Refine search

Reports

18 October 2018

Published

Mobile speed cameras

Transport

Compliance

Financial reporting

Information technology

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Regulation

Service delivery

The primary goal of speed cameras is to reduce speeding and make the roads safer. Our 2011 performance audit on speed cameras found that, in general, speed cameras change driver behaviour and have a positive impact on road safety.

Transport for NSW published the NSW Speed Camera Strategy in June 2012 in response to our audit. According to the Strategy, the main purpose of mobile speed cameras is to reduce speeding across the road network by providing a general deterrence through anywhere, anytime enforcement and by creating a perceived risk of detection across the road network. Fixed and red-light speed cameras aim to reduce speeding at specific locations.

Roads and Maritime Services and Transport for NSW deploy mobile speed cameras (MSCs) in consultation with NSW Police. The cameras are operated by contractors authorised by Roads and Maritime Services. MSC locations are stretches of road that can be more than 20 kilometres long. MSC sites are specific places within these locations that meet the requirements for a MSC vehicle to be able to operate there.

This audit assessed whether the mobile speed camera program is effectively managed to maximise road safety benefits across the NSW road network.

Conclusion

The mobile speed camera program requires improvements to key aspects of its management to maximise road safety benefits. While camera locations have been selected based on crash history, the limited number of locations restricts network coverage. It also makes enforcement more predictable, reducing the ability to provide a general deterrence. Implementation of the program has been consistent with government decisions to limit its hours of operation and use multiple warning signs. These factors limit the ability of the mobile speed camera program to effectively deliver a broad general network deterrence from speeding.

Many locations are needed to enable network-wide coverage and ensure MSC sessions are randomised and not predictable. However, there are insufficient locations available to operate MSCs that meet strict criteria for crash history, operator safety, signage and technical requirements. MSC performance would be improved if there were more locations.

A scheduling system is meant to randomise MSC location visits to ensure they are not predictable. However, a relatively small number of locations have been visited many times making their deployment more predictable in these places. The allocation of MSCs across the time of day, day of week and across regions is prioritised based on crash history but the frequency of location visits does not correspond with the crash risk for each location.

There is evidence of a reduction in fatal and serious crashes at the 30 best-performing MSC locations. However, there is limited evidence that the current MSC program in NSW has led to a behavioural change in drivers by creating a general network deterrence. While the overall reduction in serious injuries on roads has continued, fatalities have started to climb again. Compliance with speed limits has improved at the sites and locations that MSCs operate, but the results of overall network speed surveys vary, with recent improvements in some speed zones but not others.
There is no supporting justification for the number of hours of operation for the program. The rate of MSC enforcement (hours per capita) in NSW is less than Queensland and Victoria. The government decision to use multiple warning signs has made it harder to identify and maintain suitable MSC locations, and impeded their use for enforcement in both traffic directions and in school zones.

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #308 - released 18 October 2018

22 June 2018

Published

Fraud controls in local councils

Local Government

Fraud

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Risk

Many local councils need to improve their fraud control systems, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. The report highlights that councils often have fraud control procedures and systems in place, but are not ensuring people understand them and how they work. There is also significant variation between councils in the quality of their fraud controls.

Fraud can directly influence councils’ ability to deliver services, and undermine community confidence and trust. ICAC investigations, such as the recent Operation Ricco into the former City of Botany Bay Council, show the financial and reputational damage that major fraud can cause. Good fraud control practices are critical for councils and the community.

The Audit Office of New South Wales 2015 Fraud Control Improvement Kit (the Kit) aligns with the Fraud and Corruption Control Standard AS8001-2008 and identifies ten attributes of an effective fraud control system. This audit used the Kit to assess how councils manage the risk of fraud. It identifies areas where fraud control can improve.

Fraud can disrupt the delivery and quality of services and threaten the financial stability of councils.

Recent reviews of local government in Queensland and Victoria identify that councils are at risk of fraud because they purchase large quantities of goods and services using devolved decision making arrangements. The Queensland Audit Office in its 2014–15 report 'Fraud Management in Local Government' found that ‘Councils are exposed to high-risks of fraud and corruption because of the high volume of goods and services they procure, often from local suppliers; and because of the high degree of decision making vested in councils'. They also highlight some common problems faced by councils including the absence of fraud control plans and failure to conduct regular reviews of their internal controls. Also, in 2008 and 2012 the Victorian Auditor-General identified the importance of up-to-date fraud control planning, clearly documented related policies, training staff to identify fraud risks and the importance of controls such as third party management.

Investigations into councils by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), such as the recent Operation Ricco, show the impact that fraud can have on councils. These impacts include significant financial loss, and negative public perceptions about how well councils manage fraud. The findings of these investigations also show the importance of good fraud controls for councils.

Operation Ricco

In its report on Operation Ricco, the ICAC found that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the City of Botany Bay Council and others dishonestly exercised official functions to obtain financial benefits for themselves and others by causing fraudulent payments from the Council for their benefit. It also identified the CFO received inducements for favourable treatment of contractors.

The report noted that there were overwhelming failures in the council’s procedures and governance framework that created significant opportunities for corruption, of which the CFO and others took advantage.

It found weaknesses across a wide variety of governance processes and functions, including those involving the general manager, the internal audit function, external audit, and the operation of the audit committee.

Source: Published reports of ICAC investigations July 2017.

The strength of fraud control systems varies significantly across New South Wales local councils, and many councils we surveyed need to improve significantly.

Most surveyed councils do not have fraud control plans that direct resources to mitigating the specific fraud risks they face. Few councils reported that they conduct regular risk assessments or health checks to ensure they respond effectively to the risks they identify.

There are sector wide weaknesses that impact on the strength of councils' fraud control practice. Less than one-third of councils that responded to the survey:

communicate their expectations about ethical conduct and responsibility for fraud control to staff
regularly train staff to identify and respond to suspected fraud
inform staff or the wider community how to report suspected fraud and how reports made will be investigated.

The audit also identified a pattern of councils developing policies, procedures or systems without ensuring people understand them, or assessing that they work. This reduces the likelihood that staff will actually use them.

In general, metropolitan and regional councils surveyed have stronger fraud control systems than rural councils.

Newly amalgamated councils are operating with systems inherited from two or more pre-amalgamated councils. These councils are developing new systems for their changed circumstances.

Five councils surveyed reported that they did not comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.

Observations for the sector:
Councils should improve their fraud controls by:

tailoring fraud control plans to their circumstances and specific risks
systematically and regularly reviewing their fraud risks and fraud control systems to keep their plans up to-date
effectively communicating fraud risks, and how staff and the community can report suspected fraud
ensuring that they comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.

Recommendation:
That the Office of Local Government:

work with councils to ensure they comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.

Despite several New South Wales state entities collecting data on suspected fraud, the cost, extent, and nature of fraud in local councils is not clear.

There are weaknesses in data collection and categorisation. Several state entities receive complaints about councils. These entities often do not separate complaints about fraud from other complaint data, do not separate local council data from other public-sector data, and do not separate complaints about council decisions or councillors from complaints about council staff conduct. Complaints about one incidence of suspected fraud can also be reported multiple times.

