Reports
Support for regional town water infrastructure
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today examining whether the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment has effectively supported the planning for, and funding of, town water infrastructure in regional NSW.
The audit found that the department has not effectively supported or overseen town water infrastructure planning since at least 2014. It does not have a clear regulatory approach and lacks internal procedures and data to guide its support for local water utilities that service around 1.85 million people in regional NSW.
The audit also found that the department has not had a strategy in place to target investments in town water infrastructure to the areas of greatest priority. A state-wide plan is now in development.
The Auditor-General made seven recommendations to the department, aimed at improving the administration and transparency of its oversight, support and funding for town water infrastructure, and at strengthening its sector engagement and interagency coordination on town water planning issues and investments.
According to the Auditor-General, ‘A continued focus on coordinating town water planning, investments and sector engagement is needed for the department to more effectively support, plan for and fund town water infrastructure, and to work with local water utilities to help avoid future shortages of safe water in regional towns and cities.’
This report is part of a multi-volume series on the theme of water. Refer to ‘Water conservation in Greater Sydney’ and ‘Water management and regulation – undertaking in 2020-21’.
Safe and reliable water and sewer services are essential for community health and wellbeing, environmental protection, and economic productivity. In 2019, during intense drought, around ten regional New South Wales (NSW) cities or towns were close to ‘zero’ water and others had six to 12 months of supply. In some towns, water quality was declared unsafe.
Ensuring the right water and sewer infrastructure in regional NSW to deliver these services (known as 'town water infrastructure') involves a strategic, integrated approach to water management. The NSW Government committed to ‘secure long-term potable water supplies for towns and cities’ in 2011. In 2019, it reiterated a commitment to invest in water security by funding town water infrastructure projects.
The New South Wales’ Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) aims to promote the sustainable, integrated and best practice management of the State’s water resources, and establishes the priority of town water for meeting critical human needs.
The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the department) is the lead agency for water resource policy, regulation and planning in NSW. It is also responsible for ensuring water management is consistent with the shared commitments of the Australian, State and Territory Governments under the National Water Initiative. This includes the provision of healthy, safe and reliable water supplies, and reporting on the performance of water utilities.
Ninety-two Local Water Utilities (LWUs) plan for, price and deliver town water services in regional NSW. Eighty-nine are operated by local councils under the New South Wales’ Local Government Act 1993, and other LWUs exercise their functions under the WM Act. The Minister for Water, Property and Housing is the responsible minister for water supply functions under both acts.
The department is the primary regulator of LWUs. NSW Health, the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the Natural Access Resource Regulator (NRAR) also regulate aspects of LWUs' operations. The department’s legislative powers with respect to LWUs cover approving infrastructure developments and intervening where there are town water risks, or in emergencies. In this context, the department administers the Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines (BPM Guidelines) to support its regulation and to assist LWUs to strategically plan and price their services, including their planning for town water infrastructure.
Under the BPM Guidelines, the department supports LWU’s town water infrastructure planning with the Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Checklist. The Checklist outlines steps for LWUs to prepare an IWCM strategy: a long-term planning document that sets out town water priorities, including infrastructure and non-infrastructure investments, water conservation and drought measures. The department's objective is to review and approve (i.e. give ‘concurrence to’) an IWCM strategy before the LWU implements it. In turn, these documents should provide the department with evidence of town water risks, issues and infrastructure priorities.
The department also assesses and co-funds LWU's town water infrastructure projects. In 2017, the department launched the $1 billion Safe and Secure Water Program to ensure town water infrastructure in regional NSW is secure and meets current health and environmental standards. The program was initially established under the Restart NSW Fund.
This audit examined whether the department has effectively supported the planning for and funding of town water infrastructure in regional NSW. It focused on the department’s activities since 2014. This audit follows a previous Audit Office of NSW report which found that the department had helped to promote better management practices in the LWU sector, up to 2012–13.
