Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Transport 2018

Transport 2018

Transport
Asset valuation
Compliance
Financial reporting
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Risk
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford released her report today on key observations and findings from the 30 June 2018 financial statement audits of agencies in the Transport cluster. Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements. However, assessing the fair value of the broad range of transport related assets creates challenges.

This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the Transport cluster for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key 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.

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 2018.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
2.1 Quality of financial reporting
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all agencies' financial statements Sufficient audit evidence was obtained to conclude the financial statements were free of material misstatement.
2.2 Key accounting issues
Valuation of assets continues to create challenges. Although agencies complied with the requirements of the accounting standards and Treasury policies on valuations, we identified some opportunities for improvements at RMS.

RMS incorporated data from its asset condition assessments for the first time in the valuation methodology which improved the valuation outcome. Overall, we were satisfied with the valuation methodology and key assumptions, but we noted some deficiencies in the asset data in relation to asset component unit rates and old condition data for some components of assets. 

Also, a bypass and tunnel were incorrectly excluded from RMS records and valuation process since 2013. This resulted in an increase for these assets’ value by $133 million.

The valuation inputs for Wetlands and Moorings were revised this year to better reflect the assets' characteristics resulting in a $98.0 million increase.

2.3 Timeliness of financial reporting
Residual Transport Corporation did not submit its financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline. Residual Transport Corporation remained a dormant entity with no transactions for the year ended 30 June 2018.
With the exception of Residual Transport Corporation, all agencies completed early close procedures and submitted financial statements within statutory timeframes. Early close procedures allow financial reporting issues and risks to be addressed early in the reporting and audit process.
2.4 Financial sustainability
NSW Trains and the Chief Investigator of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations reported negative net assets of $75.7 million and $89,000 respectively at 30 June 2018.  NSW Trains and the Chief Investigator of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations continue to require letters of financial support to confirm their ability to pay liabilities as they fall due. 
2.5 Passenger revenue and patronage
Transport agencies revenue growth increased at a higher rate than patronage. Public transport passenger revenue increased by $114 million (8.3 per cent) in 2017–18, and patronage increased by 37.1 million (5.1 per cent) across all modes of transport based on data provided by TfNSW. 
Negative balance Opal Cards resulted in $3.8 million in revenue not collected in 2017–18 and $7.8 million since the introduction of Opal. A total of 1.1 million Opal cards issued since its introduction have negative balances. Transport for NSW advised it is liaising with the ticketing vendor to implement system changes and are investigating other ways to reduce the occurrences.
2.6 Cost recovery from public transport users
Overall cost recovery from users has decreased. Overall cost recovery from public transport users (on rail and bus services by STA) decreased from 23.2 per cent to 22.4 per cent between 2016–17 and 2017–18. The main reason for the decrease is due to expenditure increasing at a faster rate than revenue in 2017–18.


 

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 for 2018
  • the areas of focus identified in the Audit Office annual work program.

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

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
3.1 Internal controls 
There was an increase in findings on internal controls across the Transport cluster. Key themes related to information technology, employee leave entitlements and asset management. Eighteen per cent of all issues were repeat issues.
3.2 Audit Office Annual work program
The Transport cluster wrote-off over $200 million of assets which were replaced by new assets or technology.

Majority of this write-off was recognised by RMS, with $199 million relating to the write-off of existing assets which have been replaced during the year. 

RailCorp is expected to convert to TAHE from 1 July 2019. Several working groups are considering different aspects of the TAHE transition including its status as a for-profit Public Trading Enterprise and which assets to transfer to TAHE. We will continue to monitor developments on TAHE for any impact to the financial statements.
RMS' estimated maintenance backlog at 30 June 2018 of $3.4 billion is lower than last year. Sydney Trains' estimated maintenance backlog at 30 June 2018 increased by 20.6 per cent to $434 million. TfNSW does not quantify its backlog maintenance. TfNSW advised it is liaising with Infrastructure NSW to develop a consistent definition of maintenance backlog across all transport service providers. 
Not all agencies monitor unplanned maintenance across the Transport cluster. Unplanned maintenance can be more expensive than planned maintenance. TfNSW should develop a consistent approach to define, monitor and track unplanned maintenance across the cluster.

This chapter outlines certain service delivery outcomes for 2017–18. The data on activity levels and performance is provided by Cluster agencies. The Audit Office does not have a specific mandate to audit performance information. Accordingly, the information in this chapter is unaudited. 

We report this information on service delivery to provide additional context to understand the operations of the Transport cluster and to collate and present service information for different modes of transport in one report. 

In our recent performance audit, Progress and measurement of Premier's Priorities, we identified 12 limitations of performance measurement and performance data. We recommended that the Department of Premier and Cabinet ensure that processes to check and verify data are in place for all agency data sources.

Published

Actions for Shared services in local government

Shared services in local government

Local Government
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Shared services and collaboration

Local councils need to properly assess the performance of their current services before considering whether to enter into arrangements with other councils to jointly manage back-office functions or services for their communities. This is one of the recommended practices for councils in a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. ‘When councils have decided to jointly provide services, they do not always have a strong business case, which clearly identifies the expected costs, benefits and risks of shared service arrangements’, said the Auditor-General.

