, and a lack of detailed design and delivery requirements. The proposals outlined that arrangements to finalise the risk management, controls, and auditing plan would be agreed by Service NSW and NSW Treasury before implementation.

In future circumstances where urgent advice on program design is required, NSW Treasury could set clearer expectations for the delivery agency, including fully considering costs, benefits and delivery requirements that could be carried through to project governance and implementation.

Service NSW implemented both grants in line with delivery expectations

Service NSW met urgent timeframes to stand-up both grants: 11 days for the $10,000 Support Grant and 26 days for the $3,000 Recovery Grant. Delivery expectations for each grant were established under a grant project agreement (grant agreement). Service NSW delivered the online application platform, assessment of applications, payments and reporting of the grants' uptake as per the grant agreements.

The urgent timeframes to deliver the grants contributed to gaps in Service NSW's project and risk management processes throughout the lifecycle of both grants. For example, the requirement to meet pressing timeframes for the $10,000 Support Grant launch meant agencies had reduced time to achieve sign-off on key documentation. As a result, important documents and processes – including the grant agreement, risk documentation and key business process and quality assurance processes – were not finalised ahead of launch.

Quality assurance and compliance processes for detecting fraud were not settled until after the conclusion of the applications for the $10,000 Support Grant, and were not completed until late 2020. Some project documents, including risk registers, communication plans and project briefs are still not finalised.

The longer timeframe to develop the $3,000 Recovery Grant meant that agencies were able to build on their understanding of the implementation requirements from the $10,000 Support Grant, and better document these expectations and understanding while ensuring that key documents and sign-offs were in place prior to launch.

Service NSW tightened its risk management and controls in response to evidence of fraudulent applications

In May 2020, Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service (DCS) were alerted to suspected fraudulent activity within grants administered by Service NSW. Initially, Service NSW anticipated that up to $8.8 million of the $10,000 Support Grant was at risk of exposure to fraudulent applications. However, Service NSW reported that, at April 2021, $1.9 million for the $10,000 Support Grant and $254,000 for the $3,000 Recovery Grant from paid applications were at risk of fraud exposure.

Following an internal review of the potential exposure to fraudulent or ineligible applications, Service NSW implemented additional automated security checks on applications, increased manual assessments of grant applications, established a dedicated taskforce for grants administration and engaged a unit within DCS to manage high-risk investigations.

Service NSW and DCS's increased governance and oversight has resulted in an established case management function, increased referrals to law enforcement, prioritised investigations of suspicious applications and the development of a 'Fraud Control Framework' aimed at addressing external fraud risks. Given Service NSW had limited experience in these processes in context of administering grant payments, such actions were an appropriate response.

Security checks and investigations of suspicious applications are ongoing. Service NSW will not know the full extent of fraud across the grants until these processes have been fully completed.

Service NSW and Department of Customer Service can improve how conflicts of interest are managed for future programs

Compliance with agency policies and processes to manage conflicts of interest and financial subdelegations demonstrates that investment decisions are being made by appropriately skilled and experienced staff, allowing agencies to operate efficiently, and reducing the risk of internal fraud.

DCS was unable to produce employee conflicts of interest declarations for the $10,000 Support Grant. Therefore, it is not known how many employees had completed conflicts of interest declarations for this round.

DCS provided information on conflicts of interest declarations for the $3,000 Recovery Grant. Twenty-nine per cent of declarations provided for employees undertaking grant assessments for the $3,000 Recovery Grant were incomplete at March 2021, and a further nine per cent were not finalised even though they indicated a real, potential or perceived conflict.

For future grants programs, ensuring compliance with conflicts of interest policies would help DCS and Service NSW to have greater confidence that conflicts of interest are appropriately identified and managed.

NSW Treasury has not yet measured all benefits or outcomes of the grants

In April 2021, NSW Treasury updated its evaluation plan for the $10,000 Support Grant and $3,000 Recovery Grant in support of an economic evaluation to commence from mid-2021. The updated evaluation plan outlines inputs, activities, and outputs as well as immediate, short term and medium term outcomes for both grants.