ConclusionThe Department of Planning, Industry and Environment has not effectively supported or overseen town water infrastructure planning in regional NSW since at least 2014. It has also lacked a strategic, evidence-based approach to target investments in town water infrastructure. A continued focus on coordinating town water planning, investments and sector engagement is needed for the department to more effectively support, plan for and fund town water infrastructure, and work with Local Water Utilities to help avoid future shortages of safe water in regional towns and cities. The department has had limited impact on facilitating Local Water Utilities’ (LWU) strategic town water planning. Its lack of internal procedures, records and data mean that the department cannot demonstrate it has effectively engaged, guided or supported the LWU sector in Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) planning over the past six years. Today, less than ten per cent of the 92 LWUs have an IWCM strategy approved by the department. The department did not design or implement a strategic approach for targeting town water infrastructure investment through its $1 billion Safe and Secure Water Program (SSWP). Most projects in the program were reviewed by a technical panel but there was limited evidence available about regional and local priorities to inform strategic project assessments. About a third of funded SSWP projects were recommended via various alternative processes that were not transparent. The department also lacks systems for integrated project monitoring and program evaluation to determine the contribution of its investments to improved town water outcomes for communities. The department has recently developed a risk-based framework to inform future town water infrastructure funding priorities. The department does not have strategic water plans in place at state and regional levels: a key objective of these is to improve town water for regional communities. The department started a program of regional water planning in 2018, following the NSW Government’s commitment to this in 2014. It also started developing a state water strategy in 2020, as part of an integrated water planning framework to align local, regional and state priorities. One of 12 regional water strategies has been completed and the remaining strategies are being developed to an accelerated timeframe: this has limited the department’s engagement with some LWUs on town water risks and priorities. |
Regional New South Wales (NSW) is home to about a third of the state's population. Infrastructure that provides safe and reliable water and sewer services (also known simply as 'town water infrastructure') is essential for community health and wellbeing, environmental protection, and economic productivity. Planning for and meeting these infrastructure needs, as well as identifying when non-infrastructure options may be a better solution, involves a strategic and integrated approach to water resource management in regional NSW.
We examined whether the department has effectively supported planning for town water infrastructure since 2014. This assessment was made in the context of its current approach to LWU sector regulation. The findings below focus on whether the department has an effective framework including governance arrangements for town water issues to inform state-wide strategic water planning, and whether (at the local level) the department has effectively overseen and facilitated town water infrastructure planning through its Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) planning guidance to LWUs.
We examined whether the department has effectively targeted town water infrastructure funding to policy objectives, with a focus on the design and implementation of the Safe and Secure Water Program (SSWP) since its commencement in 2017. The program’s aim was to fund town water infrastructure projects that would deliver health, social and environmental benefits, and support economic growth and productivity. We also assessed the department’s capacity to demonstrate the outcomes of the SSWP funding and the contributions of its town water infrastructure investments more broadly. Finally, we identified risks to the effectiveness of the department’s work underway since 2018–19, which is intended to enhance its strategic water planning and approach to prioritising investments in reducing town water risks.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #341 - released 24 September 2020
Credit card management in Local Government
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today examining credit card management in Local Government.
The audit was in response to a letter from the then Minister for Local Government in November 2018. The audit assessed the effectiveness of credit card management practices in six councils, including in the areas of policies, procedures, compliance and monitoring.
The audit found that all six councils had gaps in their credit card policies and procedures. The Auditor-General recommended that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment publish guidelines on credit card management for the Local Government sector. The report also generated insights for the Local Government sector with respect to credit card management.
In 2018–19, all councils responding to an Audit Office survey (representing over 90 per cent of the sector) indicated they issued credit cards to staff members to make work-related purchases. As there are no sector-wide requirements or policies for credit card use and management in Local Government, councils have developed their credit card management frameworks to suit their own needs. The quality of credit card policies and procedures may therefore vary across the sector.
Credit cards are an efficient means of payment, especially for low-value purchases. Compared to the use of petty cash, credit card transactions provide better transparency and accountability for expenditure. By using credit cards, councils only need to make one payment each month, which can reduce the time spent on paying separate vendors, as in the case of purchase orders.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of credit card management practices in six councils: Dubbo Regional Council, Junee Shire Council, Lane Cove Council, Nambucca Valley Council, Penrith City Council and Shellharbour City Council. The councils selected represent a mix of rural, regional and metropolitan councils. They were also among the top ten users of credit cards within their geographical classification, in terms of the number of credit cards issued or the number of transactions per credit card.
This audit referenced the NSW Treasury's Policy and Guidelines Paper TPP17–09 'Use and Management of NSW Government Purchasing Cards', as its principles and recommendations for NSW Government agencies are relevant for councils.
The Audit Office of New South Wales Report on Local Government 2019 provided a high-level overview of credit card management across the sector. While over 90 per cent of councils reported that they had a credit card policy and a credit card acquittal process, the quality of these policies and procedures may vary across the sector as there is no standardised or recommended approach to credit card management for Local Government. This audit complements the Report on Local Government 2019 by providing a detailed discussion of the effectiveness of credit card management practices in councils.
Audit conclusionAll six audited councils had important gaps in their credit card policies and procedures. Their reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud.
The audit found important gaps in each of the six audited councils' credit card management practices. Their policies and procedures covered the essential aspects of credit card use and management, but a lack of coverage or clarity in some areas could lead to inconsistent and inappropriate use of credit cards. These areas included: eligibility to hold a credit card, aligning credit card limits with financial delegations, and the reconciliation procedures.
