Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Service NSW's handling of personal information

Service NSW's handling of personal information

Premier and Cabinet
Finance
Cyber security
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk
Service delivery

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today examining the effectiveness of Service NSW’s handling of customers’ personal information to ensure its privacy.

The audit found that Service NSW is not effectively handling personal customer and business information to ensure its privacy. Service NSW continues to use business processes that pose a risk to the privacy of personal information. This includes the routine emailing of personal information between Service NSW service centres and other agencies, which is one of the processes that contributed to the data breach earlier this year. The audit found that previously identified risks and recommended solutions had not been implemented on a timely basis.

The Auditor-General made eight recommendations aimed at ensuring improved processes, technologies, and governance arrangements for how Service NSW handles customers’ personal information.

The Hon. Victor Dominello, MP, Minister for Customer Service, requested this audit under section 27(B)(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 following public reports in May 2020 of a cyber security attack which had led to a breach of Service NSW customer information. This audit also included the Department of Customer Service which supports Service NSW with privacy, risk and governance functions.

Service NSW was established in 2013 with the intention that it would, over time, 'become the primary interaction point for customers accessing New South Wales Government transaction services'.

Service NSW's functions are set out in the Service NSW (One stop Access to Government Services) Act 2013. This legislation allows for other NSW Government agencies to delegate to and enter into agreements with the Chief Executive Officer of Service NSW in order for Service NSW to undertake service functions for the agency.

Service NSW now has agreements with 36 NSW Government client agencies to facilitate over 1,200 types of interactions and transactions for the community.

The nature of each agreement between Service NSW and its client agencies varies. Some client agencies have delegated authority to allow Service NSW staff to conduct transactions on their behalf in the agencies' systems. Other arrangements do not include the same degree of delegation. In these cases, Service NSW provides services such as responding to enquiries and validating documents.

In addition, Service NSW conducts transactions for its own programs, such as the Seniors Card. Personal information for these programs, as well as information for customers' MyServiceNSW accounts, are stored by Service NSW on its Salesforce Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system.

In March 2020, Service NSW suffered two cyber security attacks in short succession. Technical analysis undertaken by the Department of Customer Service (DCS) concluded that these attacks resulted from a phishing exercise through which external threat actors gained access to the email accounts of 47 staff members. These attacks resulted in the breach of a large amount of personal customer information that was contained in these email accounts. See Section 1.1 for further details.

This audit is being conducted in response to a request from the Hon. Victor Dominello, Minister for Customer Service, under section 27B(3)(c) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. Minister Dominello requested that the Auditor General conduct a performance audit in relation to Service NSW's handling of sensitive customer and business information.

This audit assessed how effectively Service NSW handles personal customer and business information to ensure its privacy.

It addressed the following:

  • Does Service NSW have processes and governance in place to identify and manage risks to the privacy of personal customer and business information?
  • Does Service NSW have policies, processes and systems in place that support the effective handling of personal customer and business information to ensure its privacy?
  • Has Service NSW effectively implemented its policies, processes and systems for managing personal customer and business information?

Conclusion

Service NSW is not effectively handling personal customer and business information to ensure its privacy. It continues to use business processes that pose a risk to the privacy of personal information. These include routinely emailing personal customer information to client agencies, which is one of the processes that contributed to the March 2020 data breach. Previously identified risks and recommended solutions had not been implemented on a timely basis.

Service NSW identifies privacy as a strategic risk in both its Risk Management Guideline and enterprise risk register and sets out a zero level appetite for privacy risk in its risk appetite statement. That said, the governance, policies, and processes established by Service NSW to mitigate privacy risk are not effective in ensuring the privacy of personal customer and business information. While Service NSW had risk identification and management processes in place at the time of the March 2020 data breach, these did not prevent the breach occurring.

Some of the practices that contributed to the data breach are still being followed by Service NSW staff. For example, business processes still require Service NSW staff to scan and email personal information to some client agencies.

The lack of multi factor authentication has been identified as another key contributing factor to the March 2020 data breach as this enabled the external threat actors to gain access to staff email accounts once they had obtained the user account details through a phishing exercise. Service NSW had identified the lack of multi factor authentication on its webmail platform as a risk more than a year prior to the breach and had committed to addressing this by June 2019. It was not implemented until after the breach occurred.

There are weaknesses in the general IT and security controls implemented by Service NSW over its Salesforce Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, which holds the personal information of over four million NSW residents.

Internal audits carried out by Service NSW, including one completed in August 2020, have identified significant weaknesses in the general IT and security controls implemented by Service NSW over its Salesforce CRM system. These include deficiencies in the management of role based access, monitoring and audit of user access, and partitioning of program specific transaction information. These deficiencies create an increased risk of unauthorised access to the personal information of over four million customers held in the system.

Lines of responsibility for meeting privacy obligations are not clearly drawn between Service NSW and its client agencies.

Service NSW has agreements in place with client agencies. However, the agreements lack detail and clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the agencies in relation to the collection, storage and security of customer's personal information. This lack of clarity raises the risk that privacy obligations will become confused and missed between the agencies.

Service NSW carries out privacy impact assessments for major new projects but does not routinely review existing processes and systems.

Service NSW carries out privacy impact assessments as part of its routine processes for implementing major new projects, ensuring that privacy management is considered as part of project design. Service NSW does not regularly undertake privacy impact assessments or reviews of existing or legacy processes and systems, which has resulted in some processes continuing despite posing significant risks to the privacy of personal information, such as the scanning, emailing, and storing of identification documents.

1. Key findings

Service NSW identifies privacy risks, but the controls and processes it put in place to mitigate these privacy risks were not adequate to prevent or limit the extent of the data breach that occurred in March 2020

Service NSW’s approach to risk management is framed by its Risk Management Guideline, which defines 'privacy and compliance' as one of the key types of risk for the agency. Service NSW's enterprise risk register identifies four strategic privacy related risks. Service NSW has set out a zero level appetite for privacy risk in its risk appetite statement.

Service NSW has assessed the adequacy of its controls for privacy risks as needing improvement. To be fully effective, the Risk Management Guideline says that these controls should have a focus that is ‘largely preventative and address the root causes’.

One of the business processes that was a key contributing factor to the data breach was the emailing of personal information by Service NSW staff to client agencies.

This process had been identified as a risk prior to the breach and some steps had been put in place to mitigate the risk. In particular, staff were required to manually delete emails that contained personal information. However, these measures were ineffective in preventing the breach, as the external threat actors still gained access to 47 staff email accounts that contained a large amount of personal information.

It is unclear why Service NSW did not effectively mitigate this risk prior to the breaches. However, Service NSW has advised that it implemented measures in June and October 2020 to automatically archive emails likely to contain personal information. This is expected to limit the quantity of information retained in email accounts for extended periods.

Service NSW has not put in place any technical or other solutions to avoid Service NSW staff having to scan and email personal information to some client agencies. Urgent action is needed to remove the requirement for staff to email personal information to client agencies, thereby mitigating the risk inherent in sending and storing this information using email.

There are weaknesses in the general IT and security controls implemented by Service NSW over its Salesforce CRM system, which holds the personal information of over four million customers

There are weaknesses in the general IT and security controls implemented by Service NSW over its Salesforce CRM system. These weaknesses include deficiencies in governance of role based access, monitoring and audit of staff access, and partitioning of program specific transaction information. These deficiencies create an increased risk of unauthorised access to the personal information of over four million customers which is stored in this system.

In addition, there is an absence of important controls to safeguard customers' privacy, such as multi factor authentication and reviewable logs of access history to their information. Such controls, when properly implemented, would enhance the control that customers are able to exercise over their personal information.

A privacy impact assessment conducted on Service NSW’s Salesforce CRM system in 2015 recommended that the system include the ability for customers to review access history to their personal information, as well as the option for customers to apply multi factor authentication to their accounts. While both these recommendations appeared positively received by Service NSW, neither have been implemented.

Since its inception, Service NSW’s use of Salesforce has extended to storing transaction data, particularly for transactions for which Service NSW is responsible, such as the Seniors Card. It also holds details of over four million MyServiceNSW account holders, including name, email address and phone number, and optional address details. It was not originally intended for the system to hold this volume and nature of customer information.

Lines of responsibility for meeting privacy obligations are unclear between Service NSW and its client agencies

Service NSW's privacy management plan does not clearly set out the privacy obligations of Service NSW and its client agencies. It sets out that 'compliance with the privacy principles will primarily be the responsibility of that [client] agency'. However, Service NSW has its own obligations under the security principles of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access to personal information, which is not made clear in the privacy management plan.

The agreements between Service NSW and client agencies reviewed for this audit only include general and high level references to privacy. Most do not include details of each parties' privacy responsibilities such as: which agency will provide the customer with a privacy notice explaining how their personal information will be handled, how personal information will be kept secure, how long Service NSW will retain information, what processes will be followed for internal reviews, and what specific planning is in place to respond to data breaches.

Service NSW's privacy management plan has not been updated to include new programs and governance changes

Service NSW's privacy management plan includes most of the matters required by law or good practice, with some exceptions. It does not explain any exemptions that the agency commonly relies on under the PPIP Act and does not address any health information that Service NSW may handle. It had also not been updated to reflect governance changes and the fact that, at the time this audit commenced, Service NSW was disclosing the content of internal review applications (the formal expression for 'complaints') to the Department of Customer Service (DCS). These governance changes were part of the centralisation of Service NSW's corporate support functions into DCS in late 2019, though internal review staff were seconded back into Service NSW during the course of this audit.

The current July 2019 privacy management plan has also not been updated since the rollout of a number of major new initiatives in 2020. These include 2019–20 bushfire emergency recovery initiatives (such as small business grants) and COVID 19 pandemic response initiatives (such as small business grants, border permits and the COVID safe check in app).

Service NSW routinely conducts privacy impact assessments for new initiatives, though privacy risks remain in legacy systems and processes

Service NSW routinely conducts privacy impact assessments for major new initiatives and the assessments reviewed for this audit largely accorded with good practice guidance.

Service NSW does not routinely review existing processes and systems to ensure that they are effective in ensuring the privacy of customer personal information. Business processes that create the highest risk to privacy, such as emailing of personal information, are more common in these longstanding legacy systems.

Service NSW's significant and rapid growth has outpaced the establishment of a robust control environment which has exacerbated privacy risks

Since it was established in 2013, Service NSW has experienced significant growth in the number and diversity of the types of transactions it provides, as well as the number of client agencies with which it works. The pace and extent of this growth has contributed to important controls not being properly implemented on a timely basis, which has heightened privacy risks, particularly in regard to existing, legacy systems and processes.

The pace of change and increasing demand for new program implementation has limited the opportunity for Service NSW, in collaboration with its client agencies, to revisit and redesign legacy business practices which pose a greater privacy risk. This includes the scanning and emailing of personal information.

