Reports
State Finances 2018
Pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I present my Report on State Finances 2018.
I am pleased to once again report that I issued a clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements. This demonstrates the Government’s focus on preparing high quality information on the State’s financial position and performance for use by stakeholders.
However, there are two key areas I would like to see addressed to further support the preparation of the State’s financial statements.
Firstly, some complex accounting matters are not being resolved until late in the financial reporting cycle. This has contributed to an increase in the number of errors in the financial statements key agencies are submitting for audit, particularly around assessing the value of physical assets. Better planning and earlier resolution of these matters would lead to more efficient processes.
Secondly, the State needs to implement five new accounting standards over the next two years. Agencies will need to devote significant resources and effort to collect the necessary information and assess the impact at the whole of government level. I will work with Treasury and relevant agencies to help them improve quality assurance controls over their financial reporting.
Throughout 2017-18 my office worked with Treasury on reforms to improve financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements across the sector.
The Government Sector Finance Bill 2018 passed both houses of Parliament in June 2018. However, the Legislative Council returned other proposed changes to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 to the Legislative Assembly for further consideration. Most of these changes relate to the Public Accounts Committee. At the time of writing, the cognate Bill had not been debated.
The budget result was a $4.2 billion surplus. The consolidated financial statements at 30 June 2018 do not reflect the sale of 51 per cent of the State’s investment in Sydney Motorway Corporation for which it received $9.3 billion. The sale was announced on 31 August 2018.
Finally, I would like to thank the staff of Treasury for the way they approached the audit. Our partnership is critical to ensuring the quality of financial management and reporting.
Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General
19 October 2018
The State's financial statements given a clear audit opinion
Timely and accurate financial reporting enables informed decision making, effective management of public funds and enhances public accountability.
Since the introduction of mandatory ‘early close procedures’ in 2011-12, the number of significant errors in financial statements of agencies had fallen largely due to identifying and resolving complex accounting issues early.
In 2016-17, Treasury narrowed the scope of mandatory procedures to focus on physical asset valuations and pro-forma financial statements. Despite being broadened for 2017-18, we have observed an increase in the number of errors in agency financial statements.
In 2017-18, twenty-three errors exceeding $20 million were found in agencies’ financial statements that make up the State’s consolidated financial statements. This compares to only five in 2015-16.
The errors identified this year were the result of:
- incorrectly applying Australian Accounting Standards
- deficiencies in assessing the value of physical assets
- using inappropriate and inaccurate assumptions when measuring liabilities
- inaccurately reflecting inter-agency payables and receivables.
Quality financial reporting would be enhanced by responding to key accounting issues as soon as they are identified, and preparing accounting position papers for consideration by Treasury, agency Audit and Risk Committees and the Audit Office.
Key accounting matters addressed by the State in 2017-18.
Restatement of some of the State’s previously reported asset and liability values.
The state corrected the previously reported values of some long-term liabilities ($2 billion).
Accounting standards require the State to measure its long-term liabilities at the best estimate of the expenditures required to settle the obligations. The affected liabilities include claims liabilities of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW and the NSW Self Insurance Corporation, and scheme liabilities of the Long Service Corporation. The liabilities are adjusted by what is referred to as the ‘discount rate’ to reflect the decreasing value of money over time.
In the past, agencies used a variety of rates to discount these liabilities. Some liabilities were discounted using the estimated long-term fair value of 10-year TCorp bond yields while others were discounted using the expected
return on investments. These discount rates did not comply with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards and underestimated liabilities by $2.0 billion.
In 2017-18, the State assessed the discount rates previously used in the Sector. It determined the market yield on Commonwealth Bonds best met the Accounting Standard requirements and used this rate to discount similar liabilities in relevant agencies. This resulted in a $2.0 billion increase in the previously reported values of these liabilities and a similar decrease in retained earnings at 1 July 2016.
The State corrected previously reported values of certain Library assets ($1.1 billion).The value of the Pictorial Collection of the Library Council of NSW (the Library) was reassessed at 31 January 2018. During the valuation process the Library identified three errors in the 2015 valuations which overstated the previously reported asset values. The errors included:
This resulted in a $1.1 billion decrease in previously reported asset values and a corresponding decrease in the asset revaluation reserve at 1 July 2016. |
Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.TAFE NSW has experienced ongoing issues with its student administration system.TAFE NSW has again implemented additional processes to verify the accuracy and completeness of revenue from student fees. TAFE NSW expects to spend up to $89 million on a new information system to address these issues. Modules of the new student enrolment system are planned to be in place by May 2019 |
Risks to the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.
Challenges associated with valuing the State's physical assets.
When we audit financial statements we focus on areas we consider higher risk. These areas often require the use of estimates and judgements.
The valuation of the State’s physical assets is one such area. Fair value estimates are inherently complex and sensitive to assumptions and judgements. In the public sector, this may be exacerbated by the unique nature of its assets, such as land under roads, preserved plant specimens, cultural collections and other heritage assets.
In 2017-18, valuations of physical assets added $24.5 billion to the value of the State’s balance sheet. These assets are now valued at $339.2 billion. Our audits of these valuations identified:
The Library Council of NSW had three errors in the methodology previously used to value their pictorial assets ($1.1 billion error). |
The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust did not previously recognise a value for their Herbarium assets ($284 million error). |
Some revaluations within the Ministry of Health did not meet the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards or Treasury requirements ($159 million error). |
The Department of Justice used an incorrect valuation
|
Some important matters agencies should consider when planning/conducting asset valuations include:
STARTING OUT
- Planning is important
- Most effective revaluations include early engagement with all stakeholders, including auditors.
- Determine who needs to be involved and advised of progress with the revaluation – e.g. finance, internal audit, audit and risk committee.
- Ensure asset registers are complete and there is evidence to demonstrate the agency controls the assets.
- The effective date of the valuation can be any date after the financial year commences, but well before year end.
MANAGEMENT'S ROLE
- For large mass valuations consider using a suitable project management methodology to ensure the process remains ‘on track’ with sufficient oversight.
- Consider engaging an expert to perform the valuation, but maintain responsibility for the outcomes. Ensure the outcomes are reasonable and quality review the results, including the appropriateness of inputs and key assumptions.
- Compare pre and post valuation results on an individual asset basis. Where changes are significant and/or unexpected, document explanations from the valuer.
- Start revaluations early so they are completed by early close (around March). The timetable must allow time for a quality review of results and for the results to be recorded in the financial records.
- Revaluation workpapers must include the revaluation source data provided to the valuer and a reconciliation of the source data to the general ledger.
USING EXPERTS
- The terms of engagement should be documented in an engagement letter, which clearly details the proposed valuation methodology. It’s important the valuer knows what is required from a policy perspective and clearly understands the accounting framework used to prepare the financial statements.
- Valuation reports should detail the key assumptions used, explain why the valuation approach was adopted and how the use of relevant observable input was maximised.
- Valuation reports should clearly differentiate between assets revalued using a cost approach and those using an income or market approach. They should explain why the approach used was the most relevant for the asset type.
- Consider using representative/statistical sampling for mass valuations and determine the extent of physical inspections that may be required.
- If a sampling technique is used, it should provide sufficient confidence that the sample is representative of the population.
- Significant judgements should be supported by relevant benchmark data or other analysis and observations. A common example in the public sector is to discount asset values to reflect restrictions on use.
- Ensure the valuer has considered the age and condition of the assets, and heritage/cultural aspects and/or other special factors.
WHAT ABOUT INTERVENING YEARS?
- Perform revaluations with sufficient regularity to ensure asset carrying values in the financial statements reflect fair value.
- Indexation alone is not normally a substitute for a full revaluation. A full revaluation may be needed to accurately establish fair values if asset values move significantly when indices are applied to them.
- Where indexation is used between full revaluations, the indices should be appropriate for the type of asset being assessed.
- Indexing can be unreliable in assessing whether the fair value of assets has moved over time. For example, some assets are valued based on re- collection cost estimates, which may fall over time due to improved re-collection methods and technology.
COMMUNICATION
- For mass or complex valuations, key stakeholders, including auditors, should be involved at the scoping stage and invited to planning meetings with valuers.
- Management should meet with the auditors regularly to discuss progress and outcomes.
- When issues are identified, management should consult with and seek advice from Treasury.
The state will need to implement five new accounting standards over the next two years.
The State has started developing processes it considers necessary to effectively implement the requirements of five new accounting standards. The changes are significant and will impact the financial position and results of agencies and the State.
The new requirements increase the risk of errors in the financial statements. To minimise this risk, agencies will need to devote resources and effort to collect the necessary information and assess the impact of the accounting changes at the whole of government level.
Treasury is liaising with and obtaining information from agencies to assess the impact of the new standards at the whole of government level. Treasury is also liaising with other Treasuries throughout Australia on common implementation issues. To help agencies implement the new standards, Treasury is developing guidance, preparing position papers on proposed accounting treatments, and mandating options within the new standards that agencies need to adopt on transition.
A $4.2 billion surplus, $1.5 billion more than was budgeted
The Total State Sector comprises 304 entities controlled by NSW Government
The General Government Sector, which comprises 212 entities, generally provides goods and services funded centrally by the State.
The non-General Government Sector, which comprises 92 Government businesses, generally provides goods and services, such as water, electricity and financial services that consumers pay for directly.
A principal measure of a Government’s overall performance is its Net Operating Balance (Budget Result). This is the difference between the cost of General Government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors.
WHAT CHANGED FROM 2017 TO 2018?
$4.2b |
2017-18 General Government Budget Result |
Changes in revenues compared to 2016-17
 Dividends and distributions
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
2.4b |
+1.3b |
3.7b |
|
| Taxation
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
30.8b |
+537m |
31.3b |
|
 Grants & Subsidies
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
31.4b |
+509m |
31.9b |
|
 Sale of Goods and services
|
Includes:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
8.2b |
+349m |
8.5b |
|
5.5b |
-185m |
5.3b |
Other revenues |
Changes to expenses compared to 2016-17
| Recurrent Grants & Subsidies
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
12.6b |
+1.3b |
13.9b |
|
 Employee costs
|
Due to:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
34.9b |
+1.2b |
36.1b |
|
 Other operating expenses
|
Includes:
|
||
| 2016-2017 | Change | 2017-2018 | |
18.3b |
+1.4b |
19.7b |
|
6.8b |
+103m |
6.9b |
Other expenses |
$5.7b |
2016-17 General Government Budget Result |
The State maintained its AAA credit rating.
