Reports
Development assessment: pre-lodgement and lodgement in Camden Council and Randwick City Council
The report found that both councils could do more to monitor and assess the effectiveness of their pre-lodgement and lodgement stages. The audit highlighted that Randwick City Council closely follows guidance designed to encourage good practice in these initial stages of its development assessments. It also demonstrated it was timely when processing lodgements. Camden Council is partially following the guidance and could not demonstrate that its lodgement stage was timely.
A development application is a formal application for development that requires consent under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is usually lodged with the local council for processing and determination, and consists of standard application forms, supporting technical reports and plans.
In March 2017, the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)1 released the ‘Development Assessment Best Practice Guide' designed to help councils assess development applications in a timely manner and provide a better experience for applicants.
DPE's guide describes the development assessment process in five stages.
According to the Guidance, councils should systematically measure, monitor and review development assessment outcomes and timeframes against performance targets to ensure the process is transparent, accountable and outcome-focused.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Council's alignment with the guidance
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #322 - released 20 June 2019
Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Domestic waste management in Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, today released a report on Domestic waste management in Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council.The report found that both Councils collect and transport domestic kerbside waste effectively and process it at a low cost. The Councils also effectively process waste placed in green-lid and yellow-lid bins, but neither Council has been able to enforce their contracts for processing red-lid bin waste. As a result, almost all such waste goes straight to landfill.
Local councils provide waste management services to their residents. They collect domestic waste primarily through kerbside services, but also at council drop off facilities. Waste management is one of the major services local councils deliver. Each year, councils collectively manage an estimated 3.5 million tonnes of waste generated by New South Wales residents.
Waste disposed of in landfills attracts a NSW Government waste levy. Councils’ kerbside services help residents to separate recyclable and non recyclable waste. This reduces the cost of waste disposed to landfill. These services typically provide yellow-lid bins for dry recyclables, green-lid bins for garden organics and red-lid bins for residual waste. To increase the level of recycling, some councils deliver residual waste to alternative waste treatment facilities for processing. This can involve composting and the recovery of resources, including plastics and metals, which can be recycled.
Appendix one - Responses from local councils
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #320 - released 5 June 2019
Workforce reform in three amalgamated councils
The Inner West Council and the Snowy Monaro and Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Councils have all made progress towards efficient organisational structures following the amalgamation of their former council areas in 2016, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General of New South Wales.
All three councils are now operating with a single workforce and have largely achieved the milestones they planned for the first stage of their amalgamations. None have finished reviewing and aligning services across their former council areas nor integrated their ICT systems. They need to do this to be in a position to implement an optimal structure.
On 12 May 2016, the NSW Government announced the amalgamation of 42 councils into 19 new councils. This followed a period of 18 months during which the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) had assessed councils' ‘fitness for the future’, and communities were consulted about proposed mergers. A further amalgamated council was created on 9 September 2016.
Upon amalgamation, existing elected councils were abolished, interim General Managers appointed, and Administrators engaged to undertake the role of the previously elected councils until Local Government elections were held 18 months later. During the period of administration, councils were asked to report on the progress of their amalgamations to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC).
Council amalgamations not only require a re-drawing of boundaries, but re-establishment of local representation, decisions about alignment of services across the former council areas, and establishment of an amalgamated workforce.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether three councils, Inner West Council, Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council and Snowy Monaro Regional Council, are effectively reforming their organisation structures to realise efficiency benefits from amalgamation and managing the impact on staff.
Following amalgamation, all three councils developed detailed plans to bring their former workforces together, review positions and salaries, amalgamate salary structures and align human resources policies. All three councils have largely achieved the milestones included in these plans.
Benefits realisation plans show that councils did not expect to achieve material savings or efficiencies from workforce reform within the first three years of amalgamation.
Administrators at all three councils endorsed lower savings targets than the NSW Government’s early analysis suggested may be possible. All three councils have plans or strategies to progress and achieve benefits from the amalgamation. However, Inner West Council and Snowy Monaro Regional Council could more clearly link their reform initiatives with expected benefits and include this in public reporting.
Amalgamations represent a substantial period of change for affected communities and amalgamated councils should be routinely reporting to their communities about the costs and benefits of amalgamation.
Councils have not yet determined their future service offerings and service levels nor completed integration of ICT systems. These decisions need to be made before an optimal organisation structure can be implemented.