While 2019–20 has seen additional demands placed on Service NSW in responding to the 2019–20 bushfire emergency and COVID 19 pandemic, it is the nature of the agency’s work that it operates in a fast paced and complex environment, where it is required to respond to multiple client agencies and stakeholders. Ensuring customer privacy should be integral to Service NSW’s business as usual operations.

2. Recommendations

Service NSW commissioned a number of external reviews and investigations stemming from the data breaches. The Auditor General's recommendations below have taken these other reviews into account. In order to offer assurance that it is appropriately protecting the privacy of its customers, Service NSW should address the full breadth of findings and recommendations made across all relevant reviews.

As a matter of urgency, Service NSW should:

1. in consultation with relevant client agencies and the Department of Customer Service, implement a solution for a secure method of transferring personal information between Service NSW and client agencies

2. review the need to store scanned copies of personal information and, if still required, implement a more secure method of storing this information and regular deletion of material.

By March 2021, Service NSW should:

3. ensure that all new agreements entered into with client agencies from 1 April 2021 address the deficiencies identified in this audit, including that they provide clarity on:

  • the content and provision of privacy collection notices
  • the terms by which personal information will be retained, stored, archived, and disposed of when no longer required
  • steps that will be taken by each agency to ensure that personal information is kept secure
  • the circumstances in which, and processes by which, applications for internal review will be referred by one agency to the other
  • how identified breaches of privacy will be handled between agencies

4. in collaboration with the Department of Customer Service, review its privacy management plan to address the deficiencies raised in this audit, including:

  • to clarify Service NSW's understanding of how responsibility for meeting privacy obligations are delineated between Service NSW and client agencies
  • to better reflect the full scope and complexity of personal information handled by Service NSW
  • to better explain how applications for internal review are handled between Service NSW and the Department of Customer Service
  • to ensure regular ongoing review, either according to a schedule or when Service NSW experiences substantial change to its programs and handling of personal information

5. in consultation with the Department of Customer Service, review its policies and processes for the management of privacy risks, including to:

  • ensure that there are appropriate mechanisms to escalate identified privacy risks from business units to the Executive Leadership Team
  • ensure that there are action plans to address strategic privacy risks that are assessed as having ineffective controls.
By June 2021, Service NSW should:

6. address deficiencies in the controls over, and security for, its Salesforce customer relationship management and related systems that hold customer personal information, including:

  • establish policies and processes for regular access reviews and monitoring of user activity in these systems, including for privileged users
  • enable partitioning and role based access restrictions to personal information collected for different programs
  • provide customers the choice to use multi factor authentication to further secure their MyServiceNSW accounts
  • enable customers to view the transaction history of their personal information to detect possible mishandling.
By December 2021, Service NSW should:

7. ensure that all existing agreements with client agencies address the deficiencies identified in this audit, including that they provide clarity on:

  • the content and provision of privacy collection notices
  • the terms by which personal information will be retained, stored, archived, and disposed of when no longer required
  • steps that will be taken by each agency to ensure that personal information is kept secure
  • the circumstances in which, and processes by which, applications for internal review will be referred by one agency to the other
  • how identified breaches of privacy will be handled between agencies

8. carry out a risk assessment of all processes, systems and transactions that involve the handling of personal information and undertake a privacy impact assessment for those that:

  • are identified as high risk and have not previously had a privacy impact assessment
  • have had major changes or updates since the privacy impact assessment was completed.

Appendix one – Responses from agencies

Appendix two – About the audit

 

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 Transport 2020

Transport 2020

Transport
Asset valuation
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Information technology
Infrastructure
Project management

1. Financial Reporting

Audit opinion Unmodified audit opinions issued for the financial statements of all Transport cluster entities.
Quality and timeliness of financial reporting All cluster agencies met the statutory deadlines for completing the early close and submitting the financial statements.

Transport cluster agencies continued to experience some challenges with accounting for land and infrastructure assets. The former Roads and Maritime Services and Sydney Metro recorded prior period corrections to property, plant and equipment balances.
Impact of COVID-19 on passenger revenue and patronage Total patronage and revenue for public transport decreased by approximately 18 per cent in 2019–20 due to COVID-19.

The Transport cluster received additional funding from NSW Treasury during the year to support the reduced revenue and additional costs incurred such as cleaning on all modes of public transport and additional staff to manage physical distancing.
Completion of the CBD and South East Light Rail The CBD and South East Light Rail project was completed and commenced operations in this financial year. At 30 June 2020, the total cost of the project related to the CBD and South East Light Rail was $3.3 billion. Of this total cost, $2.6 billion was recorded as assets, whilst $700 million was expensed.

2. Audit Observations

Internal control While internal controls issues raised in management letters in the Transport cluster have decreased compared to the prior year, control weaknesses continue to exist in access security for financial systems. We identified 56 management letter findings across the cluster and 43 per cent of all issues were repeat issues. The majority of the repeat issues relate to information technology controls around user access management.

There were three high risk issues identified - two related to financial reporting of assets and one for implementation of TAHE (see below).
Agency responses to emergency events Transport for NSW established the COVID-19 Taskforce in March 2020 to take responsibility for the overall response of planning and coordination for the Transport cluster. It also implemented the COVIDSafe Transport Plan which incorporates guidance on physical distancing, increasing services to support social distancing and cleaning.
RailCorp transition to TAHE On 1 July 2020, RailCorp was renamed Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE) and converted to a for-profit statutory State-Owned Corporation. TAHE is a commercial for-profit Public Trading Entity with the intent to provide a commercial return to its shareholders.

A plan was established by NSW Treasury to transition RailCorp to TAHE which covered the period 1 July 2015 to 1 July 2019. A large portion of the planned arrangements were not implemented by 1 July 2020. As at the time of this report, the TAHE operating model, Statement of Corporate Intent (SCI) and other key plans and commercial agreements are not finalised. The State Owned Corporations Act 1989 generally requires finalisation of an SCI three months after the commencement of each financial year. However, under the Transport Administration Act 1988, TAHE received an extension from the voting shareholders, the Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Small Business, to submit its first SCI by 31 December 2020. In accordance with the original plan, interim commercial access arrangements were supposed to be in place with RailCorp prior to commencement of TAHE.

Under the transitional arrangements, TAHE is continuing to operate in accordance with the asset and safety management plans of RailCorp. The final operating model is expected to include considerations of safety, operational, financial and fiscal risks. This should include a consideration of the potential conflicting objectives of a commercial return, and maintenance and safety measures.

This matter has been included as a high risk finding in our management letter due to the significance of the financial reporting impacts and business risks for TAHE.

Recommendation: TAHE management should:
  • establish an operating model in line with the original intent of a commercial return
  • finalise commercial agreements with the public rail operators
  • confirm forecast financial information to assess valuation of TAHE infrastructure
  • finalise asset and safety management plans.

Resolution of the above matters are critical as they may significantly impact the financial reporting arrangements for TAHE for 2020–21, in particular, accounting policies adopted as well as measurement principles of its significant infrastructure asset base.

Completeness and accuracy of contracts registers Across the Transport cluster, contracts and agreements are maintained by the transport agencies using disparate registers.

Recommendation (repeat): Transport agencies should continue to implement a process to centrally capture all contracts and agreements entered. This will ensure:
  • agencies are fully aware of contractual and other obligations
  • appropriate assessment of financial reporting implications
  • ongoing assessments of accounting standards, in particular AASB 16 ‘Leases’, AASB 15 'Revenue from Contract with Customers', AASB 1058 'Income of Not-for-Profit Entities' and new accounting standard AASB 1059 'Service Concession Arrangements: Grantors' are accurate and complete.

 

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

  • financial reporting
  • audit observations
  • the impact of emergencies and the pandemic.

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

This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Transport cluster for 2020, including any financial implications from the recent emergency events.

Section highlights

  • Total patronage and revenue for public transport decreased by approximately 18 per cent in 2019–20 due to COVID-19.
  • Unqualified audit opinions were issued on all Transport agencies' financial statements.
  • Transport cluster agencies continued to experience challenges with accounting of land and infrastructure assets.

 

Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision making.

This chapter outlines our:

  • observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Transport cluster
  • assessment of how well cluster agencies adapted their systems, policies and procedures, and governance arrangements in response to recent emergencies.

Section highlights

  • While there was a decrease in findings on internal controls across the Transport cluster, 43 per cent of all issues were repeat issues. Many repeat issues related to information technology controls around user access management.
  • RailCorp transitioned to TAHE on 1 July 2020. TAHE's operating model and commercial arrangements with public rail operators has not been finalised despite government original plans to be operating from 1 July 2019. TAHE management should finalise its operating model and commercial agreements with public rail operators as they may significantly impact the financial reporting arrangements for TAHE for 2020–21.
  • Completeness and accuracy of contracts registers remains an ongoing issue for the Transport cluster.

Appendix one – List of 2020 recommendations

Appendix two – Status of 2019, 2018 and 2017 recommendations

Appendix three – Management letter findings

Appendix four – Financial data

 

Copyright notice

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

Published

Actions for Internal controls and governance 2020

Internal controls and governance 2020

Education
Environment
Community Services
Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Compliance
Cyber security
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement

The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford today released her report on the findings and recommendations from the 2019–20 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector.

The bushfire and flood emergencies and the COVID‑19 pandemic continue to have a significant impact on the people and public sector of New South Wales. The scale of the government response to these events has been significant. The report focuses on the effectiveness of internal controls and governance processes, including relevant agencies’ response to the emergencies. In particular, the report focuses on:

  • financial and information technology controls
  • business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements
  • procurement, including emergency procurement
  • delegations that support timely and effective decision-making.

Due to the ongoing impact of COVID‑19 agencies have not yet returned to a business‑as‑usual environment. ‘Agencies will need to assess their response to the recent emergencies and update their business continuity, disaster recovery and other business resilience frameworks to reflect the lessons learnt from these events’ the Auditor-General said.

The report noted that special procurement provisions were put in place to allow agencies to better respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Auditor-General recommended agencies update their procurement policies to reflect the current requirements of the NSW Procurement Framework and the emergency procurement requirements.

Read the PDF report

This report analyses the internal controls and governance of 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2020. These 40 agencies constitute an estimated 85 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.

1. Internal control trends
New, repeat and high risk findings

Internal control deficiencies increased by 13 per cent compared to last year. This is predominately due to a seven per cent increase in new internal control deficiencies and 24 per cent increase in repeat internal control deficiencies. There were ten high risk findings compared to four last year.

The recent emergencies have consumed agency time and resources and may have contributed to the increase in internal control deficiencies, particularly repeat deficiencies.