While all six councils conducted reconciliations of credit card transactions, the processes need to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. Reconciliations had focused solely on verifying receipts, and did not require evidence of business-related purposes, even for transactions such as alcohol purchases or spending at entertainment venues. Five of the six councils also did not include compliance checks in their reconciliation process, such as checking that purchases were not for restricted items.
The level of senior management involvement in monitoring credit card use varied across the six councils. Three of the six councils did not generate regular reports for management oversight. Five of the six councils had no plans for internal audits or targeted reviews of credit card management and use.
|
Council staff provided with a credit card can purchase from a wide range of businesses, including online transactions with overseas vendors. However, councils may limit the types of purchases that staff can make through their policies and procedures or by setting controls that block certain transaction types such as cash advances. To examine credit card usage, the audit obtained credit card transaction data from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019 for the six councils in this review. The data included:
- transaction date
- amount
- merchant category code (MCC)
- merchant name.
The audit analysed the number and value of transactions by each council, and the types of purchases made using credit cards.
The existence of a documented approach to managing credit cards ensures transparency and consistency of use within the council. A credit card management framework that contains preventative and detective controls can also minimise risks of fraud, misuse and wastage.
There is no prescribed credit card management framework for Local Government, but typical components of a credit card management framework include:
- policies and procedures
- guidance for staff
- monitoring and reporting.
With no detailed guidance notes similar to those in TPP17–09 for NSW Government, councils have developed their own credit card management framework based on their size, structure, resources and intended credit card usage. For instance, the size of a council has implications for the number of credit cards issued, which in turn influences the arrangements for training and guidance provided to cardholders and approvers.
The intended level of credit card usage may determine whether a council adopts a manual or electronic credit card management system and councils should identify the system that best meets their needs. For instance, a council with few credit cards may not be able to justify investment in an electronic system. On the other hand, a manual system may only be viable for councils with a low number of credit cards and a low number of transactions.
Among the six councils audited, the three councils with fewer cards and a lower number of transactions had a manual credit card management system, while the three councils with more cards and a higher number of transactions used an electronic system.
Exhibit 10 summarises the six councils' policies on use of credit cards.
| Council | Audit Office classification | Number of staff (full-time equivalent) | Number of credit cards issued (current at August 2019) | Policy on credit card use |
| Dubbo Regional Council | Regional | 453 | 77 | Purchase cards are used for official council business up to $5,000 and the policy allows cardholders to delegate the use of their purchase cards to other staff members. |
| Junee Shire Council | Rural | 71 | 1 | Corporate credit cards are for council business activities and minor purchases where a purchase order is not accepted. Items that can be purchased via a purchase order should not be purchased on a corporate credit card. |
| Lane Cove Council | Metropolitan | 192 | 6 | Corporate credit cards are for official council business, but should not be used when there is an alternative form of payment that aligns with the council's purchasing process. |
| Nambucca Valley Council | Rural | 110 | 37 | Purchase cards are used for the payment of goods and services associated with council businesses. |
| Penrith City Council | Metropolitan | 1,031 | 167 | Purchase cards are used for ‘low value and low risk procurement of goods and services’, while corporate cards are held by senior staff for ‘non-routine low value work related purchases’. |
| Shellharbour City Council | Regional | 372 | 65 | Credit cards are for purchases up to $9,999 and the preferred payment method for transactions under $1,000. |
While it is important for councils to have an established credit card management framework, it is equally important that they ensure compliance in practice. This chapter examines councils' credit card management practices – how well staff members were complying with policies and procedures, and how effective their credit card controls were. The chapter is structured to cover:
- preventative controls (embedded in the issuance, use and cancellation of cards) that prevent fraud and misuse
- detective controls (embedded in reconciliation and record keeping) that assist in detecting fraud and misuse.
Where ineffective credit card management practices are identified, councils should reflect on whether they need to more closely monitor compliance, or whether there are fundamental deficiencies in their policies and procedures that need to be refined.
