Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for State Finances 2019

State Finances 2019

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

The Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford, has released her report on the State Finances for the year ended 30 June 2019.

‘I am pleased to once again report that I issued an unmodified audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements,’ the Auditor-General said.

The report acknowledges NSW Treasury and agency efforts to reduce the number and value of errors compared with the previous year. ‘Strong financial management and transparent reporting are key elements of our system of government. Treasury and agency finance teams need to be consulted on major business decisions at the time of their execution. This will ensure agencies assess the accounting implications earlier and support accurate financial statements being presented for audit on a timely basis,’ said the Auditor-General.

The report summarises the financial audit result of the Total State Sector Accounts. The Total State Sector comprises 304 entities controlled by the NSW Government with total assets of $468 billion and total liabilities of $218 billion.

The General Government sector comprises 212 entities that provide goods and services that are funded centrally by the State. General Government expenditure grew by 5.5 per cent in 2018-19, which was below the long-term revenue growth of 5.6 per cent target established by the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012.

Download PDF of State Finances 2019 report

Pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I present my Report on State Finances 2019.

Strong financial management and transparent reporting are key elements of our system of government.

I am pleased to once again report that I issued an unmodified audit opinion on the State’s consolidated financial statements. 

The number of errors in agencies’ 2018–19 financial statements fell to six compared to the 23 recorded in 2017–18. This reflects Treasury’s focus on early close and the resolution of complex accounting matters before submission. Agency finance teams need to be consulted on major business decisions and commercial transactions to assess their accounting impacts at the time of their execution, rather than at the end of a financial year. This would improve the quality of financial reporting and avoid the need for extensions for agencies to submit their financial statements for audit.

To further increase transparency, a Key Audit Matters section was included in my Independent Auditor Report on the Total State Sector Accounts this year. This explains those matters considered most significant to the conduct of the audit and requiring significant management judgement.

Looking forward, certain factors have the potential to impact the accuracy and completeness of the Total State Sector Accounts in coming years. First, three new accounting standards are effective from 1 July 2019 and a fourth from 1 July 2020. Transitioning to new standards requires significant planning and resources to ensure the impacts are appropriately assessed and accounted for. Second, the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 will be implemented in stages over three years to 2020–21. This Act is intended to focus on performance, transparency, accountability, and efficiency of financial management in the government sector. I encourage agencies to build their awareness of this important reform and ensure their alignment with the principles of the Act. 

I want to thank Treasury staff for the way they engaged with my staff in the conduct of the audit. Our partnership is critical to ensuring the quality of financial management and reporting.

Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General, 10 October 2019

Our audit opinion on the State’s 2018–19 financial statements was unmodified. There were fewer reported errors but earlier resolution of accounting matters is still required.

Our audit opinion on the State’s 2018–19 financial statements was unmodified.

This year, six errors exceeding $20 million were found in agencies’ 2018–19 financial statements that make up the State’s consolidated financial statements. The total value of these errors was $927 million compared to $3.8 billion in 2017–18. The errors identified in 2018–19 resulted from:

  • incorrectly applying Australian Accounting Standards and Treasury Policies
  • using inappropriate assumptions and inaccurate data
  • incorrectly assessing the fair value of non-current physical assets.

The introduction of mandatory ‘early close procedures’ in 2011–12, saw the number of errors in agencies’ financial statements fall progressively, to a low of five in 2015–16.

In 2016–17, Treasury narrowed the scope of its mandatory early close procedures to focus on non-current physical asset valuations and pro-forma financial statements. Following this, the number of significant errors increased to 23 in 2017–18, the

highest number in six years and similar to the numbers identified before mandatory early close procedures were introduced.

In 2018–19, Treasury and agencies’ refocused their efforts around early close procedures and other year-end processes resulting in this year’s lower error total of six.

Errors in agency financial statements exceeding $20m (2015–2019)

Correction of prior year’s reported values    

Correction of earthwork assets ($2.1 billion)

Some of the State’s earthworks were first valued in 2016–17. These included earth excavations and embankments for the Country Rail and Metropolitan Network created before the year 2000 and dating back to the early 1900s.

For many years, the State did not account for earthworks because it believed the value could not be reliably measured. In 2016–17, the State engaged an external valuer who identified a methodology showing the earthworks could be valued. That valuer performed a valuation using topography maps for the Country Rail Network (CRN) because information in this earthworks database was of poor quality and incomplete. The valuation resulted in the State recognising $7.5 billion of earthworks for the first time in 2016–17. This was disclosed as a prior period error.

Over the following years, the State improved the quality of the CRN earthworks database by engaging an engineering firm to perform more detailed earthworks surveys. The work involved the use of technology to survey most of the CRN lines.

In 2018–19, the State once again engaged an external valuer to assess the fair value of the CRN earthworks. The valuer determined that incorrect assumptions were used in the 2016–17 valuation. These primarily related to land elevations, which were corrected in the earthworks database and this resulted in a new fair value of $5.4 billion, $2.1 billion less than the previous valuation. The error reported in the 2017–18 value has been corrected in the 2018–2019 financial statements to reflect the revised value.

Previously reported value for earthworks reduced from $7.5 billion to $5.4 billion.

Correction of museum collection assets ($27 million)

The Australian Museum’s collection assets were restated by $27 million to $800 million in 2017–18.

After the 2017–18 financial statements were published, the Australian Museum identified additional collection assets that were not included in the original valuation. This resulted in a $27 million error relating to collection asset values. As last year’s valuation was based on an incomplete listing of collection assets, the 2017-18 value has been corrected in the 2018–19 financial statements to reflect the revised value.

Correction of lease liability ($46.2 million)

On 1 July 1995, the Department of Justice entered into a 25-year lease arrangement with an option to extend for a further 15 years.

The Department accounted for the arrangement as a finance lease by recognising a building asset and a corresponding finance lease liability for the period of 25 years. The Department depreciated the leased asset based on a useful life of 40 years.

As it was reasonably certain the Department would exercise the lease option at inception, it should have recognised a liability that reflected the entire 40 year lease period. To correct the prior year error and properly reflect the extended lease period, the Department of Justice increased the lease liability and decreased retained earnings by $46.2 million as at 1 July 2017.

Abuse Claims remain a significant contingent liability of the State

The State discloses a contingent liability in its financial statements when the possibility of settling the liability in the future is considered less than probable, but more likely than remote, or the amount of the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability.

If the expected settlement subsequently becomes probable and reliably estimable, a provision is recognised.

The State has numerous contingent liabilities. Some are quantifiable while others are not. As contingent liabilities are potentially material future liabilities of the State, every effort should be made to quantify these as accurately as possible. They also need to be monitored closely to ensure that they are recognised and brought on balance sheet as they crystallise.

At 30 June 2019, NSW Self Insurance Corporation (SiCorp) could not reliably measure the claims liability arising from past incidences of abuse that occurred within NSW Government institutions which have not yet been reported. These are referred to as incurred but not reported claims (IBNR).

Since 1 July 2018, victims of child sexual abuse can opt to claim compensation through the National Redress Scheme, or to lodge a civil claim. Civil claims for incidents that occurred within NSW Government institutions may be covered by SiCorp. An estimate of an IBNR for child abuse claims within SiCorp will be impacted by the extent that victims claim compensation through redress as compared to civil claims.

Recent legislative changes have added further uncertainty to estimating the extent of IBNR claims. SiCorp requires more reliable data on the number of IBNR child abuse claims and the expected average size of the related payments. As such, the liabilities presented in the SiCorp and the State financial statements do not include an allowance for IBNR abuse claims.

As more information becomes available it may be possible for SiCorp to reasonably estimate the value of abuse claim liabilities. It is possible that such an estimate may be material to SiCorp and the State’s financial statements. 

TAFE update

In prior years we reported on information system limitations at TAFE NSW, specifically relating to its student administration system. TAFE NSW continues to implement additional processes to verify the accuracy and completeness of revenue from student fees for the 2018–19 financial year.

In 2017–18 TAFE NSW started implementing a new student management system. Significant delays have occurred in implementing this system, mainly due to the complexity of integrating the vendor solution with the requirements of TAFE. TAFE will now bring the final commissioning and operation of the system in house. Final project delivery timeframes and estimated completion costs are being reviewed. Costs incurred to date amount to $67 million. The original budget for this new system is $89.4 million.

Light Rail settlement

The CBD and South East Light Rail is a new twelve kilometre light rail network for Sydney, currently under construction. Passenger trips are set to begin on the light rail by December between Circular Quay and Randwick. The second stage from Randwick to Kingsford is planned to open in March 2020. The original budget for construction work of $1.6 billion was revised to $2.1 billion in 2014.

The State Government has been in dispute with the firm responsible for delivering and operating the CBD and South East light rail project. In May 2019, the parties reached a Settlement Arrangement resulting in the State agreeing to pay a settlement amount of $576 million, which is in addition to the revised budget. Transport has advised a final cost is still to be determined following project completion.

The Audit Office has commenced a follow up audit on the CBD South East Light Rail. This audit will consider whether recommendations of our previous audit have been implemented. We will also review the current status and budget of this project.

Sydney Metro Northwest project commissioning

The Sydney Metro North West officially opened in May 2019.

In constructing the metro, some assets were built to facilitate its operation. These included pavements, roadworks, and electricity
and water connections.

When the project was completed, the assets and the responsibility for maintaining them transferred to third parties, primarily Councils and utility providers. In 2018–19, the State expensed (derecognised) the assets, valued at $306 million, because it no longer controlled them.

Financial Reporting by Crown Land Reserve Trusts

Approximately 700 reserve trusts, managed by Trust Boards, did not prepare the financial statements at 30 June 2019 as required by the
Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.

These Crown reserves contain showgrounds, cemeteries, racecourses, local parks, and other community facilities and public areas. Some of the Crown reserves have independent streams of revenue from user charges.

In 2016–17, Treasury determined that NSW cemetery trusts and a holiday park reserve trust were controlled entities of the State. As such, the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 requires them to prepare financial statements and have these audited by the Auditor-General.

In 2017–18, three reserve trusts accepted NSW Treasury’s view, prepared financial statements and had them audited by the Auditor-General.

However, three cemetery reserve trusts continue to maintain they are not controlled by the State and therefore their financial statements are not audited by the Audit Office. These cemeteries shared their unaudited financial statements with Treasury so they could be incorporated into the State’s financial statements. At 30 June 2019, the value of their combined assets and liabilities, which are not audited by the Audit Office, was $564 million.

The State included an additional $319 million in assets that relate to Crown land values of approximately 700 reserve trusts that did not prepare or submit financial statements.

We performed additional audit procedures to obtain some assurance over the value of these crown lands. The nature and extent of the limitations to the scope of these procedures was not significant enough to impact our audit opinion. Treasury should ensure these trusts comply with the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act.

Derecognition of investment in City West Housing

In 2017–18, the State had an equity investment of $680 million in a community housing provider, City West Housing Pty Limited (CWH).

During 2018–19, CWH amended its constitution to ensure alignment with its charitable status. The unintended impact of this change was that on windup the net assets would not be distributed to the State. The accounting implications to the State’s investment was not considered by Treasury at the time of approving the amended constitution. Consequently, the State wrote off its $680 million investment in CWH in 2018–19.

It is important that accounting impacts of such changes are discussed and agreed upon early. At the time of approving the decision to change the constitution, all accounting implications should be made available and understood. Such information is relevant when approving decisions. The theme of what is relevant
information will be explored further in our Performance Audit of ‘Advice on Major Decisions’.

Machinery of government (MoG) changes refers to how the government reorganises agency structures and functions and realigns ministerial responsibilities.

Cluster changes

On 2 April 2019, the Government reorganised public sector agencies into eight clusters (ten in 2017–18) with effect from 1 July 2019.

Prior to 30 June 2019, two subsequent administrative arrangement orders were made to amend and finalise the MoG changes.

The key MoG changes included:

  • abolishing the following five departments:
    • Finance, Services and Innovation
    • Industry
    • Planning and Environment
    • Family and Communities
    • Justice
  • transferring their functions into three new departments:
    • Department of Customer Service
    • Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
    • Department of Communities and Justice
The State’s consolidated financial statements at 30 June 2019 were not impacted by the changes, as they were effective from 1 July 2019.

The chart below shows the cluster arrangements before and after the MoG changes to the General Government Sector. It compares total budgeted expenses presented in the 2018–19 and 2019–20 Budget Papers (1).

Each cluster’s share of the General Government Sector’s (GGS) total expenditure remains relatively unchanged after the MoG changes. Further details on other functions transferred between clusters are detailed in the 2019–20 Budget Papers.