Agencies should:

  • prioritise addressing high-risk findings
  • address repeat internal control deficiencies by re-setting action plans and timeframes and monitoring the implementation status of recommendations.
Common findings

A number of findings remain common across multiple agencies over the last four years, including:

  • out of date or missing policies to guide appropriate decisions
  • poor record keeping and document retention
  • incomplete or inaccurate centralised registers or gaps in these registers.
2. Information technology controls
IT general controls

We found deficiencies in information security controls over key financial systems including:

  • user access administration deficiencies relating to inadequate oversight of the granting, review and removal of user access at 53 per cent of agencies
  • privileged users were not appropriately monitored at 43 per cent of agencies
  • deficient password controls that did not align to the agency's own password policies at 25 per cent of agencies.

The deficiencies above increase the risk of non-compliance with the NSW Cyber Security Policy, which requires agencies to have processes in place to manage user access, including privileged user access to sensitive information or systems and remove that access once it is not required or employment is terminated.

3. Business continuity and disaster recovery planning
Assessing risks to business continuity and Scenario testing

The response to the recent emergencies and the COVID-19 pandemic has encompassed a wide range of activities, including policy setting, on-going service delivery, safety and availability of staff, availability of IT and other systems and financial management. Agencies were required to activate their business continuity plans in response, and with the continued impact of COVID-19 have not yet returned to a business-as-usual environment.

Our audits focused on the preparedness of agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We identified deficiencies in agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements. Twenty-three per cent of agencies had not conducted a business impact analysis (BIA) to identify critical business functions and determine business continuity priorities. Agencies can also improve the content of their BIA. For example, ten per cent of agencies' BIAs did not include recovery time objectives and six per cent of agencies did not identify key IT systems that support critical business functions. Scenario testing improves the effectiveness with which a live crisis is handled, but 40 per cent of agencies had not conducted a business continuity scenario testing exercise in the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. There were also opportunities to improve the effectiveness of scenario testing exercises by:

  • involving key dependent or inter-dependent third parties who support or deliver critical business functions
  • testing one or more high impact scenarios identified in their business continuity plan
  • preparing a formalpost-exercise report documenting the outcome of their scenario testing.

Agencies have responded to the recent emergencies but addressing deficiencies will ensure agencies have adequate safeguards in their processes to again respond in the future, if required.

During 2020–21 we plan to conduct a performance audit on 'Business continuity and disaster recovery planning'. This audit will consider the effectiveness of agency business continuity planning arrangements to maintain business continuity through the recent emergencies and/or COVID-19 pandemic and return to a business-as-usual environment. We also plan to conduct a performance audit on whole-of-government 'Coordination of emergency responses'.

Responding to disruptions

We found agencies' governance functions could have been better informed about responses to disruptive incidents that had activated a business continuity or disaster recovery response between 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. For instance:

in 89 per cent of instances where a business continuity response was activated, a post-incident review had been performed. In 82 per cent of these instances, the outcomes were reported to a relevant governance or executive management committee

in 95 per cent of instances where a disaster recovery response was activated, a post incident review had been performed. In 86 per cent of these instances, the outcomes were reported to a relevant governance committee or executive management committee.

Examples of recorded incidents included extensive air quality issues and power outages due to bushfires, system and network outages, and infected and hijacked servers.

Agencies should assess their response to the recent emergencies and the COVID-19 pandemic and update business continuity, disaster recovery and other business resilience frameworks to incorporate lessons learned. Agencies should report to those charged with governance on the results and planned actions.

Management review and oversight Eighty-two per cent and 86 per cent of agencies report to their audit and risk committees (ARC) on their business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements, respectively. Only 18 per cent and five per cent of ARCs are briefed on the results of respective scenario testing. Briefing ARCs on the results of scenario testing exercises helps inform their decisions about whether sound and effective business continuity and disaster recovery arrangements have been established.
4. Procurement, including emergency procurement
Policy framework

Agency procurement policies did not capture the requirements of several key NSW Procurement Board Directions (the Directions), increasing the risk of non-compliance with the Directions. We noted: 

  • 67 per cent of agencies did specify that procurement above $650,000 must be open to market unless exempt or procured through an existing Whole of Government Scheme or contract
  • 36 per cent of agencies did specify that procurements above $500,000 payable in foreign currencies must be hedged
  • 69 per cent of agencies' policies did specify that the agency head or cluster CFO must authorise the engagement of consultants where the engagement of the supplier does not comply with the standard commercial framework.

Recommendation: Agencies should review their procurement policies and guidelines to ensure they capture the key requirements of the NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework, including NSW Procurement Board Directions.

Managing contracts

Eighty-eight per cent of agencies maintain a central contract register to record all details of contracts above $150,000, which is a requirement of GIPA legislation. Of the agencies that maintained registers, 13 per cent did not capture all contracts and eight per cent did not include all relevant contract details.

Sixteen per cent of agencies did not periodically review their contract register. Timely review increases compliance with GIPA legislation, and enhances the effectiveness with which procurement business units monitor contract end dates, contract extensions and commence new procurement.

Training and support

Ninety-three per cent of agencies provide training to staff involved in procurement processes, and a further 77 per cent of agencies provide this training on an on-going basis. Of the seven per cent of agencies that had not provided training to staff, we noted gaps in aspects of their procurement activity, including:

  • not conducting value for money assessments prior to renewing or extending the contract with their existing supplier
  • not obtaining approval from a delegated authority to commence the procurement process
  • procurement documentation not specifying certain key details such as the conditions for participation including any financial guarantees and dates for the delivery of goods or supply of services.

Training on procurement activities ensures there is effective management of procurement processes to support operational requirements, and compliance with procurement directions.

Procurement activities While agencies had implemented controls for tender activities above $650,000, 43 per cent of unaccredited agencies did not comply with the NSW Procurement Policy Framework because they had not had their procurement endorsed by an accredited agency within the cluster or by NSW Procurement. This endorsement aims to ensure the procurement is properly planned to deliver a value for money outcome before it commences.
Emergency procurement

As at 30 June 2020, agencies within the scope of this report reported conducting 32,239 emergency procurements with a total contract value of $316,908,485. Emergency procurement activities included the purchase of COVID-19 cleaning and hygiene supplies.

The government, through NSW Procurement released the 'COVID-19 Emergency procurement procedure', which relaxed procurement requirements to allow agencies to make COVID-19 emergency procurements. Our review against the emergency procurement measures found most agencies complied with requirements. For example:

  • 95 per cent of agencies documented an assessment of the need for the emergency procurement for the good and/or service
  • 86 per cent of agencies obtained authorisation of the emergency procurement by the agency head or the nominated employee under Public Works and Procurement Regulation 2019
  • 76 per cent of agencies reported the emergency procurement to the NSW Procurement Board.

Complying with the procedure helps to ensure government resources are being efficiently, effectively, economically and in accordance with the law.

Recommendation: Agency procurement frameworks should be reviewed and updated so they can respond effectively to emergency situations that may arise in the future. This includes:

  • updating procurement policies and guidelines to define an emergency situation, specify who can approve emergency procurement and capture other key requirements
  • using standard templates and documentation to prompt users to capture key requirements, such as needs analysis, supplier selection criteria, price assessment criteria, licence and insurance checks
  • having processes for reporting on emergency procurements to those charged with governance and NSW Procurement.
5. Delegations
Instruments of delegation

We found that agencies have established financial and human resources delegations, but some had not revisited their delegation manuals following the legislative and machinery of government changes. For those agencies impacted by machinery of government changes we noted:

  • 16 per cent of agencies had not updated their financial delegations to reflect the changes
  • 16 per cent of agencies did not update their human resources delegations to reflect the changes.

Delegations manuals are not always complete; 16 per cent of agencies had no delegation for writing off bad debts and 26 per cent of agencies had no delegation for writing off capital assets.

Recommendation: Agencies should ensure their financial and human resources delegation manuals contain regular set review dates and are updated to reflect the Government Sector Finance Act 2018, machinery of government changes and their current organisational structure and roles and responsibilities.

Compliance with delegations

Agencies did not understand or correctly apply the requirements of the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act), resulting in non-compliance with the Act. We found that 18 per cent of agencies spent deemed appropriations without obtaining an authorised delegation from the relevant Minister(s), as required by sections 4.6(1) and 5.5(3) of the GSF Act.

Further detail on this issue will be included in our Auditor-General's Reports to Parliament on Central Agencies, Education, Health and Stronger Communities, which will be tabled throughout December 2020.

Recommendation: Agencies should review financial and human resources delegations to ensure they capture all key functions of laws and regulations, and clearly specify the relevant power or function being conferred on the officer.

6. Status of 2019 recommendations
Progress implementing last year's recommendations

Recommendations were made last year to improve transparency over reporting on gifts and benefits and improve the visibility management and those charged with governance had over actions taken to address conflicts of interest that may arise. This year, we continue to note:

  • 38 per cent of agencies have not updated their gifts and benefits register to include all the key fields required under the minimum standards set by the Public Service Commission
  • 56 per cent of agencies have not provided training to staff and 63 per cent of agencies have not implemented an annual attestation process for senior management
  • 97 per cent of agencies have not published their gifts and benefits register on their website and 41 per cent of agencies are not reporting on trends in the gifts and benefits register to those charged with governance.

While we acknowledge the significance of the recent emergencies, which have consumed agency time and resources, we note limited progress has been made implementing these recommendations. Further detail on the status of implementing all recommendations is in Appendix 2.

Recommendation: Agencies should re-visit the recommendations made in last year's report on internal controls and governance and action these recommendations.

Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:

  • operate effectively and efficiently
  • produce reliable financial reports
  • comply with laws and regulations
  • support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of audit findings, the degree of risk those deficiencies pose to the agency, and a summary of the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this report presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

Section highlights

We identified ten high risk findings, compared to four last year with two findings repeated from the previous year. There was an overall increase of 13 per cent in the number of internal control deficiencies compared to last year due to a seven per cent increase in new internal control deficiencies, and a 24 per cent increase in repeat internal control deficiencies. The recent emergencies have consumed agency time and resources and may have contributed to the increase in internal control deficiencies, particularly repeat deficiencies.

We identified a number of findings that remain common across multiple agencies over the last four years. Some of these findings related to areas that are fundamental to good internal control environments and effective organisational governance. Examples include:

  • out of date or missing policies to guide appropriate decisions
  • poor record keeping and document retention
  • incomplete or inaccurate centralised registers, or gaps in these registers.

Policies, procedures and internal controls should be properly designed, be appropriate for the current organisational structure and its business activities, and work effectively.

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

Section highlights

Government agencies’ financial reporting is heavily reliant on information technology (IT). We continue to see a high number of deficiencies related to IT general controls, particularly those related to user access administration. These controls are key in adequately protecting IT systems from inappropriate access and misuse.

IT is also important to the delivery of agency services. These systems often provide the data to help monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of agency processes and services they deliver. Our financial audits do not review all agency IT systems. For example, IT systems used to support agency service delivery are generally outside the scope of our financial audit. However, agencies should also consider the relevance of our findings to these systems.