Collaboration between state entities and councils to address these weaknesses in data collection could provide a clearer picture to the public and councils on the incidence of suspected fraud. Better information may also help councils decide where to focus fraud control efforts and apply resources more effectively.

Including measures for fraud control strength and maturity in the OLG performance framework may also improve practice in councils. Further, OLG may want to consider how a revised Model Code could better drive fraud control practice in councils.

Recommendations
That the Office of Local Government:

work with state entities and councils to develop a common approach to how fraud complaints and incidences are defined and categorised so that they can:
- better use data to provide a clearer picture of the level of fraud within councils
- measure the effectiveness of, and drive improvement in councils' fraud controls systems

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – Survey results

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #303 - released 22 June 2018

21 June 2018

Published

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.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – Survey findings

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #302 - released 21 June 2018

1 February 2018

Published

Council reporting on service delivery

Local Government

Compliance

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Service delivery

New South Wales local government councils’ could do more to demonstrate how well they are delivering services in their reports to the public, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. Many councils report activity, but do not report on outcomes in a way that would help their communities assess how well they are performing. Most councils also did not report on the cost of services, making it difficult for communities to see how efficiently they are being delivered. And councils are not consistently publishing targets to demonstrate what they are striving for.

I am pleased to present my first local government performance audit pursuant to section 421D of the Local Government Act 1993.

My new mandate supports the Parliament’s objectives to:

strengthen governance and financial oversight in the local government sector
improve financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability for how councils use citizens’ funds.

Performance audits aim to help councils improve their efficiency and effectiveness. They will also provide communities with independent information on the performance of their councils.

For this inaugural audit in the local government sector, I have chosen to examine how well councils report to their constituents about the services they provide.

In this way, the report will enable benchmarking and provide improvement guidance to all councils across New South Wales.

Specific recommendations to drive improved reporting are directed to the Office of Local Government, which is the regulator of councils in New South Wales.

Councils provide a range of services which have a direct impact on the amenity, safety and health of their communities. These services need to meet the needs and expectations of their communities, as well as relevant regulatory requirements set by state and federal governments. Councils have a high level of autonomy in decisions about how and to whom they provide services, so it is important that local communities have access to information about how well they are being delivered and meeting community needs. Ultimately councils should aim to ensure that reporting performance is subject to quality controls designed to provide independent assurance.

Conclusion

While councils report on outputs, reporting on outcomes and performance over time can be improved. Improved reporting would include objectives with targets that better demonstrate performance over time. This would help communities understand what services are being delivered, how efficiently and effectively they are being delivered, and what improvements are being made.

To ensure greater transparency on service effectiveness and efficiency, the Office of Local Government (OLG) should work with councils to develop guidance principles to improve reporting on service delivery to local communities. This audit identified an interest amongst councils in improving their reporting and broad agreement with the good practice principles developed as part of the audit.

The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (the Framework), which councils are required to use to report on service delivery, is intended to promote better practice. However, the Framework is silent on efficiency reporting and provides limited guidance on how long-term strategic documents link with annual reports produced as part of the Framework. OLG's review of the Framework, currently underway, needs to address these issues.

OLG should also work with state agencies to reduce the overall reporting burden on councils by consolidating state agency reporting requirements.

Councils report extensively on the things they have done, but minimally on the outcomes from that effort, efficiency and performance over time.

Councils could improve reporting on service delivery by more clearly relating the resources needed with the outputs produced, and by reporting against clear targets. This would enable communities to understand how efficiently services are being delivered and how well councils are tracking against their goals and priorities.

Across the sector, a greater focus is also needed on reporting performance over time so that communities can track changes in performance and councils can demonstrate whether they are on target to meet any agreed timeframes for service improvements.

The degree to which councils demonstrate good practice in reporting on service delivery varies greatly between councils. Metropolitan and regional town and city councils generally produce better quality reporting than rural councils. This variation indicates that, at least in the near-term, OLG's efforts in building capability in reporting would be best directed toward rural councils.

Recommendation

By mid-2018, OLG should:

assist rural councils to develop their reporting capability.

The Framework which councils are required to use to report on service delivery, is intended to drive good practice in reporting. Despite this, the Framework is silent on a number of aspects of reporting that should be considered fundamental to transparent reporting on service delivery. It does not provide guidance on reporting efficiency or cost effectiveness in service delivery and provides limited guidance on how annual reports link with other plans produced as part of the Framework. OLG's review of the Framework, currently underway, needs to address these issues.

Recommendation

By mid-2018, OLG should:

issue additional guidance on good practice in council reporting, with specific information on:
- reporting on performance against targets
- reporting on performance against outcome
- assessing and reporting on efficiency and cost effectiveness
- reporting performance over time
- clearer integration of all reports and plans that are required by the Framework, particularly the role of End of Term Reporting
- defining reporting terms to encourage consistency.

The Framework is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reports

The guidelines produced by OLG in 2013 to assist councils to implement their Framework requirements advise that performance measures should be included in all plans. However, the Framework does not specifically state that efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators should be included as part of this process. This has been identified as a weakness in the 2012 performance audit report and the Local Government Reform Panel review of reporting by councils on service delivery.

The Framework and supporting documents provide limited guidance on reporting

Councils' annual reports provide a consolidated summary of their efforts and achievements in service delivery and financial management. However, OLG provides limited guidance on:

good practice in reporting to the community
how the annual report links with other plans and reports required by the Framework.

Further, the Framework includes both Annual and End of Term Reports. However, End of Term reports are published prior to council elections and are mainly a consolidation of annual reports produced during a council’s term. The relationship between Annual reports and End of Term reports is not clear.

OLG is reviewing the Framework and guidance

OLG commenced work on reviewing of the Framework in 2013 but this was deferred with work re‑starting in 2017. The revised guidelines and manual were expected to be released late in 2017.

OLG should build on the Framework to improve guidance on reporting on service delivery, including in annual reports

The Framework provides limited guidance on how best to report on service delivery, including in annual reports. It is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reporting, which are fundamental aspects of performance reporting. Councils we consulted would welcome more guidance from OLG on these aspects of reporting.

Our consultation with councils highlighted that many council staff would welcome a set of reporting principles that provide guidance to councils, without being prescriptive. This would allow councils to tailor their approach to the individual characteristics, needs and priorities of their local communities.

Consolidating what councils are required to report to state agencies would reduce the reporting burden and enable councils to better report on performance. Comparative performance indicators are also needed to provide councils and the public with a clear understanding of councils' performance relative to each other.

Recommendations

By mid-2018, OLG should:

commence work to consolidate the information reported by individual councils to NSW Government agencies as part of their compliance requirements.
progress work on the development of a Performance Measurement Framework, and associated performance indicators, that can be used by councils and the NSW Government in sector-wide performance reporting.

Streamlining the reporting burden would help councils improve reporting

The NSW Government does not have a central view of all local government reporting, planning and compliance obligations. A 2016 draft IPART ‘Review of reporting and compliance burdens on Local Government’ noted that councils provide a wide range of services under 67 different Acts, administered by 27 different NSW Government agencies. Consolidating and coordinating reporting requirements would assist with better reporting over time and comparative reporting. It would also provide an opportunity for NSW Government agencies to reduce the reporting burden on councils by identifying and removing duplication.