Before amalgamated councils can implement an optimal organisation structure, they need to review and confirm their customer service offerings and service levels in consultation with their communities. This work is underway but is not yet complete in any of the councils.
Progress towards an efficient structure has been slowed by staff protections in the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) and a range of logistical and administrative issues associated with amalgamation. These include multiple IT systems and databases that need to be integrated and different working conditions, policies and practices in the former councils that are not yet fully
harmonised.
The councils implemented legislated staff protections and focused on the people side of change but cannot reliably measure the impact of their change management efforts.
The Act provides protections that reduce the impact of amalgamations on staff. Beyond implementing these protections, the councils have communicated with staff, sought to prepare them for change, and involved staff in key decisions. All councils have conducted staff surveys over time. However, at this stage these staff surveys have not provided an effective or reliable measure of the impact of change management efforts.
Appendix one - Response from councils and Office of Local Government
Appendix two - Compliance with staff protections in the Local Government Act 1993
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #317 - released 1 May 2019
Local Government 2018
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released her report today on the Local Government sector. The report focuses on key observations and findings from the 2017-18 financial audits of 135 councils in New South Wales and the 2016-17 audit of Bayside Council. The report also includes commentary on three performance audits published in 2018.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued on the 2017-18 financial statements of 135 councils. The audit opinion for Bayside Council’s 2016–17 financial statements was disclaimed as management were unable to confirm that the financial statements present fairly the performance and position of the Council. A further 24 councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements. Three audits are still in progress and will be included in next year’s report.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of local councils for the year ended 30 June 2018. The table below summarises our key observations and recommendations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in Local Government decision making is enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our financial reporting audit observations across councils for 2018.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
|---|---|
| 2.1 Quality of financial reporting | |
|
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 135 out of 138 council's financial statements. The audits of three councils are in progress. Three councils, with previously qualified audit opinions, resolved those issues during 2017–18. |
Sufficient audit evidence was obtained to conclude the financial statements for 135 councils were free of material misstatement. |
|
A disclaimed audit opinion was issued for Bayside Council’s 30 June 2017 financial statements as management were unable to confirm that the financial statements present fairly the performance and position of the Council. We were unable to obtain enough evidence to support the financial results reported. |
Bayside Council did not resolve all issues related to the former councils, resulting in a disclaimed audit opinion. |
|
The 30 June 2018 financial audits reported:
|
Our audits continue to identify opportunities to improve the quality of councils’ financial reporting. |
| We reported 95 instances in our management letters where councils could be better prepared for the upcoming changes to accounting standards. | To help councils implement the new standards, the Office of Local Government is running workshops, developing guidance and mandating options with the new standards for councils to adopt on transition. |
| 2.2 Timeliness of financial reporting | |
| One hundred and eleven councils lodged their 30 June 2018 audited financial statements to the Office of Local Government by the statutory deadline. | Eleven more councils submitted financial statements on-time compared with the prior year. |
| Almost half of councils performed early financial reporting procedures including valuing IPPE before 30 June 2018. | Councils performing early financial reporting procedures improved the timeliness of their financial reporting. |
Strong governance systems and internal controls reduce risks associated with managing finances, compliance and delivering services to ratepayers.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for council controls and governance issues, including the number of findings, level of risk and the most common deficiencies. 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 councils to address.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
|---|---|
| 3.1 Internal controls | |
| The 30 June 2018 financial audits reported 83 high-risk findings. | Recommendation: Councils should reduce risk by addressing high-risk findings as a priority. |
| Thirty-nine of these high-risk findings related to information technology. See Chapter 4. | Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting. |
| Several internal control findings were common across councils. | There may be opportunities for councils to work together to address common findings through Joint Organisations or other avenues. |
| 3.2 Governance | |
| Ninety-seven councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (85 at 30 June 2017). | Proposed legislative changes will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021. |
| Ninety-two councils have an internal audit function (86 at 30 June 2017). | It is envisaged that the Local Government Act 1993 will require the establishment of an internal audit function in each council to support the work of the audit, risk and improvement committee. |
| Eighty-three councils do not have a legislative compliance policy and 94 councils do not have a legislative compliance register. | Councils can improve their monitoring of compliance with key laws and regulations. |
| Eighteen councils do not have a risk management policy and 38 councils do not have a risk register. | Risk is better managed when there is a fit-for-purpose risk management framework, register and policy to outline how risks are identified and managed. |
| Most councils have a procurement policy, a manual, and are providing training to relevant staff. Only 34 per cent of councils have a contract management policy. | Councils with effective procurement and contract management reduce risks of error and fraud and achieve better outcomes for ratepayers. |
Councils increasingly 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.