Of the clusters, Education is affected most by the MoG changes from the perspective of increased expenditure in the 2019–20 budget. This is because the TAFE Commission transferred into this cluster from the former Department of Industry on 1 July 2019, resulting in a corresponding decrease in the new Planning, Industry and Environment cluster’s expenditure.

(1) The 2018–19 Budget Paper 3 (unaudited) and 2019–20 Budget Paper 3 (unaudited).

Cluster expenses

2018-19
Before MoG Changes

2019-20
After MoG Changes

Industry 6% Planning, Industry and Environment 7%
Planning and Environment 4%
Education 18% Education 21%
Premier and Cabinet 1% Premier and Cabinet 2%
Finance, Service and Innovation 4% Customer Service 3%
Family and Community Services 8% Stronger Communities 18%
Justice 10%
Transport 9% Transport 9%
Treasury 14% Treasury 14%
Health 26% Health 26%

 

$1.2 billion surplus, $0.2 billion below 2018–19 budget of $1.4 billion

The Total State Sector comprises 304 entities controlled by the 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 2018 to 2019?

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 accordance 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 New South Wales.

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 5.5 per cent in 2018–19 (5.1 per cent in 2017–18 based on restated balances). This was slightly below 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 2018–19, the State made employer contributions of $1.73 billion ($1.67 billion in 2017–18), an increase of $64 million or 3.8 per cent ($52 million or 3.2 per cent in 2017–18). This was under the five per cent target by $19.5 million.

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

Using this method, the State’s unfunded superannuation liability was $13.2 billion at 30 June 2019 ($14.0 billion).

Superannuation funding position since inception of the Act - AASB 1056 Valuation

State revenues fell $604 million to $86.1 billion in 2018–19    

In the prior years, revenue growth was underpinned by cyclical increases in land tax, payroll tax and one-off large stamp duty receipts from the lease of the State’s electricity network assets. In 2018–19, the State’s revenue fell by $604 million to $86.1 billion ($86.7 million in 2017–18).

Taxation revenue remained relatively stable

Taxation revenue only grew slightly, mainly due to:

  • a $517 million increase in payroll tax from NSW wages growth
  • a $469 million increase in land tax from growth in land values
  • offset by a $1.2 billion decrease in stamp duty due to lower than expected growth in the property market. This decrease would have been higher had the State not received $555 million in stamp duty from the new 51 per cent owner of WestConnex.

The gap between payroll tax and stamp duty reduced significantly in 2018–19. Stamp duty still remains the largest source of revenue for the State at $9.2 billion, only $42 million above payroll tax.

Australian Government grants and subsidies

The State received $31.8 billion in grants and subsidies from the Australian Government, $158 million less than the previous year. This was due to falls in other grants and subsidies of $98 million and GST revenues of $48 million.

GST revenues fell due to weaker growth in national consumption expenditure and a smaller GST pool. The GST pool represents funds made available by the Commonwealth for transfer to the States as untied financial assistance. The allocation of GST is determined by the Commonwealth, not the State.

A $392 million decrease in National Partnership Payments was offset by a $380 million increase in Specific Purpose Payments.
 
In 2018–19, sales of goods and services fell $395 million mainly due to the sale of WestConnex.

Other dividends and distributions fell by $122 million due to lower distributions from associates. This reflected weaker performance in the electricity sector (Ausgrid and Endeavour) resulting in lower distributions paid to the State following changes in the Electricity Network Service Providers regulatory environment and the sale of Snowy Hydro Pty Ltd in 2017–18.

Fines, regulatory fees and other revenues increased by $242 million largely from mineral royalties. The increase was attributed to strong demand across Asian markets for coal exports, which the State expects will continue to experience steady growth.

Expenses increased $4 billion to $87.9 billion in 2018–19    

Overall, the State’s expenses increased 4.8 per cent in 2018–19 compared to 2017–18. Most of the increase was due to higher employee expenses, operating costs and grants and subsidies.

Employee expenses, including superannuation, increased by 3.9 per cent to $40.3 billion.

Salaries and wages increased to $40.3 billion in 2018–19 from $38.8 billion 2017–18. This was mainly due to salary and wage increases. 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 6.1 per cent from 2017–18.

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

  • increased operating costs associated with the commencement of the new Sydney Metro
  • higher operating activity levels experienced in the Health sector resulting in higher visiting medical officer costs, surgical supplies and information management costs
  • higher school operating expenses in Education, mainly relating to teaching cloud tools and purchase of computer equipment.
Health costs remain the highest expense of the State.

The following clusters have the highest expenses as a percentage of total government expenses:

  • Health - 25.8 per cent (24.6 per cent in 2017–18)
  • Education - 20 per cent (18.5 per cent)
  • Transport - 14.7 per cent (17.6 per cent).

Other, mainly relates to Economic Affairs, Housing and Community, Recreation and Culture functions of the State.

Transport expenses have decreased in 2018–19 mainly due to the sale of WestConnex. This is partially offset by costs associated with the new Sydney Metro, which commenced operations from 1 July 2018. The graph highlights annual expenditure by function in 2018–19 compared to 2017–18.

Grants and subsidies increased by $782 million to $11.7 billion.

This was mainly due to:

  • the $239 million Emergency Drought Relief Package
  • a $226 million increase in funding to the Human Services sector to deliver key election commitments, including 5,000 more nurses and midwives
  • $123 million in funding for sporting facilities and creating NSW Centre's of Excellence.

Assets grew by $26.7 billion to $468 billion in 2018–19    

Overall, the States total assets increased by $26.7 billion to $468 billion in 2018–19. This is a six per cent increase compared to 2017–18. Most of this was due to increases in carrying value of the State’s physical assets and investments.

Valuing the State's physical assets

The State’s physical assets were valued at $352 billion at 30 June 2019.

The State’s physical assets include land and buildings ($166 billion) and infrastructure ($168 billion). The value of the State’s physical assets at 30 June 2018 was restated from $339 billion to $337 billion. The restatement was required to correct errors in the fair value of earthworks previously reported at $7.5 billion and subsequently corrected to $5.4 billion.

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. The State’s physical assets increased by $15.2 billion compared with 2017–18.

Movement in the State's physical assets

Liabilities increased $28.6 billion to $217.5 billion in 2018–19    

The State relies on actuarial assessments to value its liabilities

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 balances in the financial statements, such as a lower discount rate.

Superannuation obligations rose by $14.3 billion.

The State’s $70.7 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 rose by $14.3 billion from $56.4 billion at 30 June 2018 to $70.7 billion at 30 June 2019. This was mainly due to a lower discount rate.

Borrowings totalled $79.9 billion at 30 June 2019.

The State’s borrowings of $79.9 billion at 30 June 2019 were $8.6 billion higher than they were 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.

Implementing the requirements of new accounting standards will be challenging

Risks to the quality and timeliness of financial reporting

The State and its agencies will be implementing the requirements of new accounting standards shortly. These are likely to have a major impact on the financial positions and operating results of agencies across the sector.

Accounting standards require agencies to assess and disclose where possible, the impact of the new standards in their 2018–19 financial statements.

Our review found agencies needed to do more work on their impact assessments to minimise the risk of errors in the financial statement disclosures. Some agencies disclosed that the new standards would not have a material impact on their reported financial position and performance, but had little evidence to support this.

Each agency is unique and implementing the new standards is not straight forward as many new principles apply. Management judgement is needed to interpret how the principles apply to each agency. As a result, agencies face the following risks and challenges:

  • having the required technical skills in house
  • having accurate data to assess the impacts
  • correctly and consistently interpreting the new requirements
  • adequately planning and preparing for their application
  • implementing new systems to capture the information needed to meet the new reporting obligations.

To help agencies implement the new standards consistently across the sector, Treasury:

  • issued guidance to agencies
  • prepared position papers on proposed accounting treatments
  • provided briefing sessions to agencies
  • mandated which option in the new standards agencies had to adopt on transition.

Key dates

Section 45 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 requires the Auditor-General to perform audits of the financial statements of entities prescribed for the purposes of that section.
The following were prescribed entities as at 30 June 2019:

Entity/Fund Latest financial statements audited Type of audit opinion issued
Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust 30 June 2019 Unmodified
AustLII Foundation Limited 31 December 2018 Unmodified
Belgenny Farm Agricultural Heritage Centre Trust 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The Brett Whiteley Foundation 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Buroba Pty Ltd 30 June 2018* Unmodified
C. B. Alexander Foundation 30 June 2018 Unmodified
City West Housing Pty Ltd 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The Commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation 30 June 2019 N/A (a)
Cowra Japanese Garden Maintenance Foundation Limited 31 March 2019 Unmodified
Cowra Japanese Garden Trust 31 March 2019 Unmodified
Crown Employees (NSW Fire Brigades Firefighting Staff Death and Disability) Superannuation Fund 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Eif Pty Limited 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Energy Investment Fund 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Central Coast Council Water Supply Authority (formerly Gosford City and Wyong City Council Water Supply Authorities) 30 June 2018 Unmodified
Home Building Compensation Fund 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The funds for the time being under the management of the New South Wales Treasury Corporation, as trustee 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute Limited 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The Legal Services Council 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Macquarie University Professorial Superannuation Scheme 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Planning Ministerial Corporation 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Corporation Sole 'Minister administering the Heritage Act 1977' (a corporation) 30 June 2019 Unmodified
National Art School 31 December 2018 Unmodified
NSW Fire Brigades Superannuation Pty Limited 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Sydney Education Broadcasting Limited 31 December 2018 Unmodified
The superannuation fund amalgamated under the Superannuation Administration Act 1991 and continued to be amalgamated under the Superannuation Administration 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Act 1996 (known as the SAS Trustee Corporation Pooled Fund) 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The trustees for the time being of each superannuation scheme established by a trust deed as referred to in section 127 of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 30 June 2019 Unmodified
The Art Gallery of New South Wales Foundation 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Trustee of the Home Purchase Assistance Fund 30 June 2019 Unmodified
Trustees of the Farrer Memorial Research Scholarship Fund 31 December 2018 Unmodified
United States Studies Centre 31 December 2018 Unmodified
Universities Admissions Centre (NSW and ACT) Pty Limited 30 June 2018 Unmodified
University of Sydney Professorial Superannuation System 31 December 2018 Unmodified
Valley Commerce Pty Ltd 30 June 2018* Unmodified
     
(a) Included as part of the Legal Services Council.
*Entities exempt from preparing financial statements at 30 June 2019.
aa


 

Published

Actions for Local Government 2018

Local Government 2018

Local Government
Financial reporting

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on the Local Government sector. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the 2017-18 financial audits of 135 councils in New South Wales and the 2016-17 audit of Bayside Council. The report also includes commentary on three performance audits published in 2018.

Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the 2017-18 financial statements of 135 councils. The audit opinion for Bayside Council’s 2016–17 financial statements was disclaimed as management were unable to confirm that the financial statements present fairly the performance and position of the Council. A further 24 councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements. Three audits are still in progress and will be included in next year’s report.

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of local councils for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key observations and recommendations.

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

This chapter outlines our financial reporting audit observations across councils for 2018.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
2.1 Quality of financial reporting

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 135 out of 138 council's financial statements. The audits of three councils are in progress.

Three councils, with previously qualified audit opinions, resolved those issues during 2017–18.

Sufficient audit evidence was obtained to conclude the financial statements for 135 councils were free of material misstatement.

A disclaimed audit opinion was issued for Bayside Council’s 30 June 2017 financial statements as management were unable to confirm that the financial statements present fairly the performance and position of the Council.

We were unable to obtain enough evidence to support the financial results reported.

Bayside Council did not resolve all issues related to the former councils, resulting in a disclaimed audit opinion.

The 30 June 2018 financial audits reported:

  • 7 high-risk and 85 moderate-risk findings on financial reporting processes
  • financial statement adjustments for 60 prior period errors totalling $2.4 billion
  • 512 corrected and uncorrected errors totalling $1.4 billion. Most of these errors related to infrastructure, property, plant and equipment (IPPE).
Our audits continue to identify opportunities to improve the quality of councils’ financial reporting.
We reported 95 instances in our management letters where councils could be better prepared for the upcoming changes to accounting standards. To help councils implement the new standards, the Office of Local Government is running workshops, developing guidance and mandating options with the new standards for councils to adopt on transition.
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting
One hundred and eleven councils lodged their 30 June 2018 audited financial statements to the Office of Local Government by the statutory deadline. Eleven more councils submitted financial statements on-time compared with the prior year.
Almost half of councils performed early financial reporting procedures including valuing IPPE before 30 June 2018. Councils performing early financial reporting procedures improved the timeliness of their financial reporting.


 

Strong governance systems and internal controls reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and delivering services to ratepayers.

