A report has been released on the NSW Stronger Communities cluster.

From 1 July 2019, the functions of the former Department of Justice, the former Department of Family and Community Services and many of the cluster agencies moved to the new Stronger Communities cluster. The Department of Communities and Justice is the principal agency in the new Stronger Communities cluster.

The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial audits of agencies in the Stronger Communities cluster.

Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements for all agencies in the cluster.  

There were 157 audit findings on internal controls. Two of these were high risk and 59 were repeat findings from previous financial audits. ‘Cluster agencies should prioritise actions to address internal control weaknesses promptly with particular focus given to issues that are assessed as high risk’, the Auditor-General said.

The report notes that the NSW Government’s new workers' compensation legislation, which gave eligible firefighters presumptive rights to workers' compensation, cost emergency services agencies $180 million in 2018–19, mostly in increased premiums.

Download the PDF version of report

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the agencies comprising the Stronger Communities cluster for the year ended 30 June 2019. The table below summarises our key observations.

This report provides parliament and other users of the financial statements of agencies in the Stronger Communities cluster with the results of our audits, our observations, analyses, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

• financial reporting
• audit observations.

This cluster was significantly impacted by the Machinery of Government (MoG) changes on 1 July 2019. This report focuses on the agencies that from 1 July 2019, comprised the Stronger Communities cluster. The MoG changes moved some agencies from the clusters to which they belonged in 2018–19 to the Stronger Communities cluster. Conversely, the MoG also moved some agencies formerly in the Family and Community Services cluster and Justice cluster elsewhere. Please refer to the section on Machinery of Government changes for more details.

The Department of Communities and Justice is the principal agency of the cluster. The newly created department combines functions of the former Department of Justice and the Department of Family and Community Services.

Machinery of Government (MoG) refers to how the government organises the structures and functions of the public service. MoG changes occur when the government reorganises these structures and functions and those changes are given effect by Administrative Orders.

The MoG changes announced following the NSW State election on 23 March 2019 significantly impacted the Stronger Communities cluster through Administrative Changes Orders issued on 2 April 2019 and 1 May 2019. These orders took effect on 1 July 2019.

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 relating to the financial reporting of agencies in the Stronger Communities cluster for 2019.

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 Stronger Communities cluster.

Appendix one – Timeliness of financial reporting by agency

Appendix two – Management letter findings by agency

Appendix three – List of 2019 recommendations 

Appendix four – Status of 2018 recommendations 

Appendix five – Cluster agencies 

Appendix six – Financial data 

Copyright notice

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

This report details the results of the financial audits of NSW Government's Transport cluster for the financial year ended 30 June 2019. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial statement audits of agencies in the Transport cluster.

Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements. However, valuations of assets continue to create challenges across the cluster. The Audit Office identified some deficiencies in relation to asset valuations at Transport for NSW, Roads and Maritime Services, Rail Corporation New South Wales and Sydney Metro.

The Audit Office noted an increase in findings on internal controls across the Transport cluster. Key themes related to information technology, asset management and employee leave entitlements. The report also highlights the status of significant infrastructure projects across the Transport cluster.

The report makes several recommendations including:

• agency finance teams need to be consulted on major business decisions and commercial transactions at the time of their execution to assess the financial reporting impacts
• the Department of Transport should ensure consistent accounting policies are applied across its controlled entities.

Download the Transport 2019 report (PDF)

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the Transport cluster for the year ended 30 June 2019. The table below summarises our key observations.

1. Machinery of Government changes

2. Financial reporting

3. Audit observations

This report provides parliament and other users of the Transport cluster’s financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:

• financial reporting
• audit observations.

This cluster was impacted by the Machinery of Government changes on 1 July 2019. The NSW Government announced its intention to integrate Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) into Transport for NSW (TfNSW). This report is focused on the Transport cluster prior to these changes. Please refer to the section on Machinery of Government changes for more details.

Machinery of Government refers to how the government organises the structures and functions of the public service. Machinery of Government changes are where the government reorganises these structures and functions, and are given effect by Administrative orders.

The Transport cluster was impacted by recent Machinery of Government changes. These changes were announced by the Department of Premier and Cabinet but were not included in the Administrative Orders as the Transport Administration Act 1988 No. 109 governs the composition of the Transport cluster. It was the intention of government to transfer the functions of the RMS into TfNSW. This requires legislative changes to the Transport Administration Act 1988 No. 109.

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 Transport cluster for 2019.

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 Transport cluster.

Appendix one – Timeliness of financial reporting by agency 

Appendix two – Management letter findings by agency 

Appendix three – List of 2019 recommendations 

Appendix four – Status of 2017 and 2018 recommendations 

Appendix five – Cluster agencies 

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

This report focuses on key observations and findings from the most recent financial audits of the Ministry of Health, local health districts, specialty health networks, health corporations and independent health agencies in New South Wales. The report also summarises self-reported performance measures across the network.

