Reports
Design and implementation of the Transport Asset Holding Entity
What the report is about
The Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) is the State's custodian of rail assets. It is a state owned corporation and commenced operating on 1 July 2020.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. We audited TAHE, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and NSW Treasury.
Separate and related audits on TAHE are reported in 'State Finances 2022', 'State Finances 2021' and 'Transport and Infrastructure 2022' reports.
What we found
The design and implementation of TAHE, which spanned seven years, was not effective.
The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to support an accounting treatment to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments.
The benefits of TAHE were claimed in the 2015–16 NSW Budget before the enabling legislation was passed by Parliament in 2017. This committed the agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, regardless of any challenges that arose.
Rail safety arrangements were a priority throughout TAHE's design and implementation, and risks were raised and addressed.
Agencies relied heavily on consultants on matters related to the creation of TAHE, but failed to effectively manage these engagements. Agencies failed to ensure that consultancies delivered independent advice as an input to decision-making. A small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on the same topic. The final cost of TAHE-related consultancies was $22.6 million compared to the initial estimated cost of $12.9 million.
What we recommended
We recommended that the audited agencies should:
- improve accountability and transparency for major new fiscal transformation initiatives
- ensure entities do not reflect the financial impact of significant initiatives in the Budget when there is uncertainty, or it creates perverse incentives
- review record keeping practices, systems and policies to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998, and the NSW Government Information Classification, Labelling and Handling Guidelines
- review procurement policies to ensure that consultant use complies with all NSW Government policy requirements.
The NSW Government established the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE), a statutory State Owned Corporation (SOC), on 1 July 2020 to replace the former rail infrastructure owner – RailCorp. It is the State's custodian of rail network assets, including rail tracks and other infrastructure, rolling stock, land, train stations and facilities, retail space, and signal and power systems, within metropolitan and regional New South Wales. It is responsible for $2.8 billion of major capital projects in 2022–23.
TAHE was established under Part 2 of the Transport Administration Act 1988 and is governed by a decision-making board. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Employee Relations are the Shareholding Ministers of TAHE, and they annually agree performance expectations articulated in a Statement of Corporate Intent.
Whereas TAHE is the custodian of rail assets, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains operate public rail services. TAHE does not have responsibility for the operation of the heavy rail network or train services, nor does it have network control functions. TAHE, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains are in the Transport and Infrastructure cluster in the public sector (formerly the Transport cluster and renamed in April 2022), which also includes Sydney Metro and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).
TfNSW leads the Transport and Infrastructure cluster. Its role is to set the strategic direction for transport across the State. This involves the shaping of planning, policy, strategy, regulation, resource allocation and other service and non-service delivery functions for all modes of transport.
TAHE's Operating Licence is granted by the Portfolio Minister and authorises the entity to perform the functions required to acquire, develop, finance, divest and hold assets, pursuant to the Transport Administration Act 1988. The Portfolio Minister also issues a Statement of Expectations which outlines the government’s expectation for the business for the next three to five years.
TAHE's original Portfolio Minister was the Minister for Transport who approved, on 30 June 2020, the issuing of an interim 12-month Operating Licence to enable TAHE to commence operating on 1 July 2020. The Portfolio Minister then granted TAHE's current Operating Licence in 2021. After TAHE requested a 12-month extension to its current Operating Licence, its next Operating Licence is due on 1 July 2024. The current Portfolio Minister is the Minister for Infrastructure, Cities and Active Transport.
About this audit
This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Government agencies' design and implementation of TAHE. In making this assessment, we considered whether:
- the process of designing and implementing TAHE was cohesive and transparent, and delivered an effective outcome
- agencies' roles and responsibilities were clear in the planning of TAHE
- agencies effectively identified and managed certain risks.
Conclusion
The design and implementation of TAHE was not effective. The process was not cohesive or transparent. It delivered an outcome that is unnecessarily complex in order to meet the NSW Government's short-term Budget objectives, while creating an obligation for future governments to sustain TAHE through continuing investment, and funding of the state owned rail operators. The ineffective process to design TAHE delivered a model that entails significant uncertainty as to whether the anticipated longer-term financial improvements to the Budget position can be achieved or sustained.
NSW Treasury and TfNSW had different objectives for TAHE
Up to June 2013, RailCorp had been the owner and operator of rail services and maintainer of the metropolitan rail network for almost a decade. It had been operating as a not-for-profit Public Non-Financial Corporation (PNFC).
In 2012, NSW Treasury (hereafter Treasury) decided there was a risk that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) would reclassify RailCorp to the General Government Sector (GGS), meaning depreciation expenses of approximately $870 million would be reflected in the GGS Budget. Treasury wanted to avoid this impact on the GGS Budget, and considered the establishment of a transport asset holding entity as a means to do so. Capital grants to RailCorp were being treated as an expense to the GGS Budget.
TfNSW also wanted an asset holding entity – but one that would be a non-trading ‘shell’ company with no staff that would hold and manage all public transport assets. TfNSW's concept envisaged the entity would have a structure that would enable future public transport reforms and strategic directions while ensuring vertical integration of operations between asset owners and the rail operators to maintain rail safety.
However, Treasury pursued its objective to improve the GGS Budget result, and sought to expand on TfNSW's 'shell' asset holding entity concept. Treasury wanted an entity that could generate a return on investment, as this meant that government investment in transport assets could be treated as equity investments, rather than a Budget expense, and in turn improve the GGS Budget position. As an example of the potential impact of creating this new entity, capital grants of $2.3 billion were paid to RailCorp in 2013–14. If Treasury's objective was met, grants of this significance would then be treated as an equity investment, rather than an expense in the GGS Budget.
In 2017, Treasury's preferred option was progressed through legislation, but both agencies' central objectives for the proposed asset holding entity would continue to prove difficult to reconcile. To achieve Treasury's objective to improve the Budget result, the entity would need to generate a return on investment (this is further discussed below). However, TfNSW expressed concerns that the prioritisation of rail safety, and the effective management of governance, regulation and operations would be more complex in an entity with commercial imperatives.
Asset holding entities are a common approach to the management of transport assets in Australia and internationally, and there are a range of approaches to how they are structured and used. Such structures should be driven by the goal of improved asset management. Ultimately, TfNSW's objectives could have been delivered through a simpler entity structure. However, reconciling TfNSW's objectives with Treasury's imperative to deliver and justify a Budget improvement in the short-term resulted in an overly lengthy process and an unnecessarily complex outcome that places an obligation on future governments to sustain. There is still significant uncertainty as to whether the short-term improvements to the Budget can continue to be realised in the longer-term.
The Budget benefits of TAHE were claimed before the entity was legislated, committing the agencies to deliver, regardless of the complexities that subsequently arose
The 2015–16 GGS Budget treated the government's investment in TAHE (still known at this time as RailCorp) as an equity contribution. This had the immediate impact of improving the Budget result by $1.8 billion per annum. However, the legislation to enable the establishment of TAHE had not yet been passed by Parliament, key elements of the operating model were still under development, and imminent changes in accounting standards had the potential to impact TAHE's financial model. The decision to book the benefits in the Budget early committed the involved agencies to implement a solution that justified the 2015–16 Budget impacts, irrespective of the challenges that arose.
TAHE's financial structure requires circular government investment to work
For the NSW Government to continue to treat its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution, rather than an expense to the Budget, there must be a reasonable expectation that TAHE will generate a sufficient rate of return as required by the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) framework. In doing so, it needs to recover a revaluation loss created by a $20.3 billion reduction in the value of its assets which was incurred in its first full year of operation. This loss occurred as a result of a revaluation of TAHE's assets when RailCorp (a not-for profit entity) became TAHE (a for-profit commercial entity) – and is discussed further in the 'Key findings' below.
TAHE generates a small portion of its income from transactions with the private sector but, as noted in our report 'State Finances 2021', TAHE receives the majority of its revenue (more than 80%) from access and licence fee agreements with Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. Both of these entities are funded by grants (a Budget expense) to TfNSW from the GGS Budget.
Based on Treasury’s correspondence with the ABS in 2015, TAHE was initially expected to pay a return on equity of 7% in 2016–17. The assumption of a 7% return persisted through to 2018, after the legislation enabling the establishment of TAHE was passed by Parliament. However, when the initial access and licence fees were agreed on 1 July 2020, this figure had been revised to an expected rate of return of 1.5% excluding the revaluation loss. This was below the long-term inflation target and did not include the recovery of the revaluation loss – risking the government's ability to treat its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution. Importantly, as TAHE is primarily reliant on fees paid by the state owned rail operators that, in turn, are funded by the GGS Budget (as an expense), the decision to change the returns model from 7% to 1.5% would in its own right have had a positive impact on the GGS Budget. However, the decision to use a 1.5% return would ultimately be problematic as it made it difficult to treat the government's contributions to TAHE as an equity investment, as discussed below.
On 14 December 2021, to avoid a qualified audit opinion, the NSW Government made the decision to increase TAHE's expected rate of return to 2.5%, equal to the Reserve Bank’s long-term inflation target.
In 2021-22, TAHE needed to start charging rail operators higher access and licence fees in order to generate a return of 2.5%, so as to support the government's treatment of its investment in TAHE as an equity contribution in the GGS Budget. This meant the government needed to provide additional grant (expense) funding to the state owned rail operators so they could pay the increased access and licence fees to TAHE. Based on current projections, TAHE is not expected to recover the revaluation loss until 2046.
There remains a risk that TAHE will not be able to generate a sufficient return on the NSW Government's investment without relying on increased funding to state owned rail operators so that they can in turn pay the higher access and licence fees. TAHE's ability to generate returns on government investment from other sources are uncertain and may not be achievable or sustainable. Current modelling highlights that TAHE remains largely reliant, through to 2046, on increasing fees (which are assumed to increase at 2.5% per annum from 2031 onwards when the current 10 year contracts with rail operators expire) paid by the state owned rail operators that remain principally reliant on GGS Budget grants.
The process of designing and implementing TAHE was not transparent to independent scrutiny
Our report 'State Finances 2021' commented that Treasury did not always provide this Office with information relating to TAHE on a timely basis. Similarly, during this performance audit, there were also multiple instances where auditees were unable to provide documentation regarding key activities in the process to deliver TAHE. Agencies also applied higher sensitivity classifications to large tranches of documents than was justified or required by policy. Of particular concern is the incorrect classification of documents as Cabinet sensitive information. The incorrect or over-classification of documentation as Cabinet sensitive delayed this Office's ability to provide scrutiny or independent assurance.