This chapter outlines the overall trends for council controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies. Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present heightened risks for councils to address.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
3.1 Internal controls
The 30 June 2018 financial audits reported 83 high-risk findings. Recommendation: Councils should reduce risk by addressing high-risk findings as a priority.
Thirty-nine of these high-risk findings related to information technology. See Chapter 4. Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting.
Several internal control findings were common across councils. There may be opportunities for councils to work together to address common findings through Joint Organisations or other avenues.
3.2 Governance
Ninety-seven councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (85 at 30 June 2017). Proposed legislative changes will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021.
Ninety-two councils have an internal audit function (86 at 30 June 2017). It is envisaged that the Local Government Act 1993 will require the establishment of an internal audit function in each council to support the work of the audit, risk and improvement committee.
Eighty-three councils do not have a legislative compliance policy and 94 councils do not have a legislative compliance register. Councils can improve their monitoring of compliance with key laws and regulations.
Eighteen councils do not have a risk management policy and 38 councils do not have a risk register. Risk is better managed when there is a fit-for-purpose risk management framework, register and policy to outline how risks are identified and managed.
Most councils have a procurement policy, a manual, and are providing training to relevant staff. Only 34 per cent of councils have a contract management policy. Councils with effective procurement and contract management reduce risks of error and fraud and achieve better outcomes for ratepayers.

Councils increasingly rely on information technology (IT) to deliver services and manage information. While IT delivers considerable benefits, it also presents risks that council needs to address.

Our audits reviewed whether councils have effective governance and controls in place to manage key financial systems and IT service providers. This chapter summarises the following IT findings:

  • governance
  • IT general controls
  • managing service providers.
Observation Conclusion or recommendation
4.1 Governance
Ninety-four councils have not formalised all policies which manage key information technology (IT) processes. Of those policies that are formalised, 78 are not reviewed to ensure they are up to date. A lack of IT policies increases the risk of inappropriate and inconsistent practices.
Sixty-five councils do not register their IT risks and 44 councils do not regularly report IT risks to management and those charged with governance. Risks that are not communicated to senior management and those charged with governance may not be assessed and managed appropriately.
4.2 IT general controls
Most internal control deficiencies related to information technology processes and control environment. Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting.
4.3 Managing service providers
Seventy-two councils outsource at least one IT function to a third-party service provider. Of these:
  • 26 councils did not have a complete and accurate list of IT service providers engaged, along with the corresponding services provided
  • 49 councils did not perform an adequate risk assessment before engaging the IT service provider
  • 51 councils did not have clearly defined key performance indicators (KPI) in the Service Level Agreements (SLA) with the IT service provider
  • 36 councils did not periodically assess the performance of the IT service provider.
Councils can more effectively manage IT service provider by:
  • maintaining inventory of IT service providers and services they provide
  • identifying and addressing risks
  • including KPIs in SLAs
  • monitoring performance.

Councils are responsible for planning and managing a significant range of assets on behalf of the community. This chapter outlines our asset management observations across councils for 2018.

Observation Conclusion and recommendation
5.1 Asset management planning
All but six councils have an asset management strategy, policy and plan. However, 11 councils have not reviewed their asset management strategy, policy and plan in the last five years. Recommendation: Councils’ asset management policy, strategy and plan should comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines issued by the Office of Local Government.
We found 86 instances where asset management strategies, policies and plans do not comply with the essential elements in the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines released by the Office of Local Government.  
5.2 Asset valuation process
Our audits found:
  • 38 instances where councils did not reassess the fair value of assets with sufficient regularity
  • 24 instances where councils did not review valuation results.
Deficiencies in the asset valuation process can result in significant errors to the financial statements.
The deficiencies in the asset valuation process resulted in errors in financial statements of $2.6 billion, including $1.9 billion of prior period errors.  
We also identified:
  • 63 councils did not perform an annual review of the useful lives of their assets as required by Australian Accounting Standards
  • considerable variability in the useful lives of asset classes, such as road across councils
  • 16 councils with residual values for assets that are not expected to attract sales proceeds upon disposal, which is contrary with Australian Accounting Standards.
Depreciation may not be accurately recorded in the financial statements. It may also impact key sustainability indicators reported by the council.
5.3 Asset management systems
Our audits identified 64 instances where councils:
  • maintained multiple asset registers
  • had inaccurate or incomplete registers on uncontrolled manual spreadsheets
  • did not reconcile asset registers with the general ledger.
Weaknesses in asset management systems can impact the accuracy and completeness of asset data, resulting in errors to the financial statements.

Our audits identified discrepancies between the Councils' Crown land asset records and the Crown Land Information Database (CLID) managed by the NSW Department of Industry.

Five councils corrected $225 million of previously unrecorded Crown land assets.

Councils should regularly reconcile asset registers to the CLID and investigate discrepancies to ensure Crown land under their care and control is captured.
5.4 Rural fire-fighting equipment

Inconsistent practices remain across the Local Government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment.

A number of councils do not record rural fire-fighting equipment, meaning that a significant portion of rural fire-fighting equipment continues to not be recorded in either State or council financial records.

The Office of Local Government should continue to address the different practices across the Local Government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment. In doing so, the Office of Local Government should continue to work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole of-government approach.

Asset overview

Councils own and manage a diverse range of assets to deliver services to the community. As at 30 June 2018, the combined carrying value of NSW council assets was $140 billion.

Strong and sustainable financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to community needs.

This chapter outlines our audit observations on the performance of councils against the Office of Local Government's (OLG) performance indicators.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
6.1 Operating performance and revenue measures 
Nineteen amalgamated councils received significant one-off grant funding in 2016–17. In 2017–18:
  • 8 amalgamated councils reported a negative operating performance (three in 2016–17)
  • 14 amalgamated councils met the own source revenue benchmark (eight in 2016–17).
The overall operating performance and revenue measures in 2017–18 for amalgamated councils were impacted by lower operational grant income.
Thirty-five of the 56 rural councils did not meet the benchmark for own source revenue (41 in 2016–17). The ability to generate own source revenue remains a challenge for rural councils. Rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets covering large areas, less ratepayers and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources compared with metropolitan councils.
6.2 Liquidity and working capital performance measures
Most councils met the liquidity and working capital performance measures over the last two years. Most councils:
  • can meet short-term obligations as they fall due
  • have sufficient operating cash available to service their borrowings
  • are collecting rates and annual charges levied
  • have the capacity to cover more than three months of operating expenses.
Nineteen additional councils would not meet the cash expense cover ratio benchmark when externally restricted funds are excluded. Councils with a higher proportion of restricted funds have less flexibility to pay operational expenses than the cash expense cover ratio suggests.

Each local council has unique characteristics such as its size, location and services provided to their communities. These differences may affect the nature of each council's assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses,and in turn the financial performance measures against which it reports.

The Office of Local Government prescribes performance indicators for council reporting.

The analysis in this chapter is based on performance measures prescribed in OLG’s Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (the Code).

Council’s audited financial statements report performance against six financial sustainability measures.

Operating performance and revenue measures

Operating performance
 
Measures how well councils keep operating expenses within operating revenue
 
Own source operating revenue Measures council’s fiscal flexibility and the degree to which it can generate own source revenue compared with the total revenue from all sources
 

Liquidity and working capital measures

Unrestricted current ratio Measures a council’s ability to meet its short-term obligations as they fall due
 
Debt service cover ratio Measures the operating cash to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments
Rates and annual charges outstanding percentage Assesses how successful councils are in collecting rates and annual charges
Cash expense cover ratio Estimates the number of months a council can continue paying its expenses without additional cash inflow
Building and infrastructure renewals ratio Assesses the rate at which infrastructure assets are being renewed against the rate at which they are depreciating
Infrastructure backlog ratio Shows the amount of infrastructure backlog expenditure relative to the total net book value of a council's infrastructure assets
Asset maintenance ratio Compares a council’s actual asset maintenance expenditure to the amount planned in their asset management plans
Cost to bring assets to agreed service level Compares the estimated cost to renew or rehabilitate existing infrastructure assets, that have reached the condition-based intervention level adopted by a council, to the gross replacement cost of all infrastructure assets

Each audited measure and three of the four unaudited measures has a prescribed benchmark.

 

 

Auditor‑General’s Report to Parliament
Report on Local Government 2018

15 April 2019

 

Executive Summary

The second point ‘Governance’ under point 3 ‘Governance and internal controls’ on page 2 should read:

There has been an increase in the number of councils with an audit, risk and improvement committee or an internal audit function compared with the prior year. Seventy per cent of councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (62 per cent at 30 June 2017) and 67 per cent of councils have an internal audit function (62 per cent at 30 June 2017).

 

Chapter 3 Governance and Internal Controls

The two observations under 3.2 Governance on page 21 should read:

Ninety-seven councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (85 at 30 June 2017).

Ninety-two councils have an internal audit function (86 at 30 June 2017).

 

Section 3.2 Governance on page 26 should read:

Twelve more councils established audit, risk and improvement committees during 2017–18 resulting in 97 councils having committees.

Six more councils established an internal audit function during 2017–18 resulting in 92 councils having an internal audit function.

 

Appendix three: Status of 2017 recommendations

Under the heading ‘Governance and internal controls’ on page 62, the two points in the right-hand column should read:

Twelve more councils established audit, risk and improvement committees during 2017–18 resulting in 97 councils having committees. Please refer to Section 5.2 for more details.

Six more councils established an internal audit function during 2017–18 resulting in 92 councils having an internal audit function.

 

The above changes are reflected on the Audit Office website, and should be considered the true and accurate version.

Published

Actions for Property Asset Utilisation

Property Asset Utilisation

Finance
Asset valuation
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Project management

Property NSW’s effectiveness in managing NSW Government owned and leased commercial office property is limited in three areas according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford.

At 30 June 2018, the NSW Government owned $160 billion worth of land and buildings. The NSW Treasury predicts this figure will rise over the coming years. Property NSW manages more than 900 leased office properties across the state. Approximately 250 of these are owned by Property NSW. Other NSW Government agencies maintain ownership and control of properties considered essential for service provision, such as schools, prisons and hospitals. Between 2012–13 and 2017–18 sales of property assets across the whole of the NSW Government have raised $10 billion, of which Property NSW has sold property assets of approximately $2 billion.

In September 2012, the Property Asset Utilisation Taskforce (the Taskforce) released its report on ‘real property asset management across government’ and concluded that the government has accumulated, over time, ‘a real property asset portfolio it cannot afford to maintain or protect’. The Taskforce noted that ‘a lack of centralised information seriously inhibits any whole-of-government strategic asset planning’ and that maintaining under-utilised or unnecessary properties diverted funds from areas where they might be better used. The Taskforce’s key findings included:

  • the NSW Government should own property only as a means to deliver or enhance services
  • many government properties were under-utilised, poorly maintained and inappropriate to support service delivery.

The Taskforce recommended the creation of Property NSW, as a replacement for the State Property Authority, to improve property asset utilisation and to drive efficiencies in the government’s owned and leased property portfolio. Property NSW was to achieve these goals by:

  • collating property information across the whole-of-government
  • working with agencies on longer-term strategic real property asset planning to:
    • provide services to agencies as customers
    • bring a whole-of-government perspective to real property asset planning.

In response to the Taskforce report, in December 2012, the Premier's Memorandum M2012-20 (the Memorandum) established Property NSW to improve the management of the NSW Government's owned and leased real property portfolio.

Under the Memorandum, Property NSW is responsible for:

  • management of all leased and owned commercial office accommodation
  • acting as the central acquisition and disposal agency 
  • providing advice to the government on property matters and developing property policy 
  • conducting regular and ongoing reviews of agencies portfolios, working with agencies to identify efficiencies to improve service delivery, in relation to the review of capital planning1
  • maintaining the register of all government owned property.

The Memorandum states that ownership of all commercial office property should be vested in Property NSW. 

This audit assessed whether Property NSW is effective in the management of NSW Government owned and leased commercial office property. To do this we assessed whether NSW Government leased commercial office space is being effectively utilised and whether the Government Property Register, a register of all government owned property, is accurate and up-to-date.

Conclusion
Property NSW’s effectiveness in managing NSW Government owned and leased commercial office property is limited in three areas.
First, Property NSW has not comprehensively reviewed many agency property portfolios to help agencies identify assets, including commercial office properties, that could be better utilised or recycled. Second, the Government Property Register is not being actively maintained and contains incomplete and inaccurate information, limiting Property NSW’s ability to use it to support strategic decisions about the use of government property assets. Third, Property NSW's decisions are not well documented and its processes to reach decisions are not transparent to stakeholders. That said, property utilisation has improved by about 14 per cent since 2012, and Property NSW is actively moving properties out of the Sydney CBD in line with the ‘Decade of Decentralisation’ policy.
Property NSW’s role is to provide a strategic approach to property asset management. Under the 2012 Premier’s Memorandum, this includes a requirement that Property NSW undertake regular reviews of agency property portfolios to identify efficiencies to improve service delivery. Property NSW completed one comprehensive review of an agency, limited reviews of four other agencies, and some reviews of government property in regional towns, prior to 2017.

