Reports
Procurement management in Local Government
The Auditor‑General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today examining procurement management in Local Government.
The audit assessed the effectiveness of procurement management practices in six councils. All six councils had procurement management policies that were consistent with legislative requirements, but the audit found compliance gaps in some councils. The audit also identified opportunities for councils to address risks to transparency and accountability, and to ensure value for money is achieved when undertaking procurement.
The Auditor‑General recommended that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment review the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and publish updated and more comprehensive guidance on procurement management for the Local Government sector. The report also generated insights for the Local Government sector on opportunities to strengthen procurement practices.
Effective procurement is important in ensuring councils achieve their objectives, demonstrate value for money and deliver benefits to the community when purchasing goods and services. Procurement also comes with risks and challenges in ensuring the purchased goods and services deliver to expectations. The risks of fraud and conflicts of interest also need to be mitigated.
The legislative requirements related to procurement in the Local Government sector are focused on sourcing and assessing tender offers. These requirements are included in the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), the Local Government Amendment Act 2019 (the Amendment), the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation), the Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government 2009 (the Tendering Guidelines), the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act) and the State Records Act 1998.
General requirements and guidance relevant to councils are also available in the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW 2018 (the Model Code), the NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework 2019 and in publications by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).1
Individual councils have developed their own procurement policies and procedures to expand on the legislative requirements. Understandably, these vary to reflect each council’s location, size and procurement needs. Nevertheless, the general principles of effective procurement management (such as transparency and accountability) and risk-mitigating practices (such as segregation of duties and the provision of training) are relevant to all councils.
The Audit Office of New South Wales Report on Local Government 2018 provided a sector-wide summary of aspects of procurement management in Local Government (see Section 2.1 of this report). This audit builds on this state-wide view by examining in detail the effectiveness of procurement management practices in six councils. This report also provides insights on opportunities to strengthen procurement management in the sector.
The selected councils for this audit were Cumberland City Council, Georges River Council, Lockhart Shire Council, Tweed Shire Council, Waverley Council and Wollongong City Council. They were selected to provide a mix of councils of different geographical classifications, sizes, priorities and levels of resourcing.
All six councils had procurement management policies and procedures that were consistent with the legislative requirements for sourcing and assessing tender offers. Their policies and procedures also extended beyond the legislative requirements to cover key aspects of procurement, from planning to completion. In terms of how these policies were applied in practice, the six councils were mostly compliant with legislative requirements and their own policies and procedures, but we found some gaps in compliance in some councils and made specific recommendations on closing these gaps.
There were also opportunities for councils to improve procurement management to mitigate risks to transparency, accountability and value for money. Common gaps in the councils’ procurement management approaches included not requiring procurement needs to be documented at the planning stage, not providing adequate staff training on procurement, not requiring procurement outcomes to be evaluated, and having discrepancies in contract values between contract registers and annual reports. These gaps expose risks to councils’ ability to demonstrate their procurements are justified, well managed, delivering to expectations, and achieving value for money. Chapter three of this report provides insights for the audited councils and the Local Government sector on ways to address these risks
Recommendations
- By June 2022, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment should:
- publish comprehensive and updated guidance on effective procurement practices – including electronic tender submissions and procurements below the tender threshold
- review and update the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to reflect the increasing use of electronic tender submissions rather than paper copies.
- By December 2021, the six audited councils should consider the opportunities to improve procurement management in line with the improvement areas outlined in chapter three of this report.
- Cumberland City Council should immediately:
- ensure contract values are consistent between the contract register and the annual report
- introduce procedures to ensure supplier performance reviews are conducted as per the council’s policy
- Georges River Council should immediately:
- ensure contract values are consistent between the contract register and the annual report
- introduce procedures to ensure all the steps up to the awarding of a contract are documented as per the council’s policy
- introduce procedures to ensure outcome evaluations are conducted as per the council’s policy.
- Lockhart Shire Council should immediately:
- include additional information in the council’s contract register to ensure compliance with Section 29(b), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the GIPA Act
- ensure contract values are consistent between the contract register and the annual report.
- Waverley Council should immediately ensure contracts are disclosed in the annual report as per Section 217(1)(a2) of the Regulation.
While all six councils had procurement policies in place and were generally compliant with legislative requirements, this report has identified common gaps in processes and practices that expose risks to transparency, accountability and value for money.