There was a lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of governance structures set up to oversee the design and implementation of TAHE
From 2014, multiple workstreams and advisory committees were established to progress the design and implementation of TAHE. For some of these committees and workstreams, there is limited information on what they were tasked to do and what they achieved. Most had ceased meeting by 2018, before significant work needed to deliver TAHE was completed.
The lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of these governance structures reduced opportunities for TfNSW and Treasury to reconcile their differing objectives for TAHE, and resolve key questions earlier in the process.
There was a heavy reliance on consulting firms throughout the process to establish TAHE, and the management of consultant engagements failed to ensure that agencies received independent advice to support objective decision-making
In 2020, Treasury and TfNSW failed to prevent, identify, or adequately manage a conflict of interest when they engaged the same 'Big 4' consulting firm to work on separate TAHE-related projects. Both agencies used the firm's work to further their respective views with regard to the financial implications of TAHE's operating model. At this time those views were still unreconciled.
Treasury engaged the firm to provide a fiscal risk management strategy and advice on the impact of changes to accounting standards. TfNSW engaged the same firm to develop operating and financial models for TAHE, which raised concerns regarding the viability of TAHE. Disputes arose around the findings of these reports. Treasury disagreed with some of the outcomes of the work commissioned by TfNSW, relating to accounting treatment and fiscal advice.
The management of this conflict (real or perceived) was left to the 'Big 4' consulting firm when it was more appropriate for it to be managed by Treasury and TfNSW. If these agencies had communicated more effectively, used available governance structures consistently, and shared information openly about their use of the firm and the nature of their respective engagements, these disputes might have been avoided. This issue, coupled with deficiencies in procurement by both agencies, reflected and further perpetuated the lack of cohesion in the design and implementation of TAHE.
More broadly, over the period 2014 – 2021, 16 separate consulting firms were employed to work on 36 contracts, valued at over $22.56 million, relating to TAHE ranging from accounting and legal advice, project management, and the provision of administrative support and secretariat services.
Consultants are legitimately used by agencies to provide advice on how to achieve the outcomes determined by government, including advising agencies on the risks and challenges in achieving those outcomes. Similarly, consultants can provide expert knowledge in the service of achieving those outcomes and managing the risks. However, the heavy reliance on consulting firms during the design and implementation of TAHE heightened the risk that agencies were not receiving value for money, were outsourcing tasks that should be performed by the public service, and did not mitigate the risk that the advice received was not objective and impartial. The risk that the role of consultants could have been blurred between providing independent advice to government on options and facilitating a pre-determined outcome was not effectively treated or mitigated. This risk was amplified because a small number of firms were used repeatedly to provide advice on one topic. The effective procurement and management of consultants is an obligation of government agencies.
Appendix two – Classification of government entities
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 #372 - released 24 January 2023
Transport and Infrastructure 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Transport and Infrastructure cluster agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all Transport and Infrastructure cluster agencies' financial statements.
An 'other matter' paragraph was included in TAHE's Independent Auditor's Report for its 30 June 2022 financial statements which draws attention to Transport and Asset Holding Entity's (TAHE) reliance on government-funded customers.
We included an ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph in the Independent Auditor’s Report for State Transit Authority of New South Wales’ (the authority) 30 June 2022 financial statements, which draws attention to the financial statements being prepared on a liquidation basis as the authority’s principal activities ceased operations on 3 April 2022.
What the key issues were
The 2021–22 audits identified five high-risk findings:
- detailed business modelling to support returns from TAHE
- valuation of assets at TAHE
- control of assets at TAHE
- accounting and valuation of tree assets at Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust and Parramatta Park Trust.
Access and licence fees - TAHE
Revised commercial agreements were signed between TAHE, the operators and Transport for NSW on 23 June 2022 to reflect increased access and licence fees detailed in the 18 December 2021 Heads of Agreement.
TAHE’s ability to generate the expected return of 2.5% based on the current modelling is heavily reliant on the government funding the public rail operators (TAHE's customers).
There are risks that:
- TAHE will not be able to recontract for access and licence fees at a level that is consistent with current projections
- future governments' funding to TAHE's key customers will not be sufficient to fund payment of access and licence fees at a level that is consistent with current projections
- TAHE will be unable to grow its non-government revenues.
Valuation of assets - TAHE
Although TAHE's selected valuation of assets falls within an acceptable range, there remains a significant gap between what has been assessed as an acceptable range and TAHE's range.
What we recommended
Control of assets - TAHE
While we accepted TAHE’s position on control for the current year, NSW Treasury and TAHE should continue to monitor the risk that control of TAHE assets could change in future reporting periods. TAHE must continue to demonstrate control of its assets or the current accounting presentation would need to be reconsidered.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Transport and Infrastructure cluster’s financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Transport and Infrastructure cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the cluster.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting
Appendix four – Financial data
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Planning and Environment 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Planning and Environment cluster agencies' financial statements audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for all completed 30 June 2022 financial statements audits of cluster agencies. Seven audits are ongoing.
Disclaimed audit opinions were issued for the 2010–11 to 2015–16 financial statements of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (WAMC), as management was unable to certify that the financial statements exhibit a true and fair view of WAMC's financial position and financial performance.
Qualified audit opinions were issued for WAMC's 2016–17 and 2017–18 financial statements due to insufficient evidence to support the completeness and valuation of water meters infrastructure assets, the impairment of water meters, and the completeness of buildings at Nimmie Caira.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for WAMC's 2018–19 and 2019–20 financial statements.
The Department of Planning and Environment (the department) assessed 45 Category 2 Statutory Land Managers (SLM) did not meet the reporting exemption criteria and therefore were required to prepare 2021–22 financial statements. None of these 45 Category 2 SLMs prepared and submitted their 30 June 2022 financial statements by the statutory reporting deadline.
All 119 Commons Trusts have never submitted their financial statements for audit as required by the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act).
NSW Treasury has confirmed that the Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT) is a controlled entity of the State. To date, CMCT has not met its obligations to prepare financial statements under the GSF Act and it has not submitted financial statements to the Auditor-General for audit.
What the key issues were
Since 2017, the Audit Office has recommended the department address the different practices across the local government sector in accounting for rural firefighting equipment. Despite repeated recommendations, the department did little to resolve this issue. At the time of writing, 32 of 118 completed council audits received qualified audit opinions on their 30 June 2022 financial statements.
There continues to be significant deficiencies in Crown land records. The department uses the Crown Land Information Database (CLID) to record key information relating to Crown land in New South Wales that is managed and controlled by the department and land managers. The CLID system was not designed to facilitate financial reporting, and the department is required to conduct extensive adjustments and reconciliations to produce accurate information for the financial statements.
The department implemented the CrownTracker system as a replacement for CLID. The project was finalised in June 2022, but it has not achieved the intended outcomes.
Nine high-risk issues were identified across the cluster related to the findings outlined above and weaknesses in IT general controls, financial reporting, governance processes and internal controls.
Recommendations were made to address these deficiencies.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Planning and Environment cluster’s financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Planning and Environment cluster.
Section highlights
|
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Timeliness of financial reporting
Appendix four – Financial data
Appendix five – Councils received qualified audit opinions
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.
Development applications: assessment and determination stages
What the report is about
Local councils in New South Wales are responsible for assessing local and regional development applications.
Most development applications are assessed and determined by council staff under delegated authority. However, some development applications must be referred to independent local planning panels or Sydney and regional planning panels for determination.
Councils provide support to local planning panels. The Department of Planning and Environment provides support to Sydney and regional planning panels.
This audit assessed whether Byron Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council had effectively assessed and determined development applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements.
It also assessed whether The Hills Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council and the Department of Planning and Environment had provided effective support to relevant independent planning panels.
What we found
All councils had established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications and had also established processes to ensure quality of assessment reports.
Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council have established comprehensive approaches to considering and managing risks related to development assessment.
Northern Beaches Council's approach to publishing its assessment reports promotes transparency.
Across a sample of development applications assessed and determined between 2020–22:
- Northern Beaches Council and The Hills Shire Council had assessed and determined applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements. However, The Hills Shire Council could do more to transparently document any conflicts of interest within assessment reports.
- Byron Shire Council had assessed most applications in compliance with legislative and other requirements. However, we found opportunities for the Council to:
- ensure determinations were made in line with delegations
- strengthen its approach to transparent management of conflicts of interest and quality review of assessments.
The Hills Shire Council and Northern Beaches Council had effectively supported their respective local planning panels.
The Department of Planning and Environment had processes that meet requirements for supporting regional planning panels but could do more to promote consistency in approach, share information across panels and measure the effectiveness of its support.
What we recommended
We made recommendations to Byron Shire Council, The Hills Shire Council and the Department of Planning and Environment to address the gaps identified and improve the transparency of processes.
Local councils in New South Wales are responsible for assessing local and regional development applications under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).
In assessing development applications, councils consider:
- whether the proposed development application is compliant with legislation and environmental planning instruments
- whether the proposed development meets local planning controls and objectives
- any environmental, social and economic impacts
- any submissions from impacted properties, neighbours and interested parties
- the public interest.
Once assessed, a development application will be determined by council staff under delegated authority, the elected council, or an independent planning panel.1
The involvement of a particular independent planning panel is established under legislative and policy instruments, and depends on the type and value of the proposed development. Most development applications are assessed and determined by council staff under delegated authority.
In determining development applications, independent planning panels must manage any potential, real or perceived conflicts of interest of panel members for a given development application, meet and vote on development applications, and publish their decisions and reasons.
Under the EP&A Act, and as required by statutory instruments and procedures, councils and the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) must provide secretariat and other support functions to independent planning panels.
Previous reviews and inquiries have identified several significant risks that are present within the processes involved in the assessment and determination of development applications. These risks include possible non-compliance with complex legal and policy requirements, potential improper influence from developers and other stakeholders, and a perceived lack of transparency within the planning system and planning outcomes.
There are several planning pathways for development in New South Wales. This audit focuses on local and regional development that requires assessment and determination by a local council and/or an independent local planning panel or Sydney or regional planning panel in three Local Government Areas (LGAs): Byron Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council, The Hills Shire Council.
Audited councils were selected from a range of criteria, including:
- the number, value and types of development applications determined in 2018–19
- average determination timeframes
- appeals against determinations and Land and Environment Court outcomes
- LGA demographics.
The audit also avoided councils that had previously been subject to a performance audit.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether:
- selected councils have effectively assessed and determined development applications in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance
- selected councils and DPE effectively support independent planning panels to determine development applications in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.
Conclusion – Byron Shire Council
Byron Shire Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications. However, the effectiveness of the Council's approach is limited by gaps in governance, risk management and internal controls.