The number and value of adjustments to financial statements of entities in the Health Cluster decreased from the prior year. And unqualified audit opinions were issued for all heath entities’ financial statements.

Audit findings relating to internal controls deficiencies increased across health entities. Contributing to this increase were deficiencies in information system controls, which accounted for nearly a quarter of all control deficiencies. Repeat audit findings also accounted for more than a quarter of all control deficiencies.

The report notes health entities continued to experience challenges with managing employees’ excessive annual leave and time recording practices. The Ambulance Service of New South Wales continued to report high overtime payments to its employees. 

Download Health 2019 report (PDF).

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the agencies comprising the Health cluster for the year ended 30 June 2019. The table below summarises our key observations.

1. Machinery of Government changes

2. Financial reporting

3. Audit observations

This report provides parliament and other users of the financial statements of agencies within the Health cluster with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas for the year ended 30 June 2019:

• financial reporting
• audit observations. 

 The Health cluster was not impacted by the Machinery of Government changes on 1 July 2019. 

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 health cluster for 2019.

Audit opinions 

We issued unqualified audit opinions for all health entities and quality of financial reporting continues to improve

We identified fewer misstatements this year, and the errors were less significant. In 2018–19 no errors exceeded $5.0 million (eight errors recorded in 2017–18). Ten health entities conducted a full revaluation of their land, buildings and infrastructure systems in 2018–19, but more robust processes avoided the errors identified in the previous year.

Number of misstatements
Year ended 30 June	2019		2018		2017
Less than $50,000	--	--	--	6	3	3
$50,000 to $249,999	--	1	--	--	2	3
$250,000 to $999,999	1	--	--	--	1	3
$1 million to $4,999,999	--	2	--	2	1	5
$5 million and greater	--	--	6	2	1	2
Total number of misstatements	1	3	6	10	8	16

 Corrected mistatements.  Uncorrected statements.

We issued a qualified audit opinion for our compliance audit of the Ministry of Health's Annual Prudential Compliance Statement

The Ministry of Health operates eight aged care facilities in NSW and is required to comply with the Fees and Payments Principles 2014 (No. 2) (the Principles) when entering into agreements with and managing payments to and from care recipients. The Principles are set by the Commonwealth Assistant Minister for Social Services. We identified 40 instances of material non-compliance in 2018–19, including:

• not agreeing maximum accommodation amounts payable with aged care recipients before they entered the residential care services
• not entering into accommodation agreements with care recipients within the specified period
• charging incorrect fees for activities or services to one care recipient
• not refunding two bond balances within the statutory framework
• not paying the correct amount of interest for 14 care recipients’ bonds refunded during the year.

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 health cluster.

Appendix one – List of 2019 recommendations

Appendix two – Status of 2018 recommendations

Appendix three – Financial data 

Appendix four – Analysis of financial indicators

Appendix five – Analysis of performance against budget

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

This report covers the findings and recommendations from the 2018–19 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector. The 40 agencies selected for this report constitute around 84 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.

The report provides insights into the effectiveness of controls and governance processes across the NSW public sector. It evaluates how agencies identify, mitigate and manage risks related to:

• financial controls
• information technology controls
• gifts and benefits
• internal audit
• contingent labour
• sensitive data.

The Auditor-General recommended that agencies do more to prioritise and address vulnerabilities in their internal controls and governance. The Auditor-General also recommended agencies increase the transparency of their management of gifts and benefits by publishing their registers on their websites.

This report analyses the internal controls and governance of 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2019.

1. Internal control trends

2. Information technology controls

3. Gifts and benefits

4. Internal audit

5. Managing contingent labour

6. Managing sensitive data

This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2018–19 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at 40 of the largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. The 40 agencies selected for this volume constitute around 84 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.

Although the report includes several agencies that have changed as a result of the Machinery of Government changes that were effective from 1 July 2019, its focus on sector wide issues and insights means that its findings remain relevant to NSW public sector agencies, including newly formed agencies that have assumed the functions of abolished agencies.

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

This is the third 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. For example, if they do not have strong information technology controls, sensitive information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.

Areas of specific focus of the report have changed since last year

Last year's report topics included transparency and performance reporting, management of purchasing cards and taxi use, and fraud and corruption control. We are reporting on new topics this year and re-visiting agency management of gifts and benefits, which we first covered in our 2017 report. Re-visiting topics from prior years provides a baseline to show the NSW public sectors’ progress implementing appropriate internal controls and governance processes to mitigate existing, new and emerging risks in the public sector.

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 year the report focusses on:

• internal control trends
• information technology controls, including access to agency systems
• protecting sensitive information held within agencies
• managing large and diverse workforces (controls around employing and managing contingent workers)
• maintaining an ethical culture (management of gifts and benefits)
• effectiveness of internal audit function and its oversight by Audit and Risk Committees.

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, internal controls and audit observations are included in the individual 2019 cluster financial audit reports, which will be tabled in parliament from November to December 2019.

