Reports
Waste levy and grants for waste infrastructure
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today that examined the effectiveness of the waste levy and grants for waste infrastructure in minimising the amount of waste sent to landfill and increasing recycling rates.
The audit found that the waste levy has a positive impact on diverting waste from landfill. However, while the levy rates increase each year in line with the consumer price index, the EPA has not conducted a review since 2009 to confirm whether they are set at the optimal level. The audit also found that there were no objective and transparent criteria for which local government areas should pay the levy, and the list of levied local government areas has not been reviewed since 2014.
Grant funding programs for waste infrastructure administered by the EPA and the Environmental Trust have supported increases in recycling capacity. However, these grant programs are not guided by a clear strategy for investment in waste infrastructure.
The Auditor-General made six recommendations aimed at ensuring the waste levy is as effective as possible at meeting its objectives and ensuring funding for waste infrastructure is contributing effectively to recycling and waste diversion targets.
Overall, waste generation in New South Wales (NSW) is increasing. This leads to an increasing need to manage waste in ways that reduce the environmental impact of waste and promote the efficient use of resources. In 2014, the NSW Government set targets relating to recycling rates and diversion of waste from landfill, to be achieved by 2021–22. The NSW Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy 2014–21 identifies the waste levy, a strong compliance regime, and investment in recycling infrastructure as key tools for achieving these waste targets.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the NSW Government in minimising waste sent to landfill and increasing recycling rates. The audit focused on the waste levy, which is paid by waste facility operators when waste is sent to landfill, and grant programs that fund infrastructure for waste reuse and recycling.
The waste levy is regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and is generally paid when waste is disposed in landfill. The waste levy rates are set by the NSW Government and prescribed in the Protection of Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014. As part of its broader role in reviewing the regulatory framework for managing waste and recycling, the EPA can provide advice to the government on the operation of the waste levy.
The purpose of the waste levy is to act as an incentive for waste generators to reduce, re-use or recycle waste by increasing the cost of sending waste to landfill. In 2019–20, around $750 million was collected through the waste levy in NSW. The government spends approximately one third of the revenue raised through the waste levy on waste and environmental programs.
One of the waste programs funded through the one third allocation of the waste levy is Waste Less, Recycle More (WLRM). This initiative funds smaller grant programs that focus on specific aspects of waste management. This audit focused on five grant programs that fund projects that provide new or enhanced waste infrastructure such as recycling facilities. Four of these programs were administered by the Environmental Trust and one by the EPA.
Conclusion
The waste levy has a positive impact on diverting waste from landfill. However, aspects of the EPA's administration of the waste levy could be improved, including the frequency of its modelling of the waste levy impact and coverage, and the timeliness of reporting. Grant funding programs have supported increases in recycling capacity but are not guided by a clear strategy for investment in waste infrastructure which would help effectively target them to where waste infrastructure is most needed. Data published by the EPA indicates that the NSW Government is on track to meet the recycling target for construction and demolition waste, but recycling targets for municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste are unlikely to be met.
Waste levy
The waste levy rate, including a schedule of annual increases to 2016, was set by the NSW Government in 2009. Since 2016, the waste levy rate has increased in line with the consumer price index (CPI). The EPA has not conducted recent modelling to test whether the waste levy is set at the optimal level to achieve its objectives. The waste levy operation was last reviewed in 2012, although some specific aspects of the waste levy have been reviewed more recently, including reviews of waste levy rates for two types of waste. The waste levy is applied at different rates across the state. Decisions about which local government areas (LGAs) are subject to the levy, and which rate each LGA pays, were made in 2009 and potential changes were considered but not implemented in 2014. Currently, there are no objective and transparent criteria for determining which LGAs pay the levy. The EPA collects waste data from waste operators. This data has improved since 2015, but published data is at least one year out of date which limits its usefulness to stakeholders when making decisions relating to waste management.
Grants for waste infrastructure
All state funding for new and enhanced waste infrastructure in NSW is administered through grants to councils and commercial waste operators. The government's Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy 2014–21 includes few priorities for waste infrastructure and there is no other waste infrastructure strategy in place to guide investment. The absence of a formal strategy to guide infrastructure investment in NSW limits the ability of the State Government to develop a shared understanding between planners, councils and the waste industry about waste infrastructure requirements and priorities. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is currently developing a 20-year waste strategy and there is an opportunity for the government to take a more direct role in planning the type, location and timing of waste infrastructure needed in NSW.
The grants administration procedures used for the grant programs reviewed in this audit were well designed. However, we identified some gaps in risk management, record-keeping and consistency of information provided to applicants and assessment teams. In four of the five programs we examined, there was no direct alignment between program objectives and the NSW Government's overall waste targets.
Achievement of the 2014–21 state targets for waste and resource recovery (WARR targets) is reliant in part on the availability of infrastructure that supports waste diversion and recycling. The state WARR targets dependent on waste infrastructure are:
- Increase recycling rates to 70 per cent for municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste, and 80 per cent for construction and demolition waste.
- Increase waste diverted from landfill to 75 per cent.
A further target — manage problem waste better by establishing or upgrading 86 drop-off facilities or services for managing household problem wastes state-wide — is dependent on accessible community waste drop-off facilities across NSW.
Exhibit 7 identifies the five grant programs that provide funding for new or enhanced waste infrastructure to increase capacity for reuse or recycling of waste. All five of these programs were examined in the audit.
In addition to the grant programs shown in Exhibit 7, other programs provide funding for infrastructure, but at a smaller scale. Examples of these include:
- Bin Trim which provides rebates to small businesses for small scale recycling equipment such as cardboard and soft plastic balers.
- Litter grants which provide funding for litter bins.
- Weighbridges grants for installation of a weighbridge at waste facilities.
- Landfill consolidation and environmental improvement grants for rural councils to replace old landfills with transfer stations or to improve the infrastructure at landfill sites.
Appendix one – Responses from audited agencies
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #343 - released 26 November 2020
Internal controls and governance 2020
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford today released her report on the findings and recommendations from the 2019–20 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector.
The bushfire and flood emergencies and the COVID‑19 pandemic continue to have a significant impact on the people and public sector of New South Wales. The scale of the government response to these events has been significant. The report focuses on the effectiveness of internal controls and governance processes, including relevant agencies’ response to the emergencies. In particular, the report focuses on:
- financial and information technology controls
- business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements
- procurement, including emergency procurement
- delegations that support timely and effective decision-making.
Due to the ongoing impact of COVID‑19 agencies have not yet returned to a business‑as‑usual environment. ‘Agencies will need to assess their response to the recent emergencies and update their business continuity, disaster recovery and other business resilience frameworks to reflect the lessons learnt from these events’ the Auditor-General said.
The report noted that special procurement provisions were put in place to allow agencies to better respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Auditor-General recommended agencies update their procurement policies to reflect the current requirements of the NSW Procurement Framework and the emergency procurement requirements.
This report analyses the internal controls and governance of 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2020. These 40 agencies constitute an estimated 85 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.