Agencies need to continue to focus on assessing the risks of inappropriate access and misuse and the implementation of controls to adequately protect their systems, focussing on the processes in place to grant, remove and monitor user access, particularly privileged user access.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements.

Section highlights

We identified deficiencies in agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements and opportunities for agencies to enhance their business continuity management and disaster recovery planning arrangements. This will better prepare them to respond to a disruption to their critical functions, resulting from an emergency or other serious event. Twenty-three per cent of agencies had not conducted a business impact analysis (BIA) to identify critical business functions and determine business continuity priorities and 40 per cent of agencies had not conducted a business continuity scenario testing exercise in the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. Scenario testing improves the effectiveness with which a live crisis is handled.

This section focusses on the preparedness of agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While agencies have responded to the recent emergencies, proactively addressing deficiencies will ensure agencies have adequate safeguards in their processes to again respond in the future, if required.

During 2020–21 we plan to conduct a performance audit on 'Business continuity and disaster recovery planning'. This audit will consider the effectiveness of agency business continuity planning arrangements to maintain business continuity through the recent emergencies and/or COVID-19 pandemic and return to a business-as-usual environment. We also plan to conduct a performance audit on whole-of-government 'Coordination of emergency responses'.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of procurement agency procurement policies and procurement activity.

Section highlights

We found agencies have procurement policies in place to manage procurement activity, but the content of these policies was not sufficiently detailed to ensure compliance with NSW Procurement Board Directions (the Directions). The Directions aim to ensure procurement activity achieves value for money and meets the principles of probity and fairness.

Agencies have generally implemented controls over their procurement process. In relation to emergency procurement activity, agencies reported conducting 32,239 emergency procurements with a total contract value of $316,908,485 up to 30 June 2020. Our review of emergency procurement activity conducted during 2019–20 identified areas where some agencies did not fully comply with the 'COVID-19 Emergency procurement procedure'.

We also found not all agencies are maintaining complete and accurate contract registers. This not only increases the risk of non-compliance with GIPA legislation, but also limits the effectiveness of procurement business units to monitor contract end dates, contract extensions and commence new procurement in a timely manner. We noted instances where agencies renewed or extended contracts without going through a competitive tender process during the year.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency compliance with financial and human resources delegations.

Section highlights
We found that agencies are not always regularly reviewing and updating their financial and human resources delegations when there are changes to legislation or other organisational changes within the agency or from machinery of government changes. For example, agencies did not understand or correctly apply the requirements of the GSF Act, resulting in non-compliance with the Act. We found that 18 per cent of agencies spent deemed appropriations without obtaining an authorised delegation from the relevant Minister(s), as required by sections 4.6(1) and 5.5(3) of the GSF Act.
In order for agencies to operate efficiently, make necessary expenditure and human resource decisions quickly and lawfully, particularly in emergency situations, it is important that delegations are kept up to date, provide clear authority to decision makers and are widely communicated.

Appendix one – List of 2020 recommendations 

Appendix two – Status of 2019 recommendations

Appendix three – Cluster agencies

 

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 Integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register

Integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register

Justice
Premier and Cabinet
Whole of Government
Cyber security
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

This report outlines whether the Department of Customer Service (the department) has effective controls in place to ensure the integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register (the register), and to prevent unauthorised access and misuse.

The audit found that the department has processes in place to ensure that the information entered in the register is accurate and that any changes to it are validated. Although there are controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the register, there were significant gaps in these controls. Addressing these gaps is necessary to ensure the integrity of information in the register.

The Auditor-General made nine recommendations to the department, aimed at strengthening controls to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the register. These included increased monitoring of individuals who have access to the register and strengthening security controls around the databases that contain the information in the register.

The NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages is responsible for maintaining registers of births, deaths and marriages in New South Wales as well as registering adoptions, changes of names, changes of sex and relationships. Maintaining the integrity of this information is important as it is used to confirm people’s identity and unauthorised access to it can lead to fraud or identity theft.

Read full report (PDF)

The NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages (BD&M) is responsible for maintaining registers of births, deaths and marriages in New South Wales. BD&M is also responsible for registering adoptions, changes of name, changes of sex and relationships. These records are collectively referred to as 'the Register'. The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (the BD&M Act) makes the Registrar (the head of BD&M) responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Register and preventing fraud associated with the Register. Maintaining the integrity of the information held in the Register is important as it is used to confirm people's identity. Unauthorised access to, or misuse of the information in the Register can lead to fraud or identity theft. For these reasons it is important that there are sufficient controls in place to protect the information.

BD&M staff access, add to and amend the Register through the LifeLink application. While BD&M is part of the Department of Customer Service, the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) manages the databases that contain the Register and sit behind LifeLink and is responsible for the security of these databases.

This audit assessed whether BD&M has effective controls in place to ensure the integrity of data in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register, and to prevent unauthorised access and misuse. It addressed the following:

  • Are relevant process and IT controls in place and effective to ensure the integrity of data in the Register and the authenticity of records and documents?
  • Are security controls in place and effective to prevent unauthorised access to, and modification of, data in the Register?

Conclusion

BD&M has processes and controls in place to ensure that the information entered in the Register is accurate and that amendments to the Register are validated. BD&M also has controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised access to, and activity in the Register. However, there are significant gaps in these controls. Addressing these gaps is necessary to ensure the integrity of the information in the Register.

BD&M has detailed procedures for all registrations and amendments to the Register, which include processes for entering, assessing and checking the validity and adequacy of source documents. Where BD&M staff have directly input all the data and for amendments to the Register, a second person is required to check all information that has been input before an event can be registered or an amendment can be made. BD&M carries out regular internal audits of all registration processes to check whether procedures are being followed and to address non-compliance where required.

BD&M authorises access to the Register and carries out regular access reviews to ensure that users are current and have the appropriate level of access. There are audit trails of all user activity, but BD&M does not routinely monitor these. At the time of the audit, BD&M also did not monitor activity by privileged users who could make unauthorised changes to the Register. Not monitoring this activity created a risk that unauthorised activity in the Register would not be detected.

BD&M has no direct oversight of the database environment which houses the Register and relies on DCJ's management of a third-party vendor to provide the assurance it needs over database security. The vendor operates an Information Security Management System that complies with international standards, but neither BD&M nor DCJ has undertaken independent assurance of the effectiveness of the vendor's IT controls.

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

 

Copyright notice

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

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #330 - released 7 April 2020.

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 Internal Controls and Governance 2018

Internal Controls and Governance 2018

Education
Community Services
Finance
Health
Industry
Justice
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Transport
Treasury
Whole of Government
Environment
Compliance
Cyber security
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

The Auditor-General for New South Wales Margaret Crawford found that as NSW state government agencies’ digital footprint increases they need to do more to address new and emerging information technology (IT) risks. This is one of the key findings to emerge from the second stand-alone report on internal controls and governance of the 40 largest NSW state government agencies.

This report analyses the internal controls and governance of the 40 largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2018.

This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2017–18 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at the 40 largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector.

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

This is our second report dedicated to internal controls and governance at NSW State Government agencies. The report provides insights into the effectiveness of controls and governance processes in the NSW public sector by:

  • highlighting the potential risks posed by weaknesses in controls and governance processes
  • helping agencies benchmark the adequacy of their processes against their peers
  • focusing on new and emerging risks, and the internal controls and governance processes that might address those risks.

Without strong governance systems and internal controls, agencies increase the risks associated with effectively managing their finances and delivering services to citizens. The way agencies deliver services increasingly relies on contracts and partnerships with the private sector. Many of these arrangements deliver front line services, but others provide less visible back office support. For example, an agency may rely on an IT service provider to manage a key system used to provide services to the community. The contract and service level agreements are only truly effective where they are actively managed to reduce risks to continuous quality service delivery, such as interruptions caused by system outages, cyber security attacks and data security breaches.

Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. We select a range of measures, and report on those that present heightened risks for agencies to mitigate. This report divides these into the following five areas:

  1. Internal control trends
  2. Information technology (IT), including IT vendor management
  3. Transparency and performance reporting
  4. Management of purchasing cards and taxis
  5. Fraud and corruption control.

The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2018 cluster financial audit reports, which will be tabled in Parliament from November to December 2018.

The focus of the report has changed since last year

Last year's report topics included asset management, ethics and conduct, and risk management. We are reporting on new topics this year. We plan to introduce new topics and re-visit our previous topics in subsequent reports on a cyclical basis. This will provide a baseline against which to measure the NSW public sectors’ progress in implementing appropriate internal controls and governance processes to mitigate existing, new and emerging risks in the public sector.

Agencies selected for the volume account for 95 per cent of the state's expenditure

While we have covered only 40 agencies in this report, those selected are a large enough group to identify common issues and insights. They represent about 95 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.

Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:

  • operate effectively and efficiently
  • produce reliable financial reports
  • comply with laws and regulations
  • support ethical government.

This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this volume presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
2.1 High risk findings
We found six high risk findings (seven in 2016–17), one of which was repeated from both last year and 2015–16. Recommendation: Agencies should reduce risk by addressing high risk internal control deficiencies as a priority.
2.2 Common findings
We found several internal controls and governance findings common to multiple agencies. Conclusion: Central agencies or the lead agency in a cluster can play a lead role in helping ensure agency responses to common findings are consistent, timely, efficient and effective.
2.3 New and repeat findings
Although internal control deficiencies decreased over the last four years, this year has seen a 42 per cent increase in internal control deficiencies. The increase in new IT control deficiencies and repeat IT control deficiencies signifies an emerging risk for agencies.
IT control deficiencies feature in this increase, having risen by 63 per cent since last year. The number of repeat IT control deficiencies has doubled and is driven by the increasing digital footprint left by agencies as government prioritises on-line interfaces with citizens, and the number of transactions conducted through digital channels increases

Recommendation: Agencies should reduce IT risks by:

  • assigning ownership of recommendations to address IT control deficiencies, with timeframes and actions plans for implementation
  • ensuring audit and risk committees and agency management regularly monitor the implementation status of recommendations.

 

Government agencies’ financial reporting is now heavily reliant on information technology (IT). IT is also increasingly important to the delivery of agency services. These systems often provide the data to help monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of agency processes and services they deliver. Our audits reviewed whether agencies have effective controls in place to manage both key financial systems and IT service contracts.

Observation Conclusions and recommendations
3.1 Management of IT vendors
Contract management framework 
Although 87 per cent of agencies have a contract management policy to manage IT vendors, one fifth require review.
 

Conclusion: Agencies can more effectively manage IT vendor contracts by developing policies and procedures to ensure vendor management frameworks are kept up to date, plans are in place to manage vendor performance and risk, and compliance with the framework is monitored by:

  • internal audit focusing on key contracting activities
  • experienced officers who are independent of contract administration performing spot checks or peer reviews
  • targeted analysis of data in contract registers.
Contract risk management
Forty-one per cent of agencies are not using contract management plans and do not assess contract risks. Half of the agencies that did assess contract risks, had not updated the risk assessments since the commencement of the contract.
 