Enabling rural councils to perform tailored surveys of their communities may be more beneficial than a state-wide survey in defining outcome indicators

Some councils use community satisfaction survey data to develop outcome indicators for reporting. The results from these are used by councils to set service delivery targets and report on outcomes. This helps to drive service delivery in line with community expectations. While some regional councils do conduct satisfaction surveys, surveys are mainly used by metropolitan councils which generally have the resources needed to run them.

OLG and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have explored the potential to conduct state-wide resident satisfaction surveys with a view to establishing measures to improve service delivery. This work has drawn from a similar approach adopted in Victoria. Our consultation with stakeholders in Victoria indicated that the state level survey is not sufficiently detailed or specific enough to be used as a tool in setting targets that respond to local circumstances, expectations and priorities. Our analysis of reports and consultation with stakeholders suggest that better use of resident survey data in rural and regional areas may support improvements in performance reporting in these areas. Rural councils may benefit more from tailored surveys of groups of councils with similar challenges, priorities and circumstances than from a standard state-wide survey. These could potentially be achieved through regional cooperation between groups of similar councils or regional groups.

Comparative reporting indicators are needed to enable councils to respond to service delivery priorities of their communities

The Local Government Reform Panel in 2012 identified the need for ‘more consistent data collection and benchmarking to enable councils and the public to gain a clear understanding of how a council is performing relative to their peers’.

OLG commenced work in 2012 to build a new performance measurement Framework for councils which aimed to move away from compliance reporting. This work was also strongly influenced by the approach used in Victoria that requires councils to report on a set of 79 indicators which are reported on the Victorian 'Know your council' website. OLG’s work did not fully progress at the time and several other local government representative bodies have since commenced work to establish performance measurement frameworks. OLG advised us it has recently recommenced its work on this project.

Our consultation identified some desire amongst councils to be able to compare their performance to support improvement in the delivery of services. We also identified a level of frustration that more progress has not been made toward establishment of a set of indicators that councils can use to measure performance and drive improvement in service delivery.

Several councils we spoke with were concerned that the current approaches to comparative reporting did not adequately acknowledge that councils need to tailor their service types, level and mix to the needs of their community. Comparative reporting approaches tend to focus on output measures such as number of applications processed, library loans annually and opening hours for sporting facilities, rather than outcome measures. These approaches risk unjustified and adverse interpretations of performance where councils have made a decision based on community consultation, local priorities and available resources. To mitigate this, it is important to

adopt a partnership approach to the development of indicators
ensure indicators measure performance, not just level of activity
compare performance between councils that are similar in terms of size and location.

It may be more feasible, at least in the short term, for OLG to support small groups of like councils to develop indicators suited to their situation.

Based on our consultations, key lessons from implementing a sector-wide performance indicator framework in Victoria included the benefits of:

consolidation of the various compliance data currently being reported by councils to provide an initial platform for comparative performance reporting
adopting a partnership approach to development of common indicators with groups of like councils.

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - Service delivery categorisation

Appendix three - Reporting targets and performance over time

Appendix four - Performance auditing

Appendix five - About the audit

Parliamentary reference - Report number #296 - released 1 February 2018

2 November 2017

Published

Government Advertising: Campaigns for 2015–16 and 2016–17

Premier and Cabinet

Justice

Local Government

Compliance

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Procurement

The 'Stronger Councils, Stronger Communities' and the 'Dogs deserve better' government advertising campaigns complied with the Government Advertising Act and most elements of the Government Advertising Guidelines.

However, some advertisements were designed to build support for government policy and used subjective or emotive messages. This is inconsistent with the requirement in the Government Advertising Guidelines for 'objective presentation in a fair and accessible manner'.

Advertisements in the 'Stronger Councils, Stronger Communities' campaign used subjective statements such as 'the system is broken' and 'brighter future'. While advertisements in the 'Dogs deserve better' campaign used confronting imagery such as gun targets, blood smears and gravestones.

The Government Advertising Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit in relation to at least one government advertising campaign in each financial year. The performance audit assesses whether advertising campaigns were carried out effectively, economically and efficiently and in compliance with the Act, the regulations, other laws and the Government Advertising Guidelines (the Guidelines). In this audit, we examined two campaigns:

the ‘Stronger Councils, Stronger Communities’ campaign run by the Office of Local Government and the Department of Premier and Cabinet
the ‘Dogs deserve better’ campaign run by the Department of Justice.

Section 6 of the Act details the specific prohibitions on political advertising. Under this section, material that is part of a government advertising campaign must not contain the name, voice or image of a minister, member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament or the name, logo or any slogan of a political party. Further, a campaign must not be designed so as to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party.

The ‘Stronger Councils, Stronger Communities’ government advertising campaign was run by the Office of Local Government and the Department of Premier and Cabinet in four phases from August 2015 to May 2016. The total cost of the campaign was over $4.5 million. See Appendix 2 for more details on this campaign.

The ‘Stronger Councils, Stronger Communities’ advertising campaign has not breached the specific provisions of Section 6 of the Act which prohibits political advertising.

Two factors potentially compromised value for money for the campaign. The request for quotes for the design of the Phase 1 advertisement did not reflect the full scale of work to be undertaken, which was substantially greater than initially quoted. Further, the department did not meet all recommended timeframes to minimise media booking costs for all phases of the campaign.

The campaign did not comply with all administrative requirements in all phases. Advertising for Phase 1 commenced before the compliance certificate was signed. There was no evidence that a compliance certificate was signed for Phase 2 extension. The cost benefit analyses for Phase 2 and Phase 2 extension did not sufficiently consider alternatives to advertising, as is required by the Government Advertising Guidelines.

Advertisements adopted subjective messages designed to build public support for council mergers and directed audiences to websites for more detailed information. Campaign research identified statements that were most likely to reduce resistance to mergers. Some advertising content used subjective language, which we consider inconsistent with the requirement for ‘objective presentation’. Evaluations of advertising effectiveness also measured the success of the advertisements in increasing public support for council mergers.

No breach of specific prohibitions in the Act

Section 6 of the Act prohibits the use of government advertising for political advertising. A government advertising campaign must not:

be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
contain the name, voice or image of a minister, any other member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
contain the name, logo or any slogan of, or any other reference relating to, a political party.

We did not identify any breach of the specific prohibitions listed above in the advertising content of this campaign.

Request for quotes to design advertisement did not reflect the full scope required

The request for quotes for the design of the Phase 1 advertisement did not reflect the full scale of work that was to be undertaken, and this created a risk to achieving value for money. The Office of Local Government sought quotes for design of a television advertisement only. It did not request an estimate for radio, online advertisements, or translation for linguistically diverse audiences, which were ultimately required for the campaign.

A full and fair assessment of which supplier could provide the best value for money could not be made given that the quotes obtained did not reflect the full scope of work. The final amount paid for the design of Phase 1 was 2.7 times the original quote. It is possible that another supplier that provided a quote could have provided overall better value for money.