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 audit findings, the degree of risk those deficiencies pose to the agency, and a summary of the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this report presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to manage key financial systems.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to manage gifts and benefits. 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency internal audit functions.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to on-board, manage and off-board contingent labour.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of governance and processes in relation to the management of sensitive data.

Appendix one – List of 2019 recommendations 

Appendix two – Status of 2018 recommendations

Appendix three – In-scope agencies

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

This report examined whether HealthShare NSW, a part of NSW Health, has the required contract management capability to effectively manage goods and services contracts valued over $250,000. 

The report found that HealthShare has a procurement framework that should support effective contract management, but it is not applying it consistently. In particular, the audit found that HealthShare was not applying key contract management elements to over 80 per cent of the high-value contracts it manages. The audit also found that HealthShare’s contract management practices were limited by inadequate performance monitoring.

'Effective contract management is essential to ensure the contracts HealthShare enters into are delivering as expected and ensuring value for money,' said the Auditor-General. 'Without this, the value for money or savings HealthShare achieves when it negotiates these contracts is at risk of being eroded over the life of the contract.'

The report recommends that NSW Health develop a performance improvement plan to ensure HealthShare is fully compliant with procurement policies and that NSW Health meets its obligations under the Government's Accreditation Program for Goods and Services Procurement.

HealthShare is a NSW Health entity responsible for providing shared services, including procurement, to support the delivery of patient care within the NSW health system. In 2018, HealthShare procured high value goods and services contracts with an annual estimated total spend of around $1.8 billion, with most of the contracts of long duration.

NSW Government agencies are increasingly delivering services and projects through contracts with third parties. These contracts can be complex and governments face challenges in negotiating and implementing them effectively. A robust contract management framework helps ensure all parties meet their obligations, contractual relationships are well managed, agencies achieve value for money, and deliverables meet the required standards and agreed timeframes.

Contract management capability is a broad term, which can include aspects of individual staff capability (such as staff knowledge, skills and experience) as well as organisational capability (such as policies, frameworks and processes).

The NSW Procurement Board is responsible for overseeing the Government's procurement system, setting policy and ensuring compliance. It has accredited the Health Administration Corporation (HAC) to procure goods and services with no upper financial limit. Under the terms of this accreditation, the Secretary, NSW Health (as head of HAC) has delegated the procurement of high-value (over $250,000) goods and services contracts within NSW Health to only the Ministry of Health and HealthShare NSW (HealthShare).

HealthShare NSW (HealthShare) is a NSW Health entity responsible for providing shared services, including procurement, to support the delivery of patient care within the NSW health system. In 2018, HealthShare procured high-value goods and services contracts with an annual estimated total spend of around $1.8 billion, with most of the contracts of long duration.

HealthShare’s Contract Management Guide states that, without rigorous contract management, 75 per cent of projected sourcing savings can disappear within 18 months of the contract starting.

This audit examined whether HealthShare has the required capability to effectively manage high-value goods and services contracts. Contracts we examined included critical items such as food services in hospitals, patient transport services, intravenous equipment and kidney dialysis services, where risks include patient safety as well as value for money. We did not examine infrastructure, construction or information communication and technology contracts. We also did not examine HealthShare’s sourcing processes, including identifying business needs, tendering and contract award.

We assessed HealthShare against the following criteria:

1. HealthShare's systems, policies and procedures support effective contract management and are consistent with relevant frameworks, policies and guidelines.
2. HealthShare has capable personnel to effectively conduct the monitoring activities throughout the life of the contract.

We included the NSW Public Service Commission and NSW Treasury, through NSW Procurement, as auditees because they administer policies which directly affect contract management capability. These include:

• NSW Procurement Board Directions and policies
• NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework
• Accreditation Program for Goods and Services Procurement
• the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework.

NSW Procurement was transferred to NSW Treasury from the former Department of Finance, Services and Innovation on 1 July 2019 as part of changes to government administrative arrangements.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Contract performance management summary

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

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

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #328 - released 31 October 2019

A report released by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, has found that NSW Health is not forming effective partnerships with Aboriginal communities to plan, design and deliver appropriate mental health services. There is limited evidence that NSW Health is using the knowledge and expertise of Aboriginal communities to guide how mental health care is structured and delivered.

Mental illness (including substance use disorders) is the main contributor to lower life expectancy and increased mortality in the Aboriginal population of New South Wales. It contributes to a higher burden of disease and premature death at rates that are 40 per cent higher than the next highest chronic disease group, cardiovascular disease.¹ 

Aboriginal people have significantly higher rates of mental illness than non Aboriginal people in New South Wales. They are more likely to present at emergency departments in crisis or acute phases of mental illness than the rest of the population and are more likely to be admitted to hospital for mental health treatments.² 

In acknowledgement of the significant health disparities between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people, NSW Health implemented the NSW Aboriginal Health Plan 2013 2023 (the Aboriginal Health Plan). The overarching message of the Aboriginal Health Plan is ‘to build respectful, trusting and effective partnerships with Aboriginal communities’ and to implement ‘integrated planning and service delivery’ with sector partners. Through the Plan, NSW Health commits to providing culturally appropriate and ‘holistic approaches to the health of Aboriginal people'.