Conclusion: Instead of applying a 'set and forget' approach in relation to management of contract risks, agencies should assess risk regularly and develop a plan to actively manage identified risks throughout the contract lifecycle - from negotiation and commencement, to termination.

Performance management
Eighty-six per cent of agencies meet with vendors to discuss performance. 

Only 24 per cent of agencies sought assurance about the accuracy of vendor reporting against KPIs, yet sixty-seven per cent of the IT contracts allow agencies to determine performance based payments and/or penalise underperformance.

Conclusion: Agencies are monitoring IT vendor performance, but could improve outcomes and more effectively manage under-performance by:

  • a more active, rigorous approach to both risk and performance management
  • checking the accuracy of vendor reporting against those KPIs and where appropriate seeking assurance over their accuracy
  • invoking performance based payments clauses in contracts when performance falls below agreed standards.

Transitioning services
Forty-three per cent of the IT vendor contracts did not contain transitioning-out provisions.

Where IT vendor contracts do make provision for transitioning-out, only 28 per cent of agencies have developed a transitioning-out plan with their IT vendor.

Conclusion: Contract transition/phase out clauses and plans can mitigate risks to service disruption, ensure internal controls remain in place, avoid unnecessary costs and reduce the risk of 'vendor lock-in'.
Contract Registers
Eleven out of forty agencies did not have a contract register, or have registers that are not accurate and/or complete.

Conclusion: A contract register helps to manage an agency’s compliance obligations under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act). However, it also helps agencies more effectively manage IT vendors by:

  • monitoring contract end dates and contract extensions, and commence new procurements through their central procurement teams in a timely manner
  • managing their contractual commitments, budgeting and cash flow requirements.

Recommendation: Agencies should ensure their contract registers are complete and accurate so they can more effectively govern contracts and manage compliance obligations.

3.2 IT general controls
Governance
Ninety-five per cent of agencies have established policies to manage key IT processes and functions within the agency, with ten per cent of those due for review.
 
Conclusion: Regular review of IT policies ensures risks are considered and appropriate strategies and procedures are implemented to manage these risks on a consistent basis. An absence of policies can lead to ad-hoc responses to risks, and failure to consider emerging IT risks and changes to agency IT environments. 

User access administration
Seventy-two deficiencies were identified related to user access administration, including:

  • thirty issues related to granting user access across 43 per cent of agencies
  • sixteen issues related to removing user access across 30 per cent of agencies
  • twenty-six issues related to periodic reviews of user access across 50 per cent of agencies.
Recommendation: Agencies should strengthen the administration of user access to prevent inappropriate access to key systems.
Privileged access
Forty per cent of agencies do not periodically review logs of the activities of privileged users to identify suspicious or unauthorised activities.

Recommendation: Agencies should:

  • review the number of, and access granted to privileged users, and assess and document the risks associated with their activities
  • monitor user access to address risks from unauthorised activity.
Password controls
Twenty-three per cent of agencies did not comply with their own policy on password parameters.
Recommendation: Agencies should ensure IT password settings comply with their password policies.
Program changes
Fifteen per cent of agencies had deficient IT program change controls mainly related to segregation of duties and authorisation and testing of IT program changes prior to deployment.
Recommendation: Agencies should maintain appropriate segregation of duties in their IT functions and test system changes before they are deployed.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations from our review of how agencies reported their performance in their 2016–17 annual reports. The Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Regulation 2015 and Annual Reports (Departments) Regulation 2015 (annual reports regulation) currently prescribes the minimum requirements for agency annual reports.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
4.1 Reporting on performance

Only 57 per cent of agencies linked reporting on performance to their strategic objectives.

The use of targets and reporting performance over time was limited and applied inconsistently.

Conclusion: There is significant disparity in the quality and consistency of how agencies report on their performance in their annual reports. This limits the reliability and transparency of reported performance information.

Agencies could improve performance reporting by clearly linking strategic objectives to reported outcomes, and reporting on performance against targets over time. NSW Treasury may need to provide more guidance to agencies to support consistent and high-quality performance reporting in annual reports.

There is no independent assurance that the performance metrics agencies report in their annual reports are accurate.

Prior performance audits have noted issues related to the collection of performance information. For example, our 2016 Report on Red Tape Reduction highlighted inaccuracies in how the dollar-value of red tape reduction had been reported.

Conclusion: The ability of Parliament and the public to rely on reported information as a relevant and accurate reflection of an agency's performance is limited.

The relevance and accuracy of performance information is enhanced when:

  • policies and guidance support the consistent and accurate collection of data
  • internal review processes and management oversight are effective
  • independent review processes are established to provide effective challenge to the assumptions, judgements and methodology used to collect the reported performance information.
4.2 Reporting on reports

Agency reporting on major projects does not meet the requirements of the annual reports regulation.

Forty-seven per cent of agencies did not report on costs to date and estimated completion dates for major works in progress. Of the 47 per cent of agencies that reported on major works, only one agency reported detail about significant cost overruns, delays, amendments, deferments or cancellations.

NSW Treasury produce an annual report checklist to help agencies comply with their annual report obligations.

Recommendation: Agencies should comply with the annual reports regulation and report on all mandatory fields, including significant cost overruns and delays, for their major works in progress.

The information the annual reports regulation requires agencies to report deals only with major works in progress. There is no requirement to report on completed works.

Sixteen of 30 agencies reported some information on completed major works.

Conclusion: Agencies could improve their transparency if they reported, or were required to report:

  • on both works in progress and projects completed during the year
  • actual costs and completion dates, and forecast completion dates for major works, against original and revised budgets and original expected completion dates
  • explanations for significant cost overruns, delays and key project performance metrics.

 

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency preventative and detective controls over purchasing card and taxi use for 2017–18.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
5.1 Management of purchasing cards
Volume of credit card spend
Purchasing card expenditure has increased by 76 per cent over the last four years in response to a government review into the cost savings possible from using purchasing cards for low value, high volume procurement.
 
Conclusion: The increasing use of purchasing cards highlights the importance of an effective framework for the use and management of purchasing cards.
Policy framework
We found all agencies that held purchasing cards had a policy in place, but 26 per cent of agencies have not reviewed their purchasing card policy by the scheduled date, or do not have a scheduled revision date stated within their policy.
Recommendation: Agencies should mitigate the risks associated with increased purchasing card use by ensuring policies and purchasing card frameworks remain current and compliant with the core requirements of TPP 17–09 'Use and Management of NSW Government Purchasing Cards'.
Preventative controls
We found that:
  • all agencies maintained purchasing card registers
  • seventy-six per cent provided training to cardholders prior to being issued with a card
  • eighty-nine per cent appointed a program administrator, but only half of these had clearly defined roles and responsibilities
  • thirty-two per cent of agencies place merchant blocks on purchasing cards
  • forty-seven per cent of agencies place geographic restrictions on purchasing cards.

Agencies have designed and implemented preventative controls aimed at deterring the potential misuse of purchasing cards.

Conclusion: Further opportunities exist for agencies to better control the use of purchasing cards, such as:

  • updating purchasing card registers to contain all mandatory fields required by TPP17–09
  • appointing a program administrator for the agency's purchasing card framework and defining their role and responsibility for the function
  • strengthening preventive controls to prevent misuse.

Detective controls
Ninety-two per cent of agencies have designed and implemented at least one control to monitor purchasing card activity.

Major reviews, such as data analytics (29 per cent of agencies) and independent spot checks (49 per cent of agencies) are not widely used.

Agencies have designed and implemented detective controls aimed at identifying potential misuse of purchasing cards.

Conclusion: More effective monitoring using purchasing card data can provide better visibility over spending activity and can be used to:

  • detect misuse and investigate exceptions
  • analyse trends to highlight cost saving opportunities.
5.2 Management of taxis
Policy framework
Thirteen per cent of agencies have not developed and implemented a policy to manage taxi use. In addition:
  • a further 41 per cent of agencies have not reviewed their policies by the scheduled revision date, or do not have a scheduled revision date
  • more than half of all agencies’ policies do not offer alternative travel options. For example, only 36 per cent of policies promoted the use of general Opal cards.
Conclusion: Agencies can promote savings and provide more options to staff where their taxi use policies:
  • limit the circumstances where taxi use is appropriate
  • offer alternate, lower cost options to using taxis, such as general Opal cards and rideshare.
Detective controls
All agencies approve taxi expenditure by expense reimbursement, purchasing card and Cabcharge, and have implemented controls around this approval process. However, beyond this there is minimal monitoring and review activity, such as data monitoring, independent spot checks or internal audit reviews.
Conclusion: Taxi spend at agencies is not significant in terms of its dollar value, but it is significant from a probity perspective. Agencies can better address the probity risk by incorporating taxi use into a broader purchasing card or fraud monitoring program.

 

Fraud and corruption control is one of the 17 key elements of our governance lighthouse. Recent reports from ICAC into state agencies and local government councils highlight the need for effective fraud control and ethical frameworks. Effective frameworks can help protect an agency from events that risk serious reputational damage and financial loss.

Our 2016 Fraud Survey found the NSW Government agencies we surveyed reported 1,077 frauds over the three year period to 30 June 2015. For those frauds where an estimate of losses was made, the reported value exceeded $10.0 million. The report also highlighted that the full extent of fraud in the NSW public sector could be higher than reported because:

  • unreported frauds in organisations can be almost three times the number of reported frauds
  • our 2015 survey did not include all NSW public sector agencies, nor did it include any NSW universities or local councils
  • fraud committed by citizens such as fare evasion and fraudulent state tax self-assessments was not within the scope of our 2015 survey
  • agencies did not estimate a value for 599 of the 1,077 (56 per cent) reported frauds.

Commissioning and outsourcing of services to the private sector and the advancement of digital technology are changing the fraud and corruption risks agencies face. Fraud risk assessments should be updated regularly and in particular where there are changes in agency business models. NSW Treasury Circular TC18-02 NSW Fraud and Corruption Control Policy now requires agencies develop, implement and maintain a fraud and corruption control framework, effective from 1 July 2018. 

Our Fraud Control Improvement Kit provides guidance and practical advice to help organisations implement an effective fraud control framework. The kit is divided into ten attributes. Three key attributes have been assessed below; prevention, detection and notification systems.

This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency fraud and corruption controls for 2017–18.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
6.1 Prevention systems

Prevention systems
Ninety-two per cent of agencies have a fraud control plan in place, 81 per cent maintain a fraud database and 79 per cent report fraud and corruption matters as a standing item on audit and risk committee agendas.

Only 54 per cent of agencies have an employment screening policy and all agencies have IT security policies, but gaps in IT security controls could undermine their policies.

Conclusion: Most agencies have implemented fraud prevention systems to reduce the risk of fraud. However poor IT security along with other gaps in agency prevention systems, such as employment screening practices heightens the risk of fraud and inappropriate use of data.