The object of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 is to maintain the State’s AAA credit rating.
The Government manages NSW’s finances in alignment with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 (the Act).
The Act establishes the framework for fiscal responsibility and the strategy to protect the State’s AAA credit rating and service delivery
to the people of NSW.
The legislation sets out targets and principles for financial management to achieve this.
New South Wales has credit ratings of AAA/ Stable from Standard & Poor’s and Aaa/ Stable from Moody’s Investors Service.
THE FISCAL TARGETS FOR ACHIEVING THIS OBJECTIVE ARE:
General Government annual expenditure growth is lower than long term average revenue growth.
General Government expenditure grew by 5.4 per cent in 2017-18. This was lower than the long-term revenue growth rate of 5.6 per cent.
Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.
The Act sets a target to eliminate unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.
The State’s funding plan is to contribute amounts escalated by five per cent each year so the schemes will be fully funded by 2030. In 2017-18, the State made employer contributions of $1.7 billion, which is largely consistent with contributions over the past five years. Treasury expects superannuation liabilities will be fully funded by 2030 based on the funding program at the last triennial review (December 2015).
For fiscal responsibility purposes, the State uses AASB 1056: Superannuation Entities. This standard discounts superannuation liabilities using the expected return on assets backing the liability.
Using this method, the State’s unfunded superannuation liability was $14.0 billion at 30 June 2018 ($15.0 billion at 30 June 2017). The unfunded liability is $3.4 billion less than it was when the Act was introduced.
Revenues increased by $3.2 billion to $86.7 billion in 2017-18.
Revenues were underpinned by growth in taxation and Australian Government grant revenues, but stamp duties fell.
Tax revenue for the Total State Sector increased by $746 million, or 2.5 per cent compared to 2016-17, primarily due to a:
- $582 million increase in land tax from growth in land values
- $562 million increase in payroll tax from NSW employment and wages growth
- $1 billion decrease in stamp duty due to lower than expected growth in property market transactions, volumes and prices. In 2016-17, stamp duty included $718 million from the leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.
The State expects total stamp duties will fall to $9.5 billion in 2018-19, a decrease of almost $2.0 billion from 2016-17.
The State received Australian Government grants and subsidies of $30.9 billion in 2017-18.
The State received $444 million more in grants and subsidies from the Australian Government than it did in 2016-17. This was due to increases in GST revenues ($753 million) and special purpose payments ($683 million).
There was a decrease in National Partnership payments ($992 million), mainly due to the timing of major road projects including the Pacific Highway (Woolgoolga to Ballina), WestConnex and Western Sydney Infrastructure Program.
In 2017-18, sales of goods and services were $1.1 billion higher than in 2016-17. This reflected increased transaction revenue at Sydney Water ($139 million), the Department of Education ($133 million), WestConnex ($145 million), Department of Finance, Services and Innovation ($111 million) and Sydney Trains ($83 million).
Other dividends and distributions were $803 million higher than in 2016-17 mainly reflecting higher investment returns on TCorp investments.
$ |
83.5b |
+3.9% |
86.7b |
Total Revenue |
Key revenues include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
 |
35.4b |
+2.8 |
36.3b |
Taxation, Fees, Fines, and other |
|
31.4b |
+1.6 |
31.9b |
Grants & Subsidies |
|
14.1b |
+8.1 |
15.2b |
Sale of Goods and Services |
Expenses increased $4.9 billion to $84.2 billion in 2017-18
Overall expenses increased 6.1 per cent compared to 2016-17. Most of the increase was due to higher employee and operating costs.
$ |
79.3b |
+6.1% |
84.2b |
Total Expenses |
Salaries and wages increased by 3.6 per cent compared to 2016-17.
Salaries and wages increased to $31.1 billion from $30 billion. This was due to inflation linked salary and wage increases and a reported increase in front line staff.
The Government wages policy aims to limit growth in employee remuneration and other employee related costs to no more than 2.5 per cent per annum.
Operating expenses increased by 7.8 per cent from 2016-17.
Within operating expenses, payments for supplies, services and other expenses increased, in part, due to:
- increased costs of major rail projects, WestConnex, B-Line bus program and a new rail timetable
- addressing the maintenance backlog and higher school operating expenses of the Department of Education.
Key expenses include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
|
32.8b |
+3.8 |
34.1b |
Employee Expenses |
|
21.6b |
+7.8 |
23.3b |
Operating Costs |
|
9.7b |
+12.7 |
10.9b |
Grants & Subsidies |
 |
7.2b |
+6.6 |
7.6b |
Depreciation |
 |
4.6b |
+2.8 |
4.7b |
Superannuation Expense |
Health costs remain the highest expense of the State.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics introduced a revised Classification of the Function of Government Australia Framework (COFOG-A) effective 1 July 2017. This resulted in some re-classification of expenditure between purposes and now shows State expenses are highest in:
- Health (25.5 per cent)
- General Public Services (25.0 per cent)
- Education (19.6 per cent).
General Public Services includes the executive and legislative branches, financial affairs, public debt transactions and general public service transactions.
The graph highlights the annual expenditure by function and the value of assets to deliver those services.
Assets grew by $35.6 billion to $443 billion in 2017-18
Valuing the State’s physical assets.
The State had physical assets with a fair value of $339 billion at 30 June 2018. This includes land and buildings ($161.6b) and Infrastructure ($160.2b).
Our audits assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of assumptions used to value physical assets. This includes obtaining an understanding of the valuation methodologies used and judgements made. We also review the completeness of asset registers and the mathematical accuracy of valuation models.
Net movements between years include additions, disposals, depreciation and valuations. This year, revaluations of physical assets added $24.5 billion to the value of the State’s assets. This was mainly attributable to the following agencies:
- Department of Education - $8.5 billion
- Roads and Maritime Services - $7.4 billion.
The State’s financial assets increased by $308 million in 2017-18 ($27.5 billion in 2016-17).
In 2016-17, the significant increase in financial assets was primarily from the sale or lease of the following government assets and businesses:
- In June 2017, the Government leased 50.4 per cent of Endeavour Energy assets, which followed the long-term lease 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid’s assets in December 2016. The Government received proceeds of $24.0 billion from these transactions.
- A 35-year concession for providing titling and registry services, effective 30 June 2017, was granted to a private sector operator. The Government received $2.6 billion cash for the concession.
The Government implemented reforms relating to the use the State’s financial assets.
In 2017-18, the Asset and Liability Committee, which advises the Government on balance sheet management, recommended the following policy actions and frameworks to help manage the State’s financial risks and opportunities:
- expanding the scope of cash management reforms to give the State a whole-of-government view on the use of surplus funds. Treasury advises these reforms have centralised funds management of approximately $3.0 billion
- endorsing a new whole-of-government Foreign Exchange (FX) Risk Policy (effective 1 July 2018) to effectively manage the State’s FX risk
- expanding management of the State’s debt portfolio to minimise interest rate risks, reduce interest costs where possible, and extend the average weighted life of the General Government’s debt portfolio towards eight years
- endorsing establishment of a ‘sustainability bond’ program to further diversify and expand the State’s bond investor base and raise awareness of the Government’s social and environmental initiatives.
The State has established the NSW Generations Fund to maintain debt at sustainable levels.
The State established the NSW Generations Funds (NGF) in June 2018 to support debt retirement and to fund community-focused initiatives. The Government has indicated it will initially capitalise the NGF with $3.0 billion from its reserves.
The NSW Generations Funds Act 2018 requires an audit of each NSW Generations Fund by the Auditor- General (including a report by the Auditor-General on whether payments from the Funds have been made in accordance with the Act). The first audit of the fund will be for the period up to 30 June 2019.
$ |
407b |
+8.7% |
443b |
Total Assets |
Key assets include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
| Physical Assets | ||||
 |
147.0b |
+9.0 |
160.2b |
Infrastructure |
 |
143.4b |
+12.7 |
161.6b |
Land and Buildings |
| Financial Assets | ||||
 |
27.7b |
- 4.6 |
26.4b |
Equity investments |
|
20.6b |
- 5.2 |
19.5b |
Cash and Recievables |
|
40.5b |
+6.5 |
41.3b |
Investments and Placements |
Liabilities increased $5.1 billion to $189 billion in 2017-18
Valuing the State’s liabilities relies on actuarial assessments.
Nearly half of the State’s liabilities relate to its employees. They include unfunded superannuation, and employee benefits, such as long service and recreation leave.
Valuing these obligations involves complex estimation techniques and significant judgements. Small changes in assumptions can materially impact the values and the financial statements.
The State’s superannuation obligations fell $2.2 billion in 2017-18.
The State’s $56.4 billion unfunded superannuation liability represents obligations to past and present employees less the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations. The unfunded superannuation liability fell from $58.6 billion to $56.4 billion in 2017-18.
The State’s borrowings at 30 June 2018 were $700 million higher than they were at 30 June 2017.
The State’s borrowings totalled $71.3 billion at 30 June 2018.
TCorp issues bonds to raise funds for NSW Government agencies. These are actively traded in financial markets, which provides price transparency and liquidity to public sector borrowers and institutional investors. All TCorp bonds are guaranteed by the NSW Government.
The Government manages its debt liabilities through its balance sheet management strategy. The strategy extends to TCorp, which applies an active risk management strategy to the Government’s debt portfolio.
General Government Sector debt has been restructured by replacing shorter-term debt with longer-term debt. This lengthens the portfolio to match liabilities with the funding requirements for infrastructure assets.
$ |
184b |
+2.8% |
189b |
Total Liabilities |
Key liabilities include:
| 2016-2017 | Change% | 2017-2018 | ||
|
58.6b |
- 3.7 |
56.4b |
Unfunded Superannuation |
|
18.3b |
+4.7 |
19.1b |
Other Employee Benefits |
|
70.6b |
+1.0 |
71.3b |
Borrowings |
Mobile speed cameras
The primary goal of speed cameras is to reduce speeding and make the roads safer. Our 2011 performance audit on speed cameras found that, in general, speed cameras change driver behaviour and have a positive impact on road safety.
Transport for NSW published the NSW Speed Camera Strategy in June 2012 in response to our audit. According to the Strategy, the main purpose of mobile speed cameras is to reduce speeding across the road network by providing a general deterrence through anywhere, anytime enforcement and by creating a perceived risk of detection across the road network. Fixed and red-light speed cameras aim to reduce speeding at specific locations.