This section discusses how councils can mitigate risks and ensure the best outcomes are achieved from their procurements.
Documented justification of procurement needs
The ICAC notes that determining what goods and services an agency requires is the first step of procurement, and the scope for corruption in how need is determined is significant. Without documenting how procurement needs have been justified, councils cannot demonstrate that they fulfill business needs, nor how the procurements may link to the councils’ strategic plans to deliver to the community.
This audit found that none of the six councils’ policies required them to document justification of procurement needs, and none did so consistently in practice. Councils can address this gap by building into their procurement planning process a requirement for staff to document the justification of procurement needs. For higher value procurements, this could be extended to include analysis of options, an assessment of risks and defining intended outcomes. Similarly, clearly establishing and documenting how relevant procurements relate to a council’s community strategic plans or operational plans helps ensure transparency.
Although a formal business case may not be required for many procurements (for example, low-value procurements or routine replacements), some form of documented justification for the expenditure should still be kept on record to demonstrate that the procurement relates to business purposes and is needed.
Segregation of duties
Segregation of duties is an effective control for reducing risks of error, fraud and corruption in procurement. It works on the principle that one person should not have end-to-end control of a procurement. Effective segregation of duties also often involves managerial or independent oversight that is built into the process. Four of the audited councils (Cumberland City Council, Georges River Council, Lockhart Shire Council and Wollongong City Council) appropriately addressed segregation of duties in their procurement frameworks. For example:
-
All procurements in Cumberland City Council required a delegated officer’s approval before commencing, and the requisitioning department is responsible for ensuring the completion of the goods, works or services associated with each contract. For contracts over $50,000, a specific ‘Authority to Procure’ form had to be completed by the requesting staff, signed by an approver and then forwarded to the procurement team.
- Reflecting its small size, all procurements in Lockhart Shire Council were managed by one senior staff member. Nevertheless, this staff member had to bring contract management plans to the rest of the Executive Leadership Team for review and discussion, with large contracts such as those above the tender threshold referred to Council for approval.
The ICAC notes that segregation of duties helps to control discretion, which has particular risk implications for some types of procurement.2 This includes those involving low-value and high-volume transactions, restricted tenders, long-standing procurements and ‘pet projects’ (projects advocated by individual staff members). In cases where corruption risks are low, ICAC notes that monitoring staff’s involvement in procurement may be a cost-effective alternative to total segregation of duties.
Assessment of supplier performance
Councils need to monitor and assess supplier performance to ensure suppliers deliver the goods and services as agreed. The audit found that all six councils consistently monitored progress in capital works and for externally funded projects. Contract monitoring in these cases included ensuring timelines, funding, and legislative requirements were met. This is positive, as capital works made up the bulk of procurements (in terms of volume) in all of the audited councils.
That said, in all six councils, the level of scrutiny was lower for other types of procurements, and there is scope for improvement. For instance, the approach to monitoring capital works or externally funded projects could be replicated across other procurements of a similar nature and value. Conducting assessments and keeping records of supplier performance on all procurements does not need to be onerous, but instead provides useful information to inform future decision-making—including by helping ensure supplier pricing remains competitive, and avoiding re-engaging underperforming suppliers.
The NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework requires that NSW Government agencies establish systems and processes jointly with the suppliers to ensure compliance with contract terms and performance requirements. It also advises that agencies should drive continuous improvement and encourage innovation in coordination with suppliers and key stakeholders.
Centralised contract register
Centrally registering a contract provides improved transparency of procurement activities and facilitates monitoring and compliance checks. While councils are already required to maintain a contract register for all contracts above the reporting threshold (as per the GIPA Act), given the threshold is set at a relatively high benchmark ($150,000), there is merit in councils extending the practice to procurements below the reporting threshold. A central and comprehensive register of contracts helps avoid duplication of procurements and re-contracting of underperforming suppliers.
Three of the audited councils (Georges River Council, Tweed Shire Council and Wollongong City Council) had contract register policies that applied to procurements below the reporting threshold during the audited period. For example, Georges River Council required contracts valued at $10,000 or above to be registered with the procurement team, and Tweed Shire Council had a threshold of $50,000.
Evaluation of community outcomes and value for money
Councils may be progressing procurements to fulfill their strategic and business plans, or using them to fulfill commitments to the community. In these instances, outcomes evaluation is an important way to demonstrate to the community that the intended benefits and value for money have been delivered.