The evaluation will consider the extent to which both grants achieved their intended outcomes, and whether the economic benefits exceeded the costs to help inform decisions about the nature and design of any future small business support programs. This will complement, and feed into a broader review of all NSW Government COVID-19 stimulus measures.

Service NSW rapidly developed an approach to administer the grants

Over recent disasters, such as the 2019–20 bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic, Service NSW has been responsible for administering grant programs on behalf of other government agencies.

Service NSW implemented both grants under its Project Management Framework and under each grant agreement with NSW Treasury as it does not have its own grants administration framework. To address the risks that emerged during delivery, Service NSW developed an approach to standardise and monitor the administration of the grants while they were being implemented.

Service NSW now has an opportunity to establish a grants administration framework, based on the processes, lessons and outcomes captured under the grants administration taskforce and in developing its fraud control framework. Embedding these processes into business as usual for grants administration will enable Service NSW to have a consistent set of expectations for controls, business processes and governance and probity requirements for future grants it implements.

2. Recommendations

By December 2021, NSW Treasury should:

1. finalise and implement an evaluation of the $10,000 Support Grant and $3,000 Recovery Grant, including obtaining direct feedback from businesses on how grant funds achieved the grant objectives.

By December 2021, Service NSW should:

2. develop a grants administration framework, which documents expected controls – including fraud controls – business processes and governance and probity requirements

3. publish information on all grants programs, including grants distribution and uptake.

By December 2021, the Department of Customer Service should:

4. ensure its process for managing conflicts of interest meets policy requirements by:

• ensuring employees promptly declare any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest
• annually producing a list of conflicts of interest for records retention purposes
• requiring a separate register of conflicts of interest declarations where a grant program is deemed as high risk.

3. Lessons for grants administered within urgent timeframes

The two grants this audit examined were administered within a context of urgent timeframes, and increased complexity and uncertainty about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following lessons are shared to assist sponsor and delivery agencies in administering future grants where rapid implementation is required.

Sponsor agencies should consider the following lessons:

1. develop an approach to define and measure benefits for rapidly developed programs and projects where a full business case and cost-benefit analysis is not feasible

2. establish common processes and expectations for co-administered grants:

• periodically assure agencies' capability to deliver grants programs
• agree and establish risk appetite statements with administering agencies
• clearly establish expected performance levels and targets under any agreement

3. review the processes and outcomes of rapidly developed programs, capture lessons learned, and apply these in planning and delivering future programs.

Delivery agencies should consider the following lessons:

1. risk management and risk appetite:

• perform robust assessment procedures to ensure risks associated with delivery of the project are identified
• ensure the controls implemented adequately address identified risks
• agree and document the acceptable risk appetite at the outset
• review risk management processes after the grants are issued when unable to finalise risk management processes ahead of launch

2. grant agreements between NSW public sector agencies:

• ensure agreements are finalised in a timely manner
• ensure agreements clearly outline:
  • roles and responsibilities of both parties,
  • changes in scope of services provided
  • fees and charges applicable

3. frameworks for grants administration:

• ensure that there is a common set of expectations in place to guide grants administration including standard controls and processes for managing risk, capturing lessons learned and reporting on outcomes.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Summary of other COVID‑19 Stimulus and Support for small businesses in NSW in April 2020

Appendix three – Public Health Orders

Appendix four – Highly impacted industries

Appendix five – About the audit

Appendix six – Performance auditing

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #352 - released (24 June 2021).

What the report is about

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

What we found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we recommended

TfNSW should:

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

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

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

WestConnex

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

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

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

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

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

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

About this audit

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

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

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

1. Key findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Recommendations

By December 2021, TfNSW should:

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

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

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

By June 2022, INSW should:

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

By June 2022, NSW Government should:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Network integration works have undergone all IIAF required assurance reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – Network integration works

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix one – Response from agency 

Appendix two – About the audit 

Appendix three – Performance auditing

Copyright Notice

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

Parliamentary reference - Report number #349 - released (18 May 2021).