Our audits reviewed whether councils have effective governance and controls in place to manage key financial systems and IT service providers. This chapter summarises the following IT findings:
- governance
- IT general controls
- managing service providers.
| Observation | Conclusion or recommendation |
|---|---|
| 4.1 Governance | |
| Ninety-four councils have not formalised all policies which manage key information technology (IT) processes. Of those policies that are formalised, 78 are not reviewed to ensure they are up to date. | A lack of IT policies increases the risk of inappropriate and inconsistent practices. |
| Sixty-five councils do not register their IT risks and 44 councils do not regularly report IT risks to management and those charged with governance. | Risks that are not communicated to senior management and those charged with governance may not be assessed and managed appropriately. |
| 4.2 IT general controls | |
| Most internal control deficiencies related to information technology processes and control environment. | Control weaknesses in information systems may compromise the integrity and security of financial data used for decision making and financial reporting. |
| 4.3 Managing service providers | |
Seventy-two councils outsource at least one IT function to a third-party service provider. Of these:
|
Councils can more effectively manage IT service provider by:
|
Councils are responsible for planning and managing a significant range of assets on behalf of the community. This chapter outlines our asset management observations across councils for 2018.
| Observation | Conclusion and recommendation |
|---|---|
| 5.1 Asset management planning | |
| All but six councils have an asset management strategy, policy and plan. However, 11 councils have not reviewed their asset management strategy, policy and plan in the last five years. | Recommendation: Councils’ asset management policy, strategy and plan should comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines issued by the Office of Local Government. |
| We found 86 instances where asset management strategies, policies and plans do not comply with the essential elements in the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines released by the Office of Local Government. | |
| 5.2 Asset valuation process | |
Our audits found:
|
Deficiencies in the asset valuation process can result in significant errors to the financial statements. |
| The deficiencies in the asset valuation process resulted in errors in financial statements of $2.6 billion, including $1.9 billion of prior period errors. | |
We also identified:
|
Depreciation may not be accurately recorded in the financial statements. It may also impact key sustainability indicators reported by the council. |
| 5.3 Asset management systems | |
Our audits identified 64 instances where councils:
|
Weaknesses in asset management systems can impact the accuracy and completeness of asset data, resulting in errors to the financial statements. |
|
Our audits identified discrepancies between the Councils' Crown land asset records and the Crown Land Information Database (CLID) managed by the NSW Department of Industry. Five councils corrected $225 million of previously unrecorded Crown land assets. |
Councils should regularly reconcile asset registers to the CLID and investigate discrepancies to ensure Crown land under their care and control is captured. |
| 5.4 Rural fire-fighting equipment | |
|
Inconsistent practices remain across the Local Government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment. A number of councils do not record rural fire-fighting equipment, meaning that a significant portion of rural fire-fighting equipment continues to not be recorded in either State or council financial records. |
The Office of Local Government should continue to address the different practices across the Local Government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment. In doing so, the Office of Local Government should continue to work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole of-government approach. |
Asset overview
Councils own and manage a diverse range of assets to deliver services to the community. As at 30 June 2018, the combined carrying value of NSW council assets was $140 billion.
Strong and sustainable financial performance provides the platform for councils to deliver services and respond to community needs.
This chapter outlines our audit observations on the performance of councils against the Office of Local Government's (OLG) performance indicators.
| Observation | Conclusions and recommendations |
|---|---|
| 6.1 Operating performance and revenue measures | |
Nineteen amalgamated councils received significant one-off grant funding in 2016–17. In 2017–18:
|
The overall operating performance and revenue measures in 2017–18 for amalgamated councils were impacted by lower operational grant income. |
| Thirty-five of the 56 rural councils did not meet the benchmark for own source revenue (41 in 2016–17). | The ability to generate own source revenue remains a challenge for rural councils. Rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets covering large areas, less ratepayers and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources compared with metropolitan councils. |
| 6.2 Liquidity and working capital performance measures | |
| Most councils met the liquidity and working capital performance measures over the last two years. | Most councils:
|
| Nineteen additional councils would not meet the cash expense cover ratio benchmark when externally restricted funds are excluded. | Councils with a higher proportion of restricted funds have less flexibility to pay operational expenses than the cash expense cover ratio suggests. |
Each local council has unique characteristics such as its size, location and services provided to their communities. These differences may 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).