1. Internal control trends
| New, repeat and high risk findings |
Internal control deficiencies increased by 13 per cent compared to last year. This is predominately due to a seven per cent increase in new internal control deficiencies and 24 per cent increase in repeat internal control deficiencies. There were ten high risk findings compared to four last year. The recent emergencies have consumed agency time and resources and may have contributed to the increase in internal control deficiencies, particularly repeat deficiencies. Agencies should:
|
| Common findings |
A number of findings remain common across multiple agencies over the last four years, including:
|
2. Information technology controls
| IT general controls |
We found deficiencies in information security controls over key financial systems including:
The deficiencies above increase the risk of non-compliance with the NSW Cyber Security Policy, which requires agencies to have processes in place to manage user access, including privileged user access to sensitive information or systems and remove that access once it is not required or employment is terminated. |
3. Business continuity and disaster recovery planning
| Assessing risks to business continuity and Scenario testing |
The response to the recent emergencies and the COVID-19 pandemic has encompassed a wide range of activities, including policy setting, on-going service delivery, safety and availability of staff, availability of IT and other systems and financial management. Agencies were required to activate their business continuity plans in response, and with the continued impact of COVID-19 have not yet returned to a business-as-usual environment. Our audits focused on the preparedness of agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified deficiencies in agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements. Twenty-three per cent of agencies had not conducted a business impact analysis (BIA) to identify critical business functions and determine business continuity priorities. Agencies can also improve the content of their BIA. For example, ten per cent of agencies' BIAs did not include recovery time objectives and six per cent of agencies did not identify key IT systems that support critical business functions. Scenario testing improves the effectiveness with which a live crisis is handled, but 40 per cent of agencies had not conducted a business continuity scenario testing exercise in the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. There were also opportunities to improve the effectiveness of scenario testing exercises by:
Agencies have responded to the recent emergencies but addressing deficiencies will ensure agencies have adequate safeguards in their processes to again respond in the future, if required. During 2020–21 we plan to conduct a performance audit on 'Business continuity and disaster recovery planning'. This audit will consider the effectiveness of agency business continuity planning arrangements to maintain business continuity through the recent emergencies and/or COVID-19 pandemic and return to a business-as-usual environment. We also plan to conduct a performance audit on whole-of-government 'Coordination of emergency responses'. |
| Responding to disruptions |
We found agencies' governance functions could have been better informed about responses to disruptive incidents that had activated a business continuity or disaster recovery response between 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. For instance: in 89 per cent of instances where a business continuity response was activated, a post-incident review had been performed. In 82 per cent of these instances, the outcomes were reported to a relevant governance or executive management committee in 95 per cent of instances where a disaster recovery response was activated, a post incident review had been performed. In 86 per cent of these instances, the outcomes were reported to a relevant governance committee or executive management committee. Examples of recorded incidents included extensive air quality issues and power outages due to bushfires, system and network outages, and infected and hijacked servers. Agencies should assess their response to the recent emergencies and the COVID-19 pandemic and update business continuity, disaster recovery and other business resilience frameworks to incorporate lessons learned. Agencies should report to those charged with governance on the results and planned actions. |
| Management review and oversight | Eighty-two per cent and 86 per cent of agencies report to their audit and risk committees (ARC) on their business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements, respectively. Only 18 per cent and five per cent of ARCs are briefed on the results of respective scenario testing. Briefing ARCs on the results of scenario testing exercises helps inform their decisions about whether sound and effective business continuity and disaster recovery arrangements have been established. |
4. Procurement, including emergency procurement
| Policy framework |
Agency procurement policies did not capture the requirements of several key NSW Procurement Board Directions (the Directions), increasing the risk of non-compliance with the Directions. We noted:
Recommendation: Agencies should review their procurement policies and guidelines to ensure they capture the key requirements of the NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework, including NSW Procurement Board Directions. |
| Managing contracts |
Eighty-eight per cent of agencies maintain a central contract register to record all details of contracts above $150,000, which is a requirement of GIPA legislation. Of the agencies that maintained registers, 13 per cent did not capture all contracts and eight per cent did not include all relevant contract details. Sixteen per cent of agencies did not periodically review their contract register. Timely review increases compliance with GIPA legislation, and enhances the effectiveness with which procurement business units monitor contract end dates, contract extensions and commence new procurement. |
| Training and support |
Ninety-three per cent of agencies provide training to staff involved in procurement processes, and a further 77 per cent of agencies provide this training on an on-going basis. Of the seven per cent of agencies that had not provided training to staff, we noted gaps in aspects of their procurement activity, including:
Training on procurement activities ensures there is effective management of procurement processes to support operational requirements, and compliance with procurement directions. |
| Procurement activities | While agencies had implemented controls for tender activities above $650,000, 43 per cent of unaccredited agencies did not comply with the NSW Procurement Policy Framework because they had not had their procurement endorsed by an accredited agency within the cluster or by NSW Procurement. This endorsement aims to ensure the procurement is properly planned to deliver a value for money outcome before it commences. |
| Emergency procurement |
As at 30 June 2020, agencies within the scope of this report reported conducting 32,239 emergency procurements with a total contract value of $316,908,485. Emergency procurement activities included the purchase of COVID-19 cleaning and hygiene supplies. The government, through NSW Procurement released the 'COVID-19 Emergency procurement procedure', which relaxed procurement requirements to allow agencies to make COVID-19 emergency procurements. Our review against the emergency procurement measures found most agencies complied with requirements. For example:
Complying with the procedure helps to ensure government resources are being efficiently, effectively, economically and in accordance with the law. Recommendation: Agency procurement frameworks should be reviewed and updated so they can respond effectively to emergency situations that may arise in the future. This includes:
|
5. Delegations
| Instruments of delegation |
We found that agencies have established financial and human resources delegations, but some had not revisited their delegation manuals following the legislative and machinery of government changes. For those agencies impacted by machinery of government changes we noted:
Delegations manuals are not always complete; 16 per cent of agencies had no delegation for writing off bad debts and 26 per cent of agencies had no delegation for writing off capital assets. Recommendation: Agencies should ensure their financial and human resources delegation manuals contain regular set review dates and are updated to reflect the Government Sector Finance Act 2018, machinery of government changes and their current organisational structure and roles and responsibilities. |
| Compliance with delegations |
Agencies did not understand or correctly apply the requirements of the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (GSF Act), resulting in non-compliance with the Act. We found that 18 per cent of agencies spent deemed appropriations without obtaining an authorised delegation from the relevant Minister(s), as required by sections 4.6(1) and 5.5(3) of the GSF Act. Further detail on this issue will be included in our Auditor-General's Reports to Parliament on Central Agencies, Education, Health and Stronger Communities, which will be tabled throughout December 2020. Recommendation: Agencies should review financial and human resources delegations to ensure they capture all key functions of laws and regulations, and clearly specify the relevant power or function being conferred on the officer. |
6. Status of 2019 recommendations
| Progress implementing last year's recommendations |
Recommendations were made last year to improve transparency over reporting on gifts and benefits and improve the visibility management and those charged with governance had over actions taken to address conflicts of interest that may arise. This year, we continue to note:
While we acknowledge the significance of the recent emergencies, which have consumed agency time and resources, we note limited progress has been made implementing these recommendations. Further detail on the status of implementing all recommendations is in Appendix 2. Recommendation: Agencies should re-visit the recommendations made in last year's report on internal controls and governance and action these recommendations. |
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations
- support ethical government.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of audit findings, the degree of risk those deficiencies pose to the agency, and a summary of the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this report presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
|
Section highlights We identified ten high risk findings, compared to four last year with two findings repeated from the previous year. There was an overall increase of 13 per cent in the number of internal control deficiencies compared to last year due to a seven per cent increase in new internal control deficiencies, and a 24 per cent increase in repeat internal control deficiencies. The recent emergencies have consumed agency time and resources and may have contributed to the increase in internal control deficiencies, particularly repeat deficiencies. We identified a number of findings that remain common across multiple agencies over the last four years. Some of these findings related to areas that are fundamental to good internal control environments and effective organisational governance. Examples include:
Policies, procedures and internal controls should be properly designed, be appropriate for the current organisational structure and its business activities, and work effectively. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to manage key financial systems.