Councils provide a range of services to meet the needs of their communities. It is important that they consider the most effective and efficient way to deliver them. Many councils work together to share knowledge, resources and services. When done well, councils can save money and improve access to services. This audit assessed how efficiently and effectively councils engage in shared service arrangements. We define ‘shared services’ as two or more councils jointly managing activities to deliver services to communities or perform back-office functions. 

The information we gathered for this audit included a survey of all general-purpose councils in NSW. In total 67 councils (52 per cent) responded to the survey from 128 invited to participate. Appendix two outlines in more detail some of the results from our survey. 

Conclusion
Most councils we surveyed are not efficiently and effectively engaging in shared services. This is due to three main factors. 
First, not all surveyed councils are assessing the performance of their current services before deciding on the best service delivery model. Where they have decided that sharing services is the best way to deliver services, they do not always build a business case which outlines the costs, benefits and risks of the proposed shared service arrangement before entering into it.
Second, some governance models used by councils to share services affect the scope, management and effectiveness of their shared service operations. Not all models are subject to the same checks and balances applied to councils, risking transparency and accountability. Councils must comply with legislative obligations under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), including principles for their day-to-day operations. When two or more councils decide to share services, they should choose the most suitable governance model in line with these obligations. 
Third, some councils we surveyed and spoke to lack the capability required to establish and manage shared service arrangements. Identifying whether sharing is the best way to deliver council services involves analysing how services are currently being delivered and building a business case. Councils also need to negotiate with partner councils and determine which governance model is fit for purpose. Planning to establish a shared service arrangement involves strong project management. Evaluating the arrangements identifies whether they are delivering to the expected outcomes. All of these tasks need a specialised skill set that councils do not always have in-house. Resources are available to support councils and to build their capability, but not all councils are seeking this out or considering their capability needs before proceeding.  
Some councils are not clearly defining the expected costs and benefits of shared service arrangements. As a result, the benefits from these arrangements cannot be effectively evaluated.
Some councils are entering into shared service arrangements without formally assessing their costs and benefits or investigating alternative service delivery models. Some councils are also not evaluating shared services against baseline data or initial expectations. Councils should base their arrangements on a clear analysis of the costs, benefits and risks involved. They should evaluate performance against clearly defined outcomes.
The decision to share a service involves an assessment of financial and non-financial costs and benefits. Non-financial benefits include being able to deliver additional services, improve service quality, and deliver regional services across councils or levels of government. 
When councils need support to assess and evaluate shared service arrangements, guidance is available through organisations or by peer learning with other councils.
The governance models councils use for shared services can affect their scope and effectiveness. Some councils need to improve their project management practices to better manage issues, risks and reporting. 
Shared services can operate under several possible governance models. Each governance model has different legal or administrative obligations, risks and benefits. Some arrangements can affect the scope and effectiveness of shared services. For example, some models do not allow councils to jointly manage services, requiring one council to take all risks and responsibilities. In addition, some models may reduce transparency and accountability to councils and their communities.
Regardless of these obligations and risks, councils can still improve how they manage their shared services operations by focusing on project management and better oversight. They would benefit from more guidance on shared service governance models to help them ensure the they are fit for purpose.
Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should, by April 2019:

Develop guidance which outlines the risks and opportunities of governance models that councils can use to share services. This should include advice on legal requirements, transparency in decisions, and accountability for effective use of public resources.

Published

Actions for Connecting with public transport

Connecting with public transport

Transport
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Project management
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

We see considerable potential for the Ministry of Transport to plan and manage interchanges more effectively, so as to make better use of our public transport network. We believe that the Ministry now needs to focus more on multi-modal transport planning and interchange performance. It needs to assign responsibility for the coordination and oversight of inter-modal operations to an entity resourced for the purpose. Without this it will continue to be very difficult to identify and address unmet needs, seek and secure stakeholder funding, and monitor and evaluate system performance.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #168 - released 6 June 2007

Published

Actions for Use of the internet and related technologies to improve public sector performance

Use of the internet and related technologies to improve public sector performance

Whole of Government
Cyber security
Information technology
Procurement
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

Notwithstanding the considerable effort, it is not apparent that the Government's vision can be fully achieved without increased efforts. Based on the current position, to ensure that the Government's vision can be achieved the Audit Office is of the view that the following key issues need to be urgently addressed: 

  • more robust mechanisms are needed to monitor, review and report publicly on progress and benefits

  • a greater emphasis should be placed on central coordination to ensure that agencies act in a more uniform and integrated manner  

  • the achievement of significant reform of business processes will require a substantial strengthening of accountability mechanisms and more comprehensive, rigorous and systematic approaches to e-government project and risk management. 

  • despite an array of guidance material and support provided by central agencies, line agency needs for assistance do not seem to be being met to sufficiently advance matters across the sector at the pace and scope desired

  • the Government’s e-government aspirations and funding are not always effectively harmonised. Agencies typically have limited resources available to trial or experience new technologies, and display an aversion to the associated risks.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #87 - released 19 September 2001