Roads and Maritime Services and Transport for NSW deploy mobile speed cameras (MSCs) in consultation with NSW Police. The cameras are operated by contractors authorised by Roads and Maritime Services. MSC locations are stretches of road that can be more than 20 kilometres long. MSC sites are specific places within these locations that meet the requirements for a MSC vehicle to be able to operate there.
This audit assessed whether the mobile speed camera program is effectively managed to maximise road safety benefits across the NSW road network.
The mobile speed camera program requires improvements to key aspects of its management to maximise road safety benefits. While camera locations have been selected based on crash history, the limited number of locations restricts network coverage. It also makes enforcement more predictable, reducing the ability to provide a general deterrence. Implementation of the program has been consistent with government decisions to limit its hours of operation and use multiple warning signs. These factors limit the ability of the mobile speed camera program to effectively deliver a broad general network deterrence from speeding.
Many locations are needed to enable network-wide coverage and ensure MSC sessions are randomised and not predictable. However, there are insufficient locations available to operate MSCs that meet strict criteria for crash history, operator safety, signage and technical requirements. MSC performance would be improved if there were more locations.
A scheduling system is meant to randomise MSC location visits to ensure they are not predictable. However, a relatively small number of locations have been visited many times making their deployment more predictable in these places. The allocation of MSCs across the time of day, day of week and across regions is prioritised based on crash history but the frequency of location visits does not correspond with the crash risk for each location.
There is evidence of a reduction in fatal and serious crashes at the 30 best-performing MSC locations. However, there is limited evidence that the current MSC program in NSW has led to a behavioural change in drivers by creating a general network deterrence. While the overall reduction in serious injuries on roads has continued, fatalities have started to climb again. Compliance with speed limits has improved at the sites and locations that MSCs operate, but the results of overall network speed surveys vary, with recent improvements in some speed zones but not others.
There is no supporting justification for the number of hours of operation for the program. The rate of MSC enforcement (hours per capita) in NSW is less than Queensland and Victoria. The government decision to use multiple warning signs has made it harder to identify and maintain suitable MSC locations, and impeded their use for enforcement in both traffic directions and in school zones.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #308 - released 18 October 2018
Matching skills training with market needs
In 2012, governments across Australia entered into the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. Under the National Partnership Agreement, the Australian Government provided incentive payments to States and Territories to move towards a more contestable Vocational Education and Training (VET) market. The aim of the National Partnership Agreement was to foster a more accessible, transparent, efficient and high quality training sector that is responsive to the needs of students and industry.
The New South Wales Government introduced the Smart and Skilled program in response to the National Partnership Agreement. Through Smart and Skilled, students can choose a vocational course from a list of approved qualifications and training providers. Students pay the same fee for their chosen qualification regardless of the selected training provider and the government covers the gap between the student fee and the fixed price of the qualification through a subsidy paid to their training provider.
Smart and Skilled commenced in January 2015, with the then Department of Education and Communities having primary responsibility for its implementation. Since July 2015, the NSW Department of Industry (the Department) has been responsible for VET in New South Wales and the implementation of Smart and Skilled.
The NSW Skills Board, comprising nine part-time members appointed by the Minister for Skills, provides independent strategic advice on VET reform and funding. In line with most other States and Territories, the Department maintains a 'Skills List' which contains government subsidised qualifications to address identified priority skill needs in New South Wales.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department in identifying, prioritising, and aligning course subsidies to the skill needs of NSW. To do this we examined whether:
- the Department effectively identifies and prioritises present and future skill needs
- Smart and Skilled funding is aligned with the priority skill areas
- skill needs and available VET courses are effectively communicated to potential participants and training providers.
Smart and Skilled is a relatively new and complex program, and is being delivered in the context of significant reform to VET nationally and in New South Wales. A large scale government funded contestable market was not present in the VET sector in New South Wales before the introduction of Smart and Skilled. This audit's findings should be considered in that context.
The Department needs to better use the data it has, and collect additional data, to support its analysis of priority skill needs in New South Wales, and direct funding accordingly.
- funding scholarships and support for disadvantaged students
- funding training in regional and remote areas
- providing additional support to deliver some qualifications that the market is not providing.
The Department needs to evaluate these funding strategies to ensure they are achieving their goals. It should also explore why training providers are not delivering some priority qualifications through Smart and Skilled.
Training providers compete for funding allocations based on their capacity to deliver. The Department successfully manages the budget by capping funding allocated to each Smart and Skilled training provider. However, training providers have only one year of funding certainty at present. Training providers that are performing well are not rewarded with greater certainty.
The Department needs to improve its communication with prospective students to ensure they can make informed decisions in the VET market.
The Department also needs to communicate more transparently to training providers about its funding allocations and decisions about changes to the NSW Skills List.
The Department relies on stakeholder proposals to update the NSW Skills List. Stakeholders include industry, training providers and government departments. These stakeholders, particularly industry, are likely to be aware of skill needs, and have a strong incentive to propose qualifications that address these needs. The Department’s process of collecting stakeholder proposals helps to ensure that it can identify qualifications needed to address material skill needs.
It is also important that the Department ensures the NSW Skills List only includes priority qualifications that need to be subsidised by government. The Department does not have robust processes in place to remove qualifications from the NSW Skills List. As a result, there is a risk that the list may include lower priority skill areas. Since the NSW Skills List was first created, new additions to the list have outnumbered those removed by five to one.
The Department does not always validate information gathered from stakeholder proposals, even when it has data to do so. Further, its decision making about what to include on, or delete from, the NSW Skills List is not transparent because the rationale for decisions is not adequately documented.
The Department is undertaking projects to better use data to support its decisions about what should be on the NSW Skills List. Some of these projects should deliver useful data soon, but some can only provide useful information when sufficient trend data is available.
Recommendation
The Department should:
- by June 2019, increase transparency of decisions about proposed changes to the NSW Skills List and improve record-keeping of deliberations regarding these changes
- by December 2019, use data more effectively and consistently to ensure that the NSW Skills List only includes high priority qualifications
Only qualifications on the NSW Skills List are eligible for subsidies under Smart and Skilled. As the Department does not have a robust process for removing low priority qualifications from the NSW Skills list, some low priority qualifications may be subsidised.
The Department allocates the Smart and Skilled budget through contracts with Smart and Skilled training providers. Training providers that meet contractual obligations and perform well in terms of enrolments and completion rates are rewarded with renewed contracts and more funding for increased enrolments, but these decisions are not based on student outcomes. The Department reduces or removes funding from training providers that do not meet quality standards, breach contract conditions or that are unable to spend their allocated funding effectively. Contracts are for only one year, offering training providers little funding certainty.
Smart and Skilled provides additional funding for scholarships and for training providers in locations where the cost of delivery is high or to those that cater to students with disabilities. The Department has not yet evaluated whether this additional funding is achieving its intended outcomes.
Eight per cent of the qualifications that have been on the NSW Skills List since 2015 are not delivered under Smart and Skilled anywhere in New South Wales. A further 14 per cent of the qualifications that are offered by training providers have had no student commencements. The Department is yet to identify the reasons that these high priority qualifications are either not offered or not taken up by students.
Recommendation
The Department should:
- by June 2019, investigate why training providers do not offer, and prospective students do not enrol in, some Smart and Skilled subsidised qualifications
- by December 2019, evaluate the effectiveness of Smart and Skilled funding which supplements standard subsidies for qualifications on the NSW Skills List, to determine whether it is achieving its objectives
- by December 2019, provide longer term funding certainty to high performing training providers, while retaining incentives for them to continue to perform well.
In a contestable market, it is important for consumers to have sufficient information to make informed decisions. The Department does not provide some key information to prospective VET students to support their decisions, such as measures of provider quality and examples of employment and further education outcomes of students completing particular courses. Existing information is spread across numerous channels and is not presented in a user friendly manner. This is a potential barrier to participation in VET for those less engaged with the system or less ICT literate.
The Department conveys relevant information about the program to training providers through its websites and its regional offices. However, it could better communicate some specific information directly to individual Smart and Skilled training providers, such as reasons their proposals to include new qualifications on the NSW Skills List are accepted or rejected.
While the Department is implementing a communication strategy for VET in New South Wales, it does not have a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled which comprehensively identifies the needs of different stakeholders and how these can be addressed.
Recommendation
By December 2019, the Department should develop and implement a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled to:
- support prospective student engagement and informed decision making
- meet the information needs of training providers
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #305 - released 26 July 2018
Managing risks in the NSW public sector: risk culture and capability
The Ministry of Health, NSW Fair Trading, NSW Police Force, and NSW Treasury Corporation are taking steps to strengthen their risk culture, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford. 'Senior management communicates the importance of managing risk to their staff, and there are many examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities', the Auditor-General said.
We did find that three of the agencies we examined could strengthen their culture so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. To support innovation, senior management could also do better at communicating to their staff the levels of risk they are willing to accept.
Effective risk management is essential to good governance, and supports staff at all levels to make informed judgements and decisions. At a time when government is encouraging innovation and exploring new service delivery models, effective risk management is about seizing opportunities as well as managing threats.
Over the past decade, governments and regulators around the world have increasingly turned their attention to risk culture. It is now widely accepted that organisational culture is a key element of risk management because it influences how people recognise and engage with risk. Neglecting this ‘soft’ side of risk management can prevent institutions from managing risks that threaten their success and lead to missed opportunities for change, improvement or innovation.
This audit assessed how effectively NSW Government agencies are building risk management capabilities and embedding a sound risk culture throughout their organisations. To do this we examined whether:
- agencies can demonstrate that senior management is committed to risk management
- information about risk is communicated effectively throughout agencies
- agencies are building risk management capabilities.
The audit examined four agencies: the Ministry of Health, the NSW Fair Trading function within the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, NSW Police Force and NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp). NSW Treasury was also included as the agency responsible for the NSW Government's risk management framework.
In assessing an agency’s risk culture, we focused on four key areas:
Executive sponsorship (tone at the top)
In the four agencies we reviewed, senior management is communicating the importance of managing risk. They have endorsed risk management frameworks and funded central functions tasked with overseeing risk management within their agencies.
That said, we found that three case study agencies do not measure their existing risk culture. Without clear measures of how employees identify and engage with risk, it is difficult for agencies to tell whether employee's behaviours are aligned with the 'tone' set by the executive and management.
For example, in some agencies we examined we found a disconnect between risk tolerances espoused by senior management and how these concepts were understood by staff.