|
Section highlights Government agencies’ financial reporting is heavily reliant on information technology (IT). We continue to see a high number of deficiencies related to IT general controls, particularly those related to user access administration. These controls are key in adequately protecting IT systems from inappropriate access and misuse. IT is also important to the delivery of agency services. These systems often provide the data to help monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of agency processes and services they deliver. Our financial audits do not review all agency IT systems. For example, IT systems used to support agency service delivery are generally outside the scope of our financial audit. However, agencies should also consider the relevance of our findings to these systems. Agencies need to continue to focus on assessing the risks of inappropriate access and misuse and the implementation of controls to adequately protect their systems, focussing on the processes in place to grant, remove and monitor user access, particularly privileged user access. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements.
|
Section highlights We identified deficiencies in agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements and opportunities for agencies to enhance their business continuity management and disaster recovery planning arrangements. This will better prepare them to respond to a disruption to their critical functions, resulting from an emergency or other serious event. Twenty-three per cent of agencies had not conducted a business impact analysis (BIA) to identify critical business functions and determine business continuity priorities and 40 per cent of agencies had not conducted a business continuity scenario testing exercise in the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. Scenario testing improves the effectiveness with which a live crisis is handled. This section focusses on the preparedness of agency business continuity and disaster recovery planning arrangements prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While agencies have responded to the recent emergencies, proactively addressing deficiencies will ensure agencies have adequate safeguards in their processes to again respond in the future, if required. During 2020–21 we plan to conduct a performance audit on 'Business continuity and disaster recovery planning'. This audit will consider the effectiveness of agency business continuity planning arrangements to maintain business continuity through the recent emergencies and/or COVID-19 pandemic and return to a business-as-usual environment. We also plan to conduct a performance audit on whole-of-government 'Coordination of emergency responses'. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of procurement agency procurement policies and procurement activity.
|
Section highlights We found agencies have procurement policies in place to manage procurement activity, but the content of these policies was not sufficiently detailed to ensure compliance with NSW Procurement Board Directions (the Directions). The Directions aim to ensure procurement activity achieves value for money and meets the principles of probity and fairness. Agencies have generally implemented controls over their procurement process. In relation to emergency procurement activity, agencies reported conducting 32,239 emergency procurements with a total contract value of $316,908,485 up to 30 June 2020. Our review of emergency procurement activity conducted during 2019–20 identified areas where some agencies did not fully comply with the 'COVID-19 Emergency procurement procedure'. We also found not all agencies are maintaining complete and accurate contract registers. This not only increases the risk of non-compliance with GIPA legislation, but also limits the effectiveness of procurement business units to monitor contract end dates, contract extensions and commence new procurement in a timely manner. We noted instances where agencies renewed or extended contracts without going through a competitive tender process during the year. |
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency compliance with financial and human resources delegations.
Appendix one – List of 2020 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2019 recommendations
Appendix three – Cluster agencies
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Governance and internal controls over local infrastructure contributions
The Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, released a report today on how well four councils managed their local infrastructure contributions during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years.
Local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions, are collected from developers to pay for local infrastructure such as drainage, local roads, open space and community facilities. Controls over local infrastructure contributions help to ensure that all contributions owed are collected, funds are spent as intended, and any contributions paid in the form of works-in-kind or dedicated land are correctly valued.
The audit found that Blacktown City Council and City of Sydney Council provided effective governance over their local infrastructure contributions whereas Central Coast and Liverpool City Councils’ governance arrangements require improvement.
The audit found that three councils had spent local infrastructure contributions in accordance with approved contributions plans. Central Coast Council and the former Gosford City Council had spent $13.2 million on administration costs in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These funds were repaid into the council’s local infrastructure fund during the course of the audit.
The Auditor-General made a number of recommendations for each council relating to improving controls over contributions and increasing transparency.
This audit examined the effectiveness of governance and internal controls over local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions, held by four councils during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years.
This performance audit was conducted with reference to the legislative and regulatory planning framework that was in place during that period.
Our work for this performance audit was completed at the end of March 2020 when we issued the final report to the four audited councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. We received their respective formal responses to the report’s recommendations during April and May 2020.
Concurrently to this audit, we sought Crown Solicitor’s advice (the ‘Advice’) regarding the use of local infrastructure contributions collected by local councils under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘the EPA Act’) for our financial audit work. The Advice clarified the applicable legislative requirements with reference to the application, investment and pooling of local infrastructure contributions. The Advice is included in Appendix 2 of this report. The Advice has not impacted on the findings and recommendations of this report.
Councils collect Local Infrastructure Contributions (LICs) from developers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979), the Local Government Act (1993) and the City of Sydney Act (2000) (EP&A Act, LG Act and City of Sydney Act) to fund infrastructure required to service and support new development. At 30 June 2018, councils across NSW collectively held more than $3.0 billion in LICs collected from developers. Just over $1.37 billion in total was held by ten councils. Councils collecting LICs must prepare a contributions plan, which outlines how LICs will be calculated and apportioned across different types of infrastructure. Councils that deliver water and sewer services prepare a development servicing plan (DSP) which allows them to collect contributions for water and sewer infrastructure.
Development timeframes are such that there is often several years between when LICs are collected and the infrastructure is required. Good governance and internal controls are needed over these funds to ensure they are available when needed and spent appropriately.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of governance and internal controls over LICs collected by four councils during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years: Blacktown City Council, Central Coast Council, City of Sydney Council and Liverpool City Council. As at June 2018 these councils held the four highest LIC balances, each in excess of $140 million.
Audit Conclusion
Three of the four councils audited were currently compliant with legislation, regulations and Ministerial Directions regarding LICs. All had gaps in governance and controls over LICs which limited effective oversight.
Three of the councils included in the audit complied with legislation, regulations and Ministerial Directions relating to LICs. Central Coast Council breached the EP&A Act between 2001 and 2019 when it used LICs for administration costs. These funds were repaid in late 2019.
