The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today on whether the Department of Communities and Justice (the department) effectively supports the efficient operation of the District Criminal Court system.

The audit found that in the provision of data and technology services, the department is not effectively supporting the efficient operation of the District Criminal Court system. The department has insufficient controls in place to ensure that data in the system is always accurate.

The department is also using outdated technology and could improve its delivery of technical support to courts.

The audit also assessed the implementation of the Early Appropriate Guilty Pleas reform. This reform aims to improve court efficiency by having more cases resolved earlier with a guilty plea in the Local Court. The audit found that the department effectively governed the implementation of the reform but is not measuring achievement of expected benefits, placing the objectives of the reform at risk.

The Auditor-General made seven recommendations to the department, aimed at improving the controls around courts data, reporting on key performance indicators, improving regional technical support and measuring the success of the Early Appropriate Guilty Pleas reform. 

The District Court is the intermediate court in the New South Wales court system. It hears most serious criminal matters, except murder, treason and piracy. The Department of Communities and Justice (the Department) provides support to the District Court in a variety of ways. For example, it provides security services, library services and front-desk services. This audit examined three forms of support that the Department provides to the District Court:

• data collection, reporting and analysis - the Department collects data from cases in its case management system, JusticeLink, based on the orders Judges make in court and court papers
• technology - the Department provides technology to courts across New South Wales, as well as technical support for this technology
• policy - the Department is responsible for proposing and implementing policy reforms.

Recent years have seen a worsening of District Court efficiency, as measured in the Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services (RoGS). Efficiency in the court system is typically measured through timeliness of case completion. There is evidence that timeliness has worsened. For example, the median time from arrest to finalisation of a case in the District Court increased from 420 days in 2012–13 to 541 days in 2017–18.

As a result, the government has announced a range of measures to improve court performance, particularly in the District Court. These measures included the Early Appropriate Guilty Pleas (EAGP) reform. One of the objectives of EAGP is to improve court efficiency, which would be achieved by having more cases resolve with a guilty plea in the Local Court.

This audit assessed whether the Department of Communities and Justice effectively supports the efficient operation of the District Criminal Court system. We assessed this with the following lines of inquiry:

• Does the Department effectively collect, analyse and report performance information relevant to court efficiency?
• Does the Department effectively provide technology to support the efficient working of the courts?
• Does the Department have effective plans, governance and monitoring for the Early Appropriate Guilty Pleas reform?

The audit did not consider other support functions provided by the Department. Further information on the audit, including detailed audit criteria, may be found in Appendix two.

The Department is responsible for providing technology to the courts, which can improve the efficiency of court operations by making them faster and cheaper. The Department is also responsible for providing technical support to courtrooms and registries. It is important that technical support is provided in a timely manner because some technical incidents can delay court sittings and thus impact on court efficiency. A 2013 Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development report emphasised the importance of technology and digitisation for reducing trial length.

While the Department may provide technology to the courts, they are not responsible for deciding when, how or if the technology is used in the courtroom.

The Department is using a significant amount of outdated technology, risking court delays

As of April 2019, the whole court system had 2,389 laptops or desktop computers out of warranty, 56.0 per cent of the court system's fleet. The court system also had 786 printing devices out of their normal warranty period, 75.1 per cent of all printers in use. The Department also advised that many of its court audio transcription machines are out of date. These machines must be running for the court to sit and thus it is critical that they are maintained to a high degree. The then Department of Justice estimated the cost of aligning its hardware across the whole Department with desired levels at $14.0 million per year for three years. Figures for the court system were not calculated but they are likely to be a significant portion of this figure.

Using outdated technology poses a risk to the court system as older equipment may be more likely to break down, potentially delaying courts or slowing down court services. In the court system throughout 2018, hardware made up 30.8 per cent of all critical incidents reported to technical support and 41.9 per cent of all high priority incidents. In addition, 16.2 per cent of all reported issues related to printing devices or printing.

From 2017 to 2018, technical support incidents from courts or court services increased. There were 4,379 technical support incidents in 2017, which increased significantly to 9,186 in 2018. The Department advised that some outside factors may have contributed to this increase. The Department was rolling out its new incident recording system throughout 2017, meaning that there would be an under‑reporting of incidents in that year. The Department also advised that throughout 2018 there was a greater focus on ensuring that every issue was logged, which had not previously been the case. Despite these factors, the use of outdated technology has likely increased the risk of technology breakages and may have contributed to the increase in requests for technical support.

Refreshing technology on a regular basis would reduce the risk of hardware failures and ensure that equipment is covered by warranty.

The Department did not meet all court technical support targets in 2017 and 2018

The Digital and Technology Services branch (DTS) was responsible for providing technical support to the courts and the Courts and Tribunal Services branch prior to July 2019. DTS provided technical support in line with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the Department. In 2017, DTS did not provide this support in a timely manner. Performance improved in 2018, though DTS fell short of its targets for critical and moderate priority incidents. Exhibit 7 outlines DTS' targets under the SLA.