Employee perceptions of risk management
Our survey of staff indicated that while senior leaders have communicated the importance of managing risk, more could be done to strengthen a culture of open communication so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. We found that senior management could better communicate to their staff the levels of risk they should be willing to accept.
Integration of risk management into daily activities and links to decision-making
We found examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities. On the other hand, we also identified areas where risk management deviated from good practice. For example, we found that corporate risk registers are not consistently used as a tool to support decision-making.
Support and guidance to help staff manage risks
Most case study agencies are monitoring risk-related skills and knowledge of their workforce, but only one agency has addressed the gaps it identified. While agencies are providing risk management training, surveyed staff in three case study agencies reported that risk management training is not adequate.
NSW Treasury provides agencies with direction and guidance on risk management through policy and guidelines. In line with better practice, NSW Treasury's principles-based policy acknowledges that individual agencies are in a better position to understand their own risks and design risk management frameworks that address those risks. Nevertheless, there is scope for NSW Treasury to refine its guidance material to support a better risk culture in the NSW public sector.
Recommendation
By May 2019, NSW Treasury should:
- Review the scope of its risk management guidance, and identify additional guidance, training or activities to improve risk culture across the NSW public sector. This should focus on encouraging agency heads to form a view on the current risk culture in their agencies, identify desirable changes to that risk culture, and take steps to address those changes.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #298 - released 23 April 2018
Detecting and responding to cyber security incidents
A report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, found there is no whole-of-government capability to detect and respond effectively to cyber security incidents. There is very limited sharing of information on incidents amongst agencies, and some agencies have poor detection and response practices and procedures.
The NSW Government relies on digital technology to deliver services, organise and store information, manage business processes, and control critical infrastructure. The increasing global interconnectivity between computer networks has dramatically increased the risk of cyber security incidents. Such incidents can harm government service delivery and may include the theft of information, denial of access to critical technology, or even the hijacking of systems for profit or malicious intent.
This audit examined cyber security incident detection and response in the NSW public sector. It focused on the role of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (DFSI), which oversees the Information Security Community of Practice, the Information Security Event Reporting Protocol, and the Digital Information Security Policy (the Policy).
The audit also examined ten case study agencies to develop a perspective on how they detect and respond to incidents. We chose agencies that are collectively responsible for personal data, critical infrastructure, financial information and intellectual property.
Some of our case study agencies had strong processes for detection and response to cyber security incidents but others had a low capability to detect and respond in a timely way.
Most agencies have access to an automated tool for analysing logs generated by their IT systems. However, coverage of these tools varies. Some agencies do not have an automated tool and only review logs periodically or on an ad hoc basis, meaning they are less likely to detect incidents.
Few agencies have contractual arrangements in place for IT service providers to report incidents to them. If a service provider elects to not report an incident, it will delay the agency’s response and may result in increased damage.
Most case study agencies had procedures for responding to incidents, although some lack guidance on who to notify and when. Some agencies do not have response procedures, limiting their ability to minimise the business damage that may flow from a cyber security incident. Few agencies could demonstrate that they have trained their staff on either incident detection or response procedures and could provide little information on the role requirements and responsibilities of their staff in doing so.
Most agencies’ incident procedures contain limited information on how to report an incident, who to report it to, when this should occur and what information should be provided. None of our case study agencies’ procedures mentioned reporting to DFSI, highlighting that even though reporting is mandatory for most agencies their procedures do not require it.
Case study agencies provided little evidence to indicate they are learning from incidents, meaning that opportunities to better manage future incidents may be lost.
Recommendations
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
- assist agencies by providing:
- better practice guidelines for incident detection, response and reporting to help agencies develop their own practices and procedures
- training and awareness programs, including tailored programs for a range of audiences such as cyber professionals, finance staff, and audit and risk committees
- role requirements and responsibilities for cyber security across government, relevant to size and complexity of each agency
- a support model for agencies that have limited detection and response capabilities
- revise the Digital Information Security Policy and Information Security Event Reporting Protocol by
- clarifying what security incidents must be reported to DFSI and when
- extending mandatory reporting requirements to those NSW Government agencies not currently covered by the policy and protocol, including State owned corporations.
DFSI lacks a clear mandate or capability to provide effective detection and response support to agencies, and there is limited sharing of information on cyber security incidents.
DFSI does not currently have a clear mandate and the necessary resources and systems to detect, receive, share and respond to cyber security incidents across the NSW public sector. It does not have a clear mandate to assess whether agencies have an acceptable detection and response capability. It is aware of deficiencies in agencies and across whole‑of‑government, and has begun to conduct research into this capability.
Intelligence gathering across the public sector is also limited, meaning agencies may not respond to threats in a timely manner. DFSI has not allocated resources for gathering of threat intelligence and communicating it across government, although it has begun to build this capacity.
Incident reporting to DFSI is mandatory for most agencies, however, most of our case study agencies do not report incidents to DFSI, reducing the likelihood of containing an incident if it spreads to other agencies. When incidents have been reported, DFSI has not provided dedicated resources to assess them and coordinate the public sector’s response. There are currently no formal requirements for DFSI to respond to incidents and no guidance on what it is meant to do if an incident is reported. The lack of central coordination in incident response risks delays and increased damage to multiple agencies.
DFSI's reporting protocol is weak and does not clearly specify what agencies should report and when. This makes agencies less likely to report incidents. The lack of a standard format for incident reporting and a consistent method for assessing an incident, including the level of risk associated with it, also make it difficult for DFSI to determine an appropriate response.
There are limited avenues for sharing information amongst agencies after incidents have been resolved, meaning the public sector may be losing valuable opportunities to improve its protection and response.
Recommendations
The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
- develop whole‑of‑government procedure, protocol and supporting systems to effectively share reported threats and respond to cyber security incidents impacting multiple agencies, including follow-up and communicating lessons learnt
- develop a means by which agencies can report incidents in a more effective manner, such as a secure online template, that allows for early warnings and standardised details of incidents and remedial advice
- enhance NSW public sector threat intelligence gathering and sharing including formal links with Australian Government security agencies, other states and the private sector
- direct agencies to include standard clauses in contracts requiring IT service providers report all cyber security incidents within a reasonable timeframe
- provide assurance that agencies have appropriate reporting procedures and report to DFSI as required by the policy and protocol by:
- extending the attestation requirement within the DISP to cover procedures and reporting
- reviewing a sample of agencies' incident reporting procedures each year.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - ISMS maturity model
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #297 - released 2 March 2018
Internal Controls and Governance 2017
Agencies need to do more to address risks posed by information technology (IT).
Effective internal controls and governance systems help agencies to operate efficiently and effectively and comply with relevant laws, standards and policies. We assessed how well agencies are implementing these systems, and highlighted opportunities for improvement.
1. Overall trends
|
New and repeat findings |
The number of reported financial and IT control deficiencies has fallen, but many previously reported findings remain unresolved. |
|
High risk findings |
Poor systems implementations contributed to the seven high risk internal control deficiencies that could affect agencies. |
|
Common findings |
Poor IT controls are the most commonly reported deficiency across agencies, followed by governance issues relating to cyber security, capital projects, continuous disclosure, shared services, ethics and risk management maturity. |
2. Information Technology
|
IT security |
Only two-thirds of agencies are complying with their own policies on IT security. Agencies need to tighten user access and password controls. |
|
Cyber security |
Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
|
Other IT systems |
Agencies can improve their disaster recovery plans and the change control processes they use when updating IT systems. |
3. Asset Management
|
Capital investment |
Agencies report delays delivering against the significant increase in their budgets for capital projects. |
|
Capital projects |
Agencies are underspending their capital budgets and some can improve capital project governance. |
|
Asset disposals |
Eleven per cent of agencies were required to sell their real property through Property NSW but didn’t. And eight per cent of agencies can improve their asset disposal processes. |
4. Governance
|
Governance arrangements |
Sixty-four per cent of agencies’ disclosure policies support communication of key performance information and prompt public reporting of significant issues. |
|
Shared services |
Fifty-nine per cent of agencies use shared services, yet 14 per cent do not have service level agreements in place and 20 per cent can strengthen the performance standards they set. |
5. Ethics and Conduct
|
Ethical framework |
Agencies can reinforce their ethical frameworks by updating code‑of‑conduct policies and publishing a Statement of Business Ethics. |
|
Conflicts of interest |
All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
6. Risk Management
|
Risk management maturity |
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity. |
|
Risk management elements |
Many agencies can improve risk registers and strengthen their risk culture, particularly in the way that they report risks to their lead agency. |
This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2016–17 financial audits related to the internal controls and governance of the 39 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. These agencies represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW agencies and were considered to be a large enough group to identify common issues and insights.
The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2017 cluster financial audit reports tabled in Parliament from October to December 2017.
This new report offers strategic insight on the public sector as a whole
In previous years, we have commented on internal control and governance issues in the volumes we published on each ‘cluster’ or agency sector, generally between October and December. To add further value, we then commented more broadly about the issues identified for the public sector as a whole at the start of the following year.
This year, we have created this report dedicated to internal controls and governance. This will help Parliament to understand broad issues affecting the public sector, and help agencies to compare their own performance against that of their peers.
Without strong control measures and governance systems, agencies face increased risks in their financial management and service delivery. If they do not, for example, properly authorise payments or manage conflicts of interest, they are at greater risk of fraud. If they do not have strong information technology (IT) systems, sensitive and trusted information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.
These problems can in turn reduce the efficiency of agency operations, increase their costs and reduce the quality of the services they deliver.
Our audits do not review every control or governance measure every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present the most significant risks that agencies should mitigate. This report divides these into the following six areas:
- Overall trends
- Information technology
- Asset management
- Governance
- Ethics and conduct
- Risk management.