Five of the six audited councils did not require evaluations of community outcomes and value for money. While Georges River Council required contracts valued at $50,000 or more to be monitored, evaluated and reported on at least annually throughout the contract and also at its conclusion, in the procurements we examined the only ‘outcome evaluations’ that the council had conducted were community surveys that did not refer to individual procurements. Councils can miss opportunities to understand the impact of their work on the local community if evaluations of procurement outcomes are not completed. Evaluation findings are also valuable in guiding future resource allocation decisions.
Value for money in the procurement of goods and services is more than just having the specified goods delivered or services carried out. The NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework requires that state government agencies track and report benefits to demonstrate how value for money is being delivered. The framework notes that value for money is not necessarily the lowest price, nor the highest quality good or service, but requires a balanced assessment of a range of financial and non-financial factors, such as: quality, cost, fitness for purpose, capability, capacity, risk, total cost of ownership or other relevant factors.
Procurement training
Effective procurement management relies on the capability of staff involved in various stages of the process. Guidance can be provided through training, which is an important element of any procurement management framework. It ensures that staff members are aware of the councils' policies and procedures. If structured appropriately and provided in a timely manner, training can help to standardise practices, ensure compliance, reduce chances of error, and mitigate risks of fraud or corruption.
The ICAC notes that effective procurement management depends on the competence of staff undertaking procurements and the competence of those who oversee procurement activities. As the public sector is characterised by varying levels of procurement expertise, the ICAC notes that the sector would benefit from a structured approach to training and the application of minimum standards.3
At the time of this audit, only Wollongong City Council addressed staff training requirements in its procurement management framework. Exhibit 8 details its approach.
|
|
|
|
Two of the audited councils have now also introduced procurement training:
- Georges River Council implemented online training, which is mandatory for new staff and serves as refresher training for existing staff. The council also provides in-person training for selected staff (covering contract management, contract specification writing and contractor relationship management) and has developed quick reference cards for all staff to increase awareness of the council's procurement processes.
- Tweed Shire Council implemented mandatory online training for all staff members. The training covers the council's procurement policy and protocol as well as relevant legislation. It is linked to relevant council documents such as the Procurement Toolkit on the council's intranet, and includes a quiz for which training participants must score at least 80 per cent to have the training marked as completed.
Appendix one – Responses from councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Appendix two – Councils’ procurement contracts
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – 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 #345 - released 17 December 2020
Waste levy and grants for waste infrastructure
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today that examined the effectiveness of the waste levy and grants for waste infrastructure in minimising the amount of waste sent to landfill and increasing recycling rates.
The audit found that the waste levy has a positive impact on diverting waste from landfill. However, while the levy rates increase each year in line with the consumer price index, the EPA has not conducted a review since 2009 to confirm whether they are set at the optimal level. The audit also found that there were no objective and transparent criteria for which local government areas should pay the levy, and the list of levied local government areas has not been reviewed since 2014.
Grant funding programs for waste infrastructure administered by the EPA and the Environmental Trust have supported increases in recycling capacity. However, these grant programs are not guided by a clear strategy for investment in waste infrastructure.
The Auditor-General made six recommendations aimed at ensuring the waste levy is as effective as possible at meeting its objectives and ensuring funding for waste infrastructure is contributing effectively to recycling and waste diversion targets.
Overall, waste generation in New South Wales (NSW) is increasing. This leads to an increasing need to manage waste in ways that reduce the environmental impact of waste and promote the efficient use of resources. In 2014, the NSW Government set targets relating to recycling rates and diversion of waste from landfill, to be achieved by 2021–22. The NSW Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy 2014–21 identifies the waste levy, a strong compliance regime, and investment in recycling infrastructure as key tools for achieving these waste targets.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the NSW Government in minimising waste sent to landfill and increasing recycling rates. The audit focused on the waste levy, which is paid by waste facility operators when waste is sent to landfill, and grant programs that fund infrastructure for waste reuse and recycling.
The waste levy is regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and is generally paid when waste is disposed in landfill. The waste levy rates are set by the NSW Government and prescribed in the Protection of Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014. As part of its broader role in reviewing the regulatory framework for managing waste and recycling, the EPA can provide advice to the government on the operation of the waste levy.