Critical incidents are particularly important for the Department to deal with in a timely manner because these include incidents which may delay a court sitting until resolved or incidents which impact on large numbers of staff. Some of the critical incidents raised with DTS specifically stated that they were delaying a court sitting, often due to transcription machines not working. High priority incidents include those where there is some impact on the functions of the business, which may in turn affect the efficiency of the court system. High priority incidents also include those directly impacting on members of the Judiciary. 

This audit examined DTS' performance against its SLA in the 2017 and 2018 calendar years across the whole court system, not just the District Court. The total number of incidents, as well as critical and high priority incidents, can be seen in Exhibit 8.

The Department's results against its SLA in 2017 and 2018 are shown in Exhibit 9.

The Early Appropriate Guilty Pleas (EAGP) reform consists of five main elements:

• early disclosure of evidence from NSW Police Force to the prosecution and defence
• early certification of what the accused is going to be charged with to minimise changes
• mandatory criminal case conferencing between the prosecutor and accused's representation
• changes to Local Court case management
• more structured sentence discounts.

More detailed descriptions of each of these changes can be found in the Introduction. These reform elements are anticipated to have three key effects:

• accelerate the timing of guilty pleas
• increase the overall proportion of guilty pleas
• decrease the average length of contested trials.

Improving District Court efficiency is one of the stated aims of EAGP, which would be achieved by having more cases resolve in the Local Court and having fewer defendants plead guilty on the day of their trial in the District Court. The reform commenced in April 2018 and it is too early to state the impact of this reform on District Court efficiency.

The Department is responsible for delivering EAGP in conjunction with other justice sector agencies. They participated in the Steering Committee and the Working Groups, as well as providing the Project Management Office (PMO).

The Department is not measuring the economic benefits stated in the EAGP business case

The business case for EAGP listed nine quantifiable benefits which were expected to be derived from the achievement of the three key effects listed above. The Department is not measuring one of these benefits and is not measuring the economic benefits for five more, as shown in Exhibit 12.

Benefit	Economic benefit (over ten years)	Being measured?
Accelerated timing of guilty pleas	$54.6m
Increased guilty plea rate	$90.7m
Decreased average trial length	$27.5m
A reduction in the delay of indictable matters proceeding to trial	N/A
Increase the number of finalised matters per annum	N/A
Reduction of the current backlog of criminal trials in the District Court	N/A
Reduction in bed pressure on the correction system due to reduced average time in custody	$13.7m
Productivity improvements due to reduction in wasted effort	$53.3m
Bankable cost savings due to jury empanelment avoided	$2.5m

Exhibit 12: The Department's measurement of quantifiable benefits

Key

Measuring

Not measuring economic benefit

Not measuring

While it is too early to comment on the overall impact of EAGP, better practice in benefits realisation involves an ongoing effort to monitor benefits to ensure that the reform is on target and determine whether any corrective action is needed.

The Department is measuring the number of finalised matters per annum and while the Department is not measuring the reduction in the backlog as part of this program, this measure is reported as part of the Department's internal reporting framework. The Department is not monitoring the reduction in delay of indictable matters proceeding to trial directly as part of this reform, but this does form part of the monthly Operational Performance Report which the Department sends to the EAGP Steering Committee.

The Department is not monitoring any of the economic benefits stated in the business case. These economic benefits are a mixture of bankable savings and productivity improvements. This amounts to a total of $242.3 million over ten years which was listed in the business case as potential economic benefits from the implementation of this reform against the total cost of $206.9 million over ten years. The Department is collecting proxy indicators which would assist in these calculations for several indicators, but it is not actively monitoring these savings. For example, the Department is monitoring average trial length, but is not using this information to calculate economic benefits derived from changes in trial length.

The Department is also not collecting information related to the average length of custody as part of this program. This means that it is unable to determine if EAGP is putting less pressure on the correctives system and it is not possible for the Department to calculate the savings from this particular benefit.

While stakeholders are optimistic about the impact of EAGP, not measuring the expected benefits stated in the business case means that the Department does not know if the reform is achieving what it was designed to achieve. Further, the Department does not know if it must take corrective action to ensure that the program achieves the stated benefits. These two things put the overall program benefits at risk.

The Department has not assigned responsibility for the realisation of each benefit stated in the business case. The Department holds the Steering Committee responsible for the realisation of all benefits. Benefits realisation is the process which ensures that the agency reaches benefits as stated in the business case. Assigning responsibility for benefits realisation to the Steering Committee rather than individuals is not in line with good practice.

Good practice benefits realisation involves assigning responsibility for the realisation of each benefit to an individual at the business unit level. This ensures there is a single point of accountability for each part of the program with knowledge of the benefit and the ability to take corrective action if it looks like that benefit will not be realised. This responsibility should sit at the operational level where detailed action can most easily be undertaken. The role of a Steering Committee in benefits realisation is to ensure that responsible parties are monitoring their benefits and taking appropriate corrective action.

The Department advised that it believes the Steering Committee should have responsibility for the realisation of benefits due to the difficulty of attributing the achievement of each benefit to one part of the reform alone. Given the Steering Committee meets only quarterly, it is not well placed to take action in response to variances in performance.