Agencies can improve their fraud prevention systems by:

  • completing regular fraud risk assessments, embedding fraud risk assessment into their enterprise risk management process and reporting the results of the assessment to the audit and risk committee
  • maintaining a fraud database and reviewing it regularly for systemic issues and reporting a redacted version of the database on the agency's website to inform corruption prevention networks
  • developing policies and procedures for employee screening and benchmarking their current processes against ICAC's publication ‘Strengthening Employment Screening Practices in the NSW Public Sector’
  • developing and maintaining up to date IT security policies and monitoring compliance with the policy.
Twenty-three per cent of agencies were not performing fraud risk assessments and some agency fraud risk assessments may not be as robust as they could be.  Conclusion: Agencies' systems of internal controls may be less effective where new and emerging fraud risks have been overlooked, or known weaknesses have not been rectified.
6.2 Detection systems
Detection systems
Several agencies reported they were developing a data monitoring program, but only 38 per cent of agencies had already implemented a program.
 

Studies have shown data monitoring, whereby entire populations of transactional data are analysed for indicators of fraudulent activity, is one of the most effective methods of early detection. Early detection decreases the duration a fraud remains undetected thereby limiting the extent of losses.

Conclusion: Data monitoring is an effective tool for early detection of fraud and is more effective when informed by a comprehensive fraud risk assessment.

6.3 Notification systems
Notification system
All agencies have notification systems for reporting actual or suspected fraud and corruption. Most agencies provide multiple reporting lines, provide training and publicise options for staff to report actual or suspected fraud and corruption.
Conclusion: Training staff about their obligations and the use of fraud notification systems promotes a fraud-aware culture

 

Published

Actions for Mobile speed cameras

Mobile speed cameras

Transport
Compliance
Financial reporting
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Regulation
Service delivery

Key aspects of the state’s mobile speed camera program need to be improved to maximise road safety benefits, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. Mobile speed cameras are deployed in a limited number of locations with a small number of these being used frequently. This, along with decisions to limit the hours that mobile speed cameras operate, and to use multiple warning signs, have reduced the broad deterrence of speeding across the general network - the main policy objective of the mobile speed camera program.

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

Published

Actions for Procurement and reporting of consultancy services

Procurement and reporting of consultancy services

Finance
Education
Community Services
Industry
Justice
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Health
Treasury
Transport
Environment
Information technology

Agencies need to improve their compliance with requirements governing the procurement of consultancy services. These requirements help agencies access procurement savings. Also, some agencies have under-reported consultancy fees in their annual reports for the 2016-17 financial year, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. The report examined twelve agencies' compliance with procurement and reporting obligations for consultancy services. It notes that it is difficult to quantify total government expenditure on consultants as agencies define ‘consultants’ differently.

NSW Government agencies engage consultants to provide professional advice to inform their decision‑making. The spend on consultants is measured and reported in different ways for different purposes and the absence of a consistently applied definition makes quantification difficult.

The NSW Government’s procurement principles aim to help agencies obtain value for money and be fair, ethical and transparent in their procurement activities. All NSW Government agencies, with the exception of State Owned Corporations, must comply with the NSW Procurement Board’s Direction when engaging suppliers of business advisory services. Business advisory services include consultancy services. NSW Government agencies must disclose certain information about their use of consultants in their annual reports. The table below illustrates the detailed procurement and reporting requirements.

  Relevant guidance Requirements
Procurement of consultancy services PBD 2015 04 Engagement of major suppliers of consultancy and other services (the Direction) including the Standard Commercial Framework
(revised on 31 January 2018, shortly before it was superseded by 'PBD 2018 01')
 
Required agencies to seek the Agency Head or Chief Financial Officer's approval for engagements over $50,000 and report the engagements in the Major Suppliers' Portal (the Portal). 
  PBD 2018 01 Engagement of professional services suppliers
(replaced 'PBD 2015 04' in May 2018)
Requires agencies to seek the Agency Head or Chief Financial Officer's approval for engagements that depart from the Standard Commercial Framework and report the engagements in the Portal. Exhibit 3 in the report includes the key requirements of these three Directions.
 
Reporting of consultancy expenditure Annual Reports (Departments) Regulation 2015 and Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Regulation 2015 Requires agencies to disclose, in their annual reports, details of consultants engaged in a reporting year.
  Premier's Memorandum 
'M2002 07 Engagement and Use of Consultants'
 
Outlines additional reporting requirements for agencies to describe the nature and purpose of consultancies in their annual reports.

We examined how 12 agencies complied with their procurement and reporting obligations for consultancy services between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2018. Participating agencies are listed in Appendix two. We also examined how NSW Procurement supports the functions of the NSW Procurement Board within the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation.

This audit assessed:

  • agency compliance with relevant procurement requirements for their use of consultants
  • agency compliance with disclosure requirements about consultancy expenditure in their annual reports 
  • the effectiveness of the NSW Procurement Board (the Board) in fulfilling its functions to oversee and support agency procurement of consultancy services. 
Conclusion
No participating agency materially complied with procurement requirements when engaging consultancy services. Eight participating agencies under reported consultant fees in their annual reports. The NSW Procurement Board is not fully effective in overseeing and supporting agencies' procurement of consultancy services.
All 12 agencies that we examined did not materially comply with the NSW Procurement Board Direction for the use of consultants between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2018. 
Eight agencies did not comply with annual reporting requirements in the 2016–17 financial reporting year. Three agencies did not report expenditure on consultants that had been capitalised as part of asset costs, and one agency did not disclose consultancy fees incurred by its subsidiaries. Agencies also defined ‘consultants’ inconsistently.
The NSW Procurement Board's Direction was revised in January 2018, and mandates the use of the Standard Commercial Framework. The Direction aims to drive value for money, reduce administrative costs and simplify the procurement process. In practice, agencies found the Framework challenging to use. To better achieve the Direction’s intent, the Board needs to simplify procurement and compliance processes. 
The Board is yet to publish any statistics or analysis of agencies’ procurement of business advisory services due to issues with the quality of data and systems limitations. Also, the Board’s oversight of agency and supplier compliance with the Framework is limited as it relies on self reporting, and the information provided is insufficient to properly monitor compliance. NSW Procurement is yet to develop an effective procurement and business intelligence system for use by government agencies. Better procurement support, benefit realisation monitoring and reporting by NSW Procurement will help promote value for money in the engagement of consultants.

Published

Actions for Report on Local Government 2017

Report on Local Government 2017

Local Government
Asset valuation
Information technology
Internal controls and governance

Under section 421C of the Local Government Act 1993, I am pleased to present our first report on the statutory financial audits of councils, to NSW Parliament.

My appointment as the auditor of local government in New South Wales is the most significant change to the Auditor-General's mandate in nearly three decades.

Moving to the new audit arrangements over the past 18 months has been challenging but rewarding. It has confirmed my appreciation of local government – a sector passionate about the community and focused on delivering local services. 

The unique relationship each council has with its community differentiates it from other tiers of government.

Our audits
I am pleased to report that we completed 139 out of 140 financial statement audits for the 2016–17 audit cycle. The remaining council received an extension to lodge its financial statements.

We have also released a performance audit report on council reporting on service delivery. We will soon release another report on fraud controls in local councils and a report on council shared services later this year. 

  • While the new audit mandate brings immense responsibility, my office has embraced the challenges involved and the objectives that NSW Parliament gave us: 
  • strengthening governance and financial oversight in local government
  • providing greater consistency in external audit
  • ensuring reliable financial information is available to assess council performance
  • improving financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability in how councils use citizens’ funds.

This report
This report is rich in data extracted from the results of the 2016–17 financial audits. For the first time, it presents a consistent view of financial performance across the New South Wales local government landscape. The report also provides guidance and includes recommendations to councils and the Office of Local Government aimed at strengthening financial reporting, asset management, governance and internal controls.

The report will help NSW Parliament understand the common challenges that councils face. It provides points of comparison for councils and signposts matters that will be the focus of future audits. Importantly, this report and the data visualisation that accompanies it, provides comprehensive and accessible information to citizens regarding the management and performance of their councils.

I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of councils throughout the audit process and our partnerships with the contract audit firms that helped us to deliver the audits. Together we can learn from each other and work towards improving outcomes for the community.  

1.    Introduction
Local government sector NSW has 140 councils: 128 local councils serving a geographic area and 12 county councils formed for a specific purpose. 
We completed audits of 139 councils' 2016–17 financial statements and eight councils' 2015–16 financial statements. Bayside Council received a lodgement extension from the Office of Local Government (OLG) and has not yet presented their 2016–17 financial statements for audit.
Service delivery Each council provides a range of services, influenced by population density, demographics, the local economy, geographic and climatic characteristics. These differences influence the financial profile of councils.
2.    Financial reporting
Quality of financial reporting

The overall quality of financial reporting needs to improve:

  • we issued modified (qualified) audit opinions on the financial statements of three councils in 2016–17 and one council and one water authority in 2015–16
  • we reported 39 significant matters to 29 councils. They related to material accounting issues and significant deficiencies in internal controls
  • twenty-two councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements
  • moderate risk issues were identified in financial statement preparation processes for 43 councils.

    OLG guidance for council year-end financial reporting needs to align with Australian Accounting Standards and be issued earlier.

Timeliness of financial reporting Timeliness of financial reporting needs to improve. Forty councils required lodgement extensions past the 31 October 2017 statutory reporting deadline.
3.    Financial performance and sustainability
Operating revenue Eighteen councils operating expenses exceed current operating revenue.
Fifty-nine councils do not meet OLG’s target of 60 per cent for own source operating revenue.
Liquidity and working capital Most councils have sufficient liquidity and working capital. However, there are indicators that:
  • three councils may not have the ability to meet short-term obligations as measured by the unrestricted current ratio
  • two councils may not have sufficient operating cash available to service debt as measured by the debt service cover ratio
  • eighteen councils do not meet the OLG benchmark for the collection of rates and annual charges 
  • five councils may not have sufficient cash to continue paying expenses without additional cash inflows as measured by the cash expense cover ratio.
Asset management measures Reporting against OLG’s asset management performance measures highlights that councils need to consider whether spending on existing infrastructure assets is sufficient to ensure they continue to meet service delivery standards:
  • seventy councils are not renewing assets in line with the rate of their depreciation
  • eighty-four councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark for managing the infrastructure maintenance backlog
  • seventy-one councils are not maintaining their assets in accordance with their asset management plans. 
4.    Asset management
High risk issues We reported ten high risk issues relating to councils’ asset management and accounting practices.
Asset reporting The accuracy of asset registers requires improvement and all assets need to be reported in the financial statements.
At 30 June 2017, 62 councils did not record all rural fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. A large proportion of rural fire-fighting equipment is not reported in either State government or local government financial statements.
Asset valuation We reported seven high risk matters related to asset valuations, including two that resulted in qualified audit opinions.
Asset useful life estimates We identified that accounting for the useful lives of similar assets varied across councils, resulting in variable depreciation expense for these assets.
In addition, the useful lives of assets need to be reviewed annually. This review should be supported by current condition assessments.
Asset policy and planning Thirteen councils do not have an asset management strategy, policy and plan, as required by the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.
5.    Governance and internal controls
High risk issues We reported 17 high risk issues relating to governance, financial accounting, purchasing and payables and payroll matters.
Governance There is currently no requirement for councils to have an audit, risk and improvement committee and internal audit function. Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee and 52 councils do not have an internal audit function.
The Office of Local Government has incomplete information on the number of entities established by councils. There is no financial reporting framework for the variety of entities established by councils.
Councils can strengthen policies and procedures to support critical business processes, practices for risk management and compliance with key laws and regulations.
Internal controls Councils can improve internal controls over manual journals, reconciliations, purchasing and payables and payroll.
6.    Information technology
High risk issues We reported nine high risk issues relating to information technology.
Access to IT systems Controls over user access to IT systems need to be strengthened.
Information Technology governance IT governance benefits from appropriate policies, standards and guidelines across all critical IT processes. We identified that:
  • around one in four councils do not have an IT strategy or operational plan 
  • half of NSW councils have an IT security policy
  • seventeen councils do not have a documented plan to recover from a disaster.