The purpose of the waste levy is to act as an incentive for waste generators to reduce, re-use or recycle waste by increasing the cost of sending waste to landfill. In 2019–20, around $750 million was collected through the waste levy in NSW. The government spends approximately one third of the revenue raised through the waste levy on waste and environmental programs.
One of the waste programs funded through the one third allocation of the waste levy is Waste Less, Recycle More (WLRM). This initiative funds smaller grant programs that focus on specific aspects of waste management. This audit focused on five grant programs that fund projects that provide new or enhanced waste infrastructure such as recycling facilities. Four of these programs were administered by the Environmental Trust and one by the EPA.
Conclusion
The waste levy has a positive impact on diverting waste from landfill. However, aspects of the EPA's administration of the waste levy could be improved, including the frequency of its modelling of the waste levy impact and coverage, and the timeliness of reporting. Grant funding programs have supported increases in recycling capacity but are not guided by a clear strategy for investment in waste infrastructure which would help effectively target them to where waste infrastructure is most needed. Data published by the EPA indicates that the NSW Government is on track to meet the recycling target for construction and demolition waste, but recycling targets for municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste are unlikely to be met.
Waste levy
The waste levy rate, including a schedule of annual increases to 2016, was set by the NSW Government in 2009. Since 2016, the waste levy rate has increased in line with the consumer price index (CPI). The EPA has not conducted recent modelling to test whether the waste levy is set at the optimal level to achieve its objectives. The waste levy operation was last reviewed in 2012, although some specific aspects of the waste levy have been reviewed more recently, including reviews of waste levy rates for two types of waste. The waste levy is applied at different rates across the state. Decisions about which local government areas (LGAs) are subject to the levy, and which rate each LGA pays, were made in 2009 and potential changes were considered but not implemented in 2014. Currently, there are no objective and transparent criteria for determining which LGAs pay the levy. The EPA collects waste data from waste operators. This data has improved since 2015, but published data is at least one year out of date which limits its usefulness to stakeholders when making decisions relating to waste management.
Grants for waste infrastructure
All state funding for new and enhanced waste infrastructure in NSW is administered through grants to councils and commercial waste operators. The government's Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy 2014–21 includes few priorities for waste infrastructure and there is no other waste infrastructure strategy in place to guide investment. The absence of a formal strategy to guide infrastructure investment in NSW limits the ability of the State Government to develop a shared understanding between planners, councils and the waste industry about waste infrastructure requirements and priorities. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is currently developing a 20-year waste strategy and there is an opportunity for the government to take a more direct role in planning the type, location and timing of waste infrastructure needed in NSW.
The grants administration procedures used for the grant programs reviewed in this audit were well designed. However, we identified some gaps in risk management, record-keeping and consistency of information provided to applicants and assessment teams. In four of the five programs we examined, there was no direct alignment between program objectives and the NSW Government's overall waste targets.
Achievement of the 2014–21 state targets for waste and resource recovery (WARR targets) is reliant in part on the availability of infrastructure that supports waste diversion and recycling. The state WARR targets dependent on waste infrastructure are:
- Increase recycling rates to 70 per cent for municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste, and 80 per cent for construction and demolition waste.
- Increase waste diverted from landfill to 75 per cent.
A further target — manage problem waste better by establishing or upgrading 86 drop-off facilities or services for managing household problem wastes state-wide — is dependent on accessible community waste drop-off facilities across NSW.
Exhibit 7 identifies the five grant programs that provide funding for new or enhanced waste infrastructure to increase capacity for reuse or recycling of waste. All five of these programs were examined in the audit.
In addition to the grant programs shown in Exhibit 7, other programs provide funding for infrastructure, but at a smaller scale. Examples of these include:
- Bin Trim which provides rebates to small businesses for small scale recycling equipment such as cardboard and soft plastic balers.
- Litter grants which provide funding for litter bins.
- Weighbridges grants for installation of a weighbridge at waste facilities.
- Landfill consolidation and environmental improvement grants for rural councils to replace old landfills with transfer stations or to improve the infrastructure at landfill sites.
Appendix one – Responses from audited agencies
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 #343 - released 26 November 2020
Internal controls and governance 2020
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.