The mental health sector is complex, involving Commonwealth, state and non government service providers. In broad terms, NSW Health has responsibility to support patients requiring higher levels of clinical support for mental illnesses, while the Commonwealth and non government organisations offer non acute care such as assessments, referrals and early intervention treatments.

The NSW Health network includes 15 Local Health Districts and the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network that provide care to patients during acute and severe phases of mental illness in hospitals, prisons and community service environments. This includes care to Aboriginal patients in the community at rates that are more than four times higher than the non Aboriginal population. Community services are usually provided as follow up after acute admissions or interactions with hospital services. The environments where NSW Health delivers mental health care include:

• hospital emergency departments, for short term assessment and referral
• inpatient hospital care for patients in acute and sub acute phases of mental illness
• mental health outpatient services in the community, such as support with medications
• custodial mental health services in adult prisons and juvenile justice centres.

The NSW Government is reforming its mental health funding model to incrementally shift the balance from hospital care to enhanced community care. In 2018–19, the NSW Government committed $400 million over four years into early intervention and specialist community mental health teams.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Health’s planning and coordination of mental health services and service pathways for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. We addressed the audit objective by answering three questions: 

1. Is NSW Health using evidence to plan and inform the availability of mental health services for Aboriginal people in New South Wales?
2. Is NSW Health collaborating with partners to create accessible mental health service pathways for Aboriginal people?
3. Is NSW Health collaborating with partners to ensure the appropriateness and quality of mental health services for Aboriginal people?

In this report, the term ‘Aboriginal people’ is used to describe both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Audit Office of NSW acknowledges the diversity of traditional countries and Aboriginal language groups across the state of New South Wales.

In May 2019, the Audit Office of New South Wales invited Aboriginal mental health clinicians and policy experts from government and non-government organisations to attend a one-day workshop. Workshop attendees advised on factors that improve the quality and appropriateness of mental health care for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. They described appropriate mental health care as:

• culturally safe, allowing Aboriginal people to draw strength in their identity, culture and community
• person centred and focussed on individual needs
• delivered by culturally competent staff with no bias
• holistic, trauma-informed and focussed on early intervention where possible
• delivered in places that are appropriate including outreach to homes and communities
• welcoming of the involvement of local Aboriginal community and connected to local knowledge and expertise including totems and kinship structures. 

The definition of 'appropriate' mental health care for Aboriginal people throughout this report is based on this advice.

Aboriginal people access emergency services at much higher rates than non-Aboriginal people

The choices that people make in relation to health service options provide some insight into the suitability and appropriateness of the service to their needs.

Aboriginal people have different mental health service use patterns than non-Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are much more likely to be in a crisis situation before receiving mental health services, usually in an emergency department of a hospital.

Aboriginal people make up three per cent of the total New South Wales population, but they constitute 11 per cent of emergency department presentations for mental health treatments. In regional areas, Aboriginal people make up 20.5 per cent of presentations at emergency departments for mental health reasons. 

A number of factors help to explain Aboriginal mental health service usage patterns. According to government and non-government mental health organisations:

• emergency department services are better known to Aboriginal people than other mental health services
• community-based models of care are not appropriate for Aboriginal people
• Aboriginal people are reluctant to access community-based mental health services to prevent crisis situations
• community mental health services are not available for Aboriginal people after hours and during the weekend, so emergency services are the only option.

The statewide proportions of Aboriginal people presenting at emergency departments for mental health treatments has been increasing over time (Exhibit 6).

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – The NSW Aboriginal Health Plan

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #326 - released 29 August 2019

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

Three key agencies are not fully complying with the NSW Procurement Board’s Direction for engaging probity practitioners, according to a report released today by the Acting Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin. They also do not have effective processes to achieve compliance or assure that probity engagements achieved value for money.

Probity is defined as the quality of having strong moral principles, honesty and decency. Probity is important for NSW Government agencies as it helps ensure decisions are made with integrity, fairness and accountability, while attaining value for money.

Probity advisers provide guidance on issues concerning integrity, fairness and accountability that may arise throughout asset procurement and disposal processes. Probity auditors verify that agencies' processes are consistent with government laws and legislation, guidelines and best practice principles. 

According to the NSW State Infrastructure Strategy 2018-2038, New South Wales has more infrastructure projects underway than any state or territory in Australia. The scale of the spend on procuring and constructing new public transport networks, roads, schools and hospitals, the complexity of these projects and public scrutiny of aspects of their delivery has increased the focus on probity in the public sector. 