In December 2017, Property NSW started working across the NSW Government to help agencies identify real property assets, including commercial office properties, that are under-utilised or surplus and that could be recycled, repurposed, or vested to Property NSW.
Following the Memorandum, agencies were directed to vest their commercial office properties to Property NSW. However, without more comprehensive reviews, Property NSW does not know how many commercial properties are yet to be vested. Agencies can approach Property NSW for assistance in managing their property portfolios, and Property NSW arranges the recycling of under utilised and surplus properties that are brought to its attention. Property NSW is improving utilisation of government office space, according to agency self-reported information which Property NSW uses to calculate utilisation rates. 
The Property Asset Utilisation Taskforce report (2012) recommended that the NSW Government needed a ‘single source of truth’ to inform asset retention and disposal decisions, leasing decisions and ongoing strategic property decisions. It concluded that the Government Property Register (GPR) could perform this function ‘if populated appropriately’. However, the GPR is not comprehensively performing this function because it is still incomplete and out of date. Property NSW manages the GPR and NSW Government agencies are required to supply ‘accurate, relevant and useful information’ to populate it. Agencies are not always doing so in a timely manner, limiting its usefulness to support strategic decision making. Property NSW supplements the GPR with information from multiple other sources to assist its decisions, however, there is still no single, complete and accurate picture of the NSW Government property portfolio. 
The work Property NSW does to identify, shortlist and propose new lease and agency relocation options is not well documented. Property NSW records the outcome of the process without detailing how and why decisions were made. There is limited transparency in this process for stakeholders. Record keeping is also inconsistent and many of Property NSW’s divisions do not have procedures or guidelines.

1 Capital Planning was previously referred to as Total Asset Management (TAM).

In December 2017, the NSW Government announced the Property Infrastructure Policy to create a more collaborative approach between Property NSW and NSW Government agencies to review and identify efficiencies in their property portfolios. Before this, Property NSW did not have a plan to assist agencies to identify under-utilised properties for recycling or repurposing. It still does not know how many under-utilised properties exist and will not know until it has completed all of the portfolio reviews it is currently carrying out under the Property Infrastructure Policy.
Between 2013 and 2017, Property NSW had only completed one comprehensive review of an agency, limited reviews of four other agencies, and some regional towns. Outside this process Property NSW chose to rely on other agencies to identify surplus property for recycling, repurposing or vesting ownership to Property NSW.
Property NSW has a role to provide a strategic approach to property asset management and is required to undertake regular reviews of agency property portfolios under the Premier's Memorandum. Property NSW only recently started working to assist agencies to identify under-utilised and surplus properties, or properties to be vested. These reviews should improve the identification of surplus and under-utilised real property assets and assist whole-of-government decisions on the recycling, repurposing of under-utilised assets and vesting of owned office accommodation to Property NSW.
Recommendations
By December 2019, Property NSW should:
  1. combine the results of property portfolio reviews to produce a whole-of-government picture of the NSW Government property portfolio 
  2. devise a strategy and plan to recycle or repurpose under-utilised properties using a whole-of-government picture of the NSW Government property portfolio
  3. develop and report on indicators for progress in reducing the number and value of under-utilised properties at the whole-of-government level, referencing progress against an accurate baseline stocktake.
Property NSW needs to be more proactive in its management of the GPR and in encouraging agencies to provide the information needed to improve this register. In 2012, the Property Asset Utilisation Taskforce report recommended there be a single source of truth on property assets owned by the NSW Government. The GPR is intended to fulfil this role but it is out of date and incomplete.
Without a complete and accurate central register of property, Property NSW cannot provide the NSW Government with a comprehensive picture of its property portfolio, or make whole-of-government decisions about the property portfolio. Property NSW currently supplements the GPR with information from other systems in order to make decisions about leasing, relocations, and property recycling and repurposing. Agencies are required to provide ‘accurate, relevant and useful information’ but are not consistently doing so.
Recommendations
By December 2019, Property NSW should:

4. improve the data held on government owned and leased properties by combining and automating data feeds to construct a single, consolidated and accurate whole-of-government property data set.
Property NSW documents the outcome of decisions about relocations, lease renewals, and utilisation but is unable to provide evidence of how these decisions are reached. Property NSW is also unable to provide evidence of documented guidance for its staff on how decisions should be made. Whilst some level of subjectivity will play a part in such decisions, the lack of documentation and guidance raises issues of consistency, accountability and transparency in decision-making. Property NSW states that it makes decisions based on whole-of-government outcomes rather than equitable and consistent outcomes for client agencies, which is inconsistent with the criteria it reports that it uses when making decisions about leases and relocations.
Recommendations
By December 2019, Property NSW should:

5. document and communicate to stakeholders how its assessment criteria inform key decisions including agency relocations, lease renewals and rectifying under-utilisation
6. include customer satisfaction measures in its annual reports and reviews, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Premier's Memorandum M2012-20
7. improve record-keeping and compliance with the State Records Act 1998 and the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation Records Management Policy.

Published

Actions for Central Agencies 2018

Central Agencies 2018

Treasury
Premier and Cabinet
Finance
Financial reporting
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on 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. While clear audit opinions were issued on all agency financial statements, the report notes that some complex accounting requirements caused significant errors in agency financial statements submitted for audit, which were corrected before the financial statements were approved. 

This report analyses the results of our audits of the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet and Finance, Services and Innovation cluster agencies for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key observations.

This report provides parliament and other users of the NSW Government's central agencies and their cluster agencies financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

  • financial reporting
  • audit observations
  • liquidity risk management
  • government financial services.

The central agencies and their key responsibilities are set out below.

Central agencies Key central agency responsibilities Cluster responsibilities
The Treasury
  • Financial and economic advisor to NSW Government
  • Manages the NSW Government’s financial resources.

The cluster:

  • provides investment and debt management services though TCorp
  • manages residual business arising from privatisation of government businesses
  • provides insurance and compensation cover, including workers compensation insurance
  • includes NSW Government superannuation funds.
Department of Premier and Cabinet
  • Drives NSW Government’s objectives and sets targets
  • Works with clusters to coordinate policy and achieve NSW Government priorities.

The cluster:

  • includes integrity agencies, such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Audit Office of NSW and Ombudsman’s Office
  • other agencies, such as Barangaroo Delivery Authority and Infrastructure NSW.
Department of Finance, Services and Innovation
  • Supports agency service delivery in relation to the key enabling functions of NSW Government, including procurement, property and asset management, ICT and digital innovation.

The cluster:

  • is responsible for state revenue and rental bond administration
  • regulates statutory insurance schemes, workplace safety and consumer protection
  • provides access to a range of NSW Government services via Service NSW
  • manages the NSW Government communications network.
Public Service Commission
  • Works to promote and maintain a strong ethical culture across the government sector and improve the capabilities, performance and configuration of the sector’s workforce to deliver better services to the public.
  • The Public Service Commission is an independent agency within the Premier and Cabinet cluster.

Note: The Audit Office of NSW is an independent agency included in the Premier and Cabinet cluster for administrative purposes, but not commented on in this report.


A full list of agencies that this report covers by relevant cluster is included in Appendix three.

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

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet and Finance, Services and Innovation clusters for 2018.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
2.1 Quality of financial reporting
Unqualified opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements submitted to the Audit Office.

Complex accounting requirements caused significant errors in some agency financial statements, which were corrected before the financial statements were approved.
Sufficient audit evidence was obtained to conclude the financial statements were free of material misstatement.
Recommendation: Agencies should respond to key accounting issues when they are identified by preparing accounting papers and engaging with Treasury, the Audit Office and their Audit and Risk Committee when these matters are identified.
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting
Most agencies complied with the statutory timeframe for completion of early close procedures, 48 agencies in the Treasury cluster did not comply with the statutory requirement to prepare financial statements, and the audits of nine agencies in the Treasury cluster were not completed within the statutory timeframe.
All financial statement information of the 48 agencies that did not prepare financial statements has been captured in the consolidated financial statements of their parent entity, which was subject to audit.
Early close procedures allow financial reporting issues and risks to be addressed early in the audit process. The timeliness of financial reporting can be improved by performing more robust early close procedures.

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

This chapter outlines our observations and insights from:

  • our financial statement audits of agencies in the Treasury, Premier and Cabinet and Finance, Services and Innovation cluster for 2018
  • the areas of focus identified in the Audit Office work program.

The Audit Office work program provides a summary of all audits to be conducted within the proposed time period as well as detailed information on the areas of focus for each of the NSW Government clusters.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
3.1 Internal controls
The 2017–18 audits found one high risk issue and 83 moderate risk issues across the agencies. Nineteen per cent of all issues were repeat issues. Agencies should focus on rectifying repeat issues.
The high risk issue at Service NSW related to several deficiencies in procurement and contract management processes. Service NSW may not be achieving value-for-money
from their procurement and contract management activities. The high risk issue should be rectified as a matter of priority. This includes updating and implementing its procurement, vendor and contract management frameworks and delivering training to key staff involved in procurement and contract management activities.
Property NSW has implemented several controls during the year to rectify the high risk issue identified last year related to its transition to a new property and facility management service provider. However, the service providers performance remains below expectations and there are further opportunities to improve oversight and lift performance. Property NSW can better define roles and accountabilities with the service provider and formalise policies and processes associated with its monitoring and oversight of the service provider.

Implementing relevant KPIs, receiving timely reports and providing timely review and feedback to the service provider may help to lift performance.
GovConnect received unqualified opinions from their service auditor on all business process controls, except for information technology controls provided by Unisys, where a qualified opinion was received from the service auditor. A qualified opinion was received because of several deficiencies in user access controls. These internal control deficiencies increase the risk of unauthorised access to key business systems, and increase audit effort and costs associated with addressing the risks arising from the deficiencies.
3.2 Audit Office annual work program

Remediation of the Barangaroo site is now estimated to cost the Barangaroo Delivery Authority in excess of net $400 million.
 
The increase in the estimate over the last five years is mainly due to the extent of remediation required, as more evidence of contamination has become known.

Measuring the remaining costs to remediate requires the use of estimation techniques and judgements, making the actual outcome inherently uncertain. We reviewed evidence to support the provision for remediation, including future costs estimates and this evidence supported management’s estimate.
The State Insurance Regulatory Authority have administered the refund of $138 million in Green slip refunds to policy holders through Service NSW during 2017–18. At 30 June 2018, $112 million in refunds are yet to be claimed.
 
We reviewed the systems and processes supporting the refund process. While we found that this supports the disbursement of refunds to policyholders there were some deficiencies in Service NSW’s project controls when the program was being developed.

 
Service NSW should apply the lessons learnt from this program to other programs it is delivering or will be delivering for agencies.
Revenue NSW recorded $30.4 billion from taxes, fines and fees in 2017–18 ($30.0 billion in 2016–17) to support the State’s finances. 
 
Crown revenue has steadily increased over the last five years predominately driven by rises in payroll tax and land tax and responsibility for collection of the Emergency Services Levy transferring to Revenue NSW under the Emergency Services Levy Act 2017 effective from July 2017. 
3.3 Managing maintenance
Place Management NSW manages significant commercial and retail leases and maintains public domain spaces and other assets around the harbour foreshore. It has consistently underspent its asset maintenance budget. In 2017–18, asset maintenance expenses were only 34 per cent of budgeted maintenance expense.

Currently, Place Management NSW does not use any ratios or benchmarks to determine the adequacy of its maintenance spend or to monitor whether it is achieving its budgeted maintenance program. 
This may be contributing to a high proportion of unplanned maintenance, which Place Management NSW reports was 38 per cent of total maintenance expense in 2017–18.

Place Management NSW is outsourcing its property and facilities management function from 1 December 2018 to an external service provider. 
 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations specific to NSW Government agencies providing financial services.