The Office of Local Government continued to use the Phase 1 supplier for Phase 2 and Phase 2 extension (Exhibit 4). Where there are other suppliers that could feasibly compete for a contract, direct negotiation increases the risk the agency has not obtained the best value for money. The department advised that it continued with the same agency to avoid costs involved in briefing a new agency on the campaign.

The ‘Dogs deserve better’ government advertising campaign was run by the Department of Justice from August 2016, after the government announced its decision to prohibit greyhound racing, and was terminated in October 2016 after a change of government policy. The campaign had a budget of $1.6 million, with an actual spend of $1.3 million. See Appendix 2 for more details on this campaign.

The ‘Dogs deserve better’ advertising campaign has not breached the specific provisions of Section 6 of the Act which prohibits political advertising.

The Secretary of the department determined that urgent circumstances existed that required advertising to commence prior to completing a cost benefit analysis and peer review. There was a concern that industry participants may make impulse decisions to destroy greyhounds without further information on support services; there was also an identified need to promote public greyhound adoptions.

Phase 1 advertisements focused on explaining the reasons for the prohibition on greyhound racing with a reference to a website for further information. While industry participants were identified as the primary audience, media expenditure was not specifically targeted to this group. Phase 2 advertisements more effectively addressed the originally identified ‘urgent needs’ of providing information on support services for greyhound owners and information on how the public could adopt a greyhound.

The urgency to advertise potentially compromised value for money. The department did not use price competition when selecting a creative supplier due to a concern this would add to timeframes. Further, the department did not meet recommended timeframes to minimise media booking costs.

We identified three other areas in Phase 1 advertisements that were inconsistent with government advertising requirements. Advertisements used provocative language and confronting imagery, which we consider to be inconsistent with the requirement for ‘objective presentation’. Two statements presented as fact based on the Special Commission’s Inquiry report were inaccurate; one of these was due to a calculation error. Radio advertisements did not clearly identify that they were authorised by the New South Wales Government for the first few days of the campaign.

No breach of specific prohibitions in the Act

Section 6 of the Act prohibits the use of government advertising for political advertising. A government advertising campaign must not:

be designed to influence (directly or indirectly) support for a political party
contain the name, voice or image of a minister, any other member of parliament or a candidate nominated for election to parliament
contain the name, logo or any slogan of, or any other reference relating to, a political party.

We did not identify any breach of the specific prohibitions listed above in the advertising content of this campaign.

Animal welfare concerns were identified as the reason for urgent advertising

A brief prepared by the department in July 2016 raised concerns about the welfare of greyhounds following the NSW Premier’s announcement that the government would prohibit greyhound racing. The brief raised the risk that industry members may make impulse decisions to destroy their greyhounds without information on support that was being offered.

The department used the provisions in Sections 7(4) and 8(3) of the Act to expedite the release of advertising due to ‘other urgent circumstances’. This provision allows advertising to commence prior to completing the peer review process and cost benefit analysis.

In introducing the Government Advertising Bill to parliament in 2011, the then Premier noted that exceptional circumstances would cover situations ‘such as a civil emergency or sudden health epidemic’. There is no other guidance on when it is appropriate to use this section. It is at the discretion of a government agency head to determine whether a campaign is urgent.

Phase 1 advertisements did not focus on the urgent needs

This advertising campaign had three overarching objectives:

to increase public awareness of the animal welfare reasons for the closure of the greyhound racing industry
to change the behaviour of dog owners from potentially harming their greyhounds to treating them humanely, by accessing the support options and packages available
to promote greyhound adoptions by the public.

Alongside advertising, the department took other steps to engage with the greyhound racing industry. This included direct mail, face to face meetings around the State, setting up a call centre and community consultation through an online survey. Other government agencies and animal welfare agencies were also engaged to reach out to affected stakeholders.

Phase 1 advertising content focused on providing information about the reasons for the closure of the industry. The department’s radio and television advertisements did not refer to support packages or encourage the public to adopt a greyhound. While print advertisements did mention these things, this was only presented in fine print. In all advertisements, audiences were referred to a website for further information.

The focus of advertisements on the reasons for industry closure was not consistent with the identified needs to urgently commence advertising to influence the behaviour of dog owners and encourage the public to adopt a greyhound.

The content in Phase 2 advertisements, which began around four weeks after the first phase, was more explicit in highlighting the services and support for industry members such as offering business and retraining advice. These advertisements also referred audiences to a call centre number as well as the website.

Peer review process limited to influencing second phase of advertisements

In urgent circumstances, the Act allows for peer review to be completed after advertising has commenced. For this campaign, the peer review process was completed on 19 August 2016, two weeks after advertising had commenced. Where advertising commences before the peer review process is completed, the usefulness of peer reviewers’ recommendations is limited to informing subsequent phases of advertising and the post-campaign evaluation.

The peer review report found the messages in Phase 1 advertisements were not clearly defined, and the role of advertising was not clearly defined amongst other campaign activities. These recommendations informed the second phase of advertising, which ran from 27 August 2016 until the campaign was terminated in October 2016.

The department could not demonstrate value for money was achieved for creative work

The department provided a fixed budget for creative work when requesting quotes from creative agencies to develop advertising material. This is not consistent with the quotation requirements in the government’s Guidelines for Advertising and Digital Communication Services. This approach creates risks to achieving value for money as creative agencies are not required to compete on price for their services. The department advised that it had pre-set the creative costs based on a comparative government campaign of a similar size. This was done due to a concern that requiring agencies to compete on price would affect the short timeframe given to develop creative material.

Three creative agencies accepted the opportunity to present design ideas for the campaign. The department was unable to provide evidence of how it chose the preferred supplier out of these three agencies. Records are important for accountability and allow a procurement decision to be audited after an urgent decision.

Short notice did not allow for cost-efficient media booking for all phases

Placement of advertisements in various media channels was done through the State’s Media Agency Services contract. This contract achieves savings as the government can use its aggregated media spend to gain discounts from the media supplier.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet provides guidance to ensure cost efficient media booking. For example, media time for a television advertisement should be booked at least 6 to 12 weeks in advance. Radio advertisements should be booked at least 2 to 8 weeks in advance.

The peer review report noted that the department did not have adequate time to look for the most cost-efficient way to advertise. In its response to the peer reviewers, the department acknowledged this to be due to the urgency to start advertising. The media booking authority was signed by the department one day before the campaign commenced.

The department used a wide public campaign for a narrow target audience

The campaign identified greyhound industry participants as the primary target audience. In 201516 there were 1,342 greyhound trainers, 1,695 owner/trainers, 983 attendants and 1,247 breeders in New South Wales. The department’s advertising submission identified ‘concerns that industry members could make impulsive decisions, potentially jeopardising the welfare of a large number of dogs, prior to the shutdown of the industry’.

The submission’s evidence of advertising effectiveness focused on increasing the level of wider community support for the ban rather than stopping industry members from making impulse decisions. It used an early opinion poll to show that total support for the ban on greyhound racing rises by 17 points and opposition drops by four points following explanation of the findings of the Special Commission of Inquiry report.

The peer review report noted that the role of advertising was not clearly defined amongst the department’s range of other direct and targeted communications and consultations held with industry members.