Council’s audited financial statements report performance against six financial sustainability measures.
Operating performance and revenue measures
| Operating performance |
Measures how well councils keep operating expenses within operating revenue |
| Own source operating revenue | Measures council’s fiscal flexibility and the degree to which it can generate own source revenue compared with the total revenue from all sources |
Liquidity and working capital measures
| Unrestricted current ratio | Measures a council’s ability to meet its short-term obligations as they fall due |
| Debt service cover ratio | Measures the operating cash to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments |
| Rates and annual charges outstanding percentage | Assesses how successful councils are in collecting rates and annual charges |
| Cash expense cover ratio | Estimates the number of months a council can continue paying its expenses without additional cash inflow |
| Building and infrastructure renewals ratio | Assesses the rate at which infrastructure assets are being renewed against the rate at which they are depreciating |
| Infrastructure backlog ratio | Shows the amount of infrastructure backlog expenditure relative to the total net book value of a council's infrastructure assets |
| Asset maintenance ratio | Compares a council’s actual asset maintenance expenditure to the amount planned in their asset management plans |
| Cost to bring assets to agreed service level | Compares the estimated cost to renew or rehabilitate existing infrastructure assets, that have reached the condition-based intervention level adopted by a council, to the gross replacement cost of all infrastructure assets |
Each audited measure and three of the four unaudited measures has a prescribed benchmark.
Appendix one - Response from the Office of Local Government
Appendix two - List of 2018 recommendations
Appendix three - Status of 2017 recommendations
Appendix four - Sources of information and council classifications
Appendix five - Financial data
Appendix six - Status of audits
Appendix seven - List of Joint Organisations and their member councils
Appendix nine - OLG’s performance indicators from the audited financial statement - Descriptions
Appendix ten - OLG’s performance indicators from the unaudited Special Schedule 7 - Descriptions
Auditor‑General’s Report to Parliament
Report on Local Government 2018
Executive Summary
The second point ‘Governance’ under point 3 ‘Governance and internal controls’ on page 2 should read:
There has been an increase in the number of councils with an audit, risk and improvement committee or an internal audit function compared with the prior year. Seventy per cent of councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (62 per cent at 30 June 2017) and 67 per cent of councils have an internal audit function (62 per cent at 30 June 2017).
Chapter 3 Governance and Internal Controls
The two observations under 3.2 Governance on page 21 should read:
Ninety-seven councils have an audit, risk and improvement committee (85 at 30 June 2017).
Ninety-two councils have an internal audit function (86 at 30 June 2017).
Section 3.2 Governance on page 26 should read:
Twelve more councils established audit, risk and improvement committees during 2017–18 resulting in 97 councils having committees.
Six more councils established an internal audit function during 2017–18 resulting in 92 councils having an internal audit function.
Appendix three: Status of 2017 recommendations
Under the heading ‘Governance and internal controls’ on page 62, the two points in the right-hand column should read:
Twelve more councils established audit, risk and improvement committees during 2017–18 resulting in 97 councils having committees. Please refer to Section 5.2 for more details.
Six more councils established an internal audit function during 2017–18 resulting in 92 councils having an internal audit function.
The above changes are reflected on the Audit Office website, and should be considered the true and accurate version.
Fraud controls in local councils
Many local councils need to improve their fraud control systems, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. The report highlights that councils often have fraud control procedures and systems in place, but are not ensuring people understand them and how they work. There is also significant variation between councils in the quality of their fraud controls.
Fraud can directly influence councils’ ability to deliver services, and undermine community confidence and trust. ICAC investigations, such as the recent Operation Ricco into the former City of Botany Bay Council, show the financial and reputational damage that major fraud can cause. Good fraud control practices are critical for councils and the community.
The Audit Office of New South Wales 2015 Fraud Control Improvement Kit (the Kit) aligns with the Fraud and Corruption Control Standard AS8001-2008 and identifies ten attributes of an effective fraud control system. This audit used the Kit to assess how councils manage the risk of fraud. It identifies areas where fraud control can improve.
Fraud can disrupt the delivery and quality of services and threaten the financial stability of councils.