 

Accurate and timely financial statements are an important element of sound financial management. They bring accountability and transparency to the way councils use public resources. Our financial audits assessed the following aspects of councils’ financial reporting:

  • quality of financial reporting
  • timeliness of financial reporting.
Observation Conclusion or recommendation
2.1 Quality of financial reporting

Qualified audit opinions
We issued unmodified audit opinions on the: 

  • 2016–17 financial statements of 136 councils and two water authorities 
  • 2015–163 financial statements for seven councils and two water authorities.
The councils that received unmodified audit opinions prepared financial statements that fairly present their financial position and results. 

We issued modified (qualified) opinions on the:

  • 2016–17 financial statements of three councils 
  • 2015–16 financial statement of one council and one water authority.

Councils with modified opinions should address the issues that give rise to the audit qualification.

Significant audit matters
We reported 39 significant matters in 29 councils. They included material accounting issues and significant deficiencies in internal controls. Seventy-seven per cent of the matters related to assets.
 
Significant issues with the quality of financial reporting delayed the completion of a number of audits. 
Improving the reporting on assets should be a priority. 
 
Prior period errors
We found 33 material errors worth $9.1 billion in the previous audited financial statements of 
22 councils. These all required prior-year audited balances to be corrected. Eighty eight per cent of these were asset related.
 
The high number of asset-related prior-period errors reinforces the need for councils to improve the way they value and account for assets.
Financial statements
We reported 43 moderate risk findings where councils can improve the way they complete their financial statements.
Recommendation
Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by reviewing their financial statements close processes to identify areas for improvements.
 
Of the councils that had an audit, risk and improvement committee, 55 per cent of these did not review the financial statements before audit. Recommendation
Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by involving an audit, risk and improvement committee in the review of financial statements.
 
OLG guidance
To support councils in preparing 30 June 2017 financial statements, OLG issued guidance documents in June 2017 and September 2017. This limited the time councils had to prepare financial statements in the prescribed form and resolve financial reporting and audit issues. 
Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should release the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and the End of Year Financial Reporting Circular earlier in the audit cycle, ideally by 30 April each year.
 
The Code applicable for the 2016–17 financial reporting period provided options and guidance that in some instances did not fully align with Australian Accounting Standards. Recommendation
The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting should align with Australian Accounting Standards.
2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting
Statutory deadlines
One hundred councils submitted audited financial statements to OLG by the statutory deadline of 31 October 2017.
Thirty-nine councils received reporting extensions up to 28 February, including 16 of the 20 newly amalgamated councils.
Bayside Council received a reporting extension to 31 May 2018 and has not yet presented their financial statements for audit.
 
Councils need to improve their financial reporting processes in order to lodge their financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline.
Early close procedures
Councils currently do not use early close procedures to resolve accounting issues before the end of the financial year.
Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should introduce early close procedures with an emphasis on asset valuations.

3 The Auditor‑General was appointed statutory auditor of eight councils for the 2015–16 reporting period at the specific request of councils, due to the failure by councils to appoint an auditor, or the inability of the previous auditor to complete the audit due to external investigation or auditor retirement.

Strong and sustainable financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to the needs of their community. This chapter outlines our audit observations on the performance of councils against the Office of Local Government's (OLG) performance indicators, grouped in three areas:

  • operating revenue performance measures
  • liquidity and working capital performance measures
  • asset management performance measures.

Our analysis indicates that some councils face challenges in meeting these performance and sustainability measures.

Observations Conclusions
3.1 Operating revenue performance measures

Operating performance
Operating expenses for 18 councils exceeded their operating revenue.

Another 20 councils would not have met OLG’s operating performance benchmark without the receipt of 2017–18 financial assistance grants which was recorded as revenue during 2016–17.

Eleven councils have not met OLG’s operating performance benchmark for the last three years.

It is important that councils have financial management strategies that support their financial sustainability and ability to meet OLG’s operating performance benchmark over the long term.
Operating performance measures how well councils contain operating expenses within operating revenue. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than zero.  

Own source operating revenue
Fifty-nine councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark, and 42 of those were rural councils.

Rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets that cover large areas with smaller populations and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources compared with metropolitan councils.
Own source operating revenue measures a council’s fiscal flexibility and the degree to which it can generate revenue from own sources compared with total revenue from all sources. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of more than 60 per cent of total revenue.  
3.2 Liquidity and working capital performance measures

Unrestricted current ratio
All but three councils met OLG’s benchmark.

Most councils can meet short-term obligations as they fall due.
The unrestricted current ratio represents a council’s ability to meet its short-term obligations as they fall due. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 1.5 times.  

Debt service cover ratio
All but two councils met OLG’s benchmark. These two councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark due to the early repayment of borrowings.

Regional councils have 56 per cent of the value of all borrowings in the sector.

Most councils have sufficient operating cash available to service their borrowings.

Regional councils borrow more heavily than metropolitan councils to deliver water and sewerage infrastructure. Metropolitan councils do not have the responsibility to provide water and sewerage infrastructure.

The debt service cover ratio measures the operating cash available to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than two times.  

Rates and annual charges outstanding
Eight rural, five regional, three metropolitan and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark.

These councils also did not meet the infrastructure backlog ratio.

Most councils are collecting rates and annual charges levied. Councils with higher levels of uncollected rates and charges can experience increased pressure on the working capital available to fund operations.
The rates and annual charges outstanding measure assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on a council’s liquidity and the adequacy of debt recovery efforts. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of less than five per cent for metropolitan and less than ten per cent for other councils.  

Cash expense cover ratio
Three rural and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark.

Most councils have the capacity to cover more than three months of operating expenses.
The cash expense cover ratio indicates the number of months a council can continue paying its expenses without additional cash inflows. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than three months.  

This measure does not exclude externally and internally restricted funds. If externally restricted funds are excluded, all councils would still meet OLG’s benchmark. If both externally and internally restricted funds are excluded:

  • an additional 32 councils would have a cash expense cover ratio of less than three months
  • a further nine councils are left without any unrestricted funds for general operations.
Councils with a higher proportion of restricted funds may have less flexibility to pay operational expenses than the cash expense cover ratio suggests. However, councils can resolve to lift internal restriction if required.

3.3. Asset management performance measures (not audited)

Building and infrastructure renewals ratio
Seventy councils reported to OLG they do not meet the benchmark for this ratio.

Most councils included expenditure related to work-in-progress in calculating this ratio. OLG are of the view that work-in-progress should be excluded and as a result identified that a further 23 councils do not meet the benchmark.

These councils appear to not be renewing assets in line with the rate they are depreciating them. This raises questions as to whether council asset management plans are adequate to determine whether assets are being kept up to agreed standards.

Uncertainty on the inclusion of work-in-progress assets does need to be is clarified in order to ensure consistency in determining whether councils are adequately renewing their assets.

The building and infrastructure renewals ratio represents the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 100 per cent.  

Infrastructure backlog ratio
Eighty-four councils reported to OLG that they do not meet the benchmark for this ratio.

These councils may not be maintaining their infrastructure backlog at a manageable level.
The infrastructure backlog ratio represents the proportion of infrastructure backlog relative to the total net book value of a council's infrastructure assets. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of less than two per cent.  

Asset maintenance ratio
Seventy-one councils reported to OLG they do not meet the benchmark for this ratio

These councils’ maintenance expenditure may be insufficient to sustain their assets in a functional state so they reach their predicted useful life.
The asset maintenance ratio represents the rate at which assets are being maintained relative to the rate at which they are required to be maintained. OLG has prescribed a benchmark of greater than 100 per cent.  

Costs to bring assets to agreed service level
One-hundred and two councils reported results against this indicator to OLG. The reported results ranged from 0.1 per cent to 19.8 per cent.

There is variability between councils in the amount of outstanding renewal works to be completed.
This ratio represents the estimated cost to renew or rehabilitate existing infrastructure assets that have reached the condition-based interval level adopted by a council, relative to the gross replacement cost of all infrastructure assets. OLG has not prescribed a benchmark for this performance measure.  

OLG’s benchmarks for financial performance and sustainability

Each local council has unique characteristics such as its size, location and services provided to their communities. These differences affect the nature of each council's assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses, and in turn the financial performance measures against which it reports.

The Office of Local Government prescribes performance indicators for council reporting

The analysis in this chapter is based on performance measures prescribed in OLG’s Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (the Code). Councils report against these measures in their annual report, which includes the audited financial statements and other unaudited information. In the audited financial statements, councils report performance against six financial sustainability measures:

  • operating performance
  • own source operating revenue
  • unrestricted current ratio
  • debt service cover ratio
  • rates and annual charges outstanding percentage
  • cash expense cover ratio.

Councils also include the unaudited Special Schedule 7 'Report on Infrastructure Assets' in their annual reports. In this schedule, councils report to OLG on performance against four further measures:

  • building and infrastructure renewals ratio
  • infrastructure backlog ratio
  • asset maintenance ratio
  • cost to bring assets to agreed service level.

Each audited measure and three of the four unaudited measures has a prescribed benchmark. OLG’s benchmarks are the same for metropolitan, regional, rural and county councils, with the exception of the rates and annual charges outstanding percentage. Regional, rural and county councils have a different benchmark to metropolitan councils for this measure.

Three rural councils did not meet three of the audited OLG benchmarks

Most councils met OLG’s benchmarks for at least five or all of the six audited performance measures. Eight rural, four regional, four metropolitan and two county councils did not meet OLG’s benchmarks for two out of the six audited performance measures. Three rural councils did not meet OLG’s benchmarks for three out of the six audited performance measures.