While controls over the receipt and expenditure of contributions funds were largely in place at all councils, there were some exceptions relating to valuing work and land delivered in lieu of cash. Three councils do not provide probity guidance in policies relating to LICs delivered through works-in-kind. Three of the councils had contributions plans that were more than five years old.
Staff at all four councils are knowledgeable about LICs but not all councils keep procedures up to date. Three councils' governance frameworks operate effectively with senior officers from across the council involved in decisions about spending LICs, entering into voluntary planning agreements (VPAs) and reviewing contributions plans.
Transparency over key information relating to LICs is important for senior management so they can make informed decisions, and for the community who pay LICs and expect infrastructure to be provided. During the period of the audit, none of the councils included in the audit provided sufficient information to senior management or their councillors about the projected financial status of contributions plans. This information would be valuable when making broader strategic and financial decisions. Information about LIC levies and intended infrastructure is available to the community but not always easy to find.
A strong governance framework is important at each council to ensure that the funds are managed well, available when needed and spent as intended. The audit examined the following features of each council's governance framework as they apply to LICs:
- decision-making by councillors and council officers relating to LICs
- monitoring delivery of contributions plans and DSPs including:
- reviewing assumptions underlying the plans
- monitoring projected status of plans.
Internal controls over LICs are important to promote accountability, prevent fraud and deliver infrastructure to the required standard at the best possible price. If financial controls are weak or are not implemented well, there is a risk that LICs are misspent or that councils pay too much for infrastructure.
Not all councils' internal controls adequately addressed risks associated with the administration of LICs
The audit examined a number of internal controls that manage risks related to LICs. These included:
- financial controls over receipt and expenditure of LIC funds
- management of conflicts-of-interest when dealing with developers
- independent valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
- ensuring delivery and quality of works-in-kind, and obtaining security from developers in the event of non-delivery or poor quality work
- management of variations to VPAs and works-in-kind agreements.
We reviewed controls included in policies and procedures and then checked samples of work to ensure that controls were implemented. We found variation in the controls that councils implemented, and some weaknesses in controls. It is a matter for each council to assess their financial risk and develop internal controls that support the collection, management, and expenditure of LICs. However, councils must be able to assure their communities and developers that they are doing everything possible to collect all LICs owing and that work conducted by developers in lieu of cash payments is properly valued and carried out to the required standard.
Further information about audit findings in relation to internal controls for each council are included in chapters five to eight. The exhibit below demonstrates variation in several controls implemented in the audited councils.
In a 2018 report, the Independent Commission Against Corruption noted that 'the appetite for transparency is expanding in both the public and private sectors'.
The Practice Note and S64 Guidance refer to transparency, including the importance of transparency over:
- calculation and apportionment of LICs
- funding of infrastructure, including where and when infrastructure is delivered
- arrangements made with developers through VPAs.
The LIC system is largely transparent for community members who know where to look
Contributions plans and DSPs are public documents, exhibited to the public before being adopted by council. Councils included in the audit publish their contributions plans and DSPs on their websites and meet statutory requirements with regard to reporting and accessibility of information.
However, other public information relating to the LIC system is fragmented across different websites and reports and varies in detail across councils.
| Blacktown City Council | Central Coast Council | City of Sydney Council | Liverpool City Council | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial details about contributions collected and spent | Financial statements | Financial statements | Financial statements | Financial statements |
| Implementation plans for spending LICs | Contribution plans | S64 implementation plans in DSPs. S7.11 & S7.12 implementation plans developed annually within capital works plan | Contribution plans | Developed annually within capital works plan |
| Capital works underway or completed, funded by LICs | Capital works plan and annual report | Not published | Not published | Capital works plan |
The Practice Note states that councils are accountable for providing the infrastructure for which contributions are collected. Demonstrating that infrastructure has been provided is difficult with fragmented information. As an example of transparent reporting, Blacktown City Council's 2018–19 annual report includes information about infrastructure that has been delivered for every contributions plan, providing transparency over how LICs have been spent.
Use of LICs collected under VPAs is not always transparent
Contributions collected under VPAs are not required to demonstrate the same relationship to a development as LICs collected under section 7.11 of the EP&A Act. VPAs are often negotiated because a developer requests a change to a planning instrument, and it is important that these arrangements, and their outcomes, are transparent to the community.
The EP&A Regulation includes mechanisms to ensure that VPAs are partially transparent. VPAs are exhibited to the public and approved by the elected council. Councils must maintain a VPA Register and make the VPA Deeds of Agreement available on request. However, there is no obligation on council to report on the outcomes or delivery of developers' obligations under VPAs. The four audited councils vary in transparency and accessibility of information available about VPAs.
| Blacktown City Council | Central Coast Council | City of Sydney Council | Liverpool City Council | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VPA Register | Council website and annual report | Annual report | Annual report | Council website and annual report |
| VPA Deeds of Agreement | Council website | Available on request | Available on request | Council website |
| Intended use of LICs collected under VPAs | In Deeds of Agreement | In Deeds of Agreement | In VPA Register and most Deeds of Agreement | In VPA Register and most Deeds of Agreement |
| Completion of work funded by cash collected under VPAs | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Delivery of works-in-kind or land negotiated under VPAs | Not published | Not published | In VPA Register | Not published |
The Practice Note suggests that councils incorporate the intended use of LICs collected under VPAs in the Deed of Agreement, but there is no guidance relating to transparency over where and when funds have actually been spent. There is merit in councils providing greater transparency over public benefits delivered through VPAs to give communities confidence in VPAs as a planning tool.
Credit arrangements with developers are not always well documented or monitored
When levying LICs, section 7.11(6) of the EP&A Act requires councils to take into account land, money, or works-in-kind that the developer has contributed on other development sites over and above their LIC obligations. This section of the EP&A Act allows a developer to offset a LIC owed on one site against land or works contributed on another. This leads to some developers carrying 'credits' for work delivered to councils, to be paid back by reduced LICs on a future development. Blacktown City Council and Central Coast Council allow developers to carry credits. Liverpool City Council and City of Sydney Council do not permit credits and instead pay the developers for any additional work undertaken.
Councils should formally document credit arrangements and have a robust process to validate and keep track of credit balances and report on them. Central Coast Council does not keep good track of credit arrangements and neither Blacktown City Council or Central Coast Council aggregate or report on outstanding credit balances.
Blacktown City Council manages the largest LIC fund in NSW and negotiates more VPAs than any other council. Overall, Blacktown City Council demonstrates effective governance over the LIC funds but there is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans and credit arrangements with developers. Blacktown City Council also needs to update its operating procedures relating to LICs and improve security over key information.
Blacktown City Council is managing areas with high growth. There is a risk that Blacktown City Council will be unable to collect sufficient LICs to fund the infrastructure required to support that growth. However, Blacktown City Council does not assess and report to senior management or its Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee about the projected financial status of contributions plans.