A Procurement Board Direction, 'PBD-2013-05 Engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors' (the Direction), sets out the requirements for NSW Government agencies' use and engagement of probity practitioners. It confirms agencies should routinely take into account probity considerations in their procurement. The Direction also specifies that NSW Government agencies can use probity advisers and probity auditors (probity practitioners) when making decisions on procuring and disposing of assets, but that agencies:

• should use external probity practitioners as the exception rather than the rule
• should not use external probity practitioners as an 'insurance policy'
• must be accountable for decisions made
• cannot substitute the use of probity practitioners for good management practices
• not engage the same probity practitioner on an ongoing basis, and ensure the relationship remains robustly independent. 

The scale of probity spend may be small in the context of the NSW Government's spend on projects. However, government agencies remain responsible for probity considerations whether they engage external probity practitioners or not.

The audit assessed whether Transport for NSW, the Department of Education and the Ministry of Health:

• complied with the requirements of ‘PBD-2013-05 Engagement of Probity Advisers and Probity Auditors’
• effectively ensured they achieved value for money when they used probity practitioners.

These entities are referred to as 'participating agencies' in this report.

We also surveyed 40 NSW Government agencies with the largest total expenditures (top 40 agencies) to get a cross sector view of their use of probity practitioners. These agencies are listed in Appendix two.

There are no professional standards and capability requirements for probity practitioners

NSW Government agencies use probity practitioners to independently verify that their procurement and asset disposal processes are transparent, fair and accountable in the pursuit of value for money. 

Probity practitioners are not subject to regulations that require them to have professional qualifications, experience and capability. Government agencies in New South Wales have difficulty finding probity standards, regulations or best practice guides to reference, which may diminish the degree of reliance stakeholders can place on practitioners’ work.

The NSW Procurement Board provides direction for the use of probity practitioners

The NSW Procurement Board Direction 'PBD-2013-15 for engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors' outlines the requirements for agencies' use of probity practitioners in the New South Wales public sector. All NSW Government agencies, except local government, state owned corporations and universities, must comply with the Direction when engaging probity practitioners. This is illustrated in Exhibit 1 below.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – List of selected agencies

Appendix three – About the audit

The Department of Justice has relied heavily on temporary responses to accommodate growing prisoner numbers according to a report released today by the Acting Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin.

At the time of this audit, the NSW Department of Justice (DOJ) was responsible for delivering custodial corrections services in New South Wales through its Corrective Services NSW division (Corrective Services NSW). From 1 July 2019, the Department of Family and Community Services and Justice will be responsible for these functions. 

Within DOJ, Corrective Services NSW is responsible for administering sentences and legal orders through custodial and community-based management of adult offenders. Its key priorities are:

• providing safe, secure and humane management of prisoners
• reducing reoffending
• improving community safety and confidence in the justice system. 

The prison population in New South Wales grew by around 40 per cent between 2012 to 2018, from 9,602 to 13,630 inmates. This rate of growth was higher than experienced prior to 2012. DOJ forecasts growth to continue over the short and longer-term. 

DOJ has responded to inmate population growth by doubling-up and tripling-up the number of prison beds in cells, reactivating previously closed prisons, and a $3.8 billion program of new prison capacity. DOJ has also developed a long-term prison infrastructure strategy that projects long-term needs and recommended investments to meet these needs. 

This audit assessed how efficiently and effectively DOJ is responding to growth in the NSW prison population. In this report, we have not analysed the sources of demand or recommended ways that custody may be avoided. These are largely government policy issues. 

The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services outlines the performance indicator framework for corrective services in Australia (Appendix three). We have used measures from this framework to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of DOJ’s responses to prison bed capacity needs. 

In this section, we analyse system-wide indicators as DOJ has not consistently published or reported data for individual correctional centres over the period of review.
 

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - Managing women in custody

Appendix three - Corrective services performance indicator framework

Appendix four - About the audit

Appendix five – Performance auditing

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #319 - released 24 May 2019

The Hon. Troy Grant MP, Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services requested an audit under section 27B(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, to determine whether expenditure on overseas travel by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (the Commission) complied with section 12A of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.

On 9 November 2018, the Hon. Troy Grant MP, Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services (the Minister), requested an audit under s. 27B(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 (the PF&A Act) to determine whether the expenditure of $8,074.66 on overseas travel by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (the LECC) complied with s. 12A of the PF&A Act.

In forming my audit conclusion, I have reviewed documentation provided by the Minister and the LECC, made enquiries of LECC staff, and sought independent legal advice on key aspects of the PF&A Act and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (the LECC Act) and their interface.
 

In my opinion, the LECC did not comply with s. 12A of the PF&A Act because the Minister:

• had not delegated his authority to approve expenditure for overseas travel to an officer in the LECC
• had specifically declined approving a request from the LECC to incur expenditure on the travel in question.

Despite this, the LECC incurred the expenditure.

In my view, the LECC required the Minister’s approval to incur the overseas travel expenditure before it could legally spend funds for this purpose from its appropriation.