The following table summarises how the councils performed across the six audited performance measures.

Number of OLG benchmarks met by councils   Number of councils  
Metropolitan Regional Rural County
6 12 12 29 5
5 17 21 17 5
4 4 4 8 2
3 -- -- 3 --
Not available* 1 -- -- --
Total 34 37 57 12

* The financial statements for Bayside Council are not yet presented for audit.
Source: Audited Financial Statements for 2016–17.

Appendix ten lists the performance of each council against all performance measures.

NSW councils own and manage a significant range of assets, including infrastructure, property, plant and equipment with a total value of $136 billion.

Many of the issues that our local government audits identified related to asset management. This chapter discusses some of the asset accounting issues we found, focusing on five areas:

  • overall asset management issues
  • asset registers
  • asset valuation
  • recognition and asset useful life estimates
  • asset policy and planning.
Observations Conclusion or recommendation
4.1 High risk issues

Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance
Our 2016–17 audits identified ten high risk issues related to the accuracy of asset registers, restricted assets and asset revaluations.

High risk issues affect council’s ability to maintain their assets in the condition required to deliver essential services.
4.2 Asset reporting

Accuracy of asset registers
Our audits identified instances where councils had multiple asset registers, inaccurate or incomplete registers, unreconciled registers, or uncontrolled manual spreadsheets.

Maintaining accurate asset records is important as it enables councils to manage their assets effectively and report on finances appropriately.

Unrecorded land and infrastructure assets
Twenty-four councils had not recorded $145 million worth of assets, mainly land and infrastructure assets.

Assets not captured in council records is at risk of not being subject to their care and control, nor recorded in the financial statements.

Rural fire-fighting equipment
At 30 June 2017, forty-six councils did report vested rural fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. However, 62 councils did not record vested fire-fighting equipment in their financial statements. These rural fire‑fighting equipment assets are not reported in either State government or local government financial statements.

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should address the different practices across the local government sector in accounting for rural fire‑fighting equipment before 30 June 2018.

In doing so, the Office of Local Government should work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole‑of‑government approach.

4.3 Asset valuation

Restricted assets
Our audits found that ten councils did not appropriately consider restrictions on the use of community land and land under roads when determining asset fair values in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

Nine councils corrected the land values in their 2016–17 financial statements, reducing the reported value of community land and land under roads by $12.1 billion.

The valuation of community land and land under roads should reflect the physical and legislative restrictions on these assets as required by Australian Accounting Standards. The impact of restrictions can be significant.

Councils should consider engaging experts to assist with the determination of asset fair values, as necessary.

Asset revaluations
Our audits found many cases where councils did not review valuation results, comply with applicable codes, or work effectively with valuers to obtain accurate asset valuations.
Valuing large infrastructure assets is a complex process. Councils would benefit if the process is started earlier and there is a clear plan to ensure valuations are appropriately managed and documented.

4.4 Asset useful life estimates

Asset useful life estimates
We found considerable variability in councils' useful lives for similar assets.

In some cases, the useful lives of assets are not reviewed annually or supported by regular condition assessment.

Depreciation is a significant expense for councils and therefore impacts on reported financial results and key performance indicators.

To comply with Australian Accounting Standards, councils need to reassess the useful lives of all assets annually.

Regular condition assessments are essential to identify maintenance requirements and maintain service delivery.

4.5 Asset policy and planning

Asset management strategy
Thirteen councils do not have an asset management policy, strategy and plan, as required by OLG's Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. Newly amalgamated councils have until 30 June 2018 to implement this.
An effective asset management strategy, policy and plan helps councils to manage their assets appropriately over their life cycle and to make informed decisions on the allocation of resources.

Asset overview

NSW councils own and manage a significant range of assets, including infrastructure, property, plant and equipment.

At 30 June 2017, the combined carrying value of NSW council assets was as follows.

Good governance systems help councils to operate effectively and comply with relevant laws and standards. Internal controls assist councils to operate reliably and produce effective financial statements.

This chapter highlights the high risk issues we found and reports on a range of governance and control areas. Governance and control issues relating to asset management and information technology are covered in separate chapters.

Observation Conclusion or recommendation
5.1 High risk issues
Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance
Our 2016–17 audits identified 36 high risk governance and internal control deficiencies across 17 councils.  Asset practices accounted for the highest number of high risk issues and information technology accounted for the largest overall number of control deficiencies. These matters are covered in chapters four and six respectively.
We reported:
  • seventeen high risk issues relating to governance, purchase-to-pay, financial accounting and payroll processes
  • ten high risk issues relating to asset practices
  • nine high risk issues related to information technology management.
High risk issues affect council’s ability to achieve their objectives and increase the risk of fraud and error. 
5.2 Governance
Audit committees
Councils are currently not required to have an audit, risk and improvement committee. Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee.

Proposed legislative changes will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021.

Recommendation
Councils should early adopt the proposed requirement to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee.

Internal audit
Councils are currently not required to have an internal audit function. Consequently, 52 councils do not have this function.

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should introduce the requirement for councils to establish internal audit functions and update its 2010 Internal Audit Guidelines.

Council entities
The Office of Local Government's register of entities approved under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993 is incomplete.

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should maintain an accurate register of council entities approved under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The Local Government Act 1993 does not stipulate a financial reporting framework for council entities.    

Recommendation
The Office of Local Government should establish a financial reporting framework for council entities.

Policies and procedures
We identified 50 high and moderate risk issues across 33 councils where policies and procedures over critical business processes did not exist or had not been updated.

It is important there are current policies, standards and guidelines available to staff and contractors across all critical business processes.

Legislative compliance frameworks
Our audits found that 45 councils do not have sufficient processes to show they are complying with legislative requirements.

Councils can improve practices in monitoring compliance with key laws and regulations. This includes implementing a legislative compliance framework, register and policy.

Risk management
We identified 15 high and moderate risk issues across 15 councils where risk management practices could be strengthened.

Council risk management practices are enhanced when there is a fit-for-purpose risk management framework, register and policy to outline how risks are identified, managed and monitored.
5.3 Internal controls

Financial accounting
We identified 45 high and moderate risk control deficiencies across 41 councils concerning the use of manual journals to adjust council financial records. This can increase the risk of fraud and error.

We identified 51 high and moderate risk issues across 39 councils where reconciliation processes need to improve to support the preparation of accurate financial statements

Sound financial accounting processes include controls to ensure:

  • a person other than the preparer authorises manual journals
  • key account reconciliations are prepared and reviewed.
Purchasing and payables
We found 102 high and moderate risk deficiencies in purchasing and payable controls across 64 councils. Sound purchasing controls are important to minimise error, unauthorised purchases, fraud and waste.

As councils spend a substantial amount each year to procure goods and services, strong controls over purchasing and payment practices are critical. These include:

  • a review of changes to vendor master file data by an appropriate independent officer
  • an independent review and approval of purchases, including credit card transactions
  • compliance with Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government.

Payroll
We identified 71 high and moderate risk deficiencies in payroll controls across 48 councils. Weaknesses in payroll controls could result in incorrect payments being made to employees, due to error or fraud.

Managing excess annual leave balances was a challenge for 32 councils.

Effective payroll controls are important because employee expenses represent a large portion of council expenditure. These controls include segregation of duties in the review of payroll master file data, timesheets, leave forms, payroll exception reports and termination payments.

Excessive annual leave balances can have implications on employee costs, disrupts service delivery and affect work, health and safety. Excess annual leave balances should be continuously monitored and managed.

Like most public sector agencies, councils increasingly rely on information technology (IT) to deliver services and manage sensitive information. While IT delivers considerable benefits, it also presents risks that councils need to address.

Our review of council IT systems focused on understanding the processes and controls that support the integrity, availability and security of the data used to prepare financial statements. This chapter outlines issues in three broad areas:

  • high risk issues
  • access to IT systems
  • IT governance.
Issues Conclusion
6.1 High risk issues
Significant matters reported to those charged with council governance
Our 2016–17 audits identified nine high risk IT control deficiencies across seven councils. The issues related to user access controls, privileged access controls and user developed applications. High risk issues affect council’s ability to achieve their objectives and increase the risk of fraud and error.
6.2 Access to IT systems
User access controls
We identified 107 issues across 56 councils where user access controls could be strengthened.

Inadequate IT policies and controls around user access, including privileged access, increases the risk of individuals having excessive or unauthorised access to critical financial systems and data.

Privileged access
We identified 86 examples across 64 councils of inappropriate privileged access, inadequate review of access and insufficient retention and review of access logs.

 

User developed applications
User developed applications (UDAs) are computing applications, tools and processes developed or managed outside IT administration. UDAs may allow users to bypass formal user access controls.

Our audits found 22 councils using spreadsheets for business operations, decision making and financial reporting that were not adequately secured, with changes that were not tracked, tested or reviewed.

We also identified five councils where finance staff and senior management use database query tools to directly modify financial data, circumventing system-based business process controls.

It is important councils are aware of all circumstances they are relying on UDAs to limit the risk of errors and potential misuse. This allows councils to:

  • transition UDA functions to internal systems where possible
  • ensure UDAs are adequately controlled where they continue to use them
  • regularly review access rights to UDAs and back-up business-critical information.
6.3 IT Governance

Strategy, policies and procedures
Around one in four councils do not have an IT strategy or operational plan. Some councils also need to develop or improve IT policies and procedures.

Sixty-six councils do not have an adequate information security policy.

IT governance is enhanced where there is:

  • a fit-for-purpose IT strategy and operational plan
  • appropriate policies, standards and guidelines across all critical IT processes
  • a formally defined process to support security and access to all systems.

Disaster recovery and business continuity
Our audits identified that 17 councils do not have a documented plan to recover critical business functions in the event of a disaster.

The ability to restore data from backups is critical to ensure business continuity in the face of a system disaster.

We also found that 15 councils do not periodically test their ability to restore backups of data relevant to financial reporting.

Sound management of disaster recovery and business continuity includes:

  • a documented plan for how critical business functions will be recovered in the event of a disaster, which is periodically reviewed and tested
  • the ability to restore backed-up data, which is periodically tested.

We expect to focus on these areas in our future audits.

Published

Actions for Volume Eight 2011 Focus on Transport and Ports

Volume Eight 2011 Focus on Transport and Ports

Transport
Industry
Asset valuation
Financial reporting
Fraud
Information technology
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Workforce and capability

The report includes comments on financial audits of government agencies in the Transport and Ports sectors. The audit of corporations’ financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 resulted in unmodified audit opinions within the Independent Auditor’s Reports. A key recommendation from the report is that Sydney Ports Corporation should continue working with other government authorities and industry stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of program initiatives for increasing container freight movements by rail. The Corporation should review the underlying causes hindering growth in the rail mode and develop and implement strategies to address the unfavourable trend.