No demonstrated basis for use of confronting imagery and provocative language

The Guidelines require ‘objective presentation in a fair and accessible manner’. Neither the Guidelines or Handbook further explain what objective presentation means. We have used an ordinary definition of this term as ‘not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts’. This is synonymous with terms like ‘impartial’, ‘neutral’, and ‘dispassionate’ and opposite to ‘subjective’. We consider that to meet the current requirements in the Guidelines for objectivity, advertising content should contain accurate statements or facts, and avoid subjective language.

Phase 1 focussed on the ongoing consequences if no action was taken to close the industry. The advertisements used provocative language, for example ‘Up to 70 per cent of dogs are deemed wastage by their own industry. Wastage! Slaughtered just for being slow’. Advertisements used confronting imagery like gravestones, blood smears and gun targets.

Our literature review into this area highlighted mixed findings on the effectiveness of confrontational advertising materials. In some cases, shock campaigns may cause an audience to reject or ignore the message, and may even encourage people to do the opposite of the intended behaviour. In other cases, such as in road safety campaigns, this style of advertising can be successful. This shows the importance of conducting pre-campaign research before adopting a confrontational or emotive approach in advertising.

The Government Advertising Handbook recommends that an agency explain the rationale and the evidence for their chosen advertising approach. There was no evidence that the department researched the effectiveness of its advertising approach with its target audience. The department had planned to undertake creative concept testing as part of a strategy to ensure the creative material was understood by its audience. The department advised that due to the urgency of the campaign, it did not have time to conduct this testing.

Not all Phase 1 radio advertisements clearly identified that they were authorised by the New South Wales Government

For the first few days on air, Phase 1 radio advertisements ended by referring the audience to a government website, instead of clearly identifying that it had been authorised by the New South Wales Government. Government authorisations and logos ensure the work and the programs of the NSW Government are easily identifiable by the community.

The department’s cost benefit analysis did not consider alternatives to advertising

For government advertising campaigns that cost over $1.0 million, the Act requires the advertising agency to carry out a cost benefit analysis and obtain approval from the Cabinet Standing Committee on Communications, prior to commencing the campaign.

The department engaged with audiences through direct mail, face to face forums, and a telephone helpline in addition to advertising. However, the department’s cost benefit analysis did not meet the requirements in the Guidelines to specify the extent to which expected benefits could be achieved without advertising, and to compare costs of options other than advertising that could be used to successfully implement the program (see Exhibit 6).

The cost benefit analysis made optimistic assumptions about the impact of the campaign on greyhound adoptions. It estimated that 2,360 greyhounds would be adopted if the campaign was run. This is significantly higher than the ‘most optimistic outcome’ of re-homing in the Special Commission Inquiry report (we calculated this to be 1,467 greyhounds). There was insufficient evidence to support the higher number of adoptions in the cost benefit analysis.

The sensitivity analysis shows that using the Special Commission’s ‘most optimistic outcome’ figure of re-homing would reduce the net present value of advertising to be negative. Further, the cost benefit analysis also assumed that increased government funding would be made available to animal welfare and rehoming organisations to support more adoptions, but did not estimate or include this cost when calculating the net present value of advertising.

There were two factual inaccuracies in key messages used for Phase 1 advertisements

Section 8(2) of the Act requires the head of a government agency to certify that the proposed campaign ‘contains accurate information’. The Secretary of the Department of Justice signed the compliance certificate on 29 July 2016, before advertisements commenced.

We examined the accuracy of factual claims in this advertising campaign, by comparing the key statements to the report of Special Commission of Inquiry into the Greyhound Racing Industry (the Commissioner report). The Commissioner report was quoted by the NSW Government as the basis for its policy to transition the greyhound racing industry to closure.

We identified that two of the key statements used in Phase 1 advertisements to support the animal welfare reasons for industry closure were inaccurate (Exhibit 7).

Appendix one - Responses from agencies

Appendix two - About the campaigns

Appendix three - About the Audit

Appendix four - Performance Auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #294 - released 2 November 2017

15 June 2017

Published

Sydney Road Maintenance Contracts

Transport

Infrastructure

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Procurement

Project management

In November 2013, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) outsourced the maintenance of State roads in the Sydney region south and west zones using an innovative contracting approach called the Stewardship Maintenance Contract (SMC). The SMC links risk to reward, and uses a performance framework where outcomes should drive improved performance over time.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible for the Sydney region State roads network This includes over 2,800 kilometres of roads and associated road corridor infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and drainage structures. RMS divides the network into three geographical areas: south, west and north zones.

In 1995, RMS first outsourced road corridor infrastructure maintenance for the north zone through a Performance Specified Maintenance Contract (PSMC). The current 10-year PSMC for the north zone will expire in October 2018. Prior to November 2013, RMS maintained roads in the south and west zones through its Road and Fleet Services unit.

In November 2013, RMS outsourced road maintenance services for the south and west zones using Stewardship Maintenance Contracts (SMC). The contracts run for seven years with an option for a further three years at RMS’ discretion. RMS estimated that the annual cost of these contracts was around $240 million in total. In March 2018, the contract prices are due to be reset by negotiation to reflect the contractors’ experience with, and better information about, the road networks and routine maintenance requirements.

The SMC model adopted stewardship principles to improve value for money. RMS defined stewardship principles as a broad set of values, attitudes and behaviours, required of the contractor to effectively manage the assets on behalf of RMS. The SMC also includes commercial principles, such as linking risk to reward, and a performance framework where outcomes drive performance.

This audit assessed whether RMS had effectively managed the outsourcing of road maintenance in the Sydney region south and west zones. In making this assessment, we answered the following questions:

Did RMS justify the decision to adopt the SMC model?
Do SMCs include key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentives which promote efficiency and effectiveness?
Does RMS collect high quality information on contractor performance and take action to correct performance deficiencies?
Are the expected benefits being achieved?

Conclusion

RMS developed an innovative contracting approach with the SMC. RMS has realised some benefits in the first year, including savings, from outsourcing road maintenance in the Sydney region south and west zones using the SMC. However, RMS’ management of the SMC has key elements missing which reduces its effectiveness.

The SMC includes performance measures and incentives to drive efficiency and effectiveness improvements over time.

RMS has established a contract management framework which includes most elements of good practice, including governance and dispute resolution mechanisms. However, it does not have procedures to guide its contract managers in managing specific provisions of the SMC. Consequently, RMS has not exercised several significant SMC requirements, such as having the contractor account for an efficiency dividend in its pricing at the start of each three-year works period. It also has not done enough to assure itself that the contractor provided performance and financial data are correct. This is important because the data is used to measure performance and calculate contractor payments.

RMS assessed that it had achieved around 80 per cent of the expected cost benefit in the initial year of the SMC. However, it has not tracked its achievement of benefits since then.

The Stewardship Maintenance Contract

RMS justified adopting the SMC model and included KPIs to drive efficiency and effectiveness

The SMC model includes features that RMS had not previously used for road maintenance contracts. These included adopting stewardship principles and transferring price risk to the contractor over time as the contractor becomes familiar with the assets being maintained.

The SMC model meets RMS’ requirements for flexibility in pricing models, the need for collaboration in asset maintenance planning, promoting innovation and effective performance management.