Observation Conclusions and recommendation
5.1 Superannuation funds
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). 
However, legislation allows the responsible Minister to prescribe prudential standards, reporting and audit requirements. 
Structured and comprehensive prudential oversight of these Funds is important as they operate in a volatile financial sector, have 103,000 members and manage investments of $43.3 billion.
Recommendation: Treasury should consult with the Trustees of the STC Pooled Fund and PCS Fund to prescribe appropriate prudential standards and requirements, including oversight arrangements.
5.2 Insurance and compensation
Nominal Insurer and NSW Self Insurance Corporation investment performance marginally exceeded benchmark over the past five years. Investment returns can impact on the premiums required to maintain an adequate funding ratio in addition to other factors such as claims experience and discount rates.
The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (Nominal Insurer) and NSW Self Insurance Corporation's net collected premiums and contributions decreased over the past five years.  The insurance schemes' investment performance and stable claim payments have enabled less reliance on net collected premiums and contributions as a source of funding, over the past five years. 
Reforms were introduced to manage the Home Warranty Scheme's financial sustainability risks.  The Home Warranty Scheme has not collected sufficient premiums to fund expected claims costs, since commencing operations in 2011. In 2017–18, the Crown contributed $181 million for historical shortfalls. New reforms started on 1 January 2018 enabling the Scheme to price premiums based on risk. 

Published

Actions for Internal Controls and Governance 2018

Internal Controls and Governance 2018

Education
Community Services
Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Whole of Government
Environment
Compliance
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

The Auditor-General for New South Wales Margaret Crawford found that as NSW state government agencies’ digital footprint increases they need to do more to address new and emerging information technology (IT) risks. This is one of the key findings to emerge from the second stand-alone report on internal controls and governance of the 40 largest NSW state government agencies.

This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 40 largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2018.

This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2017–18 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at the 40 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector.

This report offers insights into internal controls and governance in the NSW public sector

This is our second report dedicated to internal controls and governance at NSW State Government agencies. The report provides insights into the effectiveness of controls and governance processes in the NSW public sector by:

  • highlighting the potential risks posed by weaknesses in controls and governance processes
  • helping agencies benchmark the adequacy of their processes against their peers
  • focusing on new and emerging risks, and the internal controls and governance processes that might address those risks.

Without strong governance systems and internal controls, agencies increase the risks associated with effectively managing their finances and delivering services to citizens. The way agencies deliver services increasingly relies on contracts and partnerships with the private sector. Many of these arrangements deliver front line services, but others provide less visible back office support. For example, an agency may rely on an IT service provider to manage a key system used to provide services to the community. The contract and service level agreements are only truly effective where they are actively managed to reduce risks to continuous quality service delivery, such as interruptions caused by system outages, cyber security attacks and data security breaches.

Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present heightened risks for agencies to mitigate. This report divides these into the following five areas:

  1. Internal control trends
  2. Information technology (IT), including IT vendor management
  3. Transparency and performance reporting
  4. Management of purchasing cards and taxis
  5. Fraud and corruption control.

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 2018 cluster financial audit reports, which will be tabled in Parliament from November to December 2018.

The focus of the report has changed since last year

Last year's report topics included asset management, ethics and conduct, and risk management. We are reporting on new topics this year. We plan to introduce new topics and re-visit our previous topics in subsequent reports on a cyclical basis. This will provide a baseline against which to measure the NSW public sectors’ progress in implementing appropriate internal controls and governance processes to mitigate existing, new and emerging risks in the public sector.

Agencies selected for the volume account for 95 per cent of the state's expenditure

While we have covered only 40 agencies in this report, those selected are a large enough group to identify common issues and insights. They represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.

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

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

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 presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
2.1 High risk findings
We found six high risk findings (seven in 2016–17), one of which was repeated from both last year and 2015–16. Recommendation: Agencies should reduce risk by addressing high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority.
2.2 Common findings
We found several internal controls and governance findings common to multiple agencies. Conclusion: Central agencies or the lead agency in a cluster can play a lead role in helping ensure agency responses to common findings are consistent, timely, efficient and effective.
2.3 New and repeat findings
Although internal control deficiencies decreased over the last four years, this year has seen a 42 per cent increase in internal control deficiencies. The increase in new IT control deficiencies and repeat IT control deficiencies signifies an emerging risk for agencies.
IT control deficiencies feature in this increase, having risen by 63 per cent since last year. The number of repeat IT control deficiencies has doubled and is driven by the increasing digital footprint left by agencies as government prioritises on-line interfaces with citizens, and the number of transactions conducted through digital channels increases

Recommendation: Agencies should reduce IT risks by:

  • assigning ownership of recommendations to address IT control deficiencies, with timeframes and actions plans for implementation
  • ensuring audit and risk committees and agency management regularly monitor the implementation status of recommendations.

 

Government agencies’ financial reporting is now heavily reliant on information technology (IT). IT is also increasingly important to the delivery of agency services. These systems often provide the data to help monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of agency processes and services they deliver. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place to manage both key financial systems and IT service contracts.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
3.1 Management of IT vendors
Contract management framework 
Although 87 per cent of agencies have a contract management policy to manage IT vendors, one fifth require review.
 

Conclusion: Agencies can more effectively manage IT vendor contracts by developing policies and procedures to ensure vendor management frameworks are kept up to date, plans are in place to manage vendor performance and risk, and compliance with the framework is monitored by:

  • internal audit focusing on key contracting activities
  • experienced officers who are independent of contract administration performing spot checks or peer reviews
  • targeted analysis of data in contract registers.
Contract risk management
Forty-one per cent of agencies are not using contract management plans and do not assess contract risks. Half of the agencies that did assess contract risks, had not updated the risk assessments since the commencement of the contract.
 
Conclusion: Instead of applying a 'set and forget' approach in relation to management of contract risks, agencies should assess risk regularly and develop a plan to actively manage identified risks throughout the contract lifecycle - from negotiation and commencement, to termination.

Performance management
Eighty-six per cent of agencies meet with vendors to discuss performance. 

Only 24 per cent of agencies sought assurance about the accuracy of vendor reporting against KPIs, yet sixty-seven per cent of the IT contracts allow agencies to determine performance based payments and/or penalise underperformance.

Conclusion: Agencies are monitoring IT vendor performance, but could improve outcomes and more effectively manage under-performance by:

  • a more active, rigorous approach to both risk and performance management
  • checking the accuracy of vendor reporting against those KPIs and where appropriate seeking assurance over their accuracy
  • invoking performance based payments clauses in contracts when performance falls below agreed standards.

Transitioning services
Forty-three per cent of the IT vendor contracts did not contain transitioning-out provisions.

Where IT vendor contracts do make provision for transitioning-out, only 28 per cent of agencies have developed a transitioning-out plan with their IT vendor.

Conclusion: Contract transition/phase out clauses and plans can mitigate risks to service disruption, ensure internal controls remain in place, avoid unnecessary costs and reduce the risk of 'vendor lock-in'.
Contract Registers
Eleven out of forty agencies did not have a contract register, or have registers that are not accurate and/or complete.

Conclusion: A contract register helps to manage an agency’s compliance obligations under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act). However, it also helps agencies more effectively manage IT vendors by:

  • monitoring contract end dates and contract extensions, and commence new procurements through their central procurement teams in a timely manner
  • managing their contractual commitments, budgeting and cash flow requirements.

Recommendation: Agencies should ensure their contract registers are complete and accurate so they can more effectively govern contracts and manage compliance obligations.

3.2 IT general controls
Governance
Ninety-five per cent of agencies have established policies to manage key IT processes and functions within the agency, with ten per cent of those due for review.
 
Conclusion: Regular review of IT policies ensures risks are considered and appropriate strategies and procedures are implemented to manage these risks on a consistent basis. An absence of policies can lead to ad-hoc responses to risks, and failure to consider emerging IT risks and changes to agency IT environments. 

User access administration
Seventy-two deficiencies were identified related to user access administration, including:

  • thirty issues related to granting user access across 43 per cent of agencies
  • sixteen issues related to removing user access across 30 per cent of agencies
  • twenty-six issues related to periodic reviews of user access across 50 per cent of agencies.
Recommendation: Agencies should strengthen the administration of user access to prevent inappropriate access to key systems.
Privileged access
Forty per cent of agencies do not periodically review logs of the activities of privileged users to identify suspicious or unauthorised activities.

Recommendation: Agencies should:

  • review the number of, and access granted to privileged users, and assess and document the risks associated with their activities
  • monitor user access to address risks from unauthorised activity.
Password controls
Twenty-three per cent of agencies did not comply with their own policy on password parameters.
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure IT password settings comply with their password policies.
Program changes
Fifteen per cent of agencies had deficient IT program change controls mainly related to segregation of duties and authorisation and testing of IT program changes prior to deployment.
Recommendation: Agencies should maintain appropriate segregation of duties in their IT functions and test system changes before they are deployed.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations from our review of how agencies reported their performance in their 2016–17 annual reports. The Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Regulation 2015 and Annual Reports (Departments) Regulation 2015 (annual reports regulation) currently prescribes the minimum requirements for agency annual reports.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
4.1 Reporting on performance

Only 57 per cent of agencies linked reporting on performance to their strategic objectives.

The use of targets and reporting performance over time was limited and applied inconsistently.

Conclusion: There is significant disparity in the quality and consistency of how agencies report on their performance in their annual reports. This limits the reliability and transparency of reported performance information.

Agencies could improve performance reporting by clearly linking strategic objectives to reported outcomes, and reporting on performance against targets over time. NSW Treasury may need to provide more guidance to agencies to support consistent and high-quality performance reporting in annual reports.

There is no independent assurance that the performance metrics agencies report in their annual reports are accurate.

Prior performance audits have noted issues related to the collection of performance information. For example, our 2016 Report on Red Tape Reduction highlighted inaccuracies in how the dollar-value of red tape reduction had been reported.

Conclusion: The ability of Parliament and the public to rely on reported information as a relevant and accurate reflection of an agency's performance is limited.

The relevance and accuracy of performance information is enhanced when:

  • policies and guidance support the consistent and accurate collection of data
  • internal review processes and management oversight are effective
  • independent review processes are established to provide effective challenge to the assumptions, judgements and methodology used to collect the reported performance information.
4.2 Reporting on reports

Agency reporting on major projects does not meet the requirements of the annual reports regulation.

Forty-seven per cent of agencies did not report on costs to date and estimated completion dates for major works in progress. Of the 47 per cent of agencies that reported on major works, only one agency reported detail about significant cost overruns, delays, amendments, deferments or cancellations.

NSW Treasury produce an annual report checklist to help agencies comply with their annual report obligations.

Recommendation: Agencies should comply with the annual reports regulation and report on all mandatory fields, including significant cost overruns and delays, for their major works in progress.

The information the annual reports regulation requires agencies to report deals only with major works in progress. There is no requirement to report on completed works.

Sixteen of 30 agencies reported some information on completed major works.

Conclusion: Agencies could improve their transparency if they reported, or were required to report:

  • on both works in progress and projects completed during the year
  • actual costs and completion dates, and forecast completion dates for major works, against original and revised budgets and original expected completion dates
  • explanations for significant cost overruns, delays and key project performance metrics.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency preventative and detective controls over purchasing card and taxi use for 2017–18.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
5.1 Management of purchasing cards
Volume of credit card spend
Purchasing card expenditure has increased by 76 per cent over the last four years in response to a government review into the cost savings possible from using purchasing cards for low value, high volume procurement.
 
Conclusion: The increasing use of purchasing cards highlights the importance of an effective framework for the use and management of purchasing cards.
Policy framework
We found all agencies that held purchasing cards had a policy in place, but 26 per cent of agencies have not reviewed their purchasing card policy by the scheduled date, or do not have a scheduled revision date stated within their policy.
Recommendation: Agencies should mitigate the risks associated with increased purchasing card use by ensuring policies and purchasing card frameworks remain current and compliant with the core requirements of TPP 17–09 'Use and Management of NSW Government Purchasing Cards'.
Preventative controls
We found that:
  • all agencies maintained purchasing card registers
  • seventy-six per cent provided training to cardholders prior to being issued with a card
  • eighty-nine per cent appointed a program administrator, but only half of these had clearly defined roles and responsibilities
  • thirty-two per cent of agencies place merchant blocks on purchasing cards
  • forty-seven per cent of agencies place geographic restrictions on purchasing cards.

Agencies have designed and implemented preventative controls aimed at deterring the potential misuse of purchasing cards.

Conclusion: Further opportunities exist for agencies to better control the use of purchasing cards, such as:

  • updating purchasing card registers to contain all mandatory fields required by TPP17–09
  • appointing a program administrator for the agency's purchasing card framework and defining their role and responsibility for the function
  • strengthening preventive controls to prevent misuse.

Detective controls
Ninety-two per cent of agencies have designed and implemented at least one control to monitor purchasing card activity.

Major reviews, such as data analytics (29 per cent of agencies) and independent spot checks (49 per cent of agencies) are not widely used.