Blacktown City Council has policies in place to guide the management of LICs although management of credit arrangements with developers requires greater oversight. Policies relating to works-in-kind agreements provide no guidance about probity in negotiations with developers and valuations of works-in-kind are not independent as they are paid for by the developer. Blacktown City Council's S7.11 committee structure could act as a model for other councils. Blacktown City Council is spending LICs according to its contributions plans. Staff managing LICs demonstrate good knowledge of the regulatory environment. However, a number of administrative processes need attention such as outdated procedures, lack of security over key spreadsheets, and inappropriate retention of sensitive personal data.
Recommendations
By December 2020, Blacktown City Council should:
- regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
- update council's works-in-kind policy to address probity risks during negotiations with developers
- mitigate risks associated with lack of independence in valuations of works-in-kind
- improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
- improve management oversight of credit arrangements with developers
- update procedures for managing LICs
- implement security measures over critical or personal information and spreadsheets.
Central Coast Council's governance and internal controls over LICs were not fully effective. Between 2001 and 2019, more than $13.0 million in LICs was misspent on administration costs in breach of the EP&A Act. There is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans and credit arrangements with developers. Policies and procedures from the two former councils are not aligned.
In May 2016, the newly amalgamated Central Coast Council inherited 53 contributions plans from the former Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils. Managing this number of contributions plans fragments the available funds and increases complexity. Central Coast Council is currently working on consolidating these plans. Between June 2016 and June 2019, its LIC balance doubled from $90.0 million to $196 million. Central Coast Council does not assess and report to senior management or its Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee about the projected financial status of contributions plans. Central Coast Council has a LIC committee but it has no formal charter and senior officers do not regularly attend meetings. This limits the committee's effectiveness as a decision-making body. A draft policy relating to works-in-kind agreements provide no guidance about probity in negotiations with developers. Valuations of works-in-kind and land dedications are not independent as they are paid for by the developer.
Central Coast Council has adjusted its accounts in 2018–19 by $13.2 million to repay the LIC fund for administration expenses that were not provided for in 40 contributions plans.
Recommendations
By June 2020, Central Coast Council should:
1. obtain independent validation of the adjustment made to the restricted asset accounts and general fund to repay LICs spent on administration, and adjustments made to each infrastructure category within the contributions plans
2. publish current contributions plans from the former Gosford City Council on the Central Coast Council website.
By December 2020, Central Coast Council should:
3. regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
4. increase transparency of information available to the public about LIC works planned and underway, including intended use of contributions collected under VPAs
5. consolidate existing plans, ensuring the new contributions plans includes a regular review cycle
6. develop a formal charter for the developer contributions committee and increase the seniority of membership
7. complete and adopt council's works-in-kind policy currently under development, ensuring it addresses probity risks during negotiations with developers
8. mitigate risks associated with lack of independence in valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
9. improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
10. improve management oversight of credit arrangements with developers
11. implement security measures to ensure the integrity of key spreadsheets used to manage LICs
12. align policies and procedures relating to LICs across the amalgamated council including developing policies and procedures for the management of S64 LICs
13. update council's VPA policy to address increased or indexed bank guarantees to accommodate cost increases.
City of Sydney Council manages a complex development environment across the Sydney CBD and inner suburbs. Overall, governance and internal controls over LICs are effective although there is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans.
City of Sydney Council maintains a large balance of LICs, although not excessive relative to the annual level of LIC expenditure. Unspent contributions are largely associated with open space infrastructure that cannot be delivered until suitable land is available. Thirty per cent of cash contributions are collected under VPAs and there is limited transparency over how these funds are spent. City of Sydney Council does not assess and report to management or its Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee about the projected financial status of contributions plans.
In 2017–18 and 2018–19, LICs were spent in accordance with the corresponding contributions plans. City of Sydney Council staff are knowledgeable about the regulatory environment and are supported by up-to-date policies and procedures.
Recommendations
By December 2020, City of Sydney Council should:
- regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
- improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
- periodically review the risk of unpaid LICs associated with complying development certificates and assess whether additional controls are required
- implement security measures to ensure the integrity of key spreadsheets used to manage LICs.
During the audit period 2017–18 and 2018–19, Liverpool City Council did not have effective governance and internal controls over LICs. Liverpool City Council is addressing deficiencies and risks identified through an internal audit published in December 2018 although further work is required. There is scope for improved oversight of the projected financial status of contributions plans.
In the two years to 30 June 2019, the balance of unspent LICs increased by more than 60 per cent against a relatively low pattern of expenditure. Prior to an internal audit completed in late 2018, there was no regular reporting on the status of LICs and a lack of transparency when prioritising the expenditure of LIC funds. During 2019, and following the internal audit, Liverpool City Council engaged additional skilled resources to improve focus and accountability for LICs. A LIC committee has been established to manage contributions plans and support business units to initiate relevant infrastructure projects, although it is too early to assess whether this committee is operating effectively. From February 2019, Liverpool City Council commenced monthly reporting to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) about the point-in-time status of LIC funds, and to its Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee about risks associated with LICs and the implementation of internal audit recommendations. There is limited reporting to senior management about the projected financial status of some contributions plans. Our audit found no evidence of misuse of funds during the audited period. Methods for valuing work and land are not aligned with policies and procedures and are implemented inconsistently. In addition, valuations of works-in-kind and land dedications are not independent as they are paid for by the developer. The policy relating to works-in-kind provides no guidance about managing probity risks when negotiating with developers.
Recommendations
By December 2020, Liverpool City Council should:
- regularly report to senior management on the projected financial status of contributions plans
- update council's policies and procedures to provide consistent guidance about how works and land offered by developers should be valued
- update council's Works-in-Kind and Land Acquisition Policy to address probity risks during negotiations with developers
- improve public reporting about expenditure of cash collected under VPAs
- mitigate risks associated with lack of independence in valuations of works-in-kind and dedicated land
- implement security measures over critical or private information.
Appendix one – Responses from councils and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Appendix two – Advice from the Crown Solicitor
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
Copyright notice
© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #339 - released 17 August 2020
Destination NSW's support for major events
This report focuses on whether Destination NSW (DNSW) can demonstrate that its support for major events achieves value for money.
The audit found that DNSW’s processes for assessing and evaluating the major events it funds are mostly effective, but its public reporting does not provide enough transparency.
DNSW provides clear information to event organisers seeking funding and has a comprehensive methodology for conducting detailed event assessments. However, the reasons for decisions to progress events from the initial assessment to the detailed assessment stage are not documented in sufficient detail.
DNSW does not publish detailed information about the events it funds or the outcomes of these events. This means that members of the public are unable to see whether its activities achieve value for money. However, DNSW’s internal reporting to its key decision‑makers, including the CEO, the Board and the Minister is appropriate.
The Auditor-General made four recommendations to DNSW, aimed at improving the transparency of its activities, improving the documentation of decisions and certain compliance matters, and streamlining its approach to assessing and evaluating events that receive smaller amounts of funding.
Destination NSW (DNSW) provides funding to attract a range of major events to New South Wales, including high-profile professional sports matches and tournaments, musicals, art and museum exhibitions, and participation-focused events such as festivals and sports events that members of the public can enter. The NSW Government's rationale for providing funding is to encourage event organisers to hold events in New South Wales, and to ensure that events held in New South Wales maximise the potential for attracting overseas and interstate visitors.