Dubbo Regional Council had gaps in its credit card policy and procedures. It allowed cardholders to share their credit card with other staff members, which complicated credit card management, increased the risk of misuse and fraud, and breached its agreement with the credit card issuer. The council's reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to ensure it can review compliance with policy and detect potential misuse or fraud.Dubbo Regional Council had 77 credit cards at the time of the audit. The council's policy on credit card sharing violated its agreement with the card issuer that each credit card should be for the respective cardholder's use only. Credit card sharing also increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The council's credit card policy and procedures lacked clarity in several areas. The eligibility criteria were broad and there was a risk of inconsistency in granting approvals, especially since the council gave approval delegations to multiple senior staff members. The policy and procedures also lacked guidance on the reconciliation of the general manager's credit card and the management of Cabcharge. The audit identified gaps in the council's credit card management practices. While the council had a clear policy on financial delegations, there was no evidence that credit card limits were monitored in line with financial delegations. The credit card register contained inaccurate information, and the council was also unable to provide records of certain transactions requested for review by the audit. The council's credit card reconciliation process needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. It did not include compliance checks or reviewing the business-related purpose of transactions. Purchases of restricted items such as fuel, meals and entertainment were not accompanied by evidence of need or exemption. Travel expenses were not checked against travel pre-approval forms. The audit also identified instances of split transactions. The council provided no evidence of the finance team's involvement in the reconciliation of credit card transactions. Senior management oversight of credit card use was lacking, as the council did not produce reports on credit card use. There was also no evidence that the internal auditor had undertaken monitoring activities as required in the credit card policy. RecommendationsDubbo Regional Council should immediately: 1. amend its credit card policy to prevent cardholders from sharing their credit card with other staff. By December 2020, Dubbo Regional Council should: 2. clarify in the credit card policy and procedures:
3. ensure that credit card management practices include:
4. ensure reconciliation involves:
5. ensure there is ongoing senior management oversight of credit card use 6. ensure the internal auditor undertakes monitoring activities as specified in the credit card policy. |
|
Junee Shire Council had gaps in its credit card policy and procedures. The council's reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to ensure it can review compliance with policy and detect potential misuse or fraud. Junee Shire Council had only one credit card, held by the general manager, at the time of the audit. Staff members could seek approval from the general manager to purchase using the credit card. This raises concerns of credit card sharing, which would be a violation of the council's agreement with its credit card issuer. Credit card sharing also increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The council had fuel cards and store cards for use by staff members. However, its credit card policy and procedures did not cover the management of these types of cards. The lack of documented rules and guidance increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The audit identified other gaps in the council's credit card management practices:
The council's credit card reconciliation process needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. It did not include reviewing the business-related purpose of transactions. The council also provided no evidence of the finance team's involvement in the reconciliation of credit card transactions. As the cardholder, the general manager reviewed all transactions every month. As the approver, the mayor (or deputy mayor) had to sign off on these transactions. Hence, there was sufficient management oversight of the council's credit card use. However, there was a lack of periodic review of the council's credit card use, as it was not included in the council's forward program of internal audits. RecommendationsJunee Shire Council should immediately: 1. amend its credit card policy to prevent cardholders from sharing their credit card with other staff. By December 2020, Junee Shire Council should: 2. clarify in the credit card policy and procedures:
3. ensure that credit card management practices include:
4. ensure reconciliation involves:
5. develop a plan for periodic reviews (e.g. internal audit) of credit card use and management 6. ensure its credit card policy and procedures are reviewed according to schedule. |
Lane Cove Council had gaps in its credit card policy and procedures. The council's reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to ensure it can review compliance with policy and detect potential misuse or fraud.Lane Cove Council had six credit cards, held by the most senior staff members, at the time of the audit. During our interviews, cardholders advised that they had shared their credit card with reporting staff. Credit card sharing is a violation of the council's agreement with its credit card issuer, and it also increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The council's credit card policy lacked clarity in several areas. While the general manager had delegation to authorise the issue of credit cards, the policy did not specify any eligibility criteria. The policy and procedures also lacked guidance on the reconciliation of the general manager's credit card and the management of fuel cards and store cards. The audit identified gaps in the council's credit card management practices. There was no evidence that credit card limits were monitored in line with financial delegations. The credit card register contained inaccurate information, and the council was also unable to provide records of certain transactions requested for review by the audit. The council's credit card reconciliation process needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. The process also did not include compliance checks or reviewing the business-related purpose of transactions. Purchases of restricted items such as fuel and fine payments were not accompanied by adequate justification. There was a lack of targeted guidance for approvers in reconciliation, and the council only evidenced the finance team's involvement in an administrative capacity (i.e. entering data into the journals). Senior management oversight of credit card use was lacking. Although the credit card policy referred to management reporting, the council had not been producing such reports at the time of the audit. Management reporting was implemented in December 2019 following our discussions. There was a lack of periodic review of the council's credit card use, as it was not included in the council's forward program of internal audits. The council has adopted a new Management Directive in January 2020, which has clarified the eligibility criteria for credit cards. RecommendationsLane Cove Council should immediately: 1. amend its credit card policy to prevent cardholders from sharing their credit card with other staff. By December 2020, Lane Cove Council should: 2. clarify in the credit card policy and procedures:
3. ensure that credit card management practices include:
4. ensure reconciliation involves:
5. develop a plan for periodic reviews (e.g. internal audit) of credit card use and management. |
