Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Report on Local Government 2019

Report on Local Government 2019

Local Government
Asset valuation
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

I am pleased to present my third report to the Parliament on the 2019 audits of local government councils in New South Wales.

This report notes that unqualified audit opinions were issued on the 2018–19 financial statements of 134 councils and 11 joint organisations. The opinion for one council was disclaimed and three audits are yet to complete.

The report also highlights improvements I have seen in financial reporting and governance arrangements across councils. Fewer errors were identified. More councils have audit, risk and improvement committees and internal audit functions. Risk management practices, including fraud control systems, have also improved.

These are very pleasing indicators of the gradual strengthening of governance and financial oversight of the sector. I want to acknowledge the investment councils have made in working with the Audit Office to improve consistency of practice and accountability generally.

Of course there is more work to do, particularly to prepare for new accounting standards and to strengthen controls over information technology and cyber security management. Asset management practices can also be improved. This report provides some guidance to council on these matters and we will continue to partner with the Office of Local Government in the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to support good practice.

Margaret Crawford

Auditor-General
5 March 2020

This report focuses on key observations and findings from the 2018–19 financial audits of councils and joint organisations.

Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements for 134 councils and 11 joint organisations. The audit opinion for Bayside’s 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial statements were disclaimed. Three audits are still in progress and will be included in next year’s report.

The report highlights a number of areas where there has been improvement. There was a reduction in errors identified in council financial statements and high risk issues reported in audit management letters. More councils have audit, risk and improvement committees and internal audit functions. Risk management practices and fraud control systems have also improved.

The report also found that councils could do more to be better prepared for the new accounting standards, asset management practices could be strengthened, and information technology controls and cyber security management could be improved.

The Auditor-General recommended that the Office of Local Government within the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment develop a cyber security policy by 30 June 2021 to ensure a consistent response to cyber security risks across councils.

Read the PDF Report

Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence in and transparency of public sector decision making is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely. Strong financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to community needs.

This chapter outlines our audit observations on the financial reporting and performance of councils and joint organisations.

Section highlights
  • There was a reduction in the number and dollar value of errors identified in councils' financial statements.
  • We continue to identify prior period errors, which are predominantly asset-related.
  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 99 per cent of completed audits for councils and joint organisations.
  • Three audits remain outstanding, with the outcomes to be reported in next year's Report to Parliament.
  • Seventy-nine per cent of councils and joint organisations lodged their financial reports by 31 October 2019.
  • Councils that performed some early reporting procedures achieved better outcomes in terms of the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.
  • Councils are at various levels of preparedness to implement the new accounting standards for the 2019–20 financial year. Some have made the necessary modifications to systems and processes, but others are still assessing impacts.
  • Most councils met the prescribed benchmarks for the liquidity and working capital performance measures over the past three years.
  • More councils reported negative operating performance compared with the prior year, meaning their operating expenditure exceeded their operating revenue.

Strong governance systems and internal controls help councils to operate effectively and efficiently, produce reliable financial reports, comply with laws and regulations and support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends related to governance and internal control issues across councils and joint organisations for 2018–19.

Section highlights
  • While the total number of issues reported in our management letters increased compared with the prior year, the total number of high risk issues have decreased. Of the high-risk issues, 41 per cent were deficiencies in information technology controls.
  • More councils have established audit, risk and improvement committees and internal audit functions.
  • Councils have improved risk management practices, with over 75 per cent of councils now having a risk management policy and register.
  • While most councils have policies and processes to manage gifts and benefits, we identified some instances of non-compliance with the Model Code of Conduct.
  • Most councils have policies and processes to manage the use of credit cards.
  • Councils can strengthen policies and practices for managing fraud controls and legislative compliance.
  • There are further opportunities for councils to improve internal controls over revenue, purchasing, payroll, cash, financial accounting and governance processes.

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

In prior years, we reported that councils need to improve IT governance and controls to manage key financial systems. This chapter outlines the progress made by councils in the management of key IT risks and controls, with an added focus on cyber security.

Section highlights
  • We continue to report deficiencies in information technology controls, particularly around user access management. These controls are key to ensuring IT systems are protected from inappropriate access and misuse.
  • Many councils do not have IT policies and procedures and others do not identify, monitor or report on IT risks.
  • Cyber security management requires improvement, with some basic elements of governance not yet in place for many councils.

Councils are responsible for managing a significant range of assets to deliver services on behalf of the community.

This chapter outlines our asset management observations across councils and joint organisations.

Section highlights
  • There was an increase in the total number of issues reported in our management letters for asset management processes.
  • There were less high-risk issues reported compared to the previous year.
  • We continue to identify discrepancies between the council's Crown land asset records and the Crown Land Information Database (CLID) managed by the former Department of Industry (DOI).
  • Inconsistent practices remain across the Local Government sector in accounting for landfill sites.

Appendix one – Response from the Office of Local Government within the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Appendix two – Status of 2018 recommendations

Appendix three – Status of audits 

 

Copyright notice

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

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 Administering Domestic Waterfront Tenancies

Administering Domestic Waterfront Tenancies

Planning
Transport
Management and administration
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration

The audit’s overall conclusion is that Lands and Maritime are broadly achieving outcomes consistent with the IPART report on administering domestic waterfront tenancies. But a lack of collaboration between the agencies is contributing to poor customer service. Inconsistencies with the IPART report recommendations and operational differences between the two agencies result in different rents and conditions for tenants in the two agencies. The differences are having a significant impact on customer service.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #191 - released 23 September 2009

Published

Actions for Agencies working together to improve services

Agencies working together to improve services

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Justice
Transport
Education
Internal controls and governance
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration

In the cases we examined, we found that agencies working together can improve services or results. However, the changes were not always as great as anticipated or had not reached maximum potential. Establishing the right governance framework and accountability requirements between partners at the start of the project is critical to success. And joint responsibility requires new funding and reporting arrangements to be developed.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #149 - released 22 March 2006