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:
|
| Common findings |
A number of findings remain common across multiple agencies over the last four years, including:
|
2. Information technology controls
| IT general controls |
We found deficiencies in information security controls over key financial systems including:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
|
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Governance and internal controls over local infrastructure contributions
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today on how well four councils managed their local infrastructure contributions during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years.
Local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions, are collected from developers to pay for local infrastructure such as drainage, local roads, open space and community facilities. Controls over local infrastructure contributions help to ensure that all contributions owed are collected, funds are spent as intended, and any contributions paid in the form of works-in-kind or dedicated land are correctly valued.
The audit found that Blacktown City Council and City of Sydney Council provided effective governance over their local infrastructure contributions whereas Central Coast and Liverpool City Councils’ governance arrangements require improvement.
The audit found that three councils had spent local infrastructure contributions in accordance with approved contributions plans. Central Coast Council and the former Gosford City Council had spent $13.2 million on administration costs in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These funds were repaid into the council’s local infrastructure fund during the course of the audit.
The Auditor-General made a number of recommendations for each council relating to improving controls over contributions and increasing transparency.
This audit examined the effectiveness of governance and internal controls over local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions, held by four councils during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years.
This performance audit was conducted with reference to the legislative and regulatory planning framework that was in place during that period.
Our work for this performance audit was completed at the end of March 2020 when we issued the final report to the four audited councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. We received their respective formal responses to the report’s recommendations during April and May 2020.
Concurrently to this audit, we sought Crown Solicitor’s advice (the ‘Advice’) regarding the use of local infrastructure contributions collected by local councils under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘the EPA Act’) for our financial audit work. The Advice clarified the applicable legislative requirements with reference to the application, investment and pooling of local infrastructure contributions. The Advice is included in Appendix 2 of this report. The Advice has not impacted on the findings and recommendations of this report.
Councils collect Local Infrastructure Contributions (LICs) from developers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979), the Local Government Act (1993) and the City of Sydney Act (2000) (EP&A Act, LG Act and City of Sydney Act) to fund infrastructure required to service and support new development. At 30 June 2018, councils across NSW collectively held more than $3.0 billion in LICs collected from developers. Just over $1.37 billion in total was held by ten councils. Councils collecting LICs must prepare a contributions plan, which outlines how LICs will be calculated and apportioned across different types of infrastructure. Councils that deliver water and sewer services prepare a development servicing plan (DSP) which allows them to collect contributions for water and sewer infrastructure.
Development timeframes are such that there is often several years between when LICs are collected and the infrastructure is required. Good governance and internal controls are needed over these funds to ensure they are available when needed and spent appropriately.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of governance and internal controls over LICs collected by four councils during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years: Blacktown City Council, Central Coast Council, City of Sydney Council and Liverpool City Council. As at June 2018 these councils held the four highest LIC balances, each in excess of $140 million.
Audit Conclusion
Three of the four councils audited were currently compliant with legislation, regulations and Ministerial Directions regarding LICs. All had gaps in governance and controls over LICs which limited effective oversight.
Three of the councils included in the audit complied with legislation, regulations and Ministerial Directions relating to LICs. Central Coast Council breached the EP&A Act between 2001 and 2019 when it used LICs for administration costs. These funds were repaid in late 2019.
While controls over the receipt and expenditure of contributions funds were largely in place at all councils, there were some exceptions relating to valuing work and land delivered in lieu of cash. Three councils do not provide probity guidance in policies relating to LICs delivered through works-in-kind. Three of the councils had contributions plans that were more than five years old.
Staff at all four councils are knowledgeable about LICs but not all councils keep procedures up to date. Three councils' governance frameworks operate effectively with senior officers from across the council involved in decisions about spending LICs, entering into voluntary planning agreements (VPAs) and reviewing contributions plans.
Transparency over key information relating to LICs is important for senior management so they can make informed decisions, and for the community who pay LICs and expect infrastructure to be provided. During the period of the audit, none of the councils included in the audit provided sufficient information to senior management or their councillors about the projected financial status of contributions plans. This information would be valuable when making broader strategic and financial decisions. Information about LIC levies and intended infrastructure is available to the community but not always easy to find.
A strong governance framework is important at each council to ensure that the funds are managed well, available when needed and spent as intended. The audit examined the following features of each council's governance framework as they apply to LICs:
- decision-making by councillors and council officers relating to LICs
- monitoring delivery of contributions plans and DSPs including:
- reviewing assumptions underlying the plans
- monitoring projected status of plans.