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this volume then illustrates this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
|
Issues |
Recommendations |
|
1.1 New and repeat findings |
|
|
The number of internal control deficiencies reduced over the past three years, but new higher-risk information technology (IT) control deficiencies were reported in 2016–17. Deficiencies repeated from previous years still make up a sizeable proportion of all internal control deficiencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should focus on emerging IT risks, but also manage new IT risks, reduce existing IT control deficiencies, and address repeat internal control deficiencies on a more timely basis. |
|
1.2 High risk findings |
|
|
We found seven high risk internal control deficiencies, which might significantly affect agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should rectify high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority |
|
1.3 Common findings |
|
|
The most common internal control deficiencies related to poor or absent IT controls. We found some common governance deficiencies across multiple agencies. |
Recommendation Agencies should coordinate actions and resources to help rectify common IT control and governance deficiencies. |
Information technology (IT) has become increasingly important for government agencies’ financial reporting and to deliver their services efficiently and effectively. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place over their IT systems. We found that IT security remains the source of many control weakness in agencies.
| Issues | Recommendations |
2.1 IT security |
|
|
User access administration While 95 per cent of agencies have policies about user access, about two-thirds were compliant with these policies. Agencies can improve how they grant, change and end user access to their systems. |
Recommendation Agencies should strengthen user access administration to prevent inappropriate access to sensitive systems. Agencies should:
|
|
Privileged access Sixty-eight per cent of agencies do not adequately manage who can access their information systems, and many do not sufficiently monitor or restrict privileged access. |
Recommendation Agencies should tighten privileged user access to protect their information systems and reduce the risks of data misuse and fraud. Agencies should ensure they:
|
|
Password controls Forty-one per cent of agencies did not meet either their own standards or minimum standards for password controls. |
Recommendation Agencies should review and enforce password controls to strengthen security over sensitive systems. As a minimum, password parameters should include:
|
2.2 Cyber Security |
|
|
Cyber security framework Agencies do not have a common view on what constitutes a cyber attack, which limits understanding the extent of the cyber security threat. |
Recommendation The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should revisit its existing framework to develop a shared cyber security terminology and strengthen the current reporting requirements for cyber incidents. |
|
Cyber security strategies While 82 per cent of agencies have dedicated resources to address cyber security, they can strengthen their strategies, expertise and staff awareness. |
Recommendations The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:
Agencies should ensure they adequately resource staff dedicated to cyber security. |
2.3 Other IT systems |
|
|
Change control processes Some agencies need to improve change control processes to avoid unauthorised or inaccurate system changes. |
Recommendation Agencies should consistently perform user acceptance testing before system upgrades and changes. They should also properly approve and document changes to IT systems. |
|
Disaster recovery planning Agencies can do more to adequately assess critical business systems to enforce effective disaster recovery plans. This includes reviewing and testing their plans on a timely basis. |
Recommendation Agencies should complete business impact analyses to strengthen disaster recovery plans, then regularly test and update their plans. |
Agency service delivery relies on developing and renewing infrastructure assets such as schools, hospitals, roads, or public housing. Agencies are currently investing significantly in new assets. Agencies need to manage the scale and volume of current capital projects in order to deliver new infrastructure on time, on budget and realise the intended benefits. We found agencies can improve how they:
- manage their major capital projects
- dispose of existing assets.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
3.1 Capital investment |
|
|
Capital asset investment ratios Most agencies report high capital investment ratios, but one-third of agencies’ capital investment ratios are less than one. |
Recommendation Agencies with high capital asset investment ratios should ensure their project management and delivery functions have the capacity to deliver their current and forward work programs. |
|
Volume of capital spending Most agencies have significant forward spending commitments for capital projects. However, agencies’ actual capital expenditure has been below budget for the last three years. |
Conclusion The significant increase in capital budget underspends warrant investigation, particularly where this has resulted from slower than expected delivery of projects from previous years. |
3.2 Capital projects |
|
|
Major capital projects Agencies’ major capital projects were underspent by 13 percent against their budgets. |
Conclusion The causes of agency budget underspends warrant investigation to ensure the NSW Government’s infrastructure commitment is delivered on time. |
|
Capital project governance Agencies do not consistently prepare business cases or use project steering committees to oversee major capital projects. |
Conclusion Agencies that have project management processes that include robust business cases and regular updates to their steering committees (or equivalent) are better able to provide those projects with strategic direction and oversight. |
3.3. Asset disposals |
|
|
Asset disposal procedures Agencies need to strengthen their asset disposal procedures. |
Recommendations Agencies should have formal processes for disposing of surplus properties. Agencies should use Property NSW to manage real property sales unless, as in the case for State owned corporations, they have been granted an exemption. |
Governance refers to the high-level frameworks, processes and behaviours that help an organisation to achieve its objectives, comply with legal and other requirements, and meet a high standard of probity, accountability and transparency.
This chapter sets out the governance lighthouse model the Audit Office developed to help agencies reach best practice. It then focuses on two key areas: continuous disclosure and shared services arrangements. The following two chapters look at findings related to ethics and risk management.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
4.1 Governance arrangements |
|
|
Continuous disclosure Continuous disclosure promotes improved performance and public trust and aides better decision-making. Continuous disclosure is only mandatory for NSW Government Businesses such as State owned corporations. |
Conclusion Some agencies promote transparency and accountability by publishing on their websites a continuous disclosure policy that provides for, and encourages:
|
4.2 Shared services |
|
|
Service level agreements Some agencies do not have service level agreements for their shared service arrangements. Many of the agreements that do exist do not adequately specify controls, performance or reporting requirements. This reduces the effectiveness of shared services arrangements. |
Conclusion Agencies are better able to manage the quality and timeliness of shared service arrangements where they have a service level agreement in place. Ideally, the terms of service should be agreed before services are transferred to the service provider and:
|
|
Shared service performance Some agencies do not set performance standards for their shared service providers or regularly review performance results. |
Conclusion Agencies can achieve better results from shared service arrangements when they regularly monitor the performance of shared service providers using key measures for the benefits realised, costs saved and quality of services received. Before agencies extend or renegotiate a contract, they should comprehensively assess the services received and test the market to maximise value for money. |
All government sector employees must demonstrate the highest levels of ethical conduct, in line with standards set by The Code of Ethics and Conduct for NSW government sector employees.
This chapter looks at how well agencies are managing these requirements, and where they can improve their policies and processes.
We found that agencies mostly have the appropriate codes, frameworks and policies in place. But we have highlighted opportunities to improve the way they manage those systems to reduce the risks of unethical conduct.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
5.1 Ethical framework |
|
|
Code of conduct All agencies we reviewed have a code of conduct, but they can still improve the way they update and manage their codes to reduce the risk of fraud and unethical behaviour. |
Recommendation Agencies should regularly review their code-of-conduct policies and ensure they keep their codes of conduct up-to-date. |
|
Statement of business ethics Most agencies maintain an ethical framework, but some can enhance their related processes, particularly when dealing with external clients, customers, suppliers and contractors. |
Conclusion Agencies can enhance their ethical frameworks by publishing a Statement of Business Ethics, which communicates their values and culture. |
5.2 Potential conflicts of interest |
|
|
Conflicts of interest All agencies have a conflicts-of-interest policy, but most can improve how they identify, manage and avoid conflicts of interest. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage conflicts of interest, particularly by:
|
|
Gifts and benefits While all agencies already have a formal gifts-and-benefits policy, we found gaps in the management of gifts and benefits by some that increase the risk of unethical conduct. |
Recommendation Agencies should improve the way they manage gifts and benefits by promptly updating registers and providing annual training to staff. |
Risk management is an integral part of effective corporate governance. It helps agencies to identify, assess and prioritise the risks they face and in turn minimise, monitor and control the impact of unforeseen events. It also means agencies can respond to opportunities that may emerge and improve their services and activities.
This year we looked at the overall maturity of the risk management frameworks that agencies use, along with two important risk management elements: risk culture and risk registers.
| Issues | Recommendations or conclusions |
6.1 Risk management maturity |
|
|
All agencies have implemented risk management frameworks, but with varying levels of maturity in their application. Agencies’ averaged a score of 3.1 out of five across five critical assessment criteria for risk management. While strategy and governance fared best, the areas that most need to improve are risk culture, and systems and intelligence. |
Conclusion Agencies have introduced risk management frameworks and practices as required by the Treasury’s:
However, more can be done to progress risk management maturity and embed risk management in agency culture. |
6.2 Risk management elements |
|
|
Risk culture Most agencies have started to embed risk management into the culture of their organisation. But only some have successfully done so, and most agencies can improve their risk culture.
|
Conclusion Agencies can improve their risk culture by:
|
|
Risk registers and reporting Some agencies do not report their significant risks to their lead agency, which may impair the way resources are allocated in their cluster. Some agencies do not integrate risk registers at a divisional and whole-of-enterprise level. |
Conclusion Agencies not reporting significant risks at the cluster level increases the likelihood that significant risks are not being mitigated appropriately. |
Effective risk management can improve agency decision-making, protect reputations and lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings. By embedding risk management directly into their operations, agencies can also derive extra value for their activities and services.
Industry 2017
The following report highlights the results of the financial audits of NSW Government entities in the Industry cluster. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent audits of these entities.
The report notes that TAFE NSW will continue to incur extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information due to deficiencies in its student administration system. TAFE NSW plans to replace its Student Administration and Learning Management system in 2018-19 at an estimated cost of $89 million.
1. Financial reporting and controls
|
Financial reporting |
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 44 out of 48 financial statement audits with four audits incomplete. Early close procedures continue to promote earlier and better quality financial reporting. |
| Financial performance | The cluster recorded a net deficit of $107 million in 2016–17 ($78.0 million in 2015–16). Contributing to the overall cluster net deficit was the Department's $226 million net deficit offset by net surpluses at Water NSW and the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. |
| TAFE NSW continues to experience system issues | TAFE NSW incurs extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information due to deficiencies in its student administration system. TAFE NSW plans to replace its Student Administration and Learning Management system in 2018–19 at an estimated cost of $89 million. |
| Internal controls |
We identified 180 internal control issues, including 61 repeat issues across the cluster. We rated four of these issues as 'high' risk, 98 as ‘moderate’ risk and 78 as ‘low’ risk. Of the 180 issues raised, 37 related to financial reporting and 52 related to controls over processes such as procurement and fixed assets. Some internal control issues and recommendations identified in previous years, have been repeated and should be addressed promptly to reduce risks and improve processes. |
| Deficient user administration access | Agencies need to strengthen user access administration to critical financial systems. |
2. Service delivery
| Premier and State Priorities |
Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Premier's priority for job creation has been achieved. While performance has declined for the State priority to increase the proportion of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships, the Department advises it has initiatives in place to achieve this State priority, and the State priority for New South Wales to lead Australia in business confidence. |
| Crown land | The Department is working to respond to the recommendations from a Parliamentary Inquiry into Crown Land and to implement the revised framework contained in the Crown Land Management Act 2016. |
| Aboriginal land claims |
Despite a continued focus, the Department has been unsuccessful in reducing the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. The Department should continue to implement measures to reduce the backlog of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
This report focuses on agencies in the Industry cluster. The report focuses on audit results, observations, conclusions and recommendations for financial reporting and controls, and service delivery.