Agencies have designed and implemented detective controls aimed at identifying potential misuse of purchasing cards.

Conclusion: More effective monitoring using purchasing card data can provide better visibility over spending activity and can be used to:

  • detect misuse and investigate exceptions
  • analyse trends to highlight cost saving opportunities.
5.2 Management of taxis
Policy framework
Thirteen per cent of agencies have not developed and implemented a policy to manage taxi use. In addition:
  • a further 41 per cent of agencies have not reviewed their policies by the scheduled revision date, or do not have a scheduled revision date
  • more than half of all agencies’ policies do not offer alternative travel options. For example, only 36 per cent of policies promoted the use of general Opal cards.
Conclusion: Agencies can promote savings and provide more options to staff where their taxi use policies:
  • limit the circumstances where taxi use is appropriate
  • offer alternate, lower cost options to using taxis, such as general Opal cards and rideshare.
Detective controls
All agencies approve taxi expenditure by expense reimbursement, purchasing card and Cabcharge, and have implemented controls around this approval process. However, beyond this there is minimal monitoring and review activity, such as data monitoring, independent spot checks or internal audit reviews.
Conclusion: Taxi spend at agencies is not significant in terms of its dollar value, but it is significant from a probity perspective. Agencies can better address the probity risk by incorporating taxi use into a broader purchasing card or fraud monitoring program.

 

Fraud and corruption control is one of the 17 key elements of our governance lighthouse. Recent reports from ICAC into state agencies and local government councils highlight the need for effective fraud control and ethical frameworks. Effective frameworks can help protect an agency from events that risk serious reputational damage and financial loss.

Our 2016 Fraud Survey found the NSW Government agencies we surveyed reported 1,077 frauds over the three year period to 30 June 2015. For those frauds where an estimate of losses was made, the reported value exceeded $10.0 million. The report also highlighted that the full extent of fraud in the NSW public sector could be higher than reported because:

  • unreported frauds in organisations can be almost three times the number of reported frauds
  • our 2015 survey did not include all NSW public sector agencies, nor did it include any NSW universities or local councils
  • fraud committed by citizens such as fare evasion and fraudulent state tax self-assessments was not within the scope of our 2015 survey
  • agencies did not estimate a value for 599 of the 1,077 (56 per cent) reported frauds.

Commissioning and outsourcing of services to the private sector and the advancement of digital technology are changing the fraud and corruption risks agencies face. Fraud risk assessments should be updated regularly and in particular where there are changes in agency business models. NSW Treasury Circular TC18-02 NSW Fraud and Corruption Control Policy now requires agencies develop, implement and maintain a fraud and corruption control framework, effective from 1 July 2018. 

Our Fraud Control Improvement Kit provides guidance and practical advice to help organisations implement an effective fraud control framework. The kit is divided into ten attributes. Three key attributes have been assessed below; prevention, detection and notification systems.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency fraud and corruption controls for 2017–18.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
6.1 Prevention systems

Prevention systems
Ninety-two per cent of agencies have a fraud control plan in place, 81 per cent maintain a fraud database and 79 per cent report fraud and corruption matters as a standing item on audit and risk committee agendas.

Only 54 per cent of agencies have an employment screening policy and all agencies have IT security policies, but gaps in IT security controls could undermine their policies.

Conclusion: Most agencies have implemented fraud prevention systems to reduce the risk of fraud. However poor IT security along with other gaps in agency prevention systems, such as employment screening practices heightens the risk of fraud and inappropriate use of data.

Agencies can improve their fraud prevention systems by:

  • completing regular fraud risk assessments, embedding fraud risk assessment into their enterprise risk management process and reporting the results of the assessment to the audit and risk committee
  • maintaining a fraud database and reviewing it regularly for systemic issues and reporting a redacted version of the database on the agency's website to inform corruption prevention networks
  • developing policies and procedures for employee screening and benchmarking their current processes against ICAC's publication ‘Strengthening Employment Screening Practices in the NSW Public Sector’
  • developing and maintaining up to date IT security policies and monitoring compliance with the policy.
Twenty-three per cent of agencies were not performing fraud risk assessments and some agency fraud risk assessments may not be as robust as they could be.  Conclusion: Agencies' systems of internal controls may be less effective where new and emerging fraud risks have been overlooked, or known weaknesses have not been rectified.
6.2 Detection systems
Detection systems
Several agencies reported they were developing a data monitoring program, but only 38 per cent of agencies had already implemented a program.
 

Studies have shown data monitoring, whereby entire populations of transactional data are analysed for indicators of fraudulent activity, is one of the most effective methods of early detection. Early detection decreases the duration a fraud remains undetected thereby limiting the extent of losses.

Conclusion: Data monitoring is an effective tool for early detection of fraud and is more effective when informed by a comprehensive fraud risk assessment.

6.3 Notification systems
Notification system
All agencies have notification systems for reporting actual or suspected fraud and corruption. Most agencies provide multiple reporting lines, provide training and publicise options for staff to report actual or suspected fraud and corruption.
Conclusion: Training staff about their obligations and the use of fraud notification systems promotes a fraud-aware culture

 

Published

Actions for State Finances 2018

State Finances 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General
19 October 2018

 

The State's financial statements given a clear audit opinion


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

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

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

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

The errors identified this year were the result of:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.

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

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

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

Risks to the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.


Challenges associated with valuing the State's physical assets.

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

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

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

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

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


STARTING OUT

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

MANAGEMENT'S ROLE

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

USING EXPERTS

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

WHAT ABOUT INTERVENING YEARS?

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

COMMUNICATION

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

 

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

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

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

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


 

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


The Total State Sector comprises 304 entities controlled by NSW Government

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

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

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

WHAT CHANGED FROM 2017 TO 2018?

$4.2b

2017-18 General Government Budget Result

Changes in revenues compared to 2016-17

   
Financial_performance_red_10x10cm_0.pngDividends and distributions

 

Due to: 

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

2.4b

+1.3b

3.7b

 

   
Financial_performance_red_10x10cm_0.pngTaxation

 

Due to: 

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

30.8b

+537m

31.3b

 

   
Greek pantheon style front of building Grants & Subsidies

 

 Due to:

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

31.4b

+509m

31.9b

 

   
red shopping tagsSale of Goods and services

 

Includes: 

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

8.2b

+349m

8.5b

5.5b

-185m

5.3b

Other revenues

Changes to expenses compared to 2016-17

   
institution_red_10x10cm_0.pngRecurrent Grants & Subsidies

 

Due to: 

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

12.6b

+1.3b

13.9b

 

   
group_red_10x10cm_0.pngEmployee costs

 

Due to: 

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

34.9b

+1.2b

36.1b

 

   
red cogs with a dollar sign in the middleOther operating expenses

 

Includes: 

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

18.3b

+1.4b

19.7b

6.8b

+103m

6.9b

Other expenses

 

$5.7b

2016-17 General Government Budget Result

The State maintained its AAA credit rating.


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

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

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

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

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

THE FISCAL TARGETS FOR ACHIEVING THIS OBJECTIVE ARE:

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

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

Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.

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

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

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

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


 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$

83.5b

+3.9%

86.7b

Total Revenue

Key revenues include:

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
red gavel

35.4b

+2.8

36.3b

Taxation, Fees, Fines, and other
institution_red_10x10cm_0.png

31.4b

+1.6

31.9b

Grants & Subsidies
tags_red_10x10_0.png

14.1b

+8.1

15.2b

Sale of Goods and Services

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


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

$

79.3b

+6.1%

84.2b

Total Expenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key expenses include:

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
group_red_10x10cm_0.png

32.8b

+3.8

34.1b

Employee Expenses
Financial_controls_red_10x10cm_0.png

21.6b

+7.8

23.3b

Operating Costs
institution_red_10x10cm_0.png

9.7b

+12.7

10.9b

Grants & Subsidies
down arrow red

7.2b

+6.6

7.6b

Depreciation
red briefcase

4.6b

+2.8

4.7b

Superannuation Expense

Health costs remain the highest expense of the State.

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

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

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

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

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


Valuing the State’s physical assets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$

407b

+8.7%

443b

Total Assets

Key assets include: 

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

147.0b

+9.0

160.2b

Infrastructure
factory red

143.4b

+12.7

161.6b

Land and Buildings
Financial Assets      
scales of justice red

27.7b

- 4.6

26.4b

Equity investments
Financial_performance_red_10x10cm_0.png

20.6b

- 5.2

19.5b

Cash and Recievables
red pillar building - partheon

40.5b

+6.5

41.3b

Investments and Placements

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


Valuing the State’s liabilities relies on actuarial assessments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$

184b

+2.8%

189b

Total Liabilities

Key liabilities include: 

  2016-2017 Change% 2017-2018  
briefcase_red_10x10cm_0.png

58.6b

- 3.7

56.4b

Unfunded Superannuation
group_red_10x10cm_0.png

18.3b

+4.7

19.1b

Other Employee Benefits
institution red - pantheon style building

70.6b

+1.0

71.3b

Borrowings

Published

Actions for Report on Local Government 2017

Report on Local Government 2017

Local Government
Asset valuation
Information technology
Internal controls and governance

Under section 421C of the Local Government Act 1993, I am pleased to present our first report on the statutory financial audits of councils, to NSW Parliament.

My appointment as the auditor of local government in New South Wales is the most significant change to the Auditor-General's mandate in nearly three decades.

Moving to the new audit arrangements over the past 18 months has been challenging but rewarding. It has confirmed my appreciation of local government – a sector passionate about the community and focused on delivering local services. 

The unique relationship each council has with its community differentiates it from other tiers of government.

Our audits
I am pleased to report that we completed 139 out of 140 financial statement audits for the 2016–17 audit cycle. The remaining council received an extension to lodge its financial statements.

We have also released a performance audit report on council reporting on service delivery. We will soon release another report on fraud controls in local councils and a report on council shared services later this year. 

  • While the new audit mandate brings immense responsibility, my office has embraced the challenges involved and the objectives that NSW Parliament gave us: 
  • strengthening governance and financial oversight in local government
  • providing greater consistency in external audit
  • ensuring reliable financial information is available to assess council performance
  • improving financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability in how councils use citizens’ funds.

This report
This report is rich in data extracted from the results of the 2016–17 financial audits. For the first time, it presents a consistent view of financial performance across the New South Wales local government landscape. The report also provides guidance and includes recommendations to councils and the Office of Local Government aimed at strengthening financial reporting, asset management, governance and internal controls.

The report will help NSW Parliament understand the common challenges that councils face. It provides points of comparison for councils and signposts matters that will be the focus of future audits. Importantly, this report and the data visualisation that accompanies it, provides comprehensive and accessible information to citizens regarding the management and performance of their councils.

I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of councils throughout the audit process and our partnerships with the contract audit firms that helped us to deliver the audits. Together we can learn from each other and work towards improving outcomes for the community.  

1.    Introduction
Local government sector NSW has 140 councils: 128 local councils serving a geographic area and 12 county councils formed for a specific purpose. 
We completed audits of 139 councils' 2016–17 financial statements and eight councils' 2015–16 financial statements. Bayside Council received a lodgement extension from the Office of Local Government (OLG) and has not yet presented their 2016–17 financial statements for audit.
Service delivery Each council provides a range of services, influenced by population density, demographics, the local economy, geographic and climatic characteristics. These differences influence the financial profile of councils.
2.    Financial reporting
Quality of financial reporting

The overall quality of financial reporting needs to improve:

  • we issued modified (qualified) audit opinions on the financial statements of three councils in 2016–17 and one council and one water authority in 2015–16
  • we reported 39 significant matters to 29 councils. They related to material accounting issues and significant deficiencies in internal controls
  • twenty-two councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements
  • moderate risk issues were identified in financial statement preparation processes for 43 councils.

    OLG guidance for council year-end financial reporting needs to align with Australian Accounting Standards and be issued earlier.