Internal controls over LICs are important to promote accountability, prevent fraud and deliver infrastructure to the required standard at the best possible price. If financial controls are weak or are not implemented well, there is a risk that LICs are misspent or that councils pay too much for infrastructure.
Not all councils' internal controls adequately addressed risks associated with the administration of LICs
The audit examined a number of internal controls that manage risks related to LICs. These included:
- financial controls over receipt and expenditure of LIC funds
- management of conflicts-of-interest when dealing with developers
- independent valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
- ensuring delivery and quality of works-in-kind, and obtaining security from developers in the event of non-delivery or poor quality work
- management of variations to VPAs and works-in-kind agreements.
We reviewed controls included in policies and procedures and then checked samples of work to ensure that controls were implemented. We found variation in the controls that councils implemented, and some weaknesses in controls. It is a matter for each council to assess their financial risk and develop internal controls that support the collection, management, and expenditure of LICs. However, councils must be able to assure their communities and developers that they are doing everything possible to collect all LICs owing and that work conducted by developers in lieu of cash payments is properly valued and carried out to the required standard.
Further information about audit findings in relation to internal controls for each council are included in chapters five to eight. The exhibit below demonstrates variation in several controls implemented in the audited councils.
In a 2018 report, the Independent Commission Against Corruption noted that 'the appetite for transparency is expanding in both the public and private sectors'.
The Practice Note and S64 Guidance refer to transparency, including the importance of transparency over:
- calculation and apportionment of LICs
- funding of infrastructure, including where and when infrastructure is delivered
- arrangements made with developers through VPAs.
The LIC system is largely transparent for community members who know where to look
Contributions plans and DSPs are public documents, exhibited to the public before being adopted by council. Councils included in the audit publish their contributions plans and DSPs on their websites and meet statutory requirements with regard to reporting and accessibility of information.
However, other public information relating to the LIC system is fragmented across different websites and reports and varies in detail across councils.
| Blacktown City Council | Central Coast Council | City of Sydney Council | Liverpool City Council | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial details about contributions collected and spent | Financial statements | Financial statements | Financial statements | Financial statements |
| Implementation plans for spending LICs | Contribution plans | S64 implementation plans in DSPs. S7.11 & S7.12 implementation plans developed annually within capital works plan | Contribution plans | Developed annually within capital works plan |
| Capital works underway or completed, funded by LICs | Capital works plan and annual report | Not published | Not published | Capital works plan |
The Practice Note states that councils are accountable for providing the infrastructure for which contributions are collected. Demonstrating that infrastructure has been provided is difficult with fragmented information. As an example of transparent reporting, Blacktown City Council's 2018–19 annual report includes information about infrastructure that has been delivered for every contributions plan, providing transparency over how LICs have been spent.
Use of LICs collected under VPAs is not always transparent
Contributions collected under VPAs are not required to demonstrate the same relationship to a development as LICs collected under section 7.11 of the EP&A Act. VPAs are often negotiated because a developer requests a change to a planning instrument, and it is important that these arrangements, and their outcomes, are transparent to the community.
The EP&A Regulation includes mechanisms to ensure that VPAs are partially transparent. VPAs are exhibited to the public and approved by the elected council. Councils must maintain a VPA Register and make the VPA Deeds of Agreement available on request. However, there is no obligation on council to report on the outcomes or delivery of developers' obligations under VPAs. The four audited councils vary in transparency and accessibility of information available about VPAs.
| Blacktown City Council | Central Coast Council | City of Sydney Council | Liverpool City Council | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VPA Register | Council website and annual report | Annual report | Annual report | Council website and annual report |
| VPA Deeds of Agreement | Council website | Available on request | Available on request | Council website |
| Intended use of LICs collected under VPAs | In Deeds of Agreement | In Deeds of Agreement | In VPA Register and most Deeds of Agreement | In VPA Register and most Deeds of Agreement |
| Completion of work funded by cash collected under VPAs | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Delivery of works-in-kind or land negotiated under VPAs | Not published | Not published | In VPA Register | Not published |
The Practice Note suggests that councils incorporate the intended use of LICs collected under VPAs in the Deed of Agreement, but there is no guidance relating to transparency over where and when funds have actually been spent. There is merit in councils providing greater transparency over public benefits delivered through VPAs to give communities confidence in VPAs as a planning tool.