Byron Shire Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for assessment and determination of development applications. However, the Council does not have a consolidated policy and procedure for development assessment, has not adequately followed up on the outcomes of internal reviews that identified opportunities to strengthen its assessment and determination procedures and approach, and has not demonstrated that it has managed relevant risks effectively.
The Council has not ensured that delegations have been consistently followed in the assessment of development applications.
Byron Shire Council's approach to managing conflicts of interest in development assessments does not provide transparency over potential conflicts of interest.
Byron Shire Council manages the risk of conflicts of interest for development assessment under its Code of Conduct. The Council has also implemented a separate policy that details additional requirements for managing conflicts of interest relevant to the development assessment process, but has not regularly updated this policy and requirements between it and the Code of Conduct have not been aligned. This creates a risk that planning staff may be following inconsistent or outdated advice in managing conflicts of interest.
Across the period of review, the Council did not require staff to provide a disclosure of interest for individual development applications to be contained within assessment reports. Including these disclosures would increase transparency and ensure that staff are sufficiently considering any conflicts of interest relevant to each separate assessment process.
Byron Shire Council has processes that promote compliance with legislation, regulation and government policy, but can improve how it undertakes some aspects of these that would ensure transparency, quality and consistency.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications from the Council indicated that most assessments were completed in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance, but that there were some opportunities to improve elements of the assessment process, including: transparency of any conflicts of interest involved in the assessment process, ensuring compliance with delegated authority limits, and consideration of modification application provisions.
The Council has established templates to guide planners through relevant assessment considerations required by legislation, regulations and other guidance. However, it could do more to strengthen its approach to peer or manager review, monitoring legislative changes, and how it monitors the completion of relevant training by planning staff.
Conclusion – Northern Beaches Council
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to support compliant and effective assessment and determination of development applications.
The Council has a clear governance and risk management framework for development assessment that sets out roles, responsibilities and delegations.
Northern Beaches Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations for development application assessment and determination. The Council has identified development assessment related risks, and has put in place controls and mitigating actions to manage the risks to within risk tolerances.
Northern Beaches Council's approach to managing conflicts of interest promotes transparency.
Northern Beaches Council manages the risk of conflicts of interest for development assessment under its Code of Conduct. The Council has implemented an additional framework for planning staff to respond to the risk of conflicts of interest in development assessment processes. This framework requires its staff to disclose any conflicts of interest as a formal step in assessing development applications and includes declarations of any interests within assessment reports or planning panel minutes.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications indicated that the assessment reports had been compliant with the Council's approach to transparently documenting conflicts of interest.
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to deliver consistent, quality assessment of development applications.
Northern Beaches Council staff use an electronic development assessment tool that provides guidance, links to legislative and policy instruments and other applications that support assessment and drive consistency in approach. The Council applies a peer review process in which a manager or team member in a more senior position reviews an assessment report prior to determination to ensure that expected standards of quality and consistency have been met.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications indicated that assessments were undertaken in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.
Northern Beaches Council transparently documents assessment reports, supporting information and determination outcomes.
Northern Beaches Council has implemented a transparent approach to how it assesses and determines development applications. The Council publishes assessment reports, supporting technical reports, plans and submissions for all development applications. Notices of determination and final plans are also published alongside the assessment reports, allowing for greater transparency to the public.
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to effectively support the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel.
Northern Beaches Council has established processes to support the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel as required under legislative and policy instruments. The Council has processes to ensure that development applications required to be referred to a planning panel are identified and monitored, supports identification and documentation of any conflicts of interest, and transparently documents decisions of the panel.
Our review of a sample of meeting records held across the audit period of review indicated that these requirements were met and were transparently documented.
Conclusion – The Hills Shire Council
The Hills Shire Council has established processes to support compliant and effective assessment and determination of development applications.
The Council has established a comprehensive governance and risk management framework for development assessment that sets out clear roles, responsibilities and delegations.
The Hills Shire Council has established a comprehensive framework for managing risks related to development assessment. Such risks are clearly identified and associated controls are in place to reduce or mitigate the risks. The Council has undertaken regular internal audits of development assessments, including reviewing completed applications to ensure compliance with relevant legislative and policy requirements.
The Council has established clear roles, responsibilities and delegations, and its staff assessing and determining development applications are supported by a standard set of policies and procedures for undertaking assessment and determination of applications.
The Hills Shire Council is managing conflicts of interest in line with Code of Conduct requirements but could more transparently document these.
The Hills Shire Council manages conflicts of interest for those involved in development application processes through provisions under its Code of Conduct. Under this Code of Conduct, staff must declare any conflicts of interest to their manager. However, the Council does not require staff to disclose any conflicts of interest in development application assessment reports which limits transparency to reviewing managers or any other determination bodies.
The Hills Shire Council has established processes to deliver consistent, quality assessment of development applications.
The Hills Shire Council has established templates to guide planners through relevant development assessment and determination considerations required by legislation, regulations and other guidance. The Council requires a peer review to occur prior to any determination which ensures a check on the compliance and quality of the assessment report prepared.
Our review of a sample of completed development applications from the Council indicated that assessments were performed in compliance with relevant legislation, regulations and government guidance.
The Hills Shire Council has established processes to effectively support The Hills Shire Local Planning Panel.
The Hills Shire Council has met requirements to provide secretariat and other support to The Hills Shire Local Planning Panel as required under legislative and policy instruments. It has processes to ensure that development applications required to be referred to a planning panel are identified and monitored, supports identification and documentation of any conflicts of interest, and transparently documents decisions of the panel.
Our review of a sample of meeting records held across the audit period of review indicated that these requirements were met and were transparently documented.
Conclusion – Department of Planning and Environment
The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) has established processes that meet its statutory and policy requirements to support Sydney and regional planning panels.
DPE has established processes to provide secretariat and other support to planning panels. It has met requirements to provide administrative support to the panels through its planning panels secretariat including undertaking administrative functions, supporting recruitment of panel members, and addressing complaints about the panel processes.
DPE has not ensured collection of annual pecuniary interest declarations for all panel members for the three Sydney and regional planning panels in scope for this audit. DPE could not provide annual pecuniary interest declarations for part of the audit period for three of the 47 members of these panels, as is required by DPE's Code of Conduct for Regional Planning Panels.
DPE does not formally measure its effectiveness in providing support to panels, but panel chairs consulted as part of this audit advised that they had no concerns with the level of secretariat support provided by DPE.
DPE could do more to facilitate information sharing between panels and could formalise how it provides comparative information to panels to improve consistency and standardisation in approach and share good practice. DPE has identified these gaps in reviews of its services and functions and has a plan in place to address them.
DPE has effectively documented planning panel decisions and made them available to all stakeholders. It also effectively documented interests declared as part of consideration of development applications for in-scope panels.
This audit continues a series of audits examining the development assessment process in NSW local councils and is focused on the assessment and determination stages.
The Audit Office of New South Wales previously considered local government development assessments in our 2019 performance audit: 'Development assessment: pre-lodgement and lodgement in Camden Council and Randwick City Council'.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Council profile: Byron Shire Council
Appendix three – Council profile: Northern Beaches Council
Appendix four – Council profile: The Hills Shire Council
Appendix five – About the audit
Appendix six – 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 #370 - released 12 December 2022
Regional NSW 2022
What the report is about
Result of the Regional NSW cluster agencies' financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2022.
What we found
Unmodified audit opinions were issued for Regional NSW cluster agencies. Two audits are ongoing.
What the key issues were
The Department of Regional NSW (the department) and Local Land Services (LLS) accepted changes to their office leasing arrangements managed by Property NSW.
These changes resulted in the collective derecognition of $100.6 million of rights-of-use-assets and $110.4 million of lease liabilities.
In 2021–22, the cluster agencies continued to assist communities in their recovery from recent weather emergencies, including significant flooding in New South Wales.
The Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation was established in May 2022 to rebuild communities in the Lismore and Northern Rivers region impacted by floods.
The number of matters reported to management decreased from 36 in 2020–21 to 14 in 2021–22.
Five moderate risk issues were identified and 14% of reported issues were repeat issues.
One moderate risk issue was a repeat issue related to Local Land Services' annual fair value assessment of the asset improvements on land reserves used for moving stock.
This report provides Parliament and other users of the Regional NSW cluster financial statements with the results of our audits, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision-making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the Regional NSW cluster (the cluster) for 2022.
Section highlights
|
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision-making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Regional NSW cluster.
Section highlights
|
Effectiveness of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme
What the report is about
This audit examined whether the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and the Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) have effectively designed and implemented the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (‘the Scheme’) to compensate for the loss of biodiversity due to development.
Under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the Scheme enables landholders to establish in-perpetuity Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements on sites to generate credits for the unique biodiversity on that land. These credits can be sold to offset the negative impact of development on biodiversity.
What we found
DPE has not effectively designed core elements of the Scheme. DPE did not establish a clear strategic plan to guide the implementation of the Scheme.
The BCT has various roles in the Scheme but lacked safeguards against potential conflicts, creating risks to credit supply.
The effectiveness of its implementation has also been limited. Key concerns around the Scheme’s transparency, sustainability and integrity are yet to be fully resolved.
A market-based approach to biodiversity offsetting is central to the Scheme's operation but credit supply is lacking and poorly matched to growing demand. DPE has not established a clear, resourced plan to manage the shortage in credit supply. Data about the market, published by the DPE and the BCT, does not provide an adequate picture of credit supply, demand and price to readily support market participation.
These factors create a risk that biodiversity gains made through the Scheme will not be sufficient to offset losses resulting from development, and that the DPE will not be able to assess the Scheme’s overall effectiveness.
DPE is leading work with the BCT to improve the Scheme, but this is not yet guided by a long-term strategy with clear goals.
What we recommended
The audit made 11 recommendations to DPE and the BCT, focusing on:
- a long-term strategic plan for the Scheme
- improvements to the operation and transparency of the market and credit supply
- frameworks to ensure the financial and ecological sustainability of biodiversity stewardship sites
- enhanced public reporting and data management
- resolving issues in conflicting governance and oversight.
Fast facts
- 96% – proportion of developer demand for species credits not met by current supply
- 97% – proportion of species credits that have never been traded on the biodiversity market
- 60% – proportion of the 226 Biodiversity Stewardship sites under active land management
- $90m – value of developers’ obligations paid directly into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund
- 20% – proportion of developer obligations transferred to the BCT that have been acquitted.
The NSW Government's Biodiversity Outlook Report 2020 estimates that, without effective management, only 50% of species and 59% of ecological communities that are listed as threatened in New South Wales will still exist in 100 years. The NSW State of the Environment 2021 report identifies habitat destruction and native vegetation clearing as presenting the single greatest threat to biodiversity in the State.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), biodiversity offsets are 'measurable conservation outcomes that result from actions designed to compensate for significant, residual biodiversity loss from development projects'. The OECD states that a feature of such schemes is that biodiversity offsets are intended to be implemented as the 'final step of a mitigation hierarchy' whereby reasonable first steps are taken to avoid and minimise the negative impacts.