This audit assessed whether DNSW can demonstrate that its support for major events achieves value for money. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:
- DNSW effectively assesses proposals to support major events
- DNSW effectively evaluates the impact of its support for major events.
This audit focused on DNSW's work to attract major events to New South Wales. It did not assess DNSW's tourism promotion or development work, which includes developing tourism strategies, marketing and advertising campaigns, national and international partnerships, and regional programs.
ConclusionDestination NSW's processes for assessing event applications and evaluating its support for major events are mostly effective. DNSW's internal systems allow it to know whether its decisions are achieving value for money. Its public reporting does not provide enough information about its activities and their outcomes, although it is consistent with that of equivalent organisations in other Australian jurisdictions. DNSW's process for assessing applications for funding from organisers of major events is mostly effective. Clear information is provided to event organisers seeking funding, and DNSW has a comprehensive methodology for conducting detailed event assessments. However, the reasons for decisions to progress events from the initial assessment to the detailed assessment stage are not documented in sufficient detail. DNSW has a framework for disclosure and monitoring staff conflicts of interest. However, its forms for staff to disclose conflicts of interest on specific events they are working on are ambiguous. DNSW's management of gifts and benefits broadly complies with the minimum standards set by the Public Service Commission, but there are some gaps in its implementation of these. DNSW conducts an evaluation of each major event it supports. DNSW articulates expected outcomes in contracts with event organisers and uses a sound methodology to evaluate events. Internal reporting to its key decision-makers, including the CEO, the Board and the Minister is appropriate. However, DNSW does not publish detailed information about the events it funds or the outcomes of these events. This means that members of the public are unable to see whether its activities achieve value for money. |
Appendix one – Response from Destination NSW
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 #332 - released 9 April 2020.
Planning, Industry and Environment 2019
This report outlines the results of audits of the financial statements of agencies now grouped in the NSW Planning, Industry and Environment cluster.
Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 56 of the 66 cluster agencies’ 30 June 2019 financial statements. Ten audits remain incomplete. The cluster agencies need to improve the timeliness of financial reporting.
The Audit Office continued to identify issues regarding unprocessed Aboriginal land claims and the recognition of Crown land. ‘Auditor-General’s reports to parliament have recommended action to reduce the level of unprocessed land claims since 2007. However, the number of unprocessed claims continued to increase’, Margaret Crawford said.
One in five internal control findings were repeat issues. Key themes included information technology, asset management and improvements required to expense and payroll controls.
The report makes several recommendations including:
- Property NSW should urgently address the deficiencies in the lease data used to calculate the impact of the new leasing standard effective from 1 July 2019
- the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment should prioritise action to reduce unprocessed Aboriginal land claims
- the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment should ensure the Crown land database is complete and accurate so state agencies and local government councils are better informed about the Crown land they control.
This report analyses the results of our audits of financial statements of the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster agencies for the year ended 30 June 2019. The table below summarises our key observations.
1. Machinery of Government changes
| Creation of the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster |
The Machinery of Government (MoG) changes abolished the former Planning and Environment cluster and former Industry cluster, and created the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster on 1 July 2019. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), the Department of Industry (DOI), the Office of Environment and Heritage, and the Office of Local Government were abolished and the majority of their functions were transferred to the new Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE). |
| The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is still in the process of implementing changes |
The MoG changes bring risks and challenges to the cluster. A MoG Steering Committee, with the support of various project control groups and working groups, identified and developed responses to key risks arising from the changes. However, the DPIE will take some time to fully integrate the policies, systems and processes of the abolished Departments and agencies. |
2. Financial reporting
| Audit opinions | Unqualified audit opinions were issued for 56 of the 66 cluster agencies' 30 June 2019 financial statements audits. Ten financial statements audits are still ongoing. |
| Timeliness of financial reporting |
Fifty-five of the 57 agencies subject to statutory deadlines submitted their financial statements on time. Due to issues identified during the audit, 13 financial statements audits were not completed and audit opinions issued by the statutory deadline. Agencies prepared and submitted their early close procedures in accordance with the mandatory timeframe set by NSW Treasury. However, 17 of the 49 agencies where we reviewed early close procedures were assessed as either partially addressing or not addressing one or more of the mandatory requirements. The cluster agencies could benefit from an increased focus on early close procedures. |
| Introduction of AASB 16 'Leases' |
We noted errors in the lease data used in Property NSW's AASB 16 impact calculations, which affect both Property NSW and other government agencies. These errors were significant enough to present a risk of material misstatements to the financial statements of Property NSW and other government agencies in future reporting periods. We had similar findings in our recent performance audit on 'Property Asset Utilisation', which highlighted issues with the quality of Property NSW's records. Recommendation: Property NSW should urgently address the deficiencies in the lease data used to calculate the impact of the new leasing standard effective from 1 July 2019. |
| Unprocessed Aboriginal land claims have continued to increase |
Despite an increase in the number of claims resolved, the number of unprocessed Aboriginal land claims increased by 7.2 per cent from the prior year to 35,855 at 30 June 2019. Claims can be made over Crown land assets of the DPIE or other government agencies. Until claims are resolved, there is an uncertainty over who is entitled to the land and the uses and activities that can be carried out on the land. We first recommended action to address unprocessed claims in 2007. Recommendation (repeat issue): The DPIE should prioritise action to reduce unprocessed Aboriginal land claims. |
3. Audit observations
| Internal controls |
One in five internal control issues identified and reported to management in 2018–19 were repeat issues. The lack of user access review was the most common IT general control issue in the cluster. |
| Drought relief |
The NSW Government announced an emergency drought relief package of $500 million in 2018, in addition to other financial assistance measures already in place. Limited documentation and written agreements between relevant delivery agencies resulted in a $31.0 million misstatement relating to grant revenue. |
| Recognition of Crown land |
Crown land is an important asset of the state. Management and recognition of Crown land assets is weakened when there is confusion over who is responsible for a particular Crown land parcel. Last year we recommended the DOI should ensure the database of Crown land is complete and accurate. While the DOI has commenced actions to improve the database, this continued to be an issue in 2018–19. Recommendation (repeat issue): The DPIE should ensure the Crown land database is complete and accurate so state agencies and local government councils are better informed about the Crown land they control. |
| Developer contributions | The former DPE continued to accumulate more developer contributions revenues than it spent on infrastructure projects. Total unspent funds increased to $274 million at 30 June 2019. |
This report provides parliament and other users of the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster agencies financial statements with the results of our audits, our observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in the following areas:
- financial reporting
- audit observations.
This cluster was created by the Machinery of Government changes on 1 July 2019. This report is focused on agencies in the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster from 1 July 2019. However, these agencies were all in other clusters during 2018–19. Please refer to the section on Machinery of Government changes for more details.
Machinery of Government (MoG) refers to how the government organises the structures and functions of the public service. MoG changes are where the government reorganises these structures and functions that are given effect by Administrative orders.