RMS used many good practices to develop the SMC model, including:

preparing a robust business case comparing the SMC model to RMS maintaining the road network itself, as well as assessing whether two other contracting models
(traditional and alliance) would meet its requirements
assessing experiences with similar arrangements in other jurisdictions and identifying elements that worked to get the best outcomes
developing a robust performance framework, which included a mix of efficiency and effectiveness KPIs that reflected NSW Government policy and RMS priorities
incorporating risk and reward incentives delivered through cost sharing arrangements which change as the contract matures
using a contract duration that supports RMS priorities and provides an incentive for better quality outcomes.

RMS uses data provided by the contractor to measure performance and calculate payments to the contractor. The SMC includes a specific sanction if RMS finds that the contractor provided incorrect performance data, but no specific sanction if the contractor provides incorrect financial data. If RMS finds that the contactor provided incorrect performance or financial data, RMS can only recover over-payments which may have been made using the incorrect data.

To provide a stronger incentive for the contractor to ensure data it provides is accurate, RMS should consider whether to incorporate stronger sanctions when negotiating the commercial reset due in mid-2018 for south and west zones. RMS should also consider this for the new contract for the north zone when the current PSMC contract expires in October 2018.

RMS' contract management approach and benefits realization

RMS can improve the effectiveness of its oversight and management of the SMC

RMS does not have SMC specific contract procedures to guide its contract managers. Consequently, RMS has not exercised several significant SMC requirements, such as having the contractors account for an efficiency dividend in their pricing at the start of each three-year works period. Effective contract management should be supported by contract specific procedures, with explanations of, and allocation of responsibility for, the various interventions that RMS may be required to exercise in the SMC.

Performance and financial reporting under the SMC is based on a mix of RMS and contractor provided data. While there are a range of audits of contractor provided performance and financial data that RMS can conduct each year under the SMC, it does not have a schedule of audits it will conduct and when.
During the first year of the SMC, RMS commissioned some limited audits of financial data. In the first three years of the SMC, RMS did not conduct any audits of performance data. Had there been SMC specific procedures in place, this would have reduced the risk of RMS not implementing a systematic audit program to give it reasonable assurance on the quality of the data that the contractor has provided. This is important because the data is used to measure performance and calculate contractor payments.

RMS has been aware of data quality issues since 2015. While RMS advised that it commenced addressing some data quality issues in response to a series of reviews conducted in 2015, a recent internal audit report indicates that RMS has not resolved the data quality issues.

RMS achieved benefits in the first year, but has not tracked benefits since

As part of the business case, RMS agreed to implement a benefits realisation strategy, including a benefits tracking tool. RMS commenced tracking benefits, but did not establish a comparative baseline pre-SMC on non-financial benefits, and has not tracked benefits past year one.

In 2015, a benchmarking study commissioned by RMS found that it had achieved 80 per cent of the expected recurrent cost savings and other benefits, such as improved workplace safety, in the first full year of the SMC. However, there was no clear baseline to measure
non-financial performance. The study was qualified due to gaps in available data. The study also did not reconcile the actual one-off transition costs to the business case estimate.

During the course of the audit, RMS advised that it intends to repeat this type of study to determine whether it has achieved all expected benefits (and their value), and that it would use the results to inform its negotiation with the SMC contractors as part of the commercial reset due in mid-2018.

Roads and Maritime Services is responsible for the State Roads network in the Sydney region

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible for the Sydney region State roads network. This includes over 2,800 kilometres of roads and associated road corridor infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and drainage structures. The network is divided into three geographical areas: south, west and north zones. Prior to November 2013, RMS maintained roads in the Sydney region south and west zones through its Road and Fleet Services unit.

In 1995, RMS first outsourced road corridor infrastructure maintenance for the north zone through a Performance Specified Maintenance Contract (PSMC). The current 10-year PSMC for the north zone will expire in October 2018. This contract is worth around $35 million per annum.

NSW Government priorities and road maintenance

Efficient and effective road maintenance contributes to the following NSW Government priorities:

improving road travel reliability
ensuring on-time running of public transport
reducing road fatalities
improving government services
keeping our environment clean.

The NSW Commission of Audit recommended outsourcing the maintenance of State roads

The NSW Commission of Audit in its Final Report on Government Expenditure (May 2012) recommended contestability as an appropriate strategy to consider for improving road maintenance service delivery for State roads.

The Commission benchmarked RMS’ road surface quality and cost per lane kilometre against those of Western Australia, Victoria, and Queensland. This showed that New South Wales lagged the other states on both these measures.

Exhibit 1: Interjurisdictional comparison of road maintenance outcomes 2009–10
	WA	VIC	QLD	NSW
Roads managed (lane kms)	52,659	50,510	71,353	80,348
Estimated spend ($/lane km)	5,000	4,500	6,000	7,000
Road quality measure (%)	99	99	94	91

Source: NSW Commission of Audit Final Report May 2012.

The Commission noted that RMS had conducted two independent reviews to examine the potential for extending road maintenance contestability. The Commission found that there was inadequate and inconclusive benchmarking to establish the efficiency of RMS’ Road and Fleet Services unit when compared to outsourcing. It recommended that RMS bring forward a proposal to conduct a competitive tender for the road maintenance of the Sydney region south zone road network to inform the feasibility of a progressive rollout of road maintenance contestability across other areas of the State. In August 2012, the NSW Government adopted the Commission’s recommendation.

The NSW Government introduced road maintenance contestability through Stewardship Maintenance Contracts

In April 2013, the NSW Government announced that it would introduce road maintenance contestability across the Sydney region, using a Stewardship Maintenance Contract (SMC) model to improve value for money. In doing so, it excluded RMS’ Road and Fleet Services unit from tendering.

The SMC model is based on the following key commercial and performance principles set by RMS:

performance driven by outcomes
flexible and adaptable
transparent and measurable
linking risk to reward
continuous improvement
criteria for selection of, and transition to, different payment models.

The following key stewardship principles underpin the SMC’s broad set of values, attitudes and behaviours, which are required of the contractor to effectively manage the assets on behalf of RMS:

putting RMS’ customers (road users and the general public) first and being responsive to them
being responsible and accountable for the outcomes resulting from the management of the assets
managing the assets diligently, efficiently and effectively with limited direction from RMS
working collaboratively with RMS to deliver services that are tailored to meet RMS’ evolving needs
acting with integrity and transparency in performing the services
performing the services in the best interests of RMS and asset users.

Other key features of the SMC include:

service requirements which describe the scope of the services, and the standards the contractor must meet
a commercial framework which defines how payments are structured, how performance assessment will impact on payments and outlines the key commercial principles. SMCs primarily divide payments into two main mechanisms, these being the priced component (or fixed price) and the target cost calculated as follows:
- fixed price – the contractor is paid a pre-agreed amount for specific services being provided, regardless of the actual costs incurred
- target cost – RMS and the contractor agree on a target cost for a project, and any cost overruns or underruns are shared between them
a performance framework which provides mechanisms for assessing contractor performance. This includes a comprehensive listing of the key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) against which RMS measures the contractor’s performance. The framework also outlines the scoring methodology that RMS uses to determine whether the contractor’s bid margin (profit and overheads) is reduced due to less than satisfactory performance or whether a bonus is paid if a threshold performance score is exceeded.