The LECC is an independent investigative body, funded by appropriation, to oversight NSW Police and the Crime Commission 

The Bill to establish the LECC was introduced to parliament following a review of the police oversight system.¹ The establishment of the LECC drew together functions previously undertaken by the Police Integrity Commission, the Ombudsman and the Inspector of the Crime Commission. It aimed to ‘remove overlapping responsibilities, inefficiencies and failures’ and ‘create a single civilian law enforcement oversight body’.² 

Part 4 of the LECC Act sets out the functions of the Commission as an independent investigative body. The objects of the LECC Act are summarised in Appendix one. The LECC Act provides that the Minister cannot direct the LECC on how to perform its functions. 

Notably, s. 22 of the LECC Act states:

The Commission and Commissioners are not subject to the control or direction of the Minister in the exercise of their functions.

For the financial year ended 30 June 2018, under s. 22 of the Appropriation Act 2017 (NSW), $21,195,000 was appropriated to the Minister for the LECC’s services. This provided the statutory basis for the sum in question to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund, but only in accordance with the PF&A Act.

The PF&A Act is the legislation that governs the administration of public finances

The PF&A Act determines how expenditure is to occur and sets out the conditions under which such expenditure can occur in NSW public sector agencies.The LECC is an agency within the NSW public sector.

Section 12A of the PF&A Act stipulates that:

A Minister to whom a sum of money is appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund for a use or purpose (whether by an annual Appropriation Act or other Act) may delegate to another Minister or to an officer of any authority, or authorise another Minister to delegate to an officer of any authority, the committing or incurring of expenditure from the sum so appropriated.

Section 12 of the PF&A Act also stipulates that:

Expenditure shall be committed or incurred by an officer of an authority only within the limits of a delegation in writing conferred on the officer by a person entitled to make the delegation.

The relevant ‘authority’ in this case was the Office of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Office of the LECC) - a body which, under the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (the GSE Act)³ employs the staff of the LECC.

Prima facie, as the LECC is funded by appropriation and is subject to the PF&A Act, its officers can only commit or incur expenditure with a delegation from the Minister.

The Minister did not delegate his right to approve expenditure on overseas travel

In April 2017, the Minister approved the LECC’s financial delegations under the authority vested in him by s. 12A of the PF&A Act. However, he reserved his right to approve any expenditure on overseas travel. This effectively required the LECC to obtain his approval for each instance of such expenditure.⁴ 

The Minister declined approval of a LECC request for an officer to travel overseas 

In August 2017, the Chief Commissioner sought the Minister’s approval to incur overseas travel expenditure. The Minister exercised his right under the PF&A Act to decline the request and confirmed this in writing:

Establishment of LECC being in its infancy, travel is not supported at this time. Operating priorities should be the focus at this time.

The LECC paid the overseas travel expenses without a delegation or Ministerial approval

In October 2017, despite the absence of a delegation or approval from the Minister to incur expenditure on overseas travel, the Chief Commissioner approved a total of $8,074.66 for the LECC’s Director of Covert Services to travel to, and attend an international conference.
 
The LECC booked and paid for the travel in four payments between October and December 2017. Over the same period the Chief Commissioner reimbursed the agency for these expenses from his personal funds. On 13 October 2017, the Chief Commissioner wrote to the Minister asking him to reconsider his decision. On 12 January 2018, in the absence of a response from the Minister, the Chief Commissioner directed the LECC’s finance officer to ‘repay the relevant costs to my account’.⁵ On 16 January 2018, the LECC’s Chief Executive Officer approved the reimbursement to the Chief Commissioner, which occurred on 17 January 2018. Appendix three provides further detail on the series of payments. 

The Chief Commissioner first disclosed he had been reimbursed for the expenses, without Ministerial approval, in March 2018. In August 2018, the Chief Commissioner made a further disclosure about the expenditure at Budget Estimates.⁶

The Chief Commissioner argues the overseas travel expenditure was properly incurred

The Chief Commissioner argues the LECC’s overseas travel expenditure was properly incurred because:

• the travel was undertaken in pursuit of the detective and investigative functions specified in s. 26(b)(i) of Part 4 of the LECC Act⁷  
• a specific reservation in public policy cannot be qualified by general rules of public policy.⁸ The Chief Commissioner argues s. 22 of the LECC Act is a specific provision that conflicts with the general provisions in ss. 12 and 12A of the PF&A Act. In his view, the conflict is resolved by applying the principle that a specific later provision effectively repeals an earlier general provision. In his view, the LECC Act contains a specific provision that the Minister cannot direct the LECC in exercising its functions, whereas the PF&A Act contains general provisions which deal with the spending of public money.

The Chief Commissioner believes the Minister’s decision⁷:

• was not made in the bona fide exercise of the power conferred on him by the PF&A Act as it interfered with the management of the LECC’s operating priorities
• and his failure to enquire into the operational situation of the LECC were not decisions a rational decision maker could have made
• was made for an improper purpose and was biased, in that the Minister had approved expenditure for a member of NSW Police to travel to the conference, but denied the same to a member of the LECC, which oversights NSW Police
• breached s. 22 of the LECC Act, because it directed the LECC Commissioners in the exercise of their functions.