This cluster leads the State's promotion of New South Wales as the place to invest and produce goods and services. Significant cluster agencies deliver services in the following areas:
Confidence in public sector decision-making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies.
This chapter outlines audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for the financial reporting and controls of agencies in the cluster for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 44 out of 48 financial statement audits. Four audits are continuing. | Ongoing improvements in the preparation of financial statements helped identify and resolve material issues. |
| The number of misstatements within the cluster fell from 104 in 2015–16 to 70 in 2016–17. | The ‘early close procedures’ initiative introduced by the Treasury in 2011–12 has reduced the number of misstatements each year. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Most agencies complied with the Treasury’s early close procedures and the timetable for the preparation and audit of financial statements. | Greater focus on financial reporting and effective early close procedures has improved the timeliness of financial reporting, but further improvements are required. |
| 2.3 Key financial issues from cluster agencies | |
| The Department of Industry completed a revaluation of Crown land and continues work on improving the accounting for Crown land. | The value of Crown land recognised in the Department's financial statements at 30 June 2017 was $5.3 billion. The revaluation was carried out using a revised mass valuation approach which reduced complexity and subjectivity and improved transparency. |
| There is no process in place to ensure agencies recognise all the Crown land they manage and control. | Recommendation: The Department should confirm the completeness and accuracy of the Crown land database with other organisations that manage and control Crown land to improve the reliability of its records. |
| TAFE NSW incurred approximately $6 million of direct costs to deal with issues in its student administration system and establish the integrity of its financial data for 2016–17. | TAFE NSW will continue to incur extra costs each year to produce reliable financial information. TAFE NSW advises it intends to replace the Student Administration and Learning Management system it jointly implemented with the Department of Education three years ago at a cost $40.2 million. TAFE plans to implement the new system in 2018–19 at an estimated cost of $89 million. |
| 2.4 Key financial information | |
| The cluster recorded a net deficit of $107 million in 2016–17 ($78.0 million in 2015–16). | The overall cluster net deficit included the Department's $226 million net deficit which was partly offset by net surpluses in a number of other agencies, including Water NSW and the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. Most agencies in the cluster, including the Department, but excluding the State owned corporations, are dependent on the NSW Government for the majority of their revenue. |
| 2.5 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| We assessed the performance of certain agencies against key financial sustainability indicators. This identified four agencies with adjusted net deficits and two agencies with liquidity ratios below one. | Overall, based on our analysis these agencies are not at high risk of sustainability concerns. |
| 2.6 Internal controls | |
| A significant number of repeat internal control issues were again raised with management for certain agencies in the cluster. |
Recommendation (repeat issue): Internal control issues and recommendations from previous years should be addressed promptly to reduce risks and improve processes. |
| User access administration over financial systems needs to be improved. 17 moderate risk issues related to user access administration across nine agencies were identified. |
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure administration of user access to critical systems
|
Government outcomes can be achieved by delivering services through a mix of the public, private or not-for-profit sectors. Service delivery reform is most successful if there is clear accountability for service delivery outcomes, decisions are aligned to the government's strategic direction, and performance and value for money are monitored and evaluated.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations for the service delivery of agencies in the cluster for 2016–17.
| Issues | Conclusion or recommendation |
|
3.1 Measuring and reporting on performance |
|
| The Department is responsible for two State priorities (increasing apprenticeships and business confidence) and the Premier's priority of creating jobs. The Department also supports four state priorities. | Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows the Premier's priority for job creation continues to be achieved. The Department reported that the number of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships had declined to 59 per cent against a 2019 target of 65 per cent, while the State was ranked first or second on a range of business confidence indicators. |
|
3.2 Improvements required in the administration of Crown land |
|
| The Department faces many challenges in the administration of Crown land. These challenges range from inadequate systems and processes through to satisfying competing commercial, environmental, and community interests. |
The Department has implemented, or is implementing the recommendations from a performance audit on the Sale and Lease of Crown land and the Parliamentary Inquiry into Crown land. It is also implementing the revised framework for Crown land contained in the Crown Land Management Act 2016. |
|
3.3 Aboriginal land claims over Crown land |
|
| The number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims continues to increase. Work on finalising Aboriginal Land Agreements, which may help address the claims backlog, is continuing. | Recommendation (repeat Issue): The Department should continue to implement measures to reduce the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
|
3.4 Skills development |
|
| Eleven contracted Smart and Skilled service providers had their contracts cancelled for quality issues. There were 391 providers of Smart and Skilled qualifications as at October 2017. | The Department of Industry spent $1.4 billion on the provision of vocational education and training. The Department has controls in place to monitor the performance of contracted service providers to ensure quality delivery of training. |
Central Agencies 2017
This report highlights the results of the financial audits of NSW Government central agencies. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial statement audits of agencies in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet, and Finance, Services and Innovation clusters.
The report includes a range of findings in respect to service delivery. One repeat finding is that while the Government regularly reports on the 12 Premier's priorities, there is no comprehensive reporting on the 18 State priorities.
1. Financial reporting and controls
| Audit Opinions | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' 30 June 2017 financial statements. |
| Early close | Early close procedures continue to facilitate the timely preparation of financial statements and completion of audits, but agencies can make further improvement. |
| Deficient user administration access | User access administration over financial systems remains an area of weakness. Agencies need to strengthen user access administration to critical systems. |
| Transitioning to outsourced service providers | Transitioning of services to outsourced service providers can be improved. Outsourcing services can lead to better outcomes, which may include lower transaction costs and improved services, but it also introduces new risks. |
2. Service delivery
| Premier and State Priorities | A comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities is yet to be published. While some measures are publicly reported through agency annual reports or other sources, a comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities would ensure all State Priorities are publicly reported, provide a single and easily accessible source of reference and improve transparency. |
| ICT and digital government | The Digital Government Strategy was released in May 2017. Targets will need to be set to assess and monitor progress against the Strategy. |
| Digital information security | Not all agencies are complying with the NSW Government's information security policy. This increases the risk of noncompliance with legislation, information security breaches and difficulty restoring data or maintaining business continuity in the event of a disaster or disruption. |
| Property and asset utilisation | Property NSW's performance reporting would be enhanced by developing and reporting on customer satisfaction, reporting against set targets and benchmarking cost of service to the private sector. |
3. Government financial services
| Prudential oversight of NSW Government superannuation funds |
Prudential oversight of SAS Trustee Corporation Pooled Fund and Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund has not been prescribed. Structured and comprehensive prudential oversight of these funds remains important as they operate in a specialised, complex and continuously changing investment market sector, have over 106,000 members and manage investments in excess of $42.4 billion. |
| Green slip scheme affordability | Currently, Green Slips in NSW are the most expensive in Australia. However, CTP reforms are expected to reduce the cost of Green Slips. |
This report sets out the results of the 30 June 2017 financial statement audits of NSW Government's central agencies and their cluster agencies.
Central agencies play a key role in ensuring policy coordination, good administrative and people management practices and prudent fiscal management. The central agencies and their key responsibilities are set out below.
Confidence in public sector decision‑making and transparency is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions or recommendations related to financial reporting and controls of agencies for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
| Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agency financial statements. | The quality of financial reporting continues to remain strong across the clusters. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| Most agencies complied with the statutory timeframes for completion of early close procedures and preparation and audit of financial statements. | Early close procedures continue to facilitate the timely preparation of financial statements and completion of audits, but agencies can make further improvement. |
| 2.3 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| We assessed the performance of agencies listed in Appendix six against some key financial sustainability indicators. This highlighted two agencies with negative operating margins of more than ten per cent and one agency with a liquidity ratio of less than 0.5. | These agencies have strategies in place to remain financially sustainability and manage their liquidity. Our analysis found that, overall, the agencies are not at high risk of sustainability concerns. |
| 2.4 Internal Controls | |
|
User access administration over financial systems remains an area of weakness. Sixteen moderate risk and ten low risk issues related to user access administration across eight agencies were identified. |
Recommendation: Agencies should review user access administration to critical systems to ensure:
|
|
Transitioning of services to outsourced service providers can be improved. Our 2016–17 audits identified one high risk issue relating to Property NSW's outsourcing of property and facility management services to the private sector. While a high risk issue was identified in 2015–16 from the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation's outsourcing of transactional and information technology services to GovConnect there has been an improvement in GovConnect's internal control environment throughout |
Outsourcing services can lead to better outcomes, which may include lower transaction costs and improved services, but it also introduces new risks. The transition needs to be carefully managed and requires thorough planning and effective project governance. This should be supported by oversight and direction from senior management and independent project assurance. |
| 2.5 Human Resources | |
| The percentage of full‑time equivalent staff with annual leave greater than 30 days in the Finance, Services and Innovation, Premier and Cabinet and the Treasury clusters is 7.9 per cent, 17.1 per cent and 18.4 per cent respectively. | Agencies have strategies in place to reduce annual leave balances that are greater than 30 days. The effectiveness of these strategies will need to be monitored to ensure they are helping to achieve the desired outcome. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations relating to service delivery for 2016–17.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 3.1 Premier and State priorities | |
|
The Department of Premier and Cabinet monitors the achievement of targets and the implementation of initiatives to deliver the 12 Premier’s Priorities. Responsible ministers and agencies manage the 18 State Priorities. A comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities is yet to be published. |
While some measures are publicly reported through agency annual reports or other sources, a comprehensive report of performance against the 18 State Priorities would ensure all State Priorities are publicly reported, provide a single and easily accessible source of reference and improve transparency. Where possible, independent sources are used to measure performance, however without independent assurance there is an increased risk that the target measures are inaccurate, not relevant or do not fairly represent actual performance. |
|
Performance against the State Priority to make NSW the easiest state to start a business is not currently published. |
Initiatives, such as easy to do business and red tape reduction are in place to help achieve this priority. The regulatory policy framework is under review following an October 2016 performance audit on ‘Red tape reduction’ that found the regulatory burden of legislation had increased. |
| 3.2 Financial management | |
| Revenue NSW earned record crown revenue of $30.0 billion in 2016–17 to support the state's finances. | Record crown revenue has been driven by the sustained increase in duties revenue, which has increased by 93.7 per cent over the last five years. This is a consequence of the continued strength in the property market over this time and large one off NSW Government business asset sales and leases. |
| 3.3 ICT and digital government | |
| The Digital Government Strategy (the Strategy) was released in May 2017 to build on reforms set out in previous ICT strategies. | The Strategy’s priorities and enablers aim to support digital innovation. Targets and measures will need to be set to assess and monitor progress against the Strategy. |
| The Digital Information Security Policy (DISP) is a key tool that helps ensure a minimum set of information security controls are implemented across NSW Government agencies. A review of 2016 annual reports found 15 agencies (13 in 2015) did not attest to compliance with the DISP and of the agencies that attested to compliance, 34 reported issues associated with their compliance. |
The Strategy’s priorities and enablers aim to support digital innovation. Targets and measures will need to be set to assess and monitor progress against the Strategy. |
| 3.4 Property and asset utilisation | |
|
Property NSW's performance reporting could be |
Property NSW's performance reporting would be enhanced by developing and reporting on customer satisfaction, reporting against set targets and benchmarking cost of service to the private sector. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations specific to NSW Government agencies providing financial services.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
| 4.1 Key issues | |
|
The SAS Trustee Corporation (STC) Pooled Fund and the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation (PCS) Fund are not required to comply with the prudential and reporting standards issued by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). Amendments to relevant legislation allows the Minister for Finance, Services and Property to prescribe applicable prudential standards and audit requirements. |
Structured and comprehensive prudential oversight of these funds remains important as they operate in a specialised, complex and continuously changing investment market sector, have over 106,000 members and manage investments of more than $42.4 billion. Recommendation: The Treasury should liaise with the respective Trustees to implement appropriate prudential standards and oversight arrangements for the exempt public sector superannuation funds. |
|
Currently, Green Slips in NSW are the most expensive in Australia. Average premiums for Sydney Metropolitan vehicles increased by 10.4 per cent between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016. |
CTP reforms are expected to reduce the cost of Green Slips. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority will need to ensure it has appropriate processes in place to track and report against the expected benefits. |
| 4.2 Financial performance and sustainability | |
| Net unfunded superannuation liabilities were $15.0 billion at 30 June 2017. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012, the NSW Government’s target is to eliminate unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030. |
The superannuation funds’ strategic asset allocation and investment strategies are monitored and adjusted to help achieve a fully funded position by 2030. |
| The Home Warranty Scheme commenced in 2011. Over this time total premiums collected have not been sufficient to cover expected claim costs. | Funding arrangements introduced during 2016–17 allow the Home Building Compensation Fund to apply to the Crown for reimbursement of unfunded realised losses from under-pricing of premiums. Other reforms are planned to address the long term sustainability of the home building compensation scheme. |
| 4.3 Investment performance | |
| The NSW Government’s main superannuation funds have maintained the management expense ratio (MER) at consistent levels over the past two years. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation (PCS) Fund does not set an MER target. | MER is an industry recognised ratio to measure the performance of funds and investment managers. Recommendation: The Fund Secretary for the PCS Fund, in conjunction with the Trustee, should consider establishing an appropriate management expense ratio target to measure performance. |
State Finances 2017
Total State Sector Accounts received an unqualified audit opinion for the fifth consecutive year.