The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme was established in 2017 under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to 'maintain a healthy, productive and resilient environment for the greatest well-being of the community, now and into the future, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development'.
The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) designed and manages this Scheme. Under the Act, a feature of the Scheme is a 'market-based conservation mechanism through which the impacts to biodiversity can be offset.' The Scheme enables landholders to establish in-perpetuity Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements (BSAs) on sites to generate biodiversity credits, which can be sold to offset the negative impact of development on biodiversity. BSA sites are intended to be managed over the long term to generate the biodiversity gains required to offset the impact.
The Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) monitors and supports landholders to manage BSA sites under the Scheme. This includes making payments to landholders from funds held in the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund for undertaking the required biodiversity management actions.
This Scheme was preceded by several other offsetting schemes in New South Wales, including the BioBanking scheme that started in 2008. DPE has arrangements to transition sites, credits, and offset obligations from this and other previous schemes.
The current biodiversity credit market in New South Wales consists of 1394 different types of ecosystem credits, which are approved to be traded in 364 different offset trading groups, and 867 different species credits. Trading rules, set out in the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (the Regulation), prioritise offsetting the obligations of a development with like-for-like ecosystem or species credits.
The Scheme is implemented through the planning system in New South Wales. Proposed development that involves the clearing of native vegetation, and meets certain thresholds, is required to undertake a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. These reports determine an offset obligation, in biodiversity credits, to compensate for the biodiversity loss proposed. These reports are considered by consent authorities (such as a council, for local development, or by the Minister for Planning for major projects). An offset obligation is then included in the conditions of development approval.
In addition to establishing a market for trading between developers, with offset obligations, and landholders, who sell credits from their BSA sites, the Scheme allows developers to pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund and transfer their obligations to the BCT. This allows the developer to proceed with their project. The BCT must then meet these acquired obligations by buying the required credits, or by undertaking other approved activities set out in the Regulation. The BCT has more options than developers on how and when it acquits its obligations.
This audit examined whether DPE and the BCT have effectively designed and implemented the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme to compensate for the loss of biodiversity due to development.
Conclusion
The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) has not effectively designed core elements of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. DPE did not establish a clear strategy to develop the biodiversity credit market or determine whether the Scheme’s operation and outcomes are consistent with the purposes of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.
The effectiveness of the Scheme's implementation by DPE and the BCT has been limited. A market-based approach to biodiversity offsetting is central to the Scheme's operation but credit supply is lacking and poorly matched to growing demand: this includes a potential undersupply of in-demand credits for numerous endangered species. Key concerns around the Scheme’s integrity, transparency, and sustainability are also yet to be fully resolved. As such, there is a risk that biodiversity gains made through the Scheme will not be sufficient to offset losses resulting from the impacts of development, and that DPE will not be able to assess the Scheme’s overall effectiveness.
DPE developed the Scheme following a 2014 review of the State's biodiversity legislation and building on previous offsetting arrangements in New South Wales. At the time the Scheme commenced in 2017, DPE lacked a strategic plan to guide its implementation, set clear outcomes and performance measures, and respond effectively to risks. DPE did establish a detailed scientific method for assessing biodiversity impacts under the Scheme and a system for accrediting assessors to undertake this technical work. These are important foundations for the robustness of the Scheme.
The Scheme has been in place for five years, but the biodiversity credit market is not well developed. Most credit types have never been traded. Also, according to DPE data, around 90% of demand cannot be matched to credit supply – and there is likely to be a substantial credit undersupply for at least seven endangered flora species, three endangered fauna species, and eight threatened ecological communities. Credit demand is projected to grow – especially in relation to the NSW Government’s $112.7 billion four-year infrastructure pipeline.
As with any market, potential participants need information about demand and price in order to understand risks and opportunities. But information about the biodiversity credit market, published by DPE and the BCT, does not provide an adequate picture of credit supply, demand and price to support market participation. This can create uncertainty for landholders who may be weighing the costs and benefits of establishing Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) sites, and for development proponents who need to know whether they can purchase sufficient credits and at what price. Development proponents who lack market information are being incentivised to meet their offset obligations by paying into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund, which is managed by the BCT. This option provides developers with more certainty that enables them to progress their projects, but does not result in the development being offset until the BCT later acquits the obligation.
The BCT has multiple roles in the Scheme. These include setting-up and administering BSAs which generate credits, acquiring offset obligations from developers who pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund, and purchasing credits to meet its acquired obligations. There have been inadequate safeguards to mitigate the potential for conflicts between these roles. As the BCT directs its efforts towards facilitating BSA sites and purchasing credits to meet its obligations, there is a risk that government is insufficiently focused on supporting overall credit supply.
DPE has begun developing a credit supply strategy. Its absence, and a lack of clarity around responsibility for credit supply under the Scheme, has contributed to the significant risk of insufficient and poorly matched credits to meet the growing demand. The BCT's acquired obligations from developers have been increasing year-on-year, and are likely to continue to grow.
There is a risk that the BCT will not have sufficient funds to acquit its growing obligations with like-for-like credits, which could result in sub-optimal biodiversity outcomes. The Scheme rules allow the BCT to acquit its obligations with measures other than like-for-like credits. DPE has not provided clear guidance to the BCT on when or how to do so, or how this would fulfil the 'no net loss' of biodiversity standard.
There are transparency and integrity risks to the Scheme. DPE does not maintain a public register of biodiversity credits with complete information, including credits' transaction histories, consistent with the legislative intent for a single register. DPE also does not have ready access to information to check that developments have been acquitted with the required credits.
Risks to the sustainability of the Scheme and its outcomes remain. DPE and the BCT have not yet implemented a decision-making and intervention framework to ensure adequate initial and ongoing funding for the long-term management of new and existing BSA sites. DPE also did not collect ecological data from sites under previous schemes before they were transitioned, and BCT only introduced ecological monitoring requirements for new BSA sites in March 2021. The lack of monitoring requirements creates a risk that the biodiversity gains, which BSA sites are required to generate to offset biodiversity losses, will not be measured and achieved under the Scheme.
This section presents an overview of the status of the biodiversity credit market in New South Wales. It describes development of the market under the Scheme in the context of transitional arrangements from previous schemes, and the extent of market participation and transactions to date. It also presents information about emerging trends in credit demand and supply.
Background
A purpose of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act) is to establish a market-based conservation mechanism through which impacts on biodiversity can be offset. Sufficient credits of appropriate types, which are well matched to demand, are necessary for enough transactions to inform prices and enable efficient like-for-like offsetting. For transactions to occur efficiently in the market, participants require reliable and easy-to-access information about supply, demand and price.
The Scheme was established in 2017 with an existing credit supply and offset obligations (credit demand) as regulations had been introduced to preserve and transition credits and obligations from previous schemes including the BioBanking Scheme, which started in 2008.
Credits under the BioBanking scheme are referred to as 'BBAM credits', and credits under the current Scheme are referred to as 'BAM credits'. BBAM credits are still available, and the transitional arrangements enable DPE to determine the 'reasonable equivalence' of these to the current Scheme's credit numbers and classes. DPE has stated that reasonable equivalence of credits is based on ecological not financial equivalence.
This section assesses the clarity and alignment of the goals of the Scheme to key features of its design and operations. It also examines structural elements of the Scheme that aim to maintain integrity within administering agencies, and the status of actions to address risks or issues.
Background
The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act) sets out the legal framework for the Scheme. Given the complexities, financial interests, and range of stakeholders associated with the Scheme, it requires strong safeguards. Transparency and assurances around the Scheme's integrity are also relevant to participants' confidence in it, which in turn is important for market development.
Core components of the Scheme, identified in section 1.3 of the Act, are to be consistent with the ‘principles of ecologically sustainable development’.
The Act and other administrative arrangements of government allocate responsibility to DPE and the Minister for Environment and Heritage for the Scheme’s design and elements of its implementation. This includes responsibility for the Scheme’s policy, legislative and regulatory framework.
Responsibility is allocated to the BCT for implementing and operating certain elements of the Scheme. This includes administering Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements (which generate credits) and securing offsets on behalf of development proponents who pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund to meet their offset obligations.
This broad legislative framework is not intended to detail responsibilities for the full range of roles and activities that agencies need to take to implement and regulate the Scheme effectively, and ensure its good governance. Agencies should do this as part of sound and transparent public administration.
This section assesses how effectively components of the Scheme have been designed and are being implemented to provide assurance that the impacts of development are being avoided and minimised such that only ‘unavoidable’ impacts remain to be offset. The section also assesses whether the Scheme and its market embeds the necessary controls to ensure that obligations are offset as required.
Background
The Biodiversity Assessment Method, and the quality of its application by DPE-Accredited Assessors, is critical to the robustness the Scheme. The method is designed to be applied to avoid and minimise impacts at proposed development sites before identifying offset obligations. The effectiveness of Scheme outcomes requires that obligations are offset with the retirement of the necessary and appropriate credits.
The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the Act) requires the relevant Minister (the current Minister for Environment and Heritage) to establish a method for the purpose of assessing the impacts of actions on threatened species and ecological communities.
The Act also specifies that this method must be applied by an accredited person. DPE is responsible for the design and implementation of this accreditation system, arrangements for which are set out in an instrument under the Act.
A Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is a report by a DPE-Accredited Assessor using the Biodiversity Assessment Method. These reports assess the biodiversity impacts of the proposed development and establish offset obligations as part of the development approval process. It is important that local councils and other development consent authorities understand and can assess the quality of these reports.
DPE manages the process of ‘retiring’ credits against the identified offset obligations. Once a credit is retired it cannot be reused to acquit another obligation, which is critical to Scheme outcomes. DPE is also responsible for maintaining records of credit transactions, which results in a legally binding transfer of credit ownership from seller to buyer.
This section assesses how effectively the supply of biodiversity credits has been supported by encouraging and enabling landholders to participate in the Scheme. It also assesses whether sufficient action is underway to address issues and risks to the establishment of BSA sites, especially in the context of known credit supply issues (section 2).
Background
Credit supply is generated when a landholder establishes a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) on their land. Establishing a BSA site requires landholders agree to an in-perpetuity management plan, so it is important that they have sufficient support and access to relevant information about risks and opportunities when deciding to do so. Ensuring adequate credits supply underpins the Scheme's ability to deliver the intended biodiversity outcomes.