Credit arrangements with developers are not always well documented or monitored
When levying LICs, section 7.11(6) of the EP&A Act requires councils to take into account land, money, or works-in-kind that the developer has contributed on other development sites over and above their LIC obligations. This section of the EP&A Act allows a developer to offset a LIC owed on one site against land or works contributed on another. This leads to some developers carrying 'credits' for work delivered to councils, to be paid back by reduced LICs on a future development. Blacktown City Council and Central Coast Council allow developers to carry credits. Liverpool City Council and City of Sydney Council do not permit credits and instead pay the developers for any additional work undertaken.
Councils should formally document credit arrangements and have a robust process to validate and keep track of credit balances and report on them. Central Coast Council does not keep good track of credit arrangements and neither Blacktown City Council or Central Coast Council aggregate or report on outstanding credit balances.
Blacktown City Council manages the largest LIC fund in NSW and negotiates more VPAs than any other council. Overall, Blacktown City Council demonstrates effective governance over the LIC funds but there is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans and credit arrangements with developers. Blacktown City Council also needs to update its operating procedures relating to LICs and improve security over key information.
Blacktown City Council is managing areas with high growth. There is a risk that Blacktown City Council will be unable to collect sufficient LICs to fund the infrastructure required to support that growth. However, Blacktown City Council does not assess and report to senior management or its Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee about the projected financial status of contributions plans.
Blacktown City Council has policies in place to guide the management of LICs although management of credit arrangements with developers requires greater oversight. Policies relating to works-in-kind agreements provide no guidance about probity in negotiations with developers and valuations of works-in-kind are not independent as they are paid for by the developer. Blacktown City Council's S7.11 committee structure could act as a model for other councils. Blacktown City Council is spending LICs according to its contributions plans. Staff managing LICs demonstrate good knowledge of the regulatory environment. However, a number of administrative processes need attention such as outdated procedures, lack of security over key spreadsheets, and inappropriate retention of sensitive personal data.
Recommendations
By December 2020, Blacktown City Council should:
- regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
- update council's works-in-kind policy to address probity risks during negotiations with developers
- mitigate risks associated with lack of independence in valuations of works-in-kind
- improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
- improve management oversight of credit arrangements with developers
- update procedures for managing LICs
- implement security measures over critical or personal information and spreadsheets.
Central Coast Council's governance and internal controls over LICs were not fully effective. Between 2001 and 2019, more than $13.0 million in LICs was misspent on administration costs in breach of the EP&A Act. There is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans and credit arrangements with developers. Policies and procedures from the two former councils are not aligned.
In May 2016, the newly amalgamated Central Coast Council inherited 53 contributions plans from the former Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils. Managing this number of contributions plans fragments the available funds and increases complexity. Central Coast Council is currently working on consolidating these plans. Between June 2016 and June 2019, its LIC balance doubled from $90.0 million to $196 million. Central Coast Council does not assess and report to senior management or its Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee about the projected financial status of contributions plans. Central Coast Council has a LIC committee but it has no formal charter and senior officers do not regularly attend meetings. This limits the committee's effectiveness as a decision-making body. A draft policy relating to works-in-kind agreements provide no guidance about probity in negotiations with developers. Valuations of works-in-kind and land dedications are not independent as they are paid for by the developer.
Central Coast Council has adjusted its accounts in 2018–19 by $13.2 million to repay the LIC fund for administration expenses that were not provided for in 40 contributions plans.
Recommendations
By June 2020, Central Coast Council should:
1. obtain independent validation of the adjustment made to the restricted asset accounts and general fund to repay LICs spent on administration, and adjustments made to each infrastructure category within the contributions plans
2. publish current contributions plans from the former Gosford City Council on the Central Coast Council website.
By December 2020, Central Coast Council should:
3. regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
4. increase transparency of information available to the public about LIC works planned and underway, including intended use of contributions collected under VPAs
5. consolidate existing plans, ensuring the new contributions plans includes a regular review cycle
6. develop a formal charter for the developer contributions committee and increase the seniority of membership
7. complete and adopt council's works-in-kind policy currently under development, ensuring it addresses probity risks during negotiations with developers
8. mitigate risks associated with lack of independence in valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
9. improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
10. improve management oversight of credit arrangements with developers
11. implement security measures to ensure the integrity of key spreadsheets used to manage LICs
12. align policies and procedures relating to LICs across the amalgamated council including developing policies and procedures for the management of S64 LICs
13. update council's VPA policy to address increased or indexed bank guarantees to accommodate cost increases.