Nambucca Valley Council had gaps in its credit card policy and procedures. The council's reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to ensure it can review compliance with policy and detect potential misuse or fraud.Nambucca Valley Council had 37 credit cards at the time of the audit. During our interviews, cardholders described instances of credit card sharing within the council. Credit card sharing is a violation of the council's agreement with its credit card issuer, and it also increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The council's credit card policy lacked clarity in several areas. While the general manager had delegation to authorise the issue of credit cards, the policy did not specify any eligibility criteria. The policy and procedures lacked guidance on the management of fuel cards, store cards and Cabcharge. The policy also lacked coverage of the reconciliation arrangements for the general manager's credit card as the general manager did not hold a credit card. While the policy did not preclude the mayor and the general manager from holding a credit card, both opted not to do so. The audit identified gaps in the council's credit card management practices. There was no evidence that credit card limits were monitored in line with financial delegations. The credit card register contained inaccurate information, and there was insufficient control in handling staff departures, as the audit identified one incident where a credit card was returned after the staff member's last day. The council's credit card reconciliation process needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. The process also did not include adequate compliance checks or reviewing the business-related purpose of transactions. Purchases of restricted items such as fuel and the use of third-party travel websites were not accompanied by adequate justification. Travel expenses were not checked against travel pre-approval forms. The audit also identified instances of split transactions. Senior management oversight of credit card use was insufficient, as the council had been producing reports for only one manager for his department at the time of the audit. Management reporting for the Chief Finance Officer was implemented following our discussions. There was a lack of periodic review of the council's credit card use, as it was not included in the council's forward program of internal audits. The audit acknowledges that the council had revised its credit card procedures following our discussions to address our preliminary findings. The council has also set additional credit card blocks in response to this audit. The recommendations below contain only the outstanding items. RecommendationsNambucca Valley Council should immediately: 1. ensure cardholders stop sharing their credit card with other staff. By December 2020, Nambucca Valley Council should: 2. clarify in the credit card policy and procedures:
3. ensure that credit card management practices include:
4. ensure reconciliation involves:
5. develop a plan for periodic reviews (e.g. internal audit) of credit card use and management. |
Penrith City Council had gaps in its credit card policy and procedures. The council's reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to ensure it can review compliance with policy and detect potential misuse or fraud.Penrith City Council had 167 credit cards at the time of the audit. During our interviews, cardholders described instances of credit card sharing within the council. Credit card sharing is a violation of the council's agreement with its credit card issuer, and it also increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The audit identified gaps in the council's credit card policy and procedures. There was no documented arrangement for the reconciliation of the general manager's credit card. There was also no guidance on the management of Cabcharge. The credit card register contained inaccurate information, and the council was also unable to provide records of certain transactions requested for review by the audit. The council's credit card reconciliation process needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. The process did not include adequate compliance checks or reviewing the business-related purpose of transactions. The council's policy required prior approval for conferences, accommodation or meal expenses. However, there was no evidence that such approvals were checked during credit card reconciliation. The audit also identified instances of split transactions. The council implemented monthly reporting for managers in July 2019. There was a lack of periodic review of the council's credit card use, as it was not included in the council's forward program of internal audits. RecommendationsPenrith City Council should immediately: 1. ensure cardholders stop sharing their credit card with other staff. By December 2020, Penrith City Council should: 2. clarify in the credit card policy and procedures
3. ensure that credit card management practices include:
4. ensure reconciliation involves:
5. develop a plan for periodic reviews (e.g. internal audit) of credit card use and management. |
Shellharbour City Council had gaps in its credit card policy and procedures. The council's reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to ensure it can review compliance with policy and detect potential misuse or fraud.Shellharbour City Council had 65 credit cards at the time of the audit. During our interviews, cardholders described instances of credit card sharing within the council. Credit card sharing is a violation of the council's agreement with its credit card issuer, and it also increases the risk of misuse and fraud. The council's credit card policy lacked clarity in several areas. While the general manager had delegation to authorise the issue of credit cards, the policy did not specify any eligibility criteria. The council did not align credit card limits with financial delegations, and while blocking codes were used, there was no explanation in the policy or procedures. Although the mayor and general manager's credit card transactions were reviewed during the council's monthly Executive Leadership Team meetings, the policy and procedures lacked guidance on the reconciliation of their credit cards. The council also did not have sufficiently detailed documentation for the management of fuel cards. The audit identified gaps in the council's credit card management practices:
The council's credit card reconciliation process needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud. The process did not include compliance checks or reviewing the business-related purpose of transactions. Purchases of restricted items, such as fuel and fine payments, were not accompanied by adequate justification. The audit identified instances of split transactions, and travel or conference approval forms were also not checked during reconciliation. There was a lack of targeted guidance for approvers in reconciliation, and the council also provided no evidence of the finance team's involvement in the reconciliation of credit card transactions. The council's Executive Leadership Team was involved in the monthly review of credit card transactions, hence there was management oversight of credit card use. However, there was a lack of periodic review of the council's credit card use, as it was not included in the council's forward program of internal audits. RecommendationsShellharbour City Council should immediately: 1. ensure cardholders stop sharing their credit card with other staff. By December 2020, Shellharbour City Council should: 2. clarify in the credit card policy and procedures:
3. ensure that credit card management practices include:
4. ensure reconciliation involves:
5. develop a plan for periodic reviews (e.g. internal audit) of credit card use and management 6. ensure its credit card policy and procedures are reviewed according to schedule. |
Appendix one – Responses from councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #340 - released 3 September 2020
CBD South East Sydney Light Rail: follow-up performance audit
This is a follow-up to the Auditor-General's November 2016 report on the CBD South East Sydney Light Rail project. This follow-up report assessed whether Transport for NSW has updated and consolidated information about project costs and benefits.