A landholder establishes an offset site through a BSA, which is a legal agreement with the Minister of Environment and Heritage (delegated to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust). The BSA is registered on the title of the land.
DPE-Accredited Assessors develop Biodiversity Stewardship Site Assessment Reports, which are submitted by landholders to the BCT as part of the BSA application. These reports apply the Biodiversity Assessment Method to detail the number and types of credits that a BSA site is expected to generate by implementing a 20-year management plan. The BCT issues credits to landholders on registration of the BSA.
Ensuring an adequate and appropriate supply of credits is important so that like-for-like matches between credits and obligations can be efficiently secured in a timely way. This minimises the use of offset variation rules, and can avoid potential delays in developers securing appropriate offsets to meet their offset obligations. It also makes it easier for the BCT to locate the necessary credits to acquit the obligations it acquires from developers.
This section assesses how effectively BSA sites, which need to be managed by landholders to generate the biodiversity gains represented by credits, are regulated and supported by the Biodiversity Conservation Trust. It also assesses whether actions have been taken to address identified risks to the suitability of funds required to ensure long-term BSA site management.
Background
For Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) sites to achieve the expected biodiversity gains to offset losses from development impact, they need sufficient funding for the required management actions, and to be effectively regulated and supported over the long-term. Funding for these sites is generated through the returns on landholders' initial investment (Total Fund Deposit). The BCT is required to monitor landholders' compliance with BSAs and should also ensure ecological outcomes on sites are measured.
DPE and the BCT are responsible for developing and implementing a system of oversight to ensure the implementation of management actions at BSA sites is delivering the intended outcomes in a financially and environmentally sustainable way. The agencies' key mechanisms for delivering this are:
- calculating the costs of the required land management actions in perpetuity
- annual reporting systems for monitoring compliance with land management requirements
- reporting systems for monitoring ecological outcomes arising from land management actions.
Landholders are required to pay the required Total Fund Deposit amount for their BSA accounts into the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund, which is held in trust and managed by the BCT. A costing tool is used by landholders to calculate the value of the deposit, based on the required management payments (in perpetuity), administrative fees, and the discount rate applied.
The Total Fund Deposit can be paid upfront but is usually paid from the proceeds of the sale of credits. Once this occurs the BSA site becomes 'active' and management payments commence to enable the landholder to undertake the required management actions. BSA sites that have not yet sold enough credits to make the deposit are 'passive' sites that do not require active land management.
Sites in passive management for an extended duration present risks to biodiversity outcomes, and potentially to Scheme integrity, if the quality of credits is undermined due to an absence of active site management.
Appendix one – Response from agencies
Appendix two – Like-for-like, variation and ancillary rules
Appendix three – Detail on progress of the IIAP
Appendix four – About the audit
Appendix five – 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 #367 - released 30 August 2022
Audit Insights 2018-2022
What the report is about
In this report, we have analysed the key findings and recommendations from our audit reports over the past four years.
This analysis includes financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits of state and local government entities that were tabled in NSW Parliament between July 2018 and February 2022.
The report is framed by recognition that the past four years have seen significant challenges and emergency events.
The scale of government responses to these events has been wide-ranging, involving emergency response coordination, service delivery, governance and policy.
The report is a resource to support public sector agencies and local government to improve future programs and activities.
What we found
Our analysis of findings and recommendations is structured around six key themes:
- Integrity and transparency
- Performance and monitoring
- Governance and oversight
- Cyber security and data
- System planning for disruption
- Resource management.
The report draws from this analysis to present recommendations for elements of good practice that government agencies should consider in relation to these themes. It also includes relevant examples from recent audit reports.
In this report we particularly call out threats to the integrity of government systems, processes and governance arrangements.
The report highlights the need for balanced advice to government on options and risks, for transparent documentation and reporting of directions and decisions, and for early and open sharing of information with integrity bodies and audit.
A number of the matters highlighted in this report are similar to those described in our previous Insights Report, (Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018) specifically in relation to cyber and information security, to performance measurement, reporting and evaluation, and system and workforce planning and capability.
Fast facts
- 72 audits included in the Audit Insights 2018–2022 analysis
- 4 years of audits tabled by the Auditor-General for New South Wales
- 6 key themes for Audit Insights 2018–2022.
I am pleased to present the Audit Insights 2018–2022 report. This report describes key findings, trends and lessons learned from the last four years of audit. It seeks to inform the New South Wales Parliament of key risks identified and to provide insights and suggestions to the agencies we audit to improve performance across the public sector.
The report is framed by a very clear recognition that governments have been responding to significant events, in number, character and scale, over recent years. Further, it acknowledges that public servants at both state and council levels generally bring their best selves to work and diligently strive to deliver great outcomes for citizens and communities. The role of audit in this context is to provide necessary assurance over government spending, programs and services, and make suggestions for continuous improvement.
A number of the matters highlighted in this report are similar to those described in our previous Insights Report, (Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018) specifically in relation to cyber and information security, to performance measurement, reporting and evaluation, and system and workforce planning and capability.
However, in this report we particularly call out threats to the integrity of government systems, processes and governance arrangements. We highlight the need for balanced advice to government on options and risks, for transparent documentation and reporting of directions and decisions, and for early and open sharing of information with integrity bodies and audit. Arguably, these considerations are never more important than in an increasingly complex environment and in the face of significant emergency events and they will be key areas of focus in our future audit program.
While we have acknowledged the challenges of the last few years have required rapid responses to address the short-term impacts of emergency events, there is much to be learned to improve future programs. I trust that the insights developed in this report provide a helpful resource to public sector agencies and local government across New South Wales. I would be pleased to receive any feedback you may wish to offer.
Margaret Crawford
Auditor-General for New South Wales
| Integrity and transparency | Performance and monitoring | Governance and oversight | Cyber security and data | System planning | Resource management |
| Insufficient documentation of decisions reduces the ability to identify, or rule out, misconduct or corruption. | Failure to apply lessons learned risks mistakes being repeated and undermines future decisions on the use of public funds. | The control environment should be risk-based and keep pace with changes in the quantum and diversity of agency work. | Building effective cyber resilience requires leadership and committed executive management, along with dedicated resourcing to build improvements in cyber security and culture. | Priorities to meet forecast demand should incorporate regular assessment of need and any emerging risks or trends. Absence of an overarching strategy to guide decision-making results in project-by-project decisions lacking coordination. | Governments must weigh up the cost of reliance on consultants at the expense of internal capability, and actively manage contracts and conflicts of interest. |
| Government entities should report to the public at both system and project level for transparency and accountability. | Government activities benefit from a clear statement of objectives and associated performance measures to support systematic monitoring and reporting on outcomes and impact. | Management of risk should include mechanisms to escalate risks, and action plans to mitigate risks with effective controls. | In implementing strategies to mitigate cyber risk, agencies must set target cyber maturity levels, and document their acceptance of cyber risks consistent with their risk appetite. | Service planning should establish future service offerings and service levels relative to current capacity, address risks to avoid or mitigate disruption of business and service delivery, and coordinate across other relevant plans and stakeholders. | Negotiations on outsourced services and major transactions must maintain focus on integrity and seeking value for public funds. |
| Entities must provide balanced advice to decision-makers on the benefits and risks of investments. | Benefits realisation should identify responsibility for benefits management, set baselines and targets for benefits, review during delivery, and evaluate costs and benefits post-delivery. | Active review of policies and procedures in line with current business activities supports more effective risk management. | Governments hold repositories of valuable data and data capabilities that should be leveraged and shared across government and non-government entities to improve strategic planning and forecasting. | Formal structures and systems to facilitate coordination between agencies is critical to more efficient allocation of resources and to facilitate a timely response to unexpected events. | Transformation programs can be improved by resourcing a program management office. |
| Clear guidelines and transparency of decisions are critical in distributing grant funding. | Quality assurance should underpin key inputs that support performance monitoring and accounting judgements. | Governance arrangements can enable input into key decisions from both government and non-government partners, and those with direct experience of complex issues. | Workforce planning should consider service continuity and ensure that specialist and targeted roles can be resourced and allocated to meet community need. | ||
| Governments must ensure timely and complete provision of information to support governance, integrity and audit processes. | |||||
| Read more | Read more | Read more | Read more | Read more | Read more |
This report brings together a summary of key findings arising from NSW Audit Office reports tabled in the New South Wales Parliament between July 2018 and February 2022. This includes analysis of financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits tabled over this period.
- Financial audits provide an independent opinion on the financial statements of NSW Government entities, universities and councils and identify whether they comply with accounting standards, relevant laws, regulations, and government directions.
- Performance audits determine whether government entities carry out their activities effectively, are doing so economically and efficiently, and in accordance with relevant laws. The activities examined by a performance audit may include a selected program or service, all or part of an entity, or more than one government entity. Performance audits can consider issues which affect the whole state and/or the local government sectors.
- Compliance audits and other assurance reviews are audits that assess whether specific legislation, directions, and regulations have been adhered to.
This report follows our earlier edition titled 'Performance Audit Insights: key findings from 2014–2018'. That report sought to highlight issues and themes emerging from performance audit findings, and to share lessons common across government. In this report, we have analysed the key findings and recommendations from our reports over the past four years. The full list of reports is included in Appendix 1. The analysis included findings and recommendations from 58 performance audits, as well as selected financial and compliance reports tabled between July 2018 and February 2022. The number of recommendations and key findings made across different areas of activity and the top issues are summarised at Exhibit 1.
The past four years have seen unprecedented challenges and several emergency events, and the scale of government responses to these events has been wide-ranging involving emergency response coordination, service delivery, governance and policy. While these emergencies are having a significant impact today, they are also likely to continue to have an impact into the future. There is much to learn from the response to those events that will help the government sector to prepare for and respond to future disruption. The following chapters bring together our recommendations for core elements of good practice across a number of areas of government activity, along with relevant examples from recent audit reports.
This 'Audit Insights 2018–2022' report does not make comparative analysis of trends in public sector performance since our 2018 Insights report, but instead highlights areas where government continues to face challenges, as well as new issues that our audits have identified since our 2018 report. We will continue to use the findings of our Insights analysis to shape our future audit priorities, in line with our purpose to help Parliament hold government accountable for its use of public resources in New South Wales.
Appendix one – Included reports, 2018–2022
Appendix two – About this report
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.
COVID-19: response, recovery and impact
What the report is about
This report draws together the financial impact of COVID-19 on the agencies integral to responses across the state government sector of New South Wales.
What we found
Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit NSW in January 2020, and until 30 June 2021, $7.5 billion was spent by state government agencies for health and economic stimulus. The response was largely funded by borrowings.