There was a $5.7 billion State budget surplus and continued investment in new infrastructure, in part funded by the long-term leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets. This report also comments on key accounting matters, including the correction of some previously reported balances and the first time reporting of combined Cabinet members’ compensation in the Total State Sector Accounts.
Pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I present my Report on State Finances 2017.
You will note that the format of this report has changed from previous years.
The intent of this change is to draw attention to the key matters that have been the focus of our audit and highlight significant factors that have contributed to the outcome.
First, it is pleasing to report once again that I issued a clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements. This outcome demonstrates the Government’s continued focus on the quality of financial reporting across the NSW public sector.
High quality financial management and reporting are crucial to properly inform the public and build community confidence in our system of government.
The Treasury’s Financial Management Transformation program also aims to improve financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements across the sector. My Office is working collaboratively with The Treasury on reforms to reduce the burden of reporting, without weakening established safeguards.
The reforms should include measures to provide independent assurance of the budget process, of outcome reporting by agencies, and the power to “follow the dollar” given the increasing use of non-government organisations to deliver Government programs.
This Report also highlights another year of strong financial performance. The State’s budget result was a $5.7 billion surplus, and investment in new infrastructure has continued, in part funded by the long-term leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.
Finally, could I take this opportunity to thank the staff of The Treasury for the way they approached this audit. Our partnership is critical to ensuring NSW is an exemplar of quality financial management and reporting.
Margaret Crawford
24 October 2017
A clear audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements was issued.
Timely and accurate financial reporting is essential for informed decision making, effective management of public funds and enhancing public accountability.
This year’s clear audit opinion reflects the Government’s continued efforts to improve the quality of financial reporting across the NSW public sector.
Since the introduction of ‘early close procedures’ in 2011-12, the number of significant errors in financial statements of agencies has generally fallen largely due to identifying and resolving complex accounting issues early. Agencies’ 2016-17 financial statements submitted for audit contained nine errors exceeding $20 million. All errors were subsequently corrected in the individual agencies financial statements.
Agencies should continue to respond to key accounting issues as soon as they are identified. Where issues are identified, accounting position papers should be prepared for consideration by the Audit Office, their Audit and Risk Committee members, and when relevant, The Treasury.
The State addressed the following key accounting matters during 2016-17.
The State recognised rail tunnels and earthworks valued at $8.5 billion.
Some rail tunnels and earthworks have never been valued by the State. These include the City Circle, the country rail network and other tunnels and earthworks built before the year 2000. Some of these tunnels and earthworks date back to the early 1900s.
For many years, the State did not account for these assets as they believed that their value could not be reliably measured. This year an independent valuer was engaged to perform a comprehensive valuation. The methodology used demonstrated
that the assets could have been reflected in the financial statements earlier.
The State recorded an additional $8.5 billion to correct the value of infrastructure assets at 1 July 2016.
Cabinet member’s compensation and related party transactions were reviewed.
Due to changes in Accounting Standards, the State had to consider 'related party information' in the financial statements. Previously this only applied to for-profit entities.
This year, requirements to report related party information extended to members of Cabinet, considered to be “key management personnel” of the State, as defined by Accounting Standards.
The Treasury implemented a process to assess and report Cabinet member’s compensation, and transactions between Cabinet members and/or their close family members, and government agencies.
Collectively, Cabinet members’ remuneration was $8.8 million, which was mainly salaries and allowances, and $3.5 million of non-monetary benefits such as security and drivers. The Treasury determined there were no other specific “related party” transactions or balances that required disclosure in the State’s financial statements.
Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.
TAFE NSW has experienced ongoing issues with its student administration system.
TAFE NSW has again implemented additional processes to verify the accuracy and completeness of revenue from sales of goods and services.
TAFE NSW expects to spend up to $89 million on a new information system to address these issues. Modules of the new student enrolment system are expected to be in place for the 2018 enrolment period.
Restatements relating to the General Government Sector's investment in the commercial sector.
The State corrected two previously reported balances relating to the General Government Sector’s investment in the commercial sector.
Accounting Standards require the General Government Sector to effectively store gains or losses related to its investment in the commercial sector in reserves until the investment is derecognised.
When these investments are disposed of, the cumulative gains and losses must be cleared and recognised in the operating result. However, the Government had previously cleared the cumulative gains and losses directly to Accumulated Funds within equity.
To comply with Accounting Standards, a total of $6 billion previously reported as a movement in equity at 30 June 2016, has now been corrected to the operating result.
In addition, Accounting Standards only allow gains or losses on its investments to be stored in reserves. In past years, the State recognised all changes in the value of its investment in Available for Sale Reserves, including the capital contributed to establish the State’s investment. In 2016-17, a total of $23.4 billion of contributed capital was corrected to accumulated funds at 1 July 2015.
The State’s budget result was a $5.7 billion surplus, $2.0 billion higher than the budget estimate.
The Total State Sector comprises 310 entities controlled by the NSW Government.
Of the total, the General Government Sector comprises 215 entities that provide goods and services not directly paid for by consumers.
The non-General Government Sector comprises 95 Government businesses that provide goods and services such as water and electricity, or financial services.
A principal measure of a Government’s overall performance is its Net Operating Balance, or Budget Result. The Net Operating Balance reports the difference between the cost of General Government service delivery and the revenue earned to fund these sectors.
The State has recorded budget surpluses and exceeded the original budget result in nine of the last ten years.
The State maintained its AAA credit rating.
The object of the Act is to maintain the AAA credit rating.
NSW’s finances are managed in alignment with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 (the Act).
The Act established the framework for fiscal responsibility and strategy needed to protect the State’s AAA credit rating and service delivery to the people of NSW.
The purpose of maintaining the AAA credit rating is to reduce the cost of, and ensure the broadest access to, borrowings.
A triple-A credit rating also helps maintain business and consumer confidence so economic activity and employment are sustained. The legislation sets out targets and principles for financial management to achieve this.
New South Wales has credit ratings of AAA/Negative from Standard & Poor’s and Aaa/Stable from Moody’s Investors Service.
The fiscal targets for achieving this objective are:
General Government expenditure growth is lower than long term revenue growth.
General Government expenditure growth was 4.2 per cent in 2016-17, below the long-term revenue growth of 5.6 per cent.
Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.
The Act sets a target of eliminating unfunded defined benefit superannuation liabilities by 2030. The State’s net superannuation liability was $58.6 billion at 30 June 2017 ($71.2 billion at 30 June 2016).
The Government predicts the 2030 target will be achieved. The State’s funding plan is to contribute amounts escalated by five per cent each year so the schemes will be fully funded by 2030. In 2016-17, the State made employer contributions of $1.5 billion, which is largely consistent with contributions over the past five years.
The liability values in the graph below do not reflect the values recorded in the Total State Sector Accounts. For financial reporting purposes, Accounting Standards (AASB 119 Employee Benefits) require the State to discount its superannuation liability using the government bond rate (refer to page 10 of this report).
The relevant government bond rate in the current economic climate is 2.62 per cent.
The State’s target for the unfunded superannuation liability is measured using AASB 1056 Superannuation Entities. This is because it adopts a measurement basis that reflects expected earnings on fund assets, which are currently between 5.9 and 7.4 per cent. Using these rates, the liability is $15.0 billion at 30 June 2017 ($16.1 billion at 30 June 2016). The unfunded liability is $2.4 billion less than when the Act was introduced.