The audit found that Transport for NSW has not consistently and accurately updated project costs, limiting the transparency of reporting to the public.
The Auditor-General reports that the total cost of the project will exceed $3.1 billion, which is above the revised cost of $2.9 billion published in November 2019. $153.84 million of additional costs are due to omitted costs for early enabling works, the small business assistance package and financing costs attributable to project delays.
The report makes four recommendations to Transport for NSW to publicly report on the final project cost, the updated expected project benefits, the benefits achieved in the first year of operations and the average weekly journey times.
The CBD and South East Light Rail is a 12 km light rail network for Sydney. It extends from Circular Quay along George Street to Central Station, through Surry Hills to Moore Park, then to Kensington and Kingsford via Anzac Parade and Randwick via Alison Road and High Street.
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is responsible for planning, procuring and delivering the Central Business District and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project. In December 2014, TfNSW entered into a public private partnership with ALTRAC Light Rail as the operating company (OpCo) responsible for delivering, operating and maintaining the CSELR. OpCo engaged Alstom and Acciona, who together form its Design and Construct Contractor (D&C).
On 14 December 2019, passenger services started on the line between Circular Quay and Randwick. Passenger services on the line between Circular Quay and Kingsford commenced on 3 April 2020.
In November 2016, the Auditor-General published a performance audit report on the CSELR project. The audit found that TfNSW would deliver the CSELR at a higher cost with lower benefits than in the approved business case, and recommended that TfNSW update and consolidate information about project costs and benefits and ensure the information is readily accessible to the public.
In November 2018, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) examined TfNSW's actions taken in response to our 2016 performance audit report on the CSELR project. The PAC recommended that the Auditor-General consider undertaking a follow-up audit on the CSELR project. The purpose of this follow-up performance audit is to assess whether TfNSW has effectively updated and consolidated information about project costs and benefits for the CSELR project.
Conclusion
Transport for NSW has not consistently and accurately updated CSLER project costs, limiting the transparency of reporting to the public. In line with the NSW Government Benefits Realisation Management Framework, TfNSW intends to measure benefits after the project is completed and has not updated the expected project benefits since April 2015.Between February 2015 and December 2019, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) regularly updated capital expenditure costs for the CSELR in internal monthly financial performance and risk reports. These reports did not include all the costs incurred by TfNSW to manage and commission the CSELR project.
Omitted costs of $153.84 million for early enabling works, the small business assistance package and financing costs attributable to project delays will bring the current estimated total cost of the CSELR project to $3.147 billion.
From February 2015, TfNSW did not regularly provide the financial performance and risk reports to key CSELR project governance bodies. TfNSW publishes information on project costs and benefits on the Sydney Light Rail website. However, the information on project costs has not always been accurate or current.
TfNSW is working with OpCo partners to deliver the expected journey time benefits. A key benefit defined in the business plan was that bus services would be reduced owing to transfer of demand to the light rail - entailing a saving. However, TfNSW reports that the full expected benefit of changes to bus services will not be realised due to bus patronage increasing above forecasted levels.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Governance and reporting arrangements for the CSELR
Appendix three – 2018 CSELR governance changes
Appendix four – About the audit
Appendix five – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #335 - released 11 June 2020
Train station crowding
This report focuses on how Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains manage crowding at selected metropolitan train stations.
The audit found that while Sydney Trains has identified platform crowding as a key strategic risk, it does not have an overarching strategy to manage crowding in the short to medium term. Sydney Trains 'do not have sufficient oversight to know if crowding is being effectively managed’, the Auditor-General said.
Sydney Trains' operational response to crowding involves restricting customer access to platforms or station entries before crowding reaches unsafe levels or when it impacts on-time running. Assuming rail patronage increases, it is likely that Sydney Trains will restrict more customers from accessing platforms or station entries, causing customer delay. ‘Restricting customer access to platforms or station entries is not a sustainable approach to manage station crowding’, said the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General made seven recommendations to improve Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains' management of station crowding. Transport for NSW have accepted these recommendations on behalf of the Transport cluster.