The Crown Solicitor and Solicitor General advised the expenditure breached the PF&A Act

On 7 September 2017, the Crown Solicitor advised the Office of Police (part of the Department of Justice) that:

The Minister’s authority to determine whether or not to approve a particular expenditure from the amount appropriated from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of the Commission under the Constitution Act 1902 and the PF&A Act is not affected by s.22 of the LECC Act. These have different spheres of operation. It is not unusual for otherwise independent bodies to be subject to restrictions with respect to the use of public moneys.⁹

Subsequently, the Crown Solicitor asked the Solicitor General to review the matter of her previous advice. On 14 December 2017, the Solicitor General concurred with the Crown Solicitor’s advice. He concluded that:

Although LECC has a high degree of independence under its legislation, it is a body operating in the public sector and within the context of the broad policies of the government of the day in relation to public administration... it is not a function of LECC or its Commissioners to deal directly with money appropriated to the Minister out of the Consolidated Fund.¹⁰

The Secretary of the Department of Justice forwarded the Crown Solicitor’s and the Solicitor General’s advice to the Chief Commissioner.¹¹ The Chief Commissioner continues to contest the Crown Solicitor’s and the Solicitor General’s advice.¹²

The Minister referred the matter to the Inspector of the LECC

In August 2018, the Minister referred the Chief Commissioner’s disclosure in Budget Estimates¹³ that he had been personally reimbursed for an expense concerning overseas travel by an officer of the LECC, to the Inspector of the LECC (the Inspector).¹⁴ The Inspector is the person, under s. 122 of the LECC Act, responsible for 'auditing the operation of the Commission for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the law of the State'. On 4 September 2018, the Inspector recused himself from investigating the Minister’s complaint.¹⁵ In his letter to the Premier dated 19 September 2018, he wrote ‘I informed the Minister for Police that I had acquired information in my capacity as Inspector of LECC (and in the discharge of my statutory functions) prior to receiving his letter of complaint…’. He further suggested to the Minister and the Premier that an Assistant Inspector be appointed to investigate the complaint under s. 121(1) of the LECC Act to give ‘proper and independent’ consideration to the Minister’s complaint.¹⁶ 

The Minister asks the Auditor General to audit the transaction’s compliance with the PF&A Act

An Assistant Inspector appointed under section 121 of the LECC Act can exercise any function of the Inspector, including ‘auditing the operations of the Commission’. The reasons why an Assistant Inspector was not appointed to investigate the matter are not apparent. Instead, on 9 November 2018, the Minister requested the Auditor General to conduct an audit of whether the expenditure complied with s. 12A of the PF&A Act.¹⁷

In forming my adverse conclusion, I considered the Chief Commissioner’s argument that s. 22 of the LECC Act prevailed over those sections of the PF&A Act that deal with spending public money, and:

• the principles of statutory interpretation that might apply when a potential conflict between a general provision in one Act and specific provisions in another exists
• whether an apparent conflict exists
• whether the Chief Commissioner was entitled to incur the expenditure without Ministerial approval
• whether the Minister was lawfully entitled to withhold approval for the expenditure from the Chief Commissioner.

The principles of statutory interpretation apply where potential conflicts exist between Acts

A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that all legislation be given its full scope and effect. Courts, and thereby other interpreters, are not at liberty to consider any word or meaning as superfluous. The starting point is that all words must be given some meaning and effect.¹⁸ If there is an apparent conflict between two Acts, the pieces of legislation should be read in such a way as to avoid that conflict by giving the words the construction that produces the greatest harmony and the least inconsistency.¹⁹

One way conflict can be avoided is to apply the approach that a later general provision does not override an earlier specific provision.²⁰ However, this approach is rebuttable, as a later general Act might also be said to qualify an earlier specific Act.²¹ The reverse can also apply, in that a later specific Act can be claimed to qualify or supersede an earlier general provision. In such a case, it is said that the later Act impliedly repeals the earlier. This is an easier case to make out because it is apparent the parliament has dealt with the specific instance and it would be reasonable to expect that it had considered any contrary general legislation. However, here again, the courts have qualified this approach by suggesting it should be presumed unlikely that a parliament would intend to contradict itself. If the specific Act was intended to qualify an earlier general Act, then the legislation would have spelt this out.

One must therefore always start from the premise that all words are to be given meaning and effect, and that meaning should enable both pieces of legislation to operate. It is only where the point is reached that it is not possible for both pieces of legislation to operate to their full extent that the approaches to resolving conflicts can be usefully invoked. The approaches may then be useful to determine which is the primary provision and which provision must give way to the requirements set out in that primary provision.

Is there an apparent conflict between the LECC Act and the PF&A Act that needs to be resolved?