The MoG changes, announced following the NSW State election on 23 March 2019, created the Planning, Industry and Environment (PIE) cluster. The Administrative Changes Orders issued on 2 April 2019, 1 May 2019 and 28 June 2019 gave effect to these changes. These orders became effective on 1 July 2019.
Section highlights
The 2019 MoG changes significantly impacted the former Planning and Environment, and Industry clusters and agencies.
- The PIE cluster combines most of the functions and agencies of the former Planning and Environment and Industry clusters from 1 July 2019.
- The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is the principal agency in the PIE cluster.
- The MoG changes bring risks and challenges to the PIE cluster.
- A MoG Steering Committee was established to oversee the transitional processes.
- The full integration of the systems and processes will not be completed in the near future.
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, Industry and Environment (PIE) cluster for 2019. In this chapter, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is referred to as DPIE, the former Department of Planning and Environment as DPE, and the former Department of Industry as DOI.
Section highlights
- Unqualified audit opinions were issued for all completed 30 June 2019 financial statements audits. However, some cluster agencies can further enhance the quality of financial reporting.
- Timeliness of financial reporting remains an issue for 13 agencies.
- Deficiencies were identified in the data used to calculate the impact of AASB 16 ‘Leases’ effective from 1 July 2019. Property NSW should urgently address these deficiencies.
- Unprocessed Aboriginal land claims continue to increase. DPIE should prioritise action to reduce unprocessed Aboriginal land claims.
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 audit observations and insights from our financial statement audits of agencies in the Planning, Industry and Environment (PIE) cluster for 2019. In this chapter, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is referred to as DPIE, the former Department of Planning and Environment as DPE, and the former Department of Industry as DOI.
Section highlights
- One in five issues identified and reported to management in 2018–19 were repeat issues.
- The lack of user access review was the most common IT general control issue in the PIE cluster.
- The PIE cluster provided significant financial assistance for drought relief.
- There continues to be significant deficiencies in Crown land records. The DPIE should ensure the Crown land database is complete and accurate.
- Unspent developer contributions funds continued to build up in 2018–19.
Appendix one – List of 2019 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2018 recommendations
Appendix three – Cluster agencies
Appendix four – Financial data
Appendix five – Management letter findings
Appendix six – Timeliness of financial reporting
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.
Internal Controls and Governance 2019
This report covers the findings and recommendations from the 2018–19 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector. The 40 agencies selected for this report constitute around 84 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.
The report provides insights into the effectiveness of controls and governance processes across the NSW public sector. It evaluates how agencies identify, mitigate and manage risks related to:
- financial controls
- information technology controls
- gifts and benefits
- internal audit
- contingent labour
- sensitive data.
The Auditor-General recommended that agencies do more to prioritise and address vulnerabilities in their internal controls and governance. The Auditor-General also recommended agencies increase the transparency of their management of gifts and benefits by publishing their registers on their websites.
This report analyses the internal controls and governance of 40 of the largest agencies in the NSW public sector for the year ended 30 June 2019.
1. Internal control trends
| New, repeat and high risk findings |
There was an increase in internal control deficiencies of 12 per cent compared to last year. The increase is predominately due to a 100 per cent increase in repeat financial and IT control deficiencies. Some agencies attributed the delay in actioning repeat findings to the diversion of staff from their regular activities to implement and operationalise the recent Machinery of Government changes. As a result, actions to address audit recommendations have been deferred or re prioritised, as the changes are implemented. Agencies need to ensure they are actively managing the risks associated with having these vulnerabilities in internal control systems unaddressed for extended periods of time. |
| Common findings |
A number of findings were common to multiple agencies. These findings often related to areas that are fundamental to good internal control environments and effective organisational governance, such as:
|
2. Information technology controls
| IT general controls |
We examined information security controls over key financial systems that support the preparation of agency financial statements. We found:
We also found 20 per cent of agencies had deficient IT program change controls, mainly related to segregation of duties in approval and authorisation processes, and user acceptance testing of program changes prior to deployment into production environments. User acceptance testing helps identify potential issues with software incompatibility, operational workflows, absent controls and software issues, as well as areas where training or user support may be required. |
3. Gifts and benefits
| Gifts and benefits registers |
All agencies had a gifts and benefits policy and 90 per cent of agencies maintain a gifts and benefits register. However, 51 per cent of the gifts and benefits registers we examined contained incomplete declarations, such as missing details for the approving officer, value of the gift and/or benefit offered and reasons supporting the decision. In some cases, gaps in recorded information meant the basis for decisions around gifts and benefits was not always clear, making it difficult to determine whether decisions in those instances were appropriate, compliant with policy and were not direct or indirect inducements to the recipients to favour suppliers or service providers. Agencies should ensure their gifts and benefits register includes all key fields specified in the Public Service Commission's minimum standards for gifts and benefits. Agencies should also perform regular reviews of the register to ensure completeness and ensure any gift or benefit accepted by a staff member meets the public's expectations for ethical behaviour. |
| Managing gifts and benefits |
We found opportunities to improve gifts and benefits processes and enhance transparency. For example, only three per cent of agencies publish their gifts and benefits registers on their websites. Agencies can improve management of gifts and benefits by:
|
| Reporting and monitoring |
Only 35 per cent of agencies reported trends in the number and nature of gifts and benefits recorded in their registers to the agency's senior executive management and/or a governance committee. Agencies should regularly report to the agency executive or other governance committee on trends in the offer and acceptance of gifts and benefits. |
4. Internal audit
| Obtaining value from the internal audit function |
Agencies have established and maintained internal audit functions to provide assurance on the effectiveness of agency controls and governance systems. However, we identified areas where agencies' internal audit functions could improve their processes to add greater value. For example, only 73 per cent of CAEs regularly attend meetings of the agency board or executive management committee. Internal audit functions can add greater value by involving the CAE more extensively in executive forums as an observer. Internal audit functions should also consider producing an annual report on internal audit. An annual report allows the internal audit function to report on their performance and add value by drawing to the attention of audit and risk committees and senior management strategic issues, thematic trends and emerging risks. |
| Role of the Chief Audit Executive |
Forty-five per cent of agencies assigned responsibilities to the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) that were broader than internal audit, but 17 per cent of these had not documented safeguards to protect the independence of the CAE. The reporting lines and status of the CAE at some agencies also needs review. At two agencies, the CAE reported to the CFO. Agencies should ensure:
|
| Quality assurance and improvement program |
Thirty-five per cent of agencies did not have a documented quality assurance and improvement program for its internal audit function. The policy and the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing require agencies to have a documented quality assurance and improvement program. The results of this program should be reported annually. Agencies should ensure there is a documented and operational Quality Assurance and Improvement Program for the internal audit function that covers both internal and external assessments. |
5. Managing contingent labour
| Obtaining value for money from contingent labour |
According to NSW Procurement data, spend on contingent labour has increased by 75 per cent over the last five years, to $1.5 billion in 2018–19. Improvements in internal processes and a renewed focus on agency monitoring and oversight of contingent labour can help ensure agencies get the best value for money from their contingent workforces. Agencies can improve their management of contingent labour by:
We also found 57 per cent of the 23 agencies we examined with contingent labour spend of more than $5 million in 2018–19 have implemented the government's vendor management system and service provider 'Contractor Central'. |
6. Managing sensitive data
| Identifying and assessing sensitive data |
Sixty-eight per cent of agencies maintain an inventory of their sensitive data and where it resides. However, these inventories are not always complete and risks may be overlooked. Agencies can improve processes to manage sensitive data by:
|
| Managing data breaches |
Eighty-eight per cent of agencies have established policies to respond to potential data breaches when they are identified and 70 per cent of agencies maintain a register to record key information in relation to identified data breach incidents. Agencies should maintain a data breach register to effectively manage the actions undertaken to contain, evaluate and remediate each data breach. |
This report covers the findings and recommendations from our 2018–19 financial audits that relate to internal controls and governance at 40 of the largest agencies (refer to Appendix three) in the NSW public sector. The 40 agencies selected for this volume constitute around 84 per cent of total expenditure for all NSW public sector agencies.