Road maintenance under SMCs for Sydney region south and west zones commenced in November 2013

In November 2013, RMS awarded SMCs to the Leighton Boral Amey consortium, now named Ventia Boral Amey (VBA), for the south zone and the DownerMouchel (DM) consortium for the west zone. The contracts run for seven years with an option for a further three years at RMS’ discretion. In April 2014, full services commenced following a four-month transition period. RMS estimated that the annual cost of these contracts was around $240 million in total. In March 2018, the contract prices are due to be reset by negotiation to reflect the contractors’ experience with, and better information about, the road networks and routine maintenance requirements.

Roads and Maritime Services should consider whether to incorporate stronger sanctions in the Stewardship Maintenance Contract if the contractor provides incorrect performance or financial data to RMS, when:
1. negotiating the commercial reset for the next works period with the Sydney region south and west zone contractors due in July 2018.
2. finalising a new SMC contract for the Sydney region north zone, due to commence in October 2018.

Roads and Maritime Services should, by September 2017:

2. Review its contract management framework for SMCs to ensure that all authorities and accountabilities of
contract managers are clearly defined, including:

a) accountability and procedures for exercising all operational clauses in the SMC where RMS may opt to, or be required to intervene, or make a decision

b) authority to approve or initiate the interventions RMS is required to, or may, exercise under the SMC

c) the audits that RMS will conduct to systematically validate the performance and financial data that the SMC contractors provide

d) the accountabilities of RMS contract managers to systematically review audits and quality reviews that the SMC contractors must conduct to demonstrate compliance with their service plans

e) the accountabilities of RMS contract managers to check that the monthly and annual reports provided by SMC contractors do not contain errors, omissions or inaccuracies.

3. Improve its management of benefits realisation by:

a) initiating a further benefits realisation review and record the benefits delivered against those
estimated following the tender process, including the one-off transition costs

b) identify any benefits, including savings, not yet attained and develop strategies to address any short-falls

c) establish a tool to track the ongoing realisation of benefits.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #288 - released 15 June 2017

8 June 2017

Published

NorthConnex

Premier and Cabinet

Treasury

Transport

Compliance

Infrastructure

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Procurement

The processes used to assess NorthConnex adequately considered value for money for taxpayers.This report also found that the impact of tolling concessions on road users and the motorway network was consistent with policy objectives described in the 2012 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

By December 2017, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:

1. publish an updated ‘Unsolicited Proposals – Guide for Submission and Assessment’ which clarifies obligations with requirements in other NSW Government policies such as the NSW PPP guideline and Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework. The update should require:

a) a business case to be prepared, and a business case gateway review completed, as part of the assessment of the detailed proposal (currently stage 2)

b) probity reports must be completed and considered before the decision to proceed to the next stage.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet and NSW Treasury should immediately:

2. improve record keeping to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998 and the NSW Government Standard on Records Management.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #287 - released 8 June 2017

11 April 2017

Published

Passenger Rail Punctuality

Transport

Information technology

Infrastructure

Service delivery

A NSW Government priority is to ‘maintain or improve reliability of public transport services over the next four years’. Punctuality is a key element of reliability, and the level of patronage is a critical factor in the ability to maintain punctuality. Increasing patronage places pressure on the length of time trains need to wait at stations to load and offload passengers which can lead to delays. The NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan forecasts that rail patronage could increase by 26 per cent between 2012 and 2031.

Passenger rail services in NSW are provided under a purchaser-provider model. Transport for NSW enters contracts with:

Sydney Trains for Sydney suburban passenger rail services
NSW Trains for services that commence or terminate outside Sydney, including intercity services that operate between Central station and the South Coast, Southern Highlands, Blue Mountains and Central Coast and Newcastle.

Transport for NSW sets performance targets and standards for these services, develops the timetables, procures trains for the service providers, and is responsible for long term planning.

This audit assessed whether these rail agencies have plans and strategies to maintain or improve performance in getting the growing number of suburban and intercity rail passengers to their destinations on time.

Conclusion:

Rail agencies are well placed to manage the forecast increase in passengers up to 2019, including joining the Sydney Metro Northwest to the network at Chatswood. Their plans and strategies are evidence-based, and mechanisms to assure effective implementation are sound.

Based on forecast patronage increases, the rail agencies will find it hard to maintain punctuality after 2019 unless the capacity of the network to carry trains and people is increased significantly. If recent higher than forecast patronage growth continues, the network may struggle to maintain punctuality before 2019.

Transport for NSW has undertaken considerable work on developing strategies to increase capacity and maintain punctuality after 2019, but remains some way from putting a costed plan to the government. There is a significant risk that investments will not be made soon enough to handle future patronage levels. Ideally, planning and investment decisions should have been made already.

Punctuality measurement is satisfactory, but agencies could publish more information

Passenger rail punctuality indicators adopted in NSW are good practice. The key train punctuality indicator is better than indicators used by many other rail operators. It is also better than the on-time-running indicator that it replaced. Unlike the on-time-running indicator, the punctuality indicator classifies trains that have been cancelled or skipped stations as late and results are not adjusted to take account of delays caused by factors such as extreme weather or police operations.

NSW also has a customer delay measure which represents good practice. Work has started on refining and embedding customer delay as a key performance measure for the planned new Rail Operations Centre.

As train frequency approaches a ‘turn up and go’ level of service, rather than running to a timetable, more emphasis will need to be placed on excess waiting time and customer delay when assessing performance.

Measurement of punctuality is reasonably precise. There are some measurement inaccuracies which should be addressed, such as the estimated arrival time of a train being incorrect at some destination stations, but these do not affect punctuality results materially.

Train punctuality is reported publicly, but not to the detail of the indicators in the contracts between Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. There is very limited public reporting of customer delay.

Overall punctuality is good, but some services are relatively poor

System-wide train punctuality has usually exceeded target since 2005, but some services suffer from poor punctuality compared to the rest of the network.

The part of the network around North Sydney is creating problems for the punctuality of afternoon peak services heading through it and out to Western Sydney and to Hornsby via Strathfield. Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains are well advanced with strategies to address this up to 2019.

The East Hills express trains in the afternoon peak also performed well below target. The rail agencies recently analysed this issue and believe it relates to the train timetable and signalling which restricts how close trains can run behind each other into Campbelltown. It further advises that this will be corrected over the next three years.

Intercity train punctuality is below that of suburban trains and there was an extended period of declining punctuality between 2011 and 2014. Transport for NSW suggested that the old age of trains is a factor, and the recently announced intercity fleet acquisition may help address this. Apart from ensuring that train crew and station staff are available and perform their duties adequately, NSW Trains can do little to impact the punctuality of its intercity services directly. Train maintenance, track and signal maintenance, and management of trains on the rail network are performed by Sydney Trains. NSW Trains’ ability to influence improvement is hampered by key indicators in some contracts being undefined. Transport for NSW, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains are now working collaboratively to make improvements to the contracts.