Recent reviews of local government in Queensland and Victoria identify that councils are at risk of fraud because they purchase large quantities of goods and services using devolved decision making arrangements. The Queensland Audit Office in its 2014–15 report 'Fraud Management in Local Government' found that ‘Councils are exposed to high-risks of fraud and corruption because of the high volume of goods and services they procure, often from local suppliers; and because of the high degree of decision making vested in councils'. They also highlight some common problems faced by councils including the absence of fraud control plans and failure to conduct regular reviews of their internal controls. Also, in 2008 and 2012 the Victorian Auditor-General identified the importance of up-to-date fraud control planning, clearly documented related policies, training staff to identify fraud risks and the importance of controls such as third party management.
Investigations into councils by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), such as the recent Operation Ricco, show the impact that fraud can have on councils. These impacts include significant financial loss, and negative public perceptions about how well councils manage fraud. The findings of these investigations also show the importance of good fraud controls for councils.
|
Operation Ricco In its report on Operation Ricco, the ICAC found that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the City of Botany Bay Council and others dishonestly exercised official functions to obtain financial benefits for themselves and others by causing fraudulent payments from the Council for their benefit. It also identified the CFO received inducements for favourable treatment of contractors. The report noted that there were overwhelming failures in the council’s procedures and governance framework that created significant opportunities for corruption, of which the CFO and others took advantage. It found weaknesses across a wide variety of governance processes and functions, including those involving the general manager, the internal audit function, external audit, and the operation of the audit committee. |
The strength of fraud control systems varies significantly across New South Wales local councils, and many councils we surveyed need to improve significantly.
Most surveyed councils do not have fraud control plans that direct resources to mitigating the specific fraud risks they face. Few councils reported that they conduct regular risk assessments or health checks to ensure they respond effectively to the risks they identify.
There are sector wide weaknesses that impact on the strength of councils' fraud control practice. Less than one-third of councils that responded to the survey:
- communicate their expectations about ethical conduct and responsibility for fraud control to staff
- regularly train staff to identify and respond to suspected fraud
- inform staff or the wider community how to report suspected fraud and how reports made will be investigated.
The audit also identified a pattern of councils developing policies, procedures or systems without ensuring people understand them, or assessing that they work. This reduces the likelihood that staff will actually use them.
In general, metropolitan and regional councils surveyed have stronger fraud control systems than rural councils.
Newly amalgamated councils are operating with systems inherited from two or more pre-amalgamated councils. These councils are developing new systems for their changed circumstances.
Five councils surveyed reported that they did not comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.
Observations for the sector:
Councils should improve their fraud controls by:
- tailoring fraud control plans to their circumstances and specific risks
- systematically and regularly reviewing their fraud risks and fraud control systems to keep their plans up to-date
- effectively communicating fraud risks, and how staff and the community can report suspected fraud
- ensuring that they comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.
Recommendation:
That the Office of Local Government:
- work with councils to ensure they comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994.
That the Office of Local Government:
- work with state entities and councils to develop a common approach to how fraud complaints and incidences are defined and categorised so that they can:
- better use data to provide a clearer picture of the level of fraud within councils
- measure the effectiveness of, and drive improvement in councils' fraud controls systems
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #303 - released 22 June 2018
Shared services in local government
Local councils need to properly assess the performance of their current services before considering whether to enter into arrangements with other councils to jointly manage back-office functions or services for their communities. This is one of the recommended practices for councils in a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. ‘When councils have decided to jointly provide services, they do not always have a strong business case, which clearly identifies the expected costs, benefits and risks of shared service arrangements’, said the Auditor-General.
Councils provide a range of services to meet the needs of their communities. It is important that they consider the most effective and efficient way to deliver them. Many councils work together to share knowledge, resources and services. When done well, councils can save money and improve access to services. This audit assessed how efficiently and effectively councils engage in shared service arrangements. We define ‘shared services’ as two or more councils jointly managing activities to deliver services to communities or perform back-office functions.
The information we gathered for this audit included a survey of all general-purpose councils in NSW. In total 67 councils (52 per cent) responded to the survey from 128 invited to participate. Appendix two outlines in more detail some of the results from our survey.
First, not all surveyed councils are assessing the performance of their current services before deciding on the best service delivery model. Where they have decided that sharing services is the best way to deliver services, they do not always build a business case which outlines the costs, benefits and risks of the proposed shared service arrangement before entering into it.