Although the report includes several agencies that have changed as a result of the Machinery of Government changes that were effective from 1 July 2019, its focus on sector wide issues and insights means that its findings remain relevant to NSW public sector agencies, including newly formed agencies that have assumed the functions of abolished agencies.
This report offers insights into internal controls and governance in the NSW public sector
This is the third report dedicated to internal controls and governance at NSW State Government agencies. The report provides insights into the effectiveness of controls and governance processes in the NSW public sector by:
- highlighting the potential risks posed by weaknesses in controls and governance processes
- helping agencies benchmark the adequacy of their processes against their peers
- focusing on new and emerging risks, and the internal controls and governance processes that might address those risks.
Without strong governance systems and internal controls, agencies increase the risks associated with effectively managing their finances and delivering services to citizens. For example, if they do not have strong information technology controls, sensitive information may be at risk of unauthorised access and misuse.
Areas of specific focus of the report have changed since last year
Last year's report topics included transparency and performance reporting, management of purchasing cards and taxi use, and fraud and corruption control. We are reporting on new topics this year and re-visiting agency management of gifts and benefits, which we first covered in our 2017 report. Re-visiting topics from prior years provides a baseline to show the NSW public sectors’ progress implementing appropriate internal controls and governance processes to mitigate existing, new and emerging risks in the public sector.
Our audits do not review all aspects of internal controls and governance every year. We select a range of measures and report on those that present heightened risks for agencies to mitigate. This year the report focusses on:
- internal control trends
- information technology controls, including access to agency systems
- protecting sensitive information held within agencies
- managing large and diverse workforces (controls around employing and managing contingent workers)
- maintaining an ethical culture (management of gifts and benefits)
- effectiveness of internal audit function and its oversight by Audit and Risk Committees.
The findings in this report should not be used to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of individual agency control environments and governance arrangements. Specific financial reporting, internal controls and audit observations are included in the individual 2019 cluster financial audit reports, which will be tabled in parliament from November to December 2019.
Internal controls are processes, policies and procedures that help agencies to:
- operate effectively and efficiently
- produce reliable financial reports
- comply with laws and regulations
- support ethical government.
This chapter outlines the overall trends for agency controls and governance issues, including the number of audit findings, the degree of risk those deficiencies pose to the agency, and a summary of the most common deficiencies we found across agencies. The rest of this report presents this year’s controls and governance findings in more detail.
Key conclusions and sector wide learnings
- out of date policies or an absence of policies to guide appropriate decisions
- poor record keeping and document retention
- incomplete or inaccurate centralised registers or gaps in these registers.
Policies, procedures and internal controls should be properly designed, be appropriate for the current organisational structure and its business activities, and work effectively.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to manage key financial systems.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to manage gifts and benefits.
Key conclusions and sector wide learnings
We found most agencies have implemented the Public Service Commission's minimum standards for gifts and benefits. All agencies had a gifts and benefits policy and 90 per cent of agencies maintained a gifts and benefits register and provided some form of training to employees on the treatment of gifts and benefits.
Based on our analysis of agency registers, we found some areas where opportunities existed to make processes more effective. In some cases, gaps in recorded information meant the basis for decisions around gifts and benefits was not always clear, making it difficult to determine whether decisions in those instances were appropriate and compliant with policy. Fifty-one per cent of the gifts and benefits registers reviewed contained declarations where not all fields of information had been completed. Seventy-seven per cent of agencies that maintained a gifts and benefits register did not include all key fields suggested by the minimum standards.
Areas where agencies can improve their management of gifts and benefits include:
- ensuring agency policies comprehensively cover the elements necessary to make it effective in an operational environment, such as identifying risks specific to the agency and actions that will be taken in the event of a policy breach
- establishing and publishing a statement of business ethics on the agency's website to clearly communicate expected behaviours to clients, customers,suppliers and contractors
- updating gifts and benefits registers to include all key fields suggested by the minimum standards, as well as performing regular reviews of the register to ensure completeness
- providing on-going training, awareness activities and support to employees, not just at induction
- regularly reporting gifts and benefits to executive management and/or a governance committee such as the audit and risk committee, focussing on trends in the number and types of gifts and benefits offered to and accepted by agency staff
- publishing their gifts and benefits registers on their websites to demonstrate a commitment to a transparently ethical environment.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency internal audit functions.
Key conclusions and sector wide learnings
We found agencies have established and maintained internal audit functions to provide assurance on the effectiveness of agency controls and governance systems as required by TPP15-03 'Internal Audit and Risk Management Policy for the NSW Public Sector'. However, we identified areas where agencies' internal audit functions could improve their processes to add greater value, including:
- documenting and implementing safeguards to address conflicting roles performed by the Chief Audit Executive (CAE)
- ensuring the reporting lines for the CAE comply with the NSW Treasury policy, and the CAE reports neither functionally or administratively to the finance function or other significant recipients of internal audit services
- involving the CAE more extensively in executive forums as an observer
- documenting a Quality Assurance and Improvement Program for the internal audit function and performing both internal and external performance assessments to identify opportunities for continuous improvement
- reporting against key performance indicators or a balanced scorecard and producing an annual report on internal audit to bring to the attention of the audit and risk committee and senior management strategic issues, thematic trends and emerging risks that may require further attention or resources.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of agency controls to on-board, manage and off-board contingent labour.
Key conclusions and sector wide learnings
Agencies have implemented controls to manage contingent labour and most agencies have some level of reporting and oversight of contingent labour at an executive level. However, the increasing trend in spend on contingent labour warrants a renewed focus on agency monitoring and oversight of their use of contingent labour. Over the last five years spend on contingent labour has increased by 75 per cent, to $1.5 billion in 2018–19.
There are also some key gaps that limit the ability of agencies to effectively manage contingent labour. Key areas where agencies can improve their management of contingent labour include:
- preparing workforce plans to inform their resourcing strategy, and confirm prior to engaging contingent labour, that this solution aligns with the strategy and best meets business needs
- involving agency human resources units in decisions about engaging contingent labour
- regularly reporting on contingent labour use