Public transport patronage has been impacted by COVID-19. This audit was conducted before these impacts occurred.
Sydney Trains patronage has increased by close to 34 per cent over the last five years, and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) expects the growth in patronage to continue over the next 30 years. As patronage increases there are more passengers entering and exiting stations, moving within stations to change services, and waiting on platforms. As a result, some Sydney metropolitan train stations are becoming increasingly crowded.
There are three main causes of station crowding:
- patronage growth exceeding the current capacity limits of the rail network
- service disruptions
- special events.
Crowds can inhibit movement, cause discomfort and can lead to increased health and safety risks to customers. In the context of a train service, unmanaged crowds can affect service operation as trains spend longer at platforms waiting for customers to alight and board services which can cause service delays. Crowding can also prevent customers from accessing services.
Our 2017 performance audit, ‘Passenger Rail Punctuality’, found that rail agencies would find it hard to maintain train punctuality after 2019 unless they significantly increased the capacity of the network to carry trains and people. TfNSW and Sydney Trains have plans to improve the network to move more passengers. These plans are set out in strategies such as More Trains, More Services and in the continued implementation of new infrastructure such as the Sydney Metro. Since 2017, TfNSW and Sydney Trains have introduced 1,500 more weekly services to increase capacity. Additional network capacity improvements are in progress for delivery from 2022 onwards.
In the meantime, TfNSW and Sydney Trains need to use other ways of managing crowding at train stations until increased capacity comes on line.
This audit examined how effectively TfNSW and Sydney Trains are managing crowding at selected metropolitan train stations in the short and medium term. In doing so, the audit examined how TfNSW and Sydney Trains know whether there is a crowding problem at stations and how they manage that crowding.
TfNSW is the lead agency for transport in NSW. TfNSW is responsible for setting the standard working timetable that Sydney Trains must implement. Sydney Trains is responsible for operating and maintaining the Sydney metropolitan heavy rail passenger service. This includes operating, staffing and maintaining most metropolitan stations. Sydney Trains’ overall responsibility is to run a safe rail network to timetable.
ConclusionSydney Trains has identified platform crowding as a key strategic risk, but does not have an overarching strategy to manage crowding in the short to medium term. TfNSW and Sydney Trains devolve responsibility for managing crowding at stations to Customer Area Managers, but do not have sufficient oversight to know if crowding is being effectively managed. TfNSW is delivering a program to influence demand for transport in key precincts but the effectiveness of this program and its impact on station crowding is unclear as Transport for NSW has not evaluated the outcomes of the program. TfNSW and Sydney Trains do not directly measure or collect data on station crowding. Data and observation on dwell time, which is the time a train waits at a platform for customers to get on and off trains, inform the development of operational approaches to manage crowding at stations. Sydney Trains has KPIs on reliability, punctuality and customer experience and use these to indirectly assess the impact of station crowding. TfNSW and Sydney Trains only formally assess station crowding as part of planning for major projects, developments or events. Sydney Trains devolve responsibility for crowd management to Customer Area Managers, who rely on frontline Sydney Trains staff to understand how crowding affects individual stations. Station staff at identified key metropolitan train stations have developed customer management plans (also known as crowd management plans). However, Sydney Trains does not have policies to support the creation, monitoring and evaluation of these plans and does not systematically collect data on when station staff activate crowding interventions under these plans. Sydney Trains stated focus is on providing a safe and reliable rail service. As such, management of station crowding is a by-product of its strategies to manage customer safety and ensure on-time running of services. Sydney Trains' operational response to crowding involves restricting customer access to platforms or stations before crowding reaches unsafe levels, or when it impacts on-time running. As rail patronage increases, it is likely that Sydney Trains will need to increase its use of interventions to manage crowding. As Sydney Trains restrict more customers from accessing platforms or station entries, it is likely these customers will experience delays caused by these interventions. Since 2015, TfNSW has been delivering the 'Travel Choices' program which aims to influence customer behaviour and to manage the demand for public transport services in key precincts. TfNSW is unable to provide data demonstrating the overall effectiveness of this program and the impact the program has on distributing public transport usage out of peak AM and PM times. TfNSW and Sydney Trains continue to explore initiatives to specifically address crowd management. |
ConclusionTfNSW and Sydney Trains do not directly measure or collect data on station crowding. There are no key performance indicators directly related to station crowding. Sydney Trains uses performance indicators on reliability, punctuality and customer experience to indirectly assess the impact of station crowding. Sydney Trains does not have a routine process for identifying whether crowding contributed to minor safety incidents. TfNSW and Sydney Trains formally assess station crowding as part of planning for major projects, developments or events. |
ConclusionSydney Trains has identified platform crowding as a strategic risk but does not have an overarching strategy to manage station crowding. Sydney Trains' stated focus is on providing a safe and reliable rail service. As such, management of station crowding is a by-product of its strategies to manage customer safety and ensure on-time running of services. Sydney Trains devolve responsibility for managing crowding at stations to Customer Area Managers but does not have sufficient oversight to know that station crowding is effectively managed. Sydney Trains does not have policies to support the creation, monitoring or evaluation of crowd management plans at key metropolitan train stations. The use of crowding interventions is likely to increase due to increasing patronage, causing more customers to experience delays directly caused by these activities. TfNSW and Sydney Trains have developed interventions to influence customer behaviour and to manage the demand for public transport services but are yet to evaluate these interventions. As such, their impact on managing station crowding is unclear. |
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Sydney rail network
Appendix three – Rail services contract
Appendix four – Crowding pedestrian modelling
Appendix five – Airport Link stations case study
Appendix six – About the audit
Appendix seven – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #333 - released 30 April 2020
Integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register
This report outlines whether the Department of Customer Service (the department) has effective controls in place to ensure the integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register (the register), and to prevent unauthorised access and misuse.