The Office of Local Government should, by April 2019:
Develop guidance which outlines the risks and opportunities of governance models that councils can use to share services. This should include advice on legal requirements, transparency in decisions, and accountability for effective use of public resources.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Survey findings
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #302 - released 21 June 2018
Council reporting on service delivery
New South Wales local government councils’ could do more to demonstrate how well they are delivering services in their reports to the public, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. Many councils report activity, but do not report on outcomes in a way that would help their communities assess how well they are performing. Most councils also did not report on the cost of services, making it difficult for communities to see how efficiently they are being delivered. And councils are not consistently publishing targets to demonstrate what they are striving for.
I am pleased to present my first local government performance audit pursuant to section 421D of the Local Government Act 1993.
My new mandate supports the Parliament’s objectives to:
- strengthen governance and financial oversight in the local government sector
- improve financial management, fiscal responsibility and public accountability for how councils use citizens’ funds.
Performance audits aim to help councils improve their efficiency and effectiveness. They will also provide communities with independent information on the performance of their councils.
For this inaugural audit in the local government sector, I have chosen to examine how well councils report to their constituents about the services they provide.
In this way, the report will enable benchmarking and provide improvement guidance to all councils across New South Wales.
Specific recommendations to drive improved reporting are directed to the Office of Local Government, which is the regulator of councils in New South Wales.
Councils provide a range of services which have a direct impact on the amenity, safety and health of their communities. These services need to meet the needs and expectations of their communities, as well as relevant regulatory requirements set by state and federal governments. Councils have a high level of autonomy in decisions about how and to whom they provide services, so it is important that local communities have access to information about how well they are being delivered and meeting community needs. Ultimately councils should aim to ensure that reporting performance is subject to quality controls designed to provide independent assurance.
Councils report extensively on the things they have done, but minimally on the outcomes from that effort, efficiency and performance over time.
Councils could improve reporting on service delivery by more clearly relating the resources needed with the outputs produced, and by reporting against clear targets. This would enable communities to understand how efficiently services are being delivered and how well councils are tracking against their goals and priorities.
Across the sector, a greater focus is also needed on reporting performance over time so that communities can track changes in performance and councils can demonstrate whether they are on target to meet any agreed timeframes for service improvements.
The degree to which councils demonstrate good practice in reporting on service delivery varies greatly between councils. Metropolitan and regional town and city councils generally produce better quality reporting than rural councils. This variation indicates that, at least in the near-term, OLG's efforts in building capability in reporting would be best directed toward rural councils.
Recommendation
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- assist rural councils to develop their reporting capability.
The Framework which councils are required to use to report on service delivery, is intended to drive good practice in reporting. Despite this, the Framework is silent on a number of aspects of reporting that should be considered fundamental to transparent reporting on service delivery. It does not provide guidance on reporting efficiency or cost effectiveness in service delivery and provides limited guidance on how annual reports link with other plans produced as part of the Framework. OLG's review of the Framework, currently underway, needs to address these issues.
Recommendation
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- issue additional guidance on good practice in council reporting, with specific information on:
- reporting on performance against targets
- reporting on performance against outcome
- assessing and reporting on efficiency and cost effectiveness
- reporting performance over time
- clearer integration of all reports and plans that are required by the Framework, particularly the role of End of Term Reporting
- defining reporting terms to encourage consistency.
The Framework is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reports
The guidelines produced by OLG in 2013 to assist councils to implement their Framework requirements advise that performance measures should be included in all plans. However, the Framework does not specifically state that efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators should be included as part of this process. This has been identified as a weakness in the 2012 performance audit report and the Local Government Reform Panel review of reporting by councils on service delivery.
The Framework and supporting documents provide limited guidance on reporting
Councils' annual reports provide a consolidated summary of their efforts and achievements in service delivery and financial management. However, OLG provides limited guidance on:
- good practice in reporting to the community
- how the annual report links with other plans and reports required by the Framework.
Further, the Framework includes both Annual and End of Term Reports. However, End of Term reports are published prior to council elections and are mainly a consolidation of annual reports produced during a council’s term. The relationship between Annual reports and End of Term reports is not clear.
OLG is reviewing the Framework and guidance
OLG commenced work on reviewing of the Framework in 2013 but this was deferred with work re‑starting in 2017. The revised guidelines and manual were expected to be released late in 2017.
OLG should build on the Framework to improve guidance on reporting on service delivery, including in annual reports
The Framework provides limited guidance on how best to report on service delivery, including in annual reports. It is silent on inclusion of efficiency or cost effectiveness indicators in reporting, which are fundamental aspects of performance reporting. Councils we consulted would welcome more guidance from OLG on these aspects of reporting.