Initiatives are in place or are planned to deliver good punctuality until 2019

Patronage increases, which can lead to overcrowding and trains having to wait longer at stations, are likely to present a significant challenge to maintaining punctuality into the future.

Based on patronage projections, the rail agencies have strategies to maintain punctuality up to and including joining the Sydney Metro Northwest to the network at Chatswood in 2019. These include improving infrastructure at particular parts of the network, increasing staff training, reducing the number of speed restrictions, and a new Rail Operations Centre. The projects are being managed by experienced staff, with good governance arrangements, quality assurance processes and planning systems in place. New timetables should provide more services and cater for more passengers, including off peak. They should increase network efficiency through better utilisation of capacity, but some passengers may face longer journey times and more may need to change trains mid-journey.

The planned Rail Operations Centre has the potential to make operational decision-making more customer-focussed, by placing more emphasis on minimising customer delay during disruptions. If implemented well, it will also generate information to help agencies better identify the root cause of incidents that delay trains and improve communication with passengers so they can make better real-time travel decisions.

Predicted passenger growth presents a risk to punctuality after 2019

The rail system will struggle to maintain punctuality much beyond 2019 based on current patronage forecasts and system limitations.

From 2024, the Sydney Metro City and Southwest will help by extending the metro network from Chatswood under Sydney Harbour, through the city and out to Bankstown. Announced fleet upgrades will also help. Transport for NSW advises that it is also working with the Greater Sydney Commission to ensure network capacity constraints are considered in future urban planning.

In addition to investment in new metro networks, sustained and substantial investment needs to be made into the existing heavy rail network to meet demand and ensure its ongoing reliability. Transport for NSW has been developing strategies for this purpose, including an Advanced Train Control system. Its aim is to put a costed plan to the government by the third quarter of this (2017) calendar year. Given the likely lead times involved with major infrastructure projects, there remains a significant risk of poor punctuality after 2019.

Punctuality could be at risk sooner if recent patronage growth continues

If patronage continues to increase at a faster rate than forecast, particularly during the morning peak, the network will struggle to cope before 2019. Transport for NSW forecast that between 2011 and 2026 morning peak rail patronage would increase each year by approximately 3.3 per cent. Between 2011 and 2016 the number of passengers travelling to the city during the morning peak grew by an average of 4.4 per cent each year, including annual growth of 6.6 per cent since May 2014.

A good understanding of patronage levels, trends and drivers is critical to effective planning. The audit identified some shortcomings in measurement of peak passenger loads. Transport for NSW advised that measurement approaches have been improved recently, and this will soon flow into improved data quality.

Given the increasing flexibility in work practices available to many city workers, the relatively new field of behavioural insights may offer opportunities to ‘nudge’ some passengers away from travelling at the height of the peak with benefits for them and the network.

Transport for NSW should ensure that programs to address rail patronage growth over the next five to ten years are provided to the government for Cabinet consideration as soon as possible.
Sydney Trains and Transport for NSW should:
a) maintain effective oversight and resourcing for all strategies designed to address rail patronage growth
b) adjust strategies for any patronage growth above projection.
Sydney Trains, NSW Trains and Transport for NSW should publish Customer Delay results by June 2018.
Transport for NSW, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains should agree by December 2017:
a) specific performance requirements for intercity train, track and signal availability and reliability
b) guidelines for train priorities during disruptions and indicators of control centre performance in implementing these guidelines.
Sydney Trains, NSW Trains and Transport for NSW should by June 2018:
a) improve the accuracy of patronage measurement and develop a better understanding of patronage growth trends
b) address small errors in the adjustment factors used for determining a train’s punctuality status
c) improve their understanding of the factors impacting on intercity punctuality.
Transport for NSW should, commencing June 2017, explore the potential to use behavioural insights to encourage more passengers to travel outside the height of the morning peak (8 am to 9 am).

Appendix one - Response from the agencies

Appendix two - Response from Audit Office

Appendix three - About the audit

Appendix four - Accuracy of punctuality measurement

Appendix five - Train and customer punctuality

Parliamentary reference - Report number #281 - released 11 April 2017

30 November 2016

Published

CBD and South East Light Rail Project

Transport

Compliance

Financial reporting

Infrastructure

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Procurement

Project management

Risk

Transport for NSW did not effectively plan and procure the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project to achieve best value for money according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.

Transport for NSW is on track to deliver the project, but it will come at a higher cost with lower benefits than in the approved business case.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #278 - released 30 November 2016

15 September 2016

Published

Monitoring food safety practices in retail food businesses

Health

Local Government

Compliance

Internal controls and governance

Management and administration

Risk

Shared services and collaboration

New South Wales has a lower rate of foodborne illness than the national average. This reflects some good practices in the NSW Food Authority’s approach to monitoring food safety standards. It also is a factor of the long-standing commitment by local councils’ to ensuring retail food businesses meet these standards.

To ensure foodborne illness remains low, the Authority needs to better monitor its arrangements with councils which inspect retail food businesses on its behalf, and receive additional and more timely information from councils on compliance with food safety standards.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #274 - released 15 September 2016

Audit progress

Sector

Year

Report type

Topic

Reports

The Framework is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reports

The Framework and supporting documents provide limited guidance on reporting

OLG is reviewing the Framework and guidance

OLG should build on the Framework to improve guidance on reporting on service delivery, including in annual reports

Streamlining the reporting burden would help councils improve reporting

Enabling rural councils to perform tailored surveys of their communities may be more beneficial than a state-wide survey in defining outcome indicators

Comparative reporting indicators are needed to enable councils to respond to service delivery priorities of their communities

No breach of specific prohibitions in the Act

Request for quotes to design advertisement did not reflect the full scope required

No breach of specific prohibitions in the Act

Animal welfare concerns were identified as the reason for urgent advertising

Phase 1 advertisements did not focus on the urgent needs

Peer review process limited to influencing second phase of advertisements

The department could not demonstrate value for money was achieved for creative work

Short notice did not allow for cost-efficient media booking for all phases

The department used a wide public campaign for a narrow target audience

No demonstrated basis for use of confronting imagery and provocative language

Not all Phase 1 radio advertisements clearly identified that they were authorised by the New South Wales Government

The department’s cost benefit analysis did not consider alternatives to advertising

There were two factual inaccuracies in key messages used for Phase 1 advertisements

The Stewardship Maintenance Contract

RMS justified adopting the SMC model and included KPIs to drive efficiency and effectiveness

RMS' contract management approach and benefits realization

RMS can improve the effectiveness of its oversight and management of the SMC

RMS achieved benefits in the first year, but has not tracked benefits since

Roads and Maritime Services is responsible for the State Roads network in the Sydney region

NSW Government priorities and road maintenance

The NSW Commission of Audit recommended outsourcing the maintenance of State roads

The NSW Government introduced road maintenance contestability through Stewardship Maintenance Contracts

Road maintenance under SMCs for Sydney region south and west zones commenced in November 2013

Punctuality measurement is satisfactory, but agencies could publish more information

Overall punctuality is good, but some services are relatively poor

Initiatives are in place or are planned to deliver good punctuality until 2019

Predicted passenger growth presents a risk to punctuality after 2019

Punctuality could be at risk sooner if recent patronage growth continues