The audit found that the department has processes in place to ensure that the information entered in the register is accurate and that any changes to it are validated. Although there are controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the register, there were significant gaps in these controls. Addressing these gaps is necessary to ensure the integrity of information in the register.
The Auditor-General made nine recommendations to the department, aimed at strengthening controls to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the register. These included increased monitoring of individuals who have access to the register and strengthening security controls around the databases that contain the information in the register.
The NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages is responsible for maintaining registers of births, deaths and marriages in New South Wales as well as registering adoptions, changes of names, changes of sex and relationships. Maintaining the integrity of this information is important as it is used to confirm people’s identity and unauthorised access to it can lead to fraud or identity theft.
The NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages (BD&M) is responsible for maintaining registers of births, deaths and marriages in New South Wales. BD&M is also responsible for registering adoptions, changes of name, changes of sex and relationships. These records are collectively referred to as 'the Register'. The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (the BD&M Act) makes the Registrar (the head of BD&M) responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Register and preventing fraud associated with the Register. Maintaining the integrity of the information held in the Register is important as it is used to confirm people's identity. Unauthorised access to, or misuse of the information in the Register can lead to fraud or identity theft. For these reasons it is important that there are sufficient controls in place to protect the information.
BD&M staff access, add to and amend the Register through the LifeLink application. While BD&M is part of the Department of Customer Service, the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) manages the databases that contain the Register and sit behind LifeLink and is responsible for the security of these databases.
This audit assessed whether BD&M has effective controls in place to ensure the integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register, and to prevent unauthorised access and misuse. It addressed the following:
- Are relevant process and IT controls in place and effective to ensure the integrity of data in the Register and the authenticity of records and documents?
- Are security controls in place and effective to prevent unauthorised access to, and modification of, data in the Register?
ConclusionBD&M has processes and controls in place to ensure that the information entered in the Register is accurate and that amendments to the Register are validated. BD&M also has controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the Register. However, there are significant gaps in these controls. Addressing these gaps is necessary to ensure the integrity of the information in the Register. BD&M has detailed procedures for all registrations and amendments to the Register, which include processes for entering, assessing and checking the validity and adequacy of source documents. Where BD&M staff have directly input all the data and for amendments to the Register, a second person is required to check all information that has been input before an event can be registered or an amendment can be made. BD&M carries out regular internal audits of all registration processes to check whether procedures are being followed and to address non-compliance where required. BD&M authorises access to the Register and carries out regular access reviews to ensure that users are current and have the appropriate level of access. There are audit trails of all user activity, but BD&M does not routinely monitor these. At the time of the audit, BD&M also did not monitor activity by privileged users who could make unauthorised changes to the Register. Not monitoring this activity created a risk that unauthorised activity in the Register would not be detected. BD&M has no direct oversight of the database environment which houses the Register and relies on DCJ's management of a third-party vendor to provide the assurance it needs over database security. The vendor operates an Information Security Management System that complies with international standards, but neither BD&M nor DCJ has undertaken independent assurance of the effectiveness of the vendor's IT controls. |
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #330 - released 7 April 2020.
Managing IT Services Contracts
Neither agency (NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Police Force) demonstrated that they continued to get value for money over the life of these long term contracts or that they had effectively managed all critical elements of the three contracts we reviewed post award. This is because both agencies treated contract extensions or renewals as simply continuing previous contractual arrangements, rather than as establishing a new contract and financial commitment. Consequently, there was not a robust analysis of the continuing need for the mix and quantity of services being provided or an assessment of value for money in terms of the prices being paid.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #220 - released 1 February 2012