Our consultation with councils highlighted that many council staff would welcome a set of reporting principles that provide guidance to councils, without being prescriptive. This would allow councils to tailor their approach to the individual characteristics, needs and priorities of their local communities.
Consolidating what councils are required to report to state agencies would reduce the reporting burden and enable councils to better report on performance. Comparative performance indicators are also needed to provide councils and the public with a clear understanding of councils' performance relative to each other.
Recommendations
By mid-2018, OLG should:
- commence work to consolidate the information reported by individual councils to NSW Government agencies as part of their compliance requirements.
- progress work on the development of a Performance Measurement Framework, and associated performance indicators, that can be used by councils and the NSW Government in sector-wide performance reporting.
Streamlining the reporting burden would help councils improve reporting
The NSW Government does not have a central view of all local government reporting, planning and compliance obligations. A 2016 draft IPART ‘Review of reporting and compliance burdens on Local Government’ noted that councils provide a wide range of services under 67 different Acts, administered by 27 different NSW Government agencies. Consolidating and coordinating reporting requirements would assist with better reporting over time and comparative reporting. It would also provide an opportunity for NSW Government agencies to reduce the reporting burden on councils by identifying and removing duplication.
Enabling rural councils to perform tailored surveys of their communities may be more beneficial than a state-wide survey in defining outcome indicators
Some councils use community satisfaction survey data to develop outcome indicators for reporting. The results from these are used by councils to set service delivery targets and report on outcomes. This helps to drive service delivery in line with community expectations. While some regional councils do conduct satisfaction surveys, surveys are mainly used by metropolitan councils which generally have the resources needed to run them.
OLG and the Department of Premier and Cabinet have explored the potential to conduct state-wide resident satisfaction surveys with a view to establishing measures to improve service delivery. This work has drawn from a similar approach adopted in Victoria. Our consultation with stakeholders in Victoria indicated that the state level survey is not sufficiently detailed or specific enough to be used as a tool in setting targets that respond to local circumstances, expectations and priorities. Our analysis of reports and consultation with stakeholders suggest that better use of resident survey data in rural and regional areas may support improvements in performance reporting in these areas. Rural councils may benefit more from tailored surveys of groups of councils with similar challenges, priorities and circumstances than from a standard state-wide survey. These could potentially be achieved through regional cooperation between groups of similar councils or regional groups.
Comparative reporting indicators are needed to enable councils to respond to service delivery priorities of their communities
The Local Government Reform Panel in 2012 identified the need for ‘more consistent data collection and benchmarking to enable councils and the public to gain a clear understanding of how a council is performing relative to their peers’.
OLG commenced work in 2012 to build a new performance measurement Framework for councils which aimed to move away from compliance reporting. This work was also strongly influenced by the approach used in Victoria that requires councils to report on a set of 79 indicators which are reported on the Victorian 'Know your council' website. OLG’s work did not fully progress at the time and several other local government representative bodies have since commenced work to establish performance measurement frameworks. OLG advised us it has recently recommenced its work on this project.
Our consultation identified some desire amongst councils to be able to compare their performance to support improvement in the delivery of services. We also identified a level of frustration that more progress has not been made toward establishment of a set of indicators that councils can use to measure performance and drive improvement in service delivery.
Several councils we spoke with were concerned that the current approaches to comparative reporting did not adequately acknowledge that councils need to tailor their service types, level and mix to the needs of their community. Comparative reporting approaches tend to focus on output measures such as number of applications processed, library loans annually and opening hours for sporting facilities, rather than outcome measures. These approaches risk unjustified and adverse interpretations of performance where councils have made a decision based on community consultation, local priorities and available resources. To mitigate this, it is important to
- adopt a partnership approach to the development of indicators
- ensure indicators measure performance, not just level of activity
- compare performance between councils that are similar in terms of size and location.
It may be more feasible, at least in the short term, for OLG to support small groups of like councils to develop indicators suited to their situation.
Based on our consultations, key lessons from implementing a sector-wide performance indicator framework in Victoria included the benefits of:
- consolidation of the various compliance data currently being reported by councils to provide an initial platform for comparative performance reporting
- adopting a partnership approach to development of common indicators with groups of like councils.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Service delivery categorisation
Appendix three - Reporting targets and performance over time
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Appendix five - About the audit
Parliamentary reference - Report number #296 - released 1 February 2018