City of Sydney Council manages a complex development environment across the Sydney CBD and inner suburbs. Overall, governance and internal controls over LICs are effective although there is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans.
City of Sydney Council maintains a large balance of LICs, although not excessive relative to the annual level of LIC expenditure. Unspent contributions are largely associated with open space infrastructure that cannot be delivered until suitable land is available. Thirty per cent of cash contributions are collected under VPAs and there is limited transparency over how these funds are spent. City of Sydney Council does not assess and report to management or its Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee about the projected financial status of contributions plans.
In 2017–18 and 2018–19, LICs were spent in accordance with the corresponding contributions plans. City of Sydney Council staff are knowledgeable about the regulatory environment and are supported by up-to-date policies and procedures.
Recommendations
By December 2020, City of Sydney Council should:
- regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
- improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
- periodically review the risk of unpaid LICs associated with complying development certificates and assess whether additional controls are required
- implement security measures to ensure the integrity of key spreadsheets used to manage LICs.
During the audit period 2017–18 and 2018–19, Liverpool City Council did not have effective governance and internal controls over LICs. Liverpool City Council is addressing deficiencies and risks identified through an internal audit published in December 2018 although further work is required. There is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans.
In the two years to 30 June 2019, the balance of unspent LICs increased by more than 60 per cent against a relatively low pattern of expenditure. Prior to an internal audit completed in late 2018, there was no regular reporting on the status of LICs and a lack of transparency when prioritising the expenditure of LIC funds. During 2019, and following the internal audit, Liverpool City Council engaged additional skilled resources to improve focus and accountability for LICs. A LIC committee has been established to manage contributions plans and support business units to initiate relevant infrastructure projects, although it is too early to assess whether this committee is operating effectively. From February 2019, Liverpool City Council commenced monthly reporting to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) about the point-in-time status of LIC funds, and to its Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee about risks associated with LICs and the implementation of internal audit recommendations. There is limited reporting to senior management about the projected financial status of some contributions plans. Our audit found no evidence of misuse of funds during the audited period. Methods for valuing work and land are not aligned with policies and procedures and are implemented inconsistently. In addition, valuations of works-in-kind and land dedications are not independent as they are paid for by the developer. The policy relating to works-in-kind provides no guidance about managing probity risks when negotiating with developers.
Recommendations
By December 2020, Liverpool City Council should:
- regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
- update council's policies and procedures to provide consistent guidance about how works and land offered by developers should be valued
- update council's Works-in-Kind and Land Acquisition Policy to address probity risks during negotiations with developers
- improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
- mitigate risks associated with lack of independence in valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
- implement security measures over critical or private information.
Appendix one – Responses from councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Appendix two – Advice from the Crown Solicitor
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – 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 #339 - released 17 August 2020
Report on Local Government 2019
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.
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.
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.
Industry, Skills, Electricity and Water 2016
The Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford released a report today highlighting a decline in net profits of electricity agencies and the distributions the government received from these agencies. The report also details continuing issues in the management of Crown Land and TAFE NSW's student administration system.
Implementation of the NSW Government’s program evaluation initiative
The NSW Government’s ‘program evaluation initiative’, introduced to assess whether service delivery programs achieve expected outcomes and value for money, is largely ineffective according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.
Government services, in areas such as public order and safety, health and education, are delivered by agencies through a variety of programs. In 2016–17, the NSW Government estimates that it will spend over $73 billion on programs to deliver services.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #277 - released 3 November 2016
Monitoring food safety practices in retail food businesses
New South Wales has a lower rate of foodborne illness than the national average. This reflects some good practices in the NSW Food Authority’s approach to monitoring food safety standards. It also is a factor of the long-standing commitment by local councils’ to ensuring retail food businesses meet these standards.
To ensure foodborne illness remains low, the Authority needs to better monitor its arrangements with councils which inspect retail food businesses on its behalf, and receive additional and more timely information from councils on compliance with food safety standards.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #274 - released 15 September 2016