Timeliness of financial reporting Timeliness of financial reporting needs to improve. Forty councils required lodgement extensions past the 31 October 2017 statutory reporting deadline.
3.    Financial performance and sustainability
Operating revenue Eighteen councils operating expenses exceed current operating revenue.
Fifty-nine councils do not meet OLG’s target of 60 per cent for own source operating revenue.
Liquidity and working capital Most councils have sufficient liquidity and working capital. However, there are indicators that:
  • three councils may not have the ability to meet short-term obligations as measured by the unrestricted current ratio
  • two councils may not have sufficient operating cash available to service debt as measured by the debt service cover ratio
  • eighteen councils do not meet the OLG benchmark for the collection of rates and annual charges 
  • five councils may not have sufficient cash to continue paying expenses without additional cash inflows as measured by the cash expense cover ratio.
Asset management measures Reporting against OLG’s asset management performance measures highlights that councils need to consider whether spending on existing infrastructure assets is sufficient to ensure they continue to meet service delivery standards:
  • seventy councils are not renewing assets in line with the rate of their depreciation
  • eighty-four councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark for managing the infrastructure maintenance backlog
  • seventy-one councils are not maintaining their assets in accordance with their asset management plans. 
4.    Asset management
High risk issues We reported ten high risk issues relating to councils’ asset management and accounting practices.
Asset reporting The accuracy of asset registers requires improvement and all assets need to be reported in the financial statements.
At 30 June 2017, 62 councils did not record all rural fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. A large proportion of rural fire-fighting equipment is not reported in either State government or local government financial statements.
Asset valuation We reported seven high risk matters related to asset valuations, including two that resulted in qualified audit opinions.
Asset useful life estimates We identified that accounting for the useful lives of similar assets varied across councils, resulting in variable depreciation expense for these assets.
In addition, the useful lives of assets need to be reviewed annually. This review should be supported by current condition assessments.
Asset policy and planning Thirteen councils do not have an asset management strategy, policy and plan, as required by the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.
5.    Governance and internal controls
High risk issues We reported 17 high risk issues relating to governance, financial accounting, purchasing and payables and payroll matters.
Governance There is currently no requirement for councils to have an audit, risk and improvement committee and internal audit function. Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee and 52 councils do not have an internal audit function.
The Office of Local Government has incomplete information on the number of entities established by councils. There is no financial reporting framework for the variety of entities established by councils.
Councils can strengthen policies and procedures to support critical business processes, practices for risk management and compliance with key laws and regulations.
Internal controls Councils can improve internal controls over manual journals, reconciliations, purchasing and payables and payroll.
6.    Information technology
High risk issues We reported nine high risk issues relating to information technology.
Access to IT systems Controls over user access to IT systems need to be strengthened.
Information Technology governance IT governance benefits from appropriate policies, standards and guidelines across all critical IT processes. We identified that:
  • around one in four councils do not have an IT strategy or operational plan 
  • half of NSW councils have an IT security policy
  • seventeen councils do not have a documented plan to recover from a disaster.

 

Accurate and timely financial statements are an important element of sound financial management. They bring accountability and transparency to the way councils use public resources. Our financial audits assessed the following aspects of councils’ financial reporting:

  • quality of financial reporting
  • timeliness of financial reporting.
Observation Conclusion or recommendation
2.1 Quality of financial reporting

Qualified audit opinions
We issued unmodified audit opinions on the: 

  • 2016–17 financial statements of 136 councils and two water authorities 
  • 2015–163 financial statements for seven councils and two water authorities.
The councils that received unmodified audit opinions prepared financial statements that fairly present their financial position and results. 

We issued modified (qualified) opinions on the:

  • 2016–17 financial statements of three councils 
  • 2015–16 financial statement of one council and one water authority.

Councils with modified opinions should address the issues that give rise to the audit qualification.

Significant audit matters
We reported 39 significant matters in 29 councils. They included material accounting issues and significant deficiencies in internal controls. Seventy-seven per cent of the matters related to assets.
 
Significant issues with the quality of financial reporting delayed the completion of a number of audits. 
Improving the reporting on assets should be a priority. 
 
Prior period errors
We found 33 material errors worth $9.1 billion in the previous audited financial statements of 
22 councils. These all required prior-year audited balances to be corrected. Eighty eight per cent of these were asset related.
 
The high number of asset-related prior-period errors reinforces the need for councils to improve the way they value and account for assets.
Financial statements
We reported 43 moderate risk findings where councils can improve the way they complete their financial statements.
Recommendation
Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by reviewing their financial statements close processes to identify areas for improvements.
 
Of the councils that had an audit, risk and improvement committee, 55 per cent of these did not review the financial statements before audit. Recommendation
Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by involving an audit, risk and improvement committee in the review of financial statements.
 
OLG guidance
To support councils in preparing 30 June 2017 financial statements, OLG issued guidance documents in June 2017 and September 2017. This limited the time councils had to prepare financial statements in the prescribed form and resolve financial reporting and audit issues. 
Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should release the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and the End of Year Financial Reporting Circular earlier in the audit cycle, ideally by 30 April each year.
 
The Code applicable for the 2016–17 financial reporting period provided options and guidance that in some instances did not fully align with Australian Accounting Standards. Recommendation
The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting should align with Australian Accounting Standards.
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting
Statutory deadlines
One hundred councils submitted audited financial statements to OLG by the statutory deadline of 31 October 2017.
Thirty-nine councils received reporting extensions up to 28 February, including 16 of the 20 newly amalgamated councils.
Bayside Council received a reporting extension to 31 May 2018 and has not yet presented their financial statements for audit.
 
Councils need to improve their financial reporting processes in order to lodge their financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline.
Early close procedures
Councils currently do not use early close procedures to resolve accounting issues before the end of the financial year.
Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should introduce early close procedures with an emphasis on asset valuations.

3 The Auditor‑General was appointed statutory auditor of eight councils for the 2015–16 reporting period at the specific request of councils, due to the failure by councils to appoint an auditor, or the inability of the previous auditor to complete the audit due to external investigation or auditor retirement.

Strong and sustainable financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to the needs of their community. This chapter outlines our audit observations on the performance of councils against the Office of Local Government's (OLG) performance indicators, grouped in three areas:

  • operating revenue performance measures
  • liquidity and working capital performance measures
  • asset management performance measures.

Our analysis indicates that some councils face challenges in meeting these performance and sustainability measures.

Observations Conclusions
3.1 Operating revenue performance measures

Operating performance
Operating expenses for 18 councils exceeded their operating revenue.

Another 20 councils would not have met OLG’s operating performance benchmark without the receipt of 2017–18 financial assistance grants which was recorded as revenue during 2016–17.

Eleven councils have not met OLG’s operating performance benchmark for the last three years.

It is important that councils have financial management strategies that support their financial sustainability and ability to meet OLG’s operating performance benchmark over the long term.
Operating performance measures how well councils contain operating expenses within operating revenue. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than zero.  

Own source operating revenue
Fifty-nine councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark, and 42 of those were rural councils.

Rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets that cover large areas with smaller populations and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources compared with metropolitan councils.
Own source operating revenue measures a council’s fiscal flexibility and the degree to which it can generate revenue from own sources compared with total revenue from all sources. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of more than 60 per cent of total revenue.  
3.2 Liquidity and working capital performance measures

Unrestricted current ratio
All but three councils met OLG’s benchmark.

Most councils can meet short-term obligations as they fall due.
The unrestricted current ratio represents a council’s ability to meet its short-term obligations as they fall due. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 1.5 times.  

Debt service cover ratio
All but two councils met OLG’s benchmark. These two councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark due to the early repayment of borrowings.

Regional councils have 56 per cent of the value of all borrowings in the sector.

Most councils have sufficient operating cash available to service their borrowings.

Regional councils borrow more heavily than metropolitan councils to deliver water and sewerage infrastructure. Metropolitan councils do not have the responsibility to provide water and sewerage infrastructure.

The debt service cover ratio measures the operating cash available to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than two times.  

Rates and annual charges outstanding
Eight rural, five regional, three metropolitan and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark.

These councils also did not meet the infrastructure backlog ratio.

Most councils are collecting rates and annual charges levied. Councils with higher levels of uncollected rates and charges can experience increased pressure on the working capital available to fund operations.
The rates and annual charges outstanding measure assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on a council’s liquidity and the adequacy of debt recovery efforts. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of less than five per cent for metropolitan and less than ten per cent for other councils.  

Cash expense cover ratio
Three rural and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark.

Most councils have the capacity to cover more than three months of operating expenses.
The cash expense cover ratio indicates the number of months a council can continue paying its expenses without additional cash inflows. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than three months.  

This measure does not exclude externally and internally restricted funds. If externally restricted funds are excluded, all councils would still meet OLG’s benchmark. If both externally and internally restricted funds are excluded:

  • an additional 32 councils would have a cash expense cover ratio of less than three months
  • a further nine councils are left without any unrestricted funds for general operations.
Councils with a higher proportion of restricted funds may have less flexibility to pay operational expenses than the cash expense cover ratio suggests. However, councils can resolve to lift internal restriction if required.

3.3. Asset management performance measures (not audited)

Building and infrastructure renewals ratio
Seventy councils reported to OLG they do not meet the benchmark for this ratio.

Most councils included expenditure related to work-in-progress in calculating this ratio. OLG are of the view that work-in-progress should be excluded and as a result identified that a further 23 councils do not meet the benchmark.

These councils appear to not be renewing assets in line with the rate they are depreciating them. This raises questions as to whether council asset management plans are adequate to determine whether assets are being kept up to agreed standards.

Uncertainty on the inclusion of work-in-progress assets does need to be is clarified in order to ensure consistency in determining whether councils are adequately renewing their assets.

The building and infrastructure renewals ratio represents the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 100 per cent.  

Infrastructure backlog ratio
Eighty-four councils reported to OLG that they do not meet the benchmark for this ratio.

These councils may not be maintaining their infrastructure backlog at a manageable level.
The infrastructure backlog ratio represents the proportion of infrastructure backlog relative to the total net book value of a council's infrastructure assets. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of less than two per cent.  

Asset maintenance ratio
Seventy-one councils reported to OLG they do not meet the benchmark for this ratio

These councils’ maintenance expenditure may be insufficient to sustain their assets in a functional state so they reach their predicted useful life.
The asset maintenance ratio represents the rate at which assets are being maintained relative to the rate at which they are required to be maintained. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 100 per cent.  

Costs to bring assets to agreed service level
One-hundred and two councils reported results against this indicator to OLG. The reported results ranged from 0.1 per cent to 19.8 per cent.

There is variability between councils in the amount of outstanding renewal works to be completed.
This ratio represents the estimated cost to renew or rehabilitate existing infrastructure assets that have reached the condition-based interval level adopted by a council, relative to the gross replacement cost of all infrastructure assets. OLG has not prescribed a benchmark for this performance measure.  

OLG’s benchmarks for financial performance and sustainability

Each local council has unique characteristics such as its size, location and services provided to their communities. These differences affect the nature of each council's assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses, and in turn the financial performance measures against which it reports.

The Office of Local Government prescribes performance indicators for council reporting

The analysis in this chapter is based on performance measures prescribed in OLG’s Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (the Code). Councils report against these measures in their annual report, which includes the audited financial statements and other unaudited information. In the audited financial statements, councils report performance against six financial sustainability measures:

  • operating performance
  • own source operating revenue
  • unrestricted current ratio
  • debt service cover ratio
  • rates and annual charges outstanding percentage
  • cash expense cover ratio.

Councils also include the unaudited Special Schedule 7 'Report on Infrastructure Assets' in their annual reports. In this schedule, councils report to OLG on performance against four further measures:

  • building and infrastructure renewals ratio
  • infrastructure backlog ratio
  • asset maintenance ratio
  • cost to bring assets to agreed service level.

Each audited measure and three of the four unaudited measures has a prescribed benchmark. OLG’s benchmarks are the same for metropolitan, regional, rural and county councils, with the exception of the rates and annual charges outstanding percentage. Regional, rural and county councils have a different benchmark to metropolitan councils for this measure.

Three rural councils did not meet three of the audited OLG benchmarks

Most councils met OLG’s benchmarks for at least five or all of the six audited performance measures. Eight rural, four regional, four metropolitan and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmarks for two out of the six audited performance measures. Three rural councils did not meet OLG’s benchmarks for three out of the six audited performance measures.

The following table summarises how the councils performed across the six audited performance measures.

Number of OLG benchmarks met by councils   Number of councils  
Metropolitan Regional Rural County
6 12 12 29 5
5 17 21 17 5
4 4 4 8 2
3 -- -- 3 --
Not available* 1 -- -- --
Total 34 37 57 12

* The financial statements for Bayside Council are not yet presented for audit.
Source: Audited Financial Statements for 2016–17.

Appendix ten lists the performance of each council against all performance measures.

NSW councils own and manage a significant range of assets, including infrastructure, property, plant and equipment with a total value of $136 billion.

Many of the issues that our local government audits identified related to asset management. This chapter discusses some of the asset accounting issues we found, focusing on five areas:

  • overall asset management issues
  • asset registers
  • asset valuation
  • recognition and asset useful life estimates
  • asset policy and planning.
Observations Conclusion or recommendation
4.1 High risk issues

Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance
Our 2016–17 audits identified ten high risk issues related to the accuracy of asset registers, restricted assets and asset revaluations.