The key areas of spending since the start of COVID-19 in NSW to 30 June 2021 were:
- direct health response measures – $2.2 billion
- personal protective equipment – $1.4 billion
- small business grants – $795 million
- quarantine costs – $613 million
- increases in employee expenses and cleaning costs across most agencies
- vaccine distribution, including vaccination hubs – $71 million.
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the financial performance and position of state government agencies.
Decreases in revenue from providing goods and services were offset by increases in appropriations, grants and contributions, for health and economic stimulus funding in response to the pandemic.
Most agencies had expense growth, due to additional operating requirements to manage and respond to the pandemic along with implementing new or expanded stimulus programs and initiatives.
Response measures for COVID-19 have meant the NSW Government is unlikely to meet targets in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 being:
- annual expense growth kept below long-term average revenue growth
- elimination of State’s unfunded superannuation liability by 2030.
Fast facts
- First COVID-19 case in NSW on 25 January 2020
- COVID-19 vaccinations commenced on 21 February 2021
- By 31 December 2021, 25.2 million PCR tests had been performed in NSW and 13.6 million vaccines administered, with 93.6% of the 16 and over population receiving two doses
- During 2020–21, NSW Health employed an extra 4,893 full-time staff and incurred $28 million in overtime mainly in response to COVID-19
- During 2020–21, $1.2 billion was spent on direct health COVID-19 response measures and $532 million was spent on quarantine for incoming international travellers
Section highlights
|
Section highlights
|
Transport 2021
What the report is about
The results of the Transport cluster agencies’ financial statement audits for the year ended 30 June 2021.
What we found
Unmodified financial statement audit opinions were issued for all Transport cluster agencies. Resolution of issues delayed signing the Transport Asset Holding Entity of NSW (TAHE) until 24 December 2021. Matters relating to TAHE are also reported in the report on State Finances 2021.
Emphasis of Matter - TAHE
An Emphasis of Matter paragraph was included in TAHE's audit opinion to draw attention to uncertainty associated with:
- future access and licence fees that are subject to re-signed agreements
- an additional $4.1 billion of funding that is outside the forward estimates period
- a significant portion of the fair value of TAHE’s non-financial assets is reflected in the terminal value, which is outside the ten-year contract period to 30 June 2031, and the risk that TAHE will not be able to negotiate contract terms to support current projections.
TAHE's transition from RailCorp also changed its valuation of assets to an income approach, resulting in a $20.3 billion decrease to the fair value. The fair value decrease was because the cash flows were not sufficient to support the previous recorded value.
TAHE corrected a misstatement of $1.2 billion relating to the valuation of its assets. This followed significant deliberation on key judgements and assumptions, with TAHE adopting risk assumptions in its valuation that were not in line with comparable benchmarks.
Emphasis of Matter - State Transit Authority of New South Wales
An Emphasis of Matter paragraph was included in the State Transit Authority of NSW's (the Authority) audit opinion to draw attention to the financial statements not prepared on a going concern basis. This was because the NSW Government put the Authority's bus contracts out to competitive tender and accordingly, management assessed the Authority's principal activities are not expected to operate for a full 12 months after 30 June 2021.
The implementation of AASB 1059 ‘Service Concession Arrangements: Grantors’ resulted in a net increase in assets of $23.5 billion across the Transport cluster.
The 2020–21 audits identified six high-risk and 45 moderate risk issues across the cluster. Fourteen of the moderate risk issues were repeat issues, including information technology controls around management of user access for key financial systems and payroll processes.
The high-risk issues, in addition to those related to TAHE and previously reported in the report on State Finances 2021, include:
- absence of conflict of declarations related to land acquisition processes at Transport for NSW
- no evidence of conflict of interest declarations obtained by TAHE from consultants and contractors regarding involvement in other engagements.
What we recommended
TAHE needs to:
- finalise revised commercial agreements to reflect fees detailed in a Heads of Agreement signed on 18 December 2021
- prepare robust projections and business plans to support the required rate of return.
NSW Treasury and TAHE should monitor the risk that control of TAHE assets could change in the future.
Transport for NSW needs to significantly improve its processes to ensure all key information is identified and shared with the Audit Office.
Transport agencies should implement a process to ensure conflicts of interest declarations are completed for land acquisitions and applied consistently across the cluster.
Transport agencies should implement a process to capture all contracts and agreements entered to ensure:
- agencies are aware of contractual obligations
- financial reporting implications are assessed, particularly with respect to leases, revenue and service concession arrangements.
Fast facts
The Transport cluster plans and delivers infrastructure and integrated services across all modes of transport. This includes road, rail, bus, ferry, light rail, cycling and walking. There are 11 agencies in the cluster.
- $128b road and maritime system infrastructure assets as at 30 June 2021
- 100% unqualified audit opinions were issued on agencies 30 June 2021 financial statements
- 26 monetary misstatements were reported in 2020–21
- $24.9b rail systems infrastructure assets as at 30 June 2021
- 6 high-risk management letter findings were identified
- 37% of reported issues were repeat issues
This report provides Parliament and other users of the transport cluster (the cluster) agencies’ financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
Financial reporting is an important element of good governance. Confidence and transparency in public sector decision making are enhanced when financial reporting is accurate and timely.
This chapter outlines our audit observations related to the financial reporting of agencies in the cluster for 2021.
Section highlights
|
Appropriate financial controls help ensure the efficient and effective use of resources and administration of agency policies. They are essential for quality and timely decision making.
This chapter outlines our observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the cluster.
Section highlights
|
Findings reported to management
The number of findings reported to management has increased, and 37 per cent of all issues were repeat issues
Breakdowns and weaknesses in internal controls increase the risk of fraud and error. Deficiencies in internal controls, matters of governance interest and unresolved issues were reported to management and those charged with governance of agencies. The Audit Office does this through management letters, which include observations, related implications, recommendations and risk ratings.
In 2020–21, there were 73 findings raised across the cluster (56 in 2019–20) and 37 per cent of all issues were repeat issues (43 per cent in 2019–20).
In view of the recent performance audit ‘Managing Cyber Risks’ and compliance audit ‘Compliance with the NSW Cyber Security Policy’ involving the cluster, it is noted with concern that the most common repeat issues related to weaknesses in controls over information technology user access administration and password management. Moderate risk issues included completeness and accuracy of contract registers, accounting for assets and management of supplier and payroll masterfiles.
A delay in implementing audit recommendations increases the risk of intentional and accidental errors in processing information, producing management reports, and generating financial statements. This can impair decision-making, affect service delivery and expose agencies to fraud, financial loss and reputational damage. Control deficiencies may also mean agency staff are less likely to follow internal policies, inadvertently causing the agency not to comply with legislation, regulation, and central agency policies.
The table below describes the common issues identified across the cluster by category and risk rating.
| Risk rating | Issue |
| Information technology | |
| Moderate: 7 new, 4 repeat** |
The financial audits identified opportunities for agencies to improve information technology processes and controls that support the integrity of financial data used to prepare agencies' financial statements. Of particular concern are issues associated with:
|
| Low: 4 new, 1 repeat*** | |
| Internal control deficiencies or improvements | |
| High: 1 new* |
The financial audits identified internal control deficiencies across key business processes, including:
|
| Moderate: 15 new, 8 repeat** | |
| Low: 2 new, 5 repeat*** | |
| Financial reporting | |
| High: 3 new* |
The financial audits identified opportunities for agencies to strengthen financial reporting, including:
|
| Moderate: 3 new, 1 repeat** | |
| Low: 2 new*** | |
| Governance and oversight | |
| High: 1 new* |
The financial audits identified opportunities for agencies to improve governance and oversight processes, including:
|
| Moderate: 2 new** | |
| Non-compliance with key legislation and/or central agency policies | |
| High: 1 new* |
The financial audits identified the need for agencies to improve its compliance with key legislation and central agency policies, including:
|
| Moderate: 4 new, 1 repeat** | |
| Low: 1 new, 7 repeat*** | |
** Moderate risk from the consequence and/or likelihood of an event that has had, or may have a negative impact on the entity.
*** Low risk from the consequence and/or likelihood of an event that has had, or may have a negative impact on the entity.
Note: Management letter findings are based either on final management letters issued to agencies.
2020–21 audits identified six high-risk findings
High-risk findings were reported at the following cluster agencies.