BOCSAR are planning to undertake an overall evaluation of EAGP which is planned for release in 2021. Undertaking this evaluation will require high quality data to gain an understanding of the drivers of the reform. However, data captured throughout the first year of EAGP has proven unreliable, which may reduce the usefulness of BOCSAR's evaluation. These data issues were discussed in Exhibit 5 in Chapter 2, above. Access to accurate data is vital for conducting any program evaluation and inaccurate data raises the risk that the BOCSAR evaluation will not be able to provide an accurate evaluation of the impact of EAGP.

In addition to the BOCSAR evaluation, the Department had plans for a series of 'snapshot' evaluations for some of the key elements of the reform to ensure that they were operating effectively. These were initially delayed due to an efficiency dividend which affected EAGP. In August 2019, the Department commissioned a review of the implementation of several key success factors for EAGP.

The implementation stage of EAGP had clear governance, lines of authority and communication. The Steering Committee, each Working Group and each agency had clear roles and responsibilities, and these were organised through a Project Management Office (PMO) provided by the former Department of Justice. The governance structure throughout the implementation phase can be seen at Exhibit 13.

The Steering Committee was established in December 2016 and met regularly from March 2017. It comprised senior members of key government agencies, as well as the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate for most of the duration of the implementation period. The Steering Committee met at least monthly throughout the life of the program. The Steering Committee was responsible for overseeing the delivery of EAGP and making key decisions relating to implementation, including spending decisions. The Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate abstained from financial decisions. The Steering Committee updated the governance and membership of the Steering Committee as appropriate throughout the life of the reform.

Appendix one – Response from agency
 
Appendix two – About the audit 

Appendix three – Performance auditing 

Copyright Notice

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

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #329 - released 18 December 2019

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 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.

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.

Cluster expenses

$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:

The report found that both councils could do more to monitor and assess the effectiveness of their pre-lodgement and lodgement stages. The audit highlighted that Randwick City Council closely follows guidance designed to encourage good practice in these initial stages of its development assessments. It also demonstrated it was timely when processing lodgements. Camden Council is partially following the guidance and could not demonstrate that its lodgement stage was timely.

A development application is a formal application for development that requires consent under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is usually lodged with the local council for processing and determination, and consists of standard application forms, supporting technical reports and plans. 

In March 2017, the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)¹ released the ‘Development Assessment Best Practice Guide' designed to help councils assess development applications in a timely manner and provide a better experience for applicants. 

DPE's guide describes the development assessment process in five stages. 

According to the Guidance, councils should systematically measure, monitor and review development assessment outcomes and timeframes against performance targets to ensure the process is transparent, accountable and outcome-focused.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Council's alignment with the guidance

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #322 - released 20 June 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.

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, today released a report on Domestic waste management in Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council.The report found that both Councils collect and transport domestic kerbside waste effectively and process it at a low cost. The Councils also effectively process waste placed in green-lid and yellow-lid bins, but neither Council has been able to enforce their contracts for processing red-lid bin waste. As a result, almost all such waste goes straight to landfill. 

Local councils provide waste management services to their residents. They collect domestic waste primarily through kerbside services, but also at council drop off facilities. Waste management is one of the major services local councils deliver. Each year, councils collectively manage an estimated 3.5 million tonnes of waste generated by New South Wales residents.

Waste disposed of in landfills attracts a NSW Government waste levy. Councils’ kerbside services help residents to separate recyclable and non recyclable waste. This reduces the cost of waste disposed to landfill. These services typically provide yellow-lid bins for dry recyclables, green-lid bins for garden organics and red-lid bins for residual waste. To increase the level of recycling, some councils deliver residual waste to alternative waste treatment facilities for processing. This can involve composting and the recovery of resources, including plastics and metals, which can be recycled.

Appendix one - Responses from local councils

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #320 - released 5 June 2019

The Acting Auditor General of New South Wales, Ian Goodwin, released a report today on the results of financial audits of NSW universities for the year ended 31 December 2018.

All ten NSW universities received unqualified audit opinions.

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the ten NSW universities for the year ended 31 December 2018. The table below summarises our key observations.

This report provides Parliament with the results of our financial audits of New South Wales universities and their controlled entities in 2018, including our analysis, observations and recommendations in the following areas:

• financial reporting
• internal controls and governance
• teaching and research.

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

This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial reporting of NSW universities for 2018.

Appropriate and robust internal controls help reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and administration of NSW universities.

This chapter outlines the internal controls related observations and insights across NSW universities for 2018, including overall trends in findings, level of risk and implications.

Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. The more significant issues and risks are included in this chapter. These along with the less significant ones are reported to universities for them to address.

Universities' primary objectives are teaching and research. They invest most of their resources to achieve quality outcomes in academia and student experience. Universities have committed to achieving certain government targets and compete to advance their reputation and international and Australian rankings.

This chapter outlines teaching and research outcomes for NSW universities for 2018.

Appendix one – List of 2018 recommendations

Appendix two – Status of 2017 recommendations

Appendix three – NSW universities, controlled entities and associated entities

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