No. The LECC Act deals specifically with the operational functions of the LECC, while the PF&A Act deals with the specific issue of expenditure by a delegate of the Minister. 

The Chief Commissioner argues that s. 22 of the LECC Act is a specific provision and should take precedence over general delegation provisions in the PF&A Act, namely ss. 12 and 12A. He argues this because s. 22 deals specifically with the operation of the LECC and prohibits the Minister from directing the LECC in the performance of its functions. In his view, this includes the administrative and financial functions impliedly invested in the LECC for it to perform the specific functions referred to in the LECC Act.

However, it can also be readily argued that s. 22 of the LECC Act deals with the general issue of Minister's directions to the LECC and the PF&A deals with the specific issue of expenditure by a delegate of the Minister. While the expenditure of funds may be essential for the LECC to perform its functions, that expenditure is controlled by the PF&A Act, as it controls all expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. The PF&A Act is the specific legislation that relates to expenditure.

The issues that have arisen can be resolved by looking at the effect of the two Acts in their application to the facts. In my view, the PF&A Act and the LECC Act can be applied to the facts under consideration as they deal with different issues and are thereby capable of separate operation. 

Was the LECC able to incur expenditure without Ministerial approval?

No. The PF&A Act applies to the LECC in the same way it applies to all NSW Government agencies. While the Minister had approved the LECC’s financial delegations under the authority vested in him by s. 12A of the PF&A Act, he reserved his right to approve all expenditure on overseas travel. This effectively required the LECC to obtain his approval for each instance of such expenditure. As the Minister did not approve the overseas travel request, the Chief Commissioner was not legally able to authorise the expenditure.

The PF&A Act determines how expenditure is to occur and sets out the conditions under which such expenditure can occur in New South Wales public sector agencies. Expenditure can ‘only be committed or incurred by an officer of an authority within the limits of a delegation in writing conferred on the officer by a person entitled to make the delegation’.²²

Was the Minister lawfully entitled to withhold approval of the overseas travel expenditure?

Yes. If one accepts the premise that the PF&A Act determines the basis on which public money can be spent, it follows that the Minister could exercise the discretion reserved to him by financial delegation and withhold approval of the overseas travel expenditure for the LECC officer.

Section 22 of the LECC Act prevents the Minister from directing the LECC to send (or not to send) an officer to a conference. However, the Minister did not direct the LECC as to whether the person should or should not attend the conference. Rather, he exercised the responsibility given to him to determine how public funds were to be spent.

The appropriation to the LECC provided funding to the delegate of the Minister to support the performance of the agency’s functions. However, the expenditure of money for overseas travel was governed by ss. 12 and 12A of the PF&A Act. This gave the Minister discretion to approve or refuse to approve expenditure for overseas travel on a case by case basis. It follows from this that the Chief Commissioner was not entitled to spend money for overseas travel, even though in the Commissioner’s view it was beneficial to the performance of the LECC’s functions.

It may be suggested that the Minister’s refusal to provide funding for a particular function may have the same effect as directing an agency not to perform that function. NSW’s constitutional structure of government establishes that public money can only be spent in accordance with legislation and if expenditure requires a Minister’s approval, that approval establishes the ability of an agency to spend that money. That said, in reserving approval for certain types of expenditures, care should be exercised not to unduly interfere with the legitimate functions of independent agencies.

This assurance audit is a ‘direct engagement’ whereby the Auditor‑General provides the Minister and parliament with reasonable assurance about whether $8,074.66 spent on overseas travel by the LECC complied, in all material respects with s. 12A of the PF&A Act.

My audit was conducted in accordance with applicable Standards on Assurance Engagements (ASAE 3100 ‘Compliance Engagements’).

In conducting my audit, I have complied with:

• the independence requirements of Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards
• ASQC 1 ‘Quality Control for firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of Financial Reports and Other Financial Information, Other Assurance Engagements and Related Service Engagements’
• relevant ethical pronouncements.

Parliament promotes independence by ensuring the Auditor‑General and the Audit Office of New South Wales are not compromised in their roles by:

• providing that only parliament, and not the executive government, can remove an Auditor‑General
• mandating the Auditor‑General as auditor of public sector agencies
• precluding the Auditor‑General from providing non‑audit services.

I have reviewed documentation provided by the Minister and the LECC, gained an understanding of the LECC’s controls and processes for approving and making expenditure and made enquiries of LECC staff. I have also:

• gained an understanding of the relevant pieces of legislation and case law
• reviewed the advice of the Crown Solicitor and the Solicitor‑General
• sought independent legal advice on key aspects of the PF&A Act and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (the LECC Act) from an acknowledged expert in statutory interpretation
• conducted interviews with key persons
• reviewed the documentation listed in Appendix four.

Appendix one - Legislated functions of the LECC

Appendix two - Timeline of events

Appendix three - The transactions

Appendix four - Interviews and key documents

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

2. Information Technology

3. Asset Management

4. Governance

5. Ethics and Conduct

6. Risk Management 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.