| Agency | Description |
| 2020–21 findings | |
| Transport for NSW (new finding) |
Declaration of conflicts of interest in the land acquisition process In 2021, we conducted a performance audit over the Acquisition of 4–6 Grand Avenue, Camellia which examined:
The report made several recommendations over Transport for NSW’s internal policies and procedures to guide the land acquisition process. As part of the financial audit, we obtained an understanding of key controls and processes relating to the acquisition of land, relevant to the audit of the financial statements. We found that conflicts of interests were not always declared by all officers involved in the land acquisition process. Furthermore, processes for declaring conflicts of interests are not consistently applied across cluster agencies. Out of a sample of 19 land acquisitions tested, we identified:
Management advised that the land acquisition processes, at the time of the land acquisitions, did not require formal conflicts of interests to be declared as they believe that as per Transport for NSW code of conduct, declaration is only required where the staff member considers that a potential or perceived Conflict of Interest exists. However, Transport for NSW's Procurement Policy requires the documentation of formal declarations from all staff involved in procurement activities to formally disclose any conflicts of interest or state that they do not have a conflict of interest. This matter has been included as a high-risk finding in the management letter as absence of rigorous and consistent management of conflicts of interests, and non-compliance with established policies increases the risk that Transport for NSW may be exposed to reputational damage or financial losses in relation to land acquisitions. Furthermore, this may result in lack of probity or value-for money considerations during the land acquisition process. Further details are elaborated below under 'Land acquisitions'. |
| Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (new finding) |
Control over TAHE assets and operations The State-Owned Corporations Act 1989 maintains that all decisions relating to the operation of a statutory state-owned corporation (SOC) are to be made by or under the authority of the board. However, under the Transport Administration Act 1988 (TAA), the functions of TAHE may only be exercised under one or more operating licences issued by the portfolio minister. The current Operating Licence confers terms and conditions for TAHE to carry out its functions, and imposes constraints on TAHE, including (but not limited to):
Such operating licences are short term in nature, and the TAA allows the transport minister (portfolio minister) to grant one or more operating licences to TAHE and may amend, substitute, or impose, amend or revoke conditions of the operating licence. For the current year, the legal form of the arrangements established in its first year of operation imply TAHE has control over the assets based on the Implementation Deed and the agreements signed with the public operators. However, risks remain as TAHE is in its early stages, and the actual substance of operations will need to be observed and considered. Given the restrictions that can be placed on the entity through the Operating Licence, and the ability to make further changes to the Operating Licence and Statement of Expectations set by the portfolio minister, there is a risk there could be limitations placed on the Board of Directors to operate with sufficient independence in its decision-making with respect to the operations of TAHE. Over time, this may further impact the degree of control required by TAHE to satisfy the recognition criteria over its assets. It may also fundamentally change the presentation of TAHE’s financial statements. Future limitations to the degree of control TAHE, and its Board, can exercise over its functions may impact the degree of control TAHE has over its assets going forward. As part of the 2021–22 audit, we will monitor and assess whether, in substance, these assets continue to be controlled by TAHE and whether, in substance, TAHE can operate as an independent SOC. We require management continue to demonstrate that TAHE continues to maintain control over its assets and has the ability to operate as an independent SOC. Further details are described below under 'Transport Asset Holding Entity'. |
| Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (new finding) |
Asset valuation The final updated valuation was based on cash flows that were in a signed Heads of Agreement, which stated that it set out the proposed indicative future access and licence fees which will form the basis of the negotiations between TAHE, Transport for NSW, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains, who will work together to review access fees and licence fees payable under the agreements and to make all necessary changes to the Operating Agreements by 1 July 2022. This adds uncertainty in the cash flows. It is crucial that TAHE formalises these updated fees in legally binding signed access and licence agreements with the relevant parties as soon as possible. Refer below for further details on the Heads of Agreement. |
| Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (new finding) |
Conflict of interest (COI) management For procurement transactions through direct negotiation with single quotes, there was no evidence of COI declarations obtained from the consultants and contractors regarding involvement in other engagements. Contractors and consultants are required to declare actual COI. However, there was no requirement to confirm nil conflict of interest. In addition, there is a risk that perceived COI may not be adequately assessed or managed. TAHE is expected to operate as an independent SOC and would need to ensure any perceived or actual conflict of interest is adequately addressed. Management should implement a process to:
The declarations should consider individuals and relationships that may create, or may be perceived to create, conflicts of interest. |
| Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (new finding) |
Detailed business modelling to support returns On 18 December 2021, Transport for NSW, TAHE and the operators, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains entered into a Heads of Agreement (HoA). This HoA forms the basis of negotiations to revise the pricing within the existing 10-year contracts and deliver upon the shareholders' expectation of a return of 2.5 per cent per annum of contributed equity, including recovering the revaluation loss incurred in 2020–21. TAHE needs to revise its business plan and include detailed business modelling that supports the shareholding ministers' revised expectations of return (2.5 per cent return on the State’s equity injections and recovery of the write-down of assets over the average useful life of those assets) and align the business plan and Statement of Corporate Intent. This requires more detailed projections, estimates and plans that support how TAHE expects to recover the asset write-down and expected returns to government. The current modelling for ten years needs to be enhanced with modelling over the expected recovery period of approximately 33 years. |
| Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (new finding) |
Access price build-up Management explained that in determining access and licence fees for the agreements with Sydney Trains and NSW Trains, assets prior to the commencement of equity injections in 2015–16 were excluded from the calculations. Management explained the premise being that these assets were previously funded by government through capital grants. The replacement and refurbishment of these assets is expected to be through government funded maintenance performed through the public rail operators and/or the equity injections from NSW Treasury rather than through access and licence fees. |
The number of moderate risk findings increased from prior year
Forty-five moderate risk findings were reported in 2020–21, representing a 73.1 per cent increase from 2019–20. Of these, 14 were repeat findings, and 31 were new issues.
Key moderate risk findings related to:
- weaknesses in user access management to key financial systems
- management of contracts and agreements register
- management of supplier and payroll masterfiles
- accounting for assets
- control deficiencies at service organisations
- segregation of duties relating to the hiring of employees
- conflict of interest management
- annual leave management
- review of internal audit charter
- disaster recovery planning.
Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales
Background
The establishment of TAHE was originally announced by the NSW Government in the 2015–16 State Budget. On 1 July 2020, the former Rail Corporation New South Wales (RailCorp), a not-for-profit entity, transitioned to the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE), a for-profit statutory state-owned corporation under the Transport Administration Act 1988. There was no change in the structure of TAHE as a new entity was not created. Ownership remains fully with the government. TAHE, and the former RailCorp, were both classified as Public Non-Financial Corporation (PNFC) entities within the Total State Sector Accounts.
Prior to 1 July 2015, the government paid appropriations to Transport for NSW, a General Government Sector (GGS) agency, to construct transport assets. When completed, these assets were granted to the former RailCorp, a not for-profit entity within the PNFC sector. The grants to the former RailCorp were recorded as an expense in the State’s GGS budget result.
From 1 July 2015, the government announced the creation of TAHE (a dedicated asset manager). Funding for new capital projects was to be provided through equity injections and was no longer recorded as an expense to the GGS budget, even though the business model was yet to be determined. The change, as explained in the 2015–16 State Budget, was due to the expectation that the former RailCorp will transition to TAHE, which was intended, over time to provide a commercial return. That Budget also highlighted how the change, which was largely a change in the basis of accounting, was intended to improve the GGS budget result each year. In total, the GGS has contributed approximately $11.1 billion to TAHE since 2015–16. This includes the equity injections from the GGS to TAHE made in the current year of $2.4 billion.
NSW Treasury initially set a timetable for the stand-up of TAHE of 1 July 2019, which included finalising the business model, operating model and contracts for the use of TAHE's assets. The enactment of the Transport Administration Act 1988 resulted in RailCorp transitioning to TAHE on 1 July 2020, 12 months after its originally planned operational date. Contributions paid to the former RailCorp and subsequently to TAHE by the GGS were treated as equity investments from July 2015 forward. This treatment continued, despite delays in settling the business model. In 2020, the Audit Office raised a high-risk finding due to the significance of the financial reporting impacts and business risks for NSW Treasury and TAHE.
The business model adopted and the flow of funds between transport agencies in the GGS and PNFC sectors is shown in the diagram below. For further details refer to the Report on State Finances 2021.
Appendix one – Misstatements in financial statements submitted for audit
Appendix two – Early close procedures
Appendix three – Financial data
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Building regulation: combustible external cladding
What the report is about
The report focuses on how effectively the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) led reforms addressing the unsafe use of combustible external cladding on existing residential and public buildings.
Nine local councils were included in the audit because they have responsibilities and powers needed to implement the NSW Government’s reforms.
What we found
After the June 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London, the NSW Government committed to a ten-point action plan, which included establishing the NSW Cladding Taskforce, chaired by DCS, and with DPE as a key member. The Taskforce co-ordinates and oversees the implementation of the plan.
Depending on the original source of development approval, either individual local councils or DPE are responsible for ensuring that buildings are identified, assessed, and remediated. NSW Government-owned buildings are the responsibility of each department.
Identifying buildings potentially at risk was complex and resource intensive. However, on balance, it is likely that most affected buildings have now been identified.
By October 2021, around 40 per cent of assessed high-risk buildings that are the responsibility of local councils had either been remediated or found not to pose an unacceptable fire risk.
By February 2022, almost 50 per cent of affected NSW Government-owned buildings, and 90 per cent of buildings that are the responsibility of DPE, have either been cleared or are in the process of being remediated.
Earlier guidance on some key issues could have been provided by DCS and DPE in the two years after the Grenfell Tower fire. This may have reduced confusion and inconsistency across local councils we audited, and in some NSW Government departments. This especially relates to the application of the Fair Trading Commissioner's product use ban.
Given the inherent risks posed by combustible external cladding, buildings initially assessed as low-risk may also still warrant further action.
While most high-risk buildings have likely been identified, poor information handling makes it difficult to keep track of all buildings from identification, through to risk assessment and remediation.
What we recommended
DCS and DPE should:
- address the confusion surrounding the application of the Commissioner for Fair Trading's product use ban for aluminium composite panels with polyethylene content greater than 30 per cent
- develop an action plan to address buildings assessed as low-risk
- improve information systems to track all buildings from identification through to remediation.
Fast facts
| Authority responsible for ensuring that owners make their buildings safe |
Approximate number of buildings referred for further investigation* |
Approximate percentage of buildings remediated or assessed to be safe |
|---|---|---|
| Local councils | 1,200 | 40% |
| NSW Government owned | 66 | 50% |
| DPE under delegation from the Minister for Planning |
137 | 90% |
fire from combustible external cladding.
NSW Government's response to the risks posed by combustible external cladding
The NSW Government first became aware of the potential heightened risks posed by combustible external cladding on building exteriors after the 2014 Lacrosse Tower fire in Melbourne. However, it was the tragic loss of life from the Grenfell Tower fire in London, in June 2017, that gave added urgency to the need to address these risks.
Within six weeks of the London fire, the NSW Government committed to a ten-point plan of action for NSW to:
- identify and remediate any buildings with combustible external cladding
- ensure that regulation prevented the unsafe use of such cladding
- ensure that experts involved in providing advice and certifying fire safety measures had the necessary skills and experience.
One of the actions in the ten-point plan was the creation of the NSW Government's Fire Safety and External Wall Cladding Taskforce (the Cladding Taskforce) chaired by the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) as a key member.
The ten-point plan also specified that NSW Government departments would be responsible, in regard to buildings they owned to '…audit their buildings and determine if they have aluminium cladding'.
Local councils play a key role in implementing the Government's reforms, given their responsibilities and powers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and Local Government Act 1993 (Local Government Act) to approve building works (as 'consent authorities'), as well as to ensure fire safety standards are met. DPE plays an equivalent role for a smaller number of 'State Significant Developments' for which it is the consent authority under delegation from the Minister for Planning.
Commissioner for Fair Trading's building product use ban
On 18 December 2017, the Building Products (Safety) Act 2017 (BPS Act) came into effect in NSW, introducing new laws to prevent the use of unsafe building products. Notably, the BPS Act gave the Secretary of DCS and the Commissioner for Fair Trading the power to ban unsafe uses of building products.
After an extensive consultative process, the Commissioner for Fair Trading used these powers to issue a product use ban on 15 August 2018. This banned the use of external wall cladding of aluminium composite panels with a core comprised of more than 30 per cent polyethylene by mass on new buildings, unless the proposed use was subject to independent fire propagation testing of the specific product and method of application to a building in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.
Buildings occupied before the product use ban came into force are not automatically required to have the banned product removed. Under the BPS Act, consent authorities may determine necessary actions to eliminate or minimise the risk posed by the banned material on existing buildings.
Project Remediate
Project Remediate is a three-year NSW Government program announced in November 2020. The program was designed by the NSW Government to assist building owners of multi-storey apartments (two storeys or more) with high-risk combustible cladding to remediate their building to a high standard and for a fair price.