High risk issues affect council’s ability to maintain their assets in the condition required to deliver essential services.
4.2 Asset reporting

Accuracy of asset registers
Our audits identified instances where councils had multiple asset registers, inaccurate or incomplete registers, unreconciled registers, or uncontrolled manual spreadsheets.

Maintaining accurate asset records is important as it enables councils to manage their assets effectively and report on finances appropriately.

Unrecorded land and infrastructure assets
Twenty-four councils had not recorded $145 million worth of assets, mainly land and infrastructure assets.

Assets not captured in council records is at risk of not being subject to their care and control, nor recorded in the financial statements.

Rural fire-fighting equipment
At 30 June 2017, forty-six councils did report vested rural fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. However, 62 councils did not record vested fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. These rural fire‑fighting equipment assets are not reported in either State government or local government financial statements.

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should address the different practices across the local government sector in accounting for rural fire‑fighting equipment before 30 June 2018.

In doing so, the Office of Local Government should work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole‑of‑government approach.

4.3 Asset valuation

Restricted assets
Our audits found that ten councils did not appropriately consider restrictions on the use of community land and land under roads when determining asset fair values in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

Nine councils corrected the land values in their 2016–17 financial statements, reducing the reported value of community land and land under roads by $12.1 billion.

The valuation of community land and land under roads should reflect the physical and legislative restrictions on these assets as required by Australian Accounting Standards. The impact of restrictions can be significant.

Councils should consider engaging experts to assist with the determination of asset fair values, as necessary.

Asset revaluations
Our audits found many cases where councils did not review valuation results, comply with applicable codes, or work effectively with valuers to obtain accurate asset valuations.
Valuing large infrastructure assets is a complex process. Councils would benefit if the process is started earlier and there is a clear plan to ensure valuations are appropriately managed and documented.

4.4 Asset useful life estimates

Asset useful life estimates
We found considerable variability in councils' useful lives for similar assets.

In some cases, the useful lives of assets are not reviewed annually or supported by regular condition assessment.

Depreciation is a significant expense for councils and therefore impacts on reported financial results and key performance indicators.

To comply with Australian Accounting Standards, councils need to reassess the useful lives of all assets annually.

Regular condition assessments are essential to identify maintenance requirements and maintain service delivery.

4.5 Asset policy and planning

Asset management strategy
Thirteen councils do not have an asset management policy, strategy and plan, as required by OLG's Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. Newly amalgamated councils have until 30 June 2018 to implement this.
An effective asset management strategy, policy and plan helps councils to manage their assets appropriately over their life cycle and to make informed decisions on the allocation of resources.

Asset overview

NSW councils own and manage a significant range of assets, including infrastructure, property, plant and equipment.

At 30 June 2017, the combined carrying value of NSW council assets was as follows.

Good governance systems help councils to operate effectively and comply with relevant laws and standards. Internal controls assist councils to operate reliably and produce effective financial statements.

This chapter highlights the high risk issues we found and reports on a range of governance and control areas. Governance and control issues relating to asset management and information technology are covered in separate chapters.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
5.1 High risk issues
Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance
Our 2016–17 audits identified 36 high risk governance and internal control deficiencies across 17 councils.  Asset practices accounted for the highest number of high risk issues and information technology accounted for the largest overall number of control deficiencies. These matters are covered in chapters four and six respectively.
We reported:
  • seventeen high risk issues relating to governance, purchase-to-pay, financial accounting and payroll processes
  • ten high risk issues relating to asset practices
  • nine high risk issues related to information technology management.
High risk issues affect council’s ability to achieve their objectives and increase the risk of fraud and error. 
5.2 Governance
Audit committees
Councils are currently not required to have an audit, risk and improvement committee. Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee.

Proposed legislative changes will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021.

Recommendation
Councils should early adopt the proposed requirement to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee.

Internal audit
Councils are currently not required to have an internal audit function. Consequently, 52 councils do not have this function.

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should introduce the requirement for councils to establish internal audit functions and update its 2010 Internal Audit Guidelines.

Council entities
The Office of Local Government's register of entities approved under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993 is incomplete.

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should maintain an accurate register of council entities approved under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The Local Government Act 1993 does not stipulate a financial reporting framework for council entities.    

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should establish a financial reporting framework for council entities.

Policies and procedures
We identified 50 high and moderate risk issues across 33 councils where policies and procedures over critical business processes did not exist or had not been updated.

It is important there are current policies, standards and guidelines available to staff and contractors across all critical business processes.

Legislative compliance frameworks
Our audits found that 45 councils do not have sufficient processes to show they are complying with legislative requirements.

Councils can improve practices in monitoring compliance with key laws and regulations. This includes implementing a legislative compliance framework, register and policy.

Risk management
We identified 15 high and moderate risk issues across 15 councils where risk management practices could be strengthened.

Council risk management practices are enhanced when there is a fit-for-purpose risk management framework, register and policy to outline how risks are identified, managed and monitored.
5.3 Internal controls

Financial accounting
We identified 45 high and moderate risk control deficiencies across 41 councils concerning the use of manual journals to adjust council financial records. This can increase the risk of fraud and error.

We identified 51 high and moderate risk issues across 39 councils where reconciliation processes need to improve to support the preparation of accurate financial statements

Sound financial accounting processes include controls to ensure:

  • a person other than the preparer authorises manual journals
  • key account reconciliations are prepared and reviewed.
Purchasing and payables
We found 102 high and moderate risk deficiencies in purchasing and payable controls across 64 councils. Sound purchasing controls are important to minimise error, unauthorised purchases, fraud and waste.

As councils spend a substantial amount each year to procure goods and services, strong controls over purchasing and payment practices are critical. These include:

  • a review of changes to vendor master file data by an appropriate independent officer
  • an independent review and approval of purchases, including credit card transactions
  • compliance with Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government.

Payroll
We identified 71 high and moderate risk deficiencies in payroll controls across 48 councils. Weaknesses in payroll controls could result in incorrect payments being made to employees, due to error or fraud.

Managing excess annual leave balances was a challenge for 32 councils.

Effective payroll controls are important because employee expenses represent a large portion of council expenditure. These controls include segregation of duties in the review of payroll master file data, timesheets, leave forms, payroll exception reports and termination payments.

Excessive annual leave balances can have implications on employee costs, disrupts service delivery and affect work, health and safety. Excess annual leave balances should be continuously monitored and managed.

Like most public sector agencies, councils increasingly rely on information technology (IT) to deliver services and manage sensitive information. While IT delivers considerable benefits, it also presents risks that councils need to address.

Our review of council IT systems focused on understanding the processes and controls that support the integrity, availability and security of the data used to prepare financial statements. This chapter outlines issues in three broad areas:

  • high risk issues
  • access to IT systems
  • IT governance.
Issues Conclusion
6.1 High risk issues
Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance
Our 2016–17 audits identified nine high risk IT control deficiencies across seven councils. The issues related to user access controls, privileged access controls and user developed applications. High risk issues affect council’s ability to achieve their objectives and increase the risk of fraud and error.
6.2 Access to IT systems
User access controls
We identified 107 issues across 56 councils where user access controls could be strengthened.

Inadequate IT policies and controls around user access, including privileged access, increases the risk of individuals having excessive or unauthorised access to critical financial systems and data.

Privileged access
We identified 86 examples across 64 councils of inappropriate privileged access, inadequate review of access and insufficient retention and review of access logs.

 

User developed applications
User developed applications (UDAs) are computing applications, tools and processes developed or managed outside IT administration. UDAs may allow users to bypass formal user access controls.

Our audits found 22 councils using spreadsheets for business operations, decision making and financial reporting that were not adequately secured, with changes that were not tracked, tested or reviewed.

We also identified five councils where finance staff and senior management use database query tools to directly modify financial data, circumventing system-based business process controls.

It is important councils are aware of all circumstances they are relying on UDAs to limit the risk of errors and potential misuse. This allows councils to:

  • transition UDA functions to internal systems where possible
  • ensure UDAs are adequately controlled where they continue to use them
  • regularly review access rights to UDAs and back-up business-critical information.
6.3 IT Governance

Strategy, policies and procedures
Around one in four councils do not have an IT strategy or operational plan. Some councils also need to develop or improve IT policies and procedures.

Sixty-six councils do not have an adequate information security policy.

IT governance is enhanced where there is:

  • a fit-for-purpose IT strategy and operational plan
  • appropriate policies, standards and guidelines across all critical IT processes
  • a formally defined process to support security and access to all systems.

Disaster recovery and business continuity
Our audits identified that 17 councils do not have a documented plan to recover critical business functions in the event of a disaster.

The ability to restore data from backups is critical to ensure business continuity in the face of a system disaster.

We also found that 15 councils do not periodically test their ability to restore backups of data relevant to financial reporting.

Sound management of disaster recovery and business continuity includes:

  • a documented plan for how critical business functions will be recovered in the event of a disaster, which is periodically reviewed and tested
  • the ability to restore backed-up data, which is periodically tested.

We expect to focus on these areas in our future audits.

Published

Actions for Internal Controls and Governance 2017

Internal Controls and Governance 2017

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

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

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

1. Overall trends

New and repeat findings

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

High risk findings

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

Common findings

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

2. Information Technology

IT security

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

Cyber security

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

Other IT systems

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

3. Asset Management

Capital investment

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

Capital projects

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

Asset disposals

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

4. Governance

Governance arrangements

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

Shared services

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

5. Ethics and Conduct

Ethical framework

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

Conflicts of interest

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

6. Risk Management 

Risk management maturity

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

Risk management elements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues

Recommendations

1.1 New and repeat findings

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

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

Recommendation

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

1.2 High risk findings

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

Recommendation

Agencies should rectify high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority

1.3 Common findings

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

We found some common governance deficiencies across multiple agencies.

Recommendation

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

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

Issues Recommendations

2.1 IT security

User access administration

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

Recommendation

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

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

Privileged access

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

Recommendation

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

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

Password controls

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

Recommendation

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

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

2.2 Cyber Security

Cyber security framework

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

Recommendation

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

Cyber security strategies

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

Recommendations

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:

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

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

2.3 Other IT systems

Change control processes

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

Recommendation

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

Disaster recovery planning

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

3.1 Capital investment

Capital asset investment ratios

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

Recommendation

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

Volume of capital spending

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

Conclusion

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

3.2 Capital projects

Major capital projects

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

Conclusion

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

Capital project governance

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

Conclusion

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

3.3. Asset disposals

Asset disposal procedures

Agencies need to strengthen their asset disposal procedures.

Recommendations

Agencies should have formal processes for disposing of surplus properties.

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

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

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

Issues Recommendations or conclusions

4.1 Governance arrangements

Continuous disclosure

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

Conclusion

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

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

4.2 Shared services

Service level agreements

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Shared service performance

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Issues Recommendations or conclusions

5.1 Ethical framework

Code of conduct

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

Recommendation

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

Statement of business ethics

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

Conclusion

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

5.2 Potential conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest

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

Recommendation

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

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

Gifts and benefits

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

Issues Recommendations or conclusions

6.1 Risk management maturity

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

6.2 Risk management elements

Risk culture

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

 

 

Conclusion

Agencies can improve their risk culture by:

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

Risk registers and reporting

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

Conclusion

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

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

Published

Actions for Central Agencies 2017

Central Agencies 2017

Finance
Premier and Cabinet
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Project management

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:

  • policies for user access creation, modification and deactivation are documented
  • approval is being obtained to establish, modify or delete user accounts
  • regular user access reviews are performed and highly privileged user account activity is logged and monitored
  • evidence of review is maintained.

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
2016–17.

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.

A key aspect of making NSW the easiest state to start a business is making regulatory obligations easier to understand and implement.

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.

Failure to comply with the DISP 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.

3.4 Property and asset utilisation

Property NSW's performance reporting could be
improved. M2012-20 'Government Property NSW
and Government Property Principles' required
Property NSW to set key performance indicators
to measure property and asset utilisation
performance.
 

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.

Published

Actions for State Finances 2017

State Finances 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

02_Margaret_signature.jpg

Margaret Crawford 
24 October 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information system limitations continue at TAFE NSW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State maintained its AAA credit rating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fiscal targets for achieving this objective are:

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

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

Eliminating unfunded superannuation liabilities by 2030.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valuing the State’s physical assets.

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

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

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

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

  • Transport for NSW and Railcorp $8.5 billion

  • New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation $4.8 billion

  • Roads and Maritime Services $930 million

  • Crown Entity $400 million.    

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

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

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

Since the creation of the ALCO, reforms include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We address the risk associated with auditing these balances:

  • using actuarial specialists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • a $426 million increase in land taxes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restart NSW is funding $29.8 billion of new infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Financial Management System

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

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

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