The State’s assets grew by $31.6 billion during 2016-17 to $409 billion.
Valuing the State’s physical assets.
When we audit the financial statements, we focus on areas we consider as higher risk. These areas are often complex, and require the use of estimates and judgements.
The State has $307.2 billion of physical assets measured at fair value in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards. Fair value calculations are inherently complex and sensitive to assumptions and estimates, increasing the risk these assets are incorrectly valued.
In our audits, we assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of assumptions used in valuing physical assets. This includes obtaining an understanding of the valuation methodologies applied and judgements made. We also review the completeness of asset registers, and the mathematical accuracy of valuation models.
Net movements between years includes additions, disposals, depreciation and valuations. This year, valuations of physical assets added $16.2 billion to the State’s assets, comprising:
-
Transport for NSW and Railcorp $8.5 billion
-
New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation $4.8 billion
-
Roads and Maritime Services $930 million
-
Crown Entity $400 million.
The State’s financial assets increased $27.5 billion in 2016-17
The State’s financial assets have increased by 88 per cent over the past four years. In 2016-17, financial assets increased primarily due to proceeds from the sale of government assets and businesses.
The Government implemented reforms to better use the State’s financial assets. A key element was the creation of an Asset and Liability Committee (ALCO) to provide advice on ways to improve balance sheet management.
Since the creation of the ALCO, reforms include:
-
Establishment of the New South Wales Infrastructure Future Fund (NIFF). The net proceeds from the State’s asset recycling program are invested into the NIFF, which is managed by TCorp, with a balance of $14.6 billion by 30 June 2017. Funds raised are invested through the NIFF until the Government requires them for critical infrastructure projects that are part of the Restart NSW and Rebuilding NSW program of works. ALCO and TCorp provide advice on the NIFF’s performance and management
-
Establishment of the Social and Affordable Housing Fund ($1.1 billion at 30 June 2017). ALCO oversees the Fund to ensure an appropriate investment approach that will maintain funding certainty for new social and affordable housing stock
-
Cash and liquidity management reforms to centralise cash previously held by agencies in the Treasury Banking System. This reform is designed to ensure agencies have adequate levels of liquidity but with surplus funds invested centrally for better returns.
The State’s liabilities decreased by $13.1 billion during 2016-17 to $182 billion.
Valuing the State’s liabilities relies on an actuarial assessment.
Nearly half of the State’s liabilities relate to its employees. This includes unfunded superannuation, and employee benefits, such as long service and recreation leave.
Valuation of these obligations is subject to complex estimation techniques and significant judgements. Small changes in assumptions can materially impact the financial statements.
We address the risk associated with auditing these balances:
-
using actuarial specialists
-
testing controls around underlying employee data used in data models, and testing the accuracy of the calculations
-
evaluating assumptions applied in calculating employee entitlements such as the discount rate and the probability of long service leave vesting conditions being met.
The State’s superannuation obligations reduced by $12.6 billion in 2016-17.
The State’s $58.6 billion superannuation liability represents obligations for past and present employees, less the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations. The superannuation liability decreased from $71.2 billion to $58.6 billion, largely due to an increase in the discount rate from 1.99 per cent to 2.62 per cent. This alone reduced the liability by $9.2 billion
The State’s borrowings totalled $70.6 billion at 30 June 2017.
The State’s borrowings totalled $70.6 billion at 30 June 2017, $9.5 billion less than the previous year. This was largely due to the repayment of borrowings when the assets of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy were leased to the private sector.
TCorp issues bonds to raise funds for NSW Government agencies. The bonds are actively traded in financial markets providing price transparency and liquidity to public sector borrowers and institutional investors. All TCorp bonds are guaranteed by the NSW Government.
The Government manages its debt liabilities through its balance sheet management strategy. The strategy extends to TCorp, which applies an active risk management strategy to the Government’s debt portfolio.
General Government Sector debt is being restructured by replacing shorter-term debt with longer-term debt. This lengthens the portfolio to better match liabilities with the funding requirements of infrastructure assets and reduces refinancing risks. It also allows the Government to take advantage of the low interest rate environment.
The State recorded revenue of $83.5 billion in 2016-17, an increase of $5.3 billion from 2015-16.
The State’s results are underpinned by revenue growth in taxation, fees and fines.
Taxation, fees, fines and other revenue comprises $30.5 billion of taxation ($28.7 billion in 2015-16) and $5.3 billion of fees, fines and other revenue ($4.6 billion).
Tax revenue for the Total State Sector increased by $1.8 billion, or 6.4 per cent compared to 2015-16, primarily due to:
-
one-off business asset sales and lease transactions, including $718 million in transfer duty from the Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy lease transactions
-
$385 million increase in payroll tax from growth in NSW employment and average employee compensation
-
a $426 million increase in land taxes.
Growth in stamp duty is expected to slow over the next 4 years.
General Government Sector stamp duties have increased from $6.2 billion in 2012-13 to $11.5 billion in 2016-17, an annual average growth rate of 16.5 per cent. The Government’s budget forecasts the growth in stamp duties to decline, to an average annual growth rate of 2.6 per cent between 2016-17 and 2020-21.
The State received Commonwealth grants and subsidies of $30.8 billion in 2016-17.
The State received $30.8 billion from the Commonwealth Government in 2016-17, $1.6 billion more than in 2015-16. This was primarily due to transaction based asset recycling grants of $1.0 billion and a $720 million increase in national land transport grants. This increase was offset by a $435 million decrease in General Purpose Grants, which mainly comprises New South Wales’ share of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The State spent $79.4 billion in 2016-17 to deliver services to the community, an increase of $3.9 billion from 2015-16.
Overall expenses increased 5.2 per cent from last year. Most of the increase was due to higher employee costs and operating costs.
Total salaries and wages increased by 4.2 per cent from 2015-16.
Total salaries and wages increased to $30 billion from $28.8 billion in 2015-16. The Government wages policy aims to limit the growth in remuneration and other employee costs to no more than 2.5 per cent per annum.
Operating expenses increased by 12.4 per cent from 2015-16.
Within operating expenses, payments for supplies, services and other expenses increased, in part, due to the State:
-
reacquiring mining licenses worth $482 million and additional land remediation costs of $101 million
-
spending more on health including additional drug supplies relating to Hepatitis C.
State spend on transport and communications increased by 68.1 per cent since 2012-13.
While spending on health and education remain the largest functional areas provided by Government, expenditure on transport and communication increased, on average, by 13.9 per cent annually between 2012-13 and 2016-17. This increase reflects the Government’s investment in transport infrastructure such as the Sydney Metro and Westconnex. Over the same period, spending on health increased by $3.9 billion.
Expenditure on fuel and energy has decreased by an average of 44.7 per cent since 2012-13, reflecting the State’s leases of electricity network assets.
In 2011, the Government established Restart NSW to fund high priority infrastructure projects.
Restart NSW projects are primarily funded from the proceeds from the asset recycling program enabling Government to deliver new infrastructure investment.
Restart NSW provides funding for the delivery of Rebuilding NSW, which is the Government’s 10-year plan to invest $20 billion in new infrastructure.
The State finalised long-term leases of Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy assets.
In June 2017, the Government finalised its long-term lease of 50.4 per cent of Endeavour Energy. This transaction follows on from the long-term leases of TransGrid in December 2015 and 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid in December 2016. Net proceeds of $15.0 billion were paid into Restart NSW relating to these transactions.
The Government also finalised an arrangement for the private sector to provide land titling and registry services to the public for 35 years. The State, through Restart NSW, received an upfront payment of $2.6 billion from the new operator.
Restart NSW is funding $29.8 billion of new infrastructure.
The Government has detailed its plan to invest $20 billion into the Rebuilding NSW plan from Restart NSW.
At 30 June 2017, around $2.9 billion has already been spent on Rebuilding NSW projects from Restart NSW, with a further $9 billion included in the budget aggregates. The Government has also earmarked a further $8.1 billion in Restart NSW for future projects.
The most significant project is the Sydney Metro. The Government has committed $7.0 billion from Restart NSW to build a 30-kilometre metro line, linking Sydney Metro Northwest at Chatswood, through new stations in the lower North Shore, the Sydney CBD and southwest to Bankstown. At 30 June 2017, $2.4 billion has been spent on this project from Restart NSW.
Other significant projects funded by Restart NSW include a $1.8 billion contribution to WestConnex and reserved funding of $1 billion towards the State’s Major Stadia Network program.
The Treasury initiated the Financial Management Transformation (FMT) program with the aim of changing and improving financial governance, budgeting and reporting arrangements of the New South Wales public sector.
FMT aims to deliver better outcomes for the people of New South Wales and focuses on transparency and accountability for expenditure, and better value for money.
New Financial Management System
PRIME is the Information Technology (IT) solution component of the FMT program, replacing several historical systems. PRIME will provide both financial and performance information within one IT platform for all agencies in the NSW public sector.
It is expected to give Government more timely information to plan and deliver its policy priorities and the budget.
Independent assurance over the budget process would improve confidence in the reliability of the State’s financial information.
Contingent workforce - management and procurement
The Department of Industry, Transport for NSW and the Department of Education were not able to demonstrate that the use of contingent labour is the best resourcing strategy to meet their business needs or deliver value for money.
None of the three agencies we reviewed were able to demonstrate that contingent labour is the best resourcing strategy to meet their agencies’ business needs or delivers value for money. There are three reasons for this. First, agencies’ use of contingent labour was not informed by workforce planning at an agency level, with limited work undertaken in this area. Second, two of the three agencies have limited oversight of their contingent workforce. Information is not reliable or accurate, reports are onerous to produce, and there is limited reporting to the agency’s executive. Finally, none of the agencies routinely monitor and centrally document the performance of contingent workers to ensure services are delivered as planned. Together, these factors make it difficult for agencies to ensure contingent labour is engaged only when needed, at reasonable rates, and delivers quality services.
Some of these issues will be addressed by Contractor Central, which had only been introduced at Education at the time of our review. The new software program enables staff to easily obtain real-time reports on its contingent workforce. The recruitment broker also has the potential to improve value through better negotiation and benchmarking of pay rates. However, Contractor Central will only address some of the issues highlighted above. Better workforce planning and performance monitoring are needed to ensure an agencies’ workforce, including contingent workers, meets its business needs and represents value for money.
Download appendices for report on Contingent workforce
Parliamentary reference - Report number #282 - released 27 April 2017