The scheme is voluntary and includes government paying for the interest on ten-year loans, as well as incorporating assurance and project management services to provide technical and practical support to owners’ corporations and strata managing agents. Building remediations under the program are expected to commence in 2022.
About this audit
This audit assessed whether DCS and DPE effectively led reforms to manage the fire safety risk of combustible external cladding on existing residential and public buildings.
In making this assessment, we considered whether the expressed policy intent of the NSW Government's ten-point plan for fire safety reform had been achieved by asking:
- are the fire safety risks of combustible external cladding on existing buildings identified and remediated?
- is there a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products on existing buildings?
- is fire safety certification for combustible external cladding on existing buildings carried out impartially, ethically and in the public interest by qualified experts?
Consistent with the focus of the Cladding Taskforce on multi-storey residential buildings and public buildings, the scope of our audit is limited to buildings categorised under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) as class 2, 3 and 9. These classes are defined in detail in section 1.2, but include: multi-unit residential apartments, hotels, motels, hostels, back-packers, and buildings of a public nature, including health care buildings, schools, and aged care buildings. The scope was also limited to existing buildings, which is defined as buildings occupied by 22 October 2018.
Auditees
The Department of Customer Service chairs the NSW Government's Cladding Taskforce, which is responsible for coordinating the combustible external cladding reforms. The Commissioner of Fair Trading sits within DCS and DCS regulates the industry accreditation scheme for fire safety practitioners, as well as administering the BPS Act.
The Department of Planning and Environment administers the EPA Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation), which regulate the building development process. As well as being the delegated consent authority for State Significant Developments, DPE is also responsible for maintaining the mandatory cladding register requiring building owners of multi-storey (BCA class 2, 3 or 9) buildings to register buildings with combustible external cladding on an online portal.
Functions and responsibilities between DCS and DPE varied over time. For example, in October 2019, the DPE building policy team responsible for co-ordinating the DPE response to the combustible cladding issue was transferred to DCS, following changes to agency responsibilities resulting from machinery of government changes. DPE advised this resulted in a lessening of DPE's subsequent policy work on combustible cladding and its involvement in the Cladding Taskforce.
While the focus of the audit was on the oversight and coordination provided by DCS and DPE, nine councils were also auditees for this performance audit. Councils play an essential part as consent authorities for building development approvals in NSW, as well as having responsibilities and powers to ensure fire safety standards. To fully understand how well their activities were overseen and coordinated, a sample of councils was included as auditees.
Nine councils were selected to represent both metropolitan and regional areas, noting that there are very few in-scope buildings in rural areas. The audited councils were:
- Bayside Council
- City of Canterbury Bankstown Council
- Cumberland City Council
- Liverpool City Council
- City of Newcastle Council
- City of Parramatta Council
- City of Ryde Council
- City of Sydney Council
- Wollongong City Council.
Terminology
The two NSW Government department auditees have, over time, been subject to machinery of government changes, which have changed some of their functions and what the departments are called.
Relevant to this audit, the effect of these changes has been:
- the Department of Finance, Services, and Innovation (DFSI) became the Department of Customer Services (DCS) on 1 July 2019
- on 1 July 2019, the Department of Planning and Environment became the Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment (DPIE)
- on 21 December 2021, DPIE became the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).
To avoid confusion, we use the titles by which these departments are known at the date of this report: the Department of Customer Service and the Department of Planning and Environment.
Conclusion
At July 2017, immediately after the Grenfell Tower fire, there was no reliable source to identify buildings that may have had combustible external cladding. However, it is now likely that most high-risk buildings have been identified.
Following the 2014 Lacrosse Tower fire in Melbourne, the NSW Government recognised that there was a need to be able to identify buildings in NSW that could have combustible external cladding.
The process of identifying buildings that could have combustible external cladding has been complex, resource-intensive, and inefficient principally due to the lack of centralised and coordinated building records in NSW. In total, approximately 1,200 BCA class 2, 3 and 9 buildings have been brought to the attention of councils by either Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW), the Cladding Taskforce, or through councils' own inspection for possible further action. In addition, approximately 2,000 more buildings were inspected by FRNSW but not referred to local councils because they either had no combustible external cladding or had combustible external cladding not assessed as being high-risk.
A multi-pronged approach to identifying buildings has been used by the DCS and DPE, through the Cladding Taskforce. While it is impossible to know the full scope of potentially affected buildings, the approach appears thorough in having identified most relevant buildings.
The process of clearing buildings with combustible external cladding has been inconsistent.
In the more than four years since the NSW Government's ten-point plan was announced, around 40 per cent of the buildings brought to the attention of councils have been cleared by either rectification or being found not to pose an unacceptable fire risk. Also, around 50 per cent of NSW Government-owned buildings identified with combustible external cladding and almost 90 per cent of identified buildings for which DPE is consent authority have been cleared or remediation is underway.
While DCS and DPE did seek to work cooperatively with councils and provided high-level guidance on the NSW Government’s fire safety reforms, it took until September 2019 before a model process and other detailed advice was provided to councils to encourage consistent processes. DCS and DPE advice to councils and NSW Government-building owners should have been more timely on two key issues:
- the use of experts in the process of assessing and remediating existing buildings, and
- the implementation of the product use ban on aluminium composite panels with polyethylene content 30 per cent or greater.
Clarifying the application of the product use ban may require consent authorities and building owners to revisit how some buildings have been cleared.
The management of buildings assessed as low-risk by FRNSW, estimated to be over 500, has not been a priority of the Cladding Taskforce to date, despite those buildings potentially posing unacceptable fire risks.
Information management by the Cladding Taskforce is inadequate to provide a high-level of assurance that all known affected buildings have been given proper attention.
While most high-risk buildings have likely been identified, information management is not sufficiently robust to reliably track all buildings through the process from identification, through to risk assessment and, where necessary, remediation.
Reforms to certifier registration schemes are limited to new buildings and do not apply to the existing buildings covered by this audit.
While reforms are limited in application to new buildings, some consent authorities took steps to obtain greater assurance on the quality of the work done by fire safety experts regarding combustible external cladding on existing buildings. For example, by requiring fire safety experts to be appropriately qualified and requiring peer review of cladding risk assessments and proposed remediation plans.
This chapter considers the part played by DCS and DPE as key members of the Cladding Taskforce in ensuring that buildings with combustible external cladding were effectively identified and remediated through processes implemented by:
- local councils or DPE, where those bodies were consent authorities under the EPA Act for the relevant buildings
- in the case of NSW Government buildings, the departments that owned those buildings.
This chapter considers what has been done to deliver a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products.
This chapter considers whether reforms have ensured that only people with the necessary skills and experience are certifying buildings and signing off on fire-safety.
Inspections of existing buildings and development of any subsequent action plans to address combustible external cladding are not activities covered by accreditation or registration schemes for building certifiers
Almost all the risk assessment and remediation work done on buildings in the scope of this audit have been undertaken under fire safety orders issued by consent authorities using their powers under the EPA Act. This has been the recommended approach by DPE and DCS since at least 2016 (that is, before the Grenfell Tower fire in London).
While there have been reforms to certifier registrations scheme, these were not intended to ensure that combustible cladding-remediation on existing buildings is supported by people with the necessary skills and experience in fire safety under the fire safety order process. Instead, they are focused on offering better assurance for work done in respect to new building projects where accredited experts certify that building work is carried out in accordance with BCA under the DCS managed certifier registration schemes.
No steps have been taken to ensure the quality of the work done by experts inspecting, assessing the fire risk and developing action plans to address combustible external cladding on existing buildings, other than where consent authorities have chosen to exercise their discretion. This includes requiring fire safety experts to be appropriately qualified and requiring peer review of some cladding risk assessments and remediation plans.
Consent authorities determine whether individuals with accreditation are required for combustible cladding inspection, risk assessments and remediation on existing buildings
Whether an individual with certifier accreditation participates in a cladding inspection, risk assessment, or remediation for an existing building will be determined by what councils as consent authorities specify in their fire safety orders unless building owners opt to use such experts without being directed to do so by the consent authority.
As discussed earlier, councils acting as consent authorities vary in whether they require building owners to engage individuals with certifier accreditation. In most of the councils we audited, A1 or C10 accredited experts were either required, or recommended, to perform functions such as auditing suspected combustible cladding, or conducting fire safety risk assessments and developing plans to rectify combustible cladding.
However, these types of work are not functions covered by the accreditation or registration schemes that apply to building and development certifiers.
Certifier accreditation schemes do not cover cladding remediation work done under fire safety orders
While councils may require or recommend that independent accredited A1 or C10 certifiers be engaged by building owners for cladding risk assessment and remediation, they are not performing those functions as certifiers — they are, in effect, more akin to expert consultants. Accordingly, how they perform their functions and duties is not covered by the legislation supporting the accreditation scheme for certifiers that was operated until July 2020 by the Building Professional Board.
Instead, their use in this process is a convenient and practical way for consent authorities to ensure that building owners use appropriate experts who have the qualifications, skills and experience needed to investigate and identify combustible cladding, and then to formulate appropriate action to deal with such cladding. However, these individuals are not performing regulated or accredited work, are not subject to regulatory oversight, and are not accountable to any accreditation body for the quality of the work they perform.
While councils could (and sometimes do) choose to decline poor quality or incomplete cladding-related work prepared by A1 or C10 certifiers, the burden of resolving poor quality would fall on the building owner, who would have to seek amended or additional risk assessments or rectification plans.
In the absence of regulatory oversight, disincentives for poor quality cladding-related work, may include litigation being commenced by the property owner, harm to the expert's reputation in a small and competitive market, and the potential impact on whether the individual could retain their professional indemnity insurance at a reasonable cost (especially in an environment when many insurance providers withdrew coverage for cladding related work).
Reforms impact on regulated experts doing work on new buildings
The reforms that commenced on 1 July 2020, replaced categories of accreditation with classes of registration, and varied the classes such that:
- accredited building surveyor category A1 became registered building surveyor-unrestricted
- accredited certifier—fire safety engineer category C10 became registered certifiers-fire safety.
The legislation that introduced these reforms, the Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018, also repealed the pre-existing Building Professionals Act 2005 and abolished the Building Professionals Board. The new Act was accompanied by the Building and Development Certifiers Regulation 2020.
While the scope of this audit is limited to existing buildings, we note that there are buildings with combustible external cladding that are yet to be remediated. Just as these processes previously drew on the expertise of A1 and C10 category certifiers, it seems inevitable that the remediation of existing buildings will continue to draw on the expertise of the equivalent new classes of registered building surveyor-unrestricted and registered certifier-fire safety.
Appendix one – Response from 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 #364 - released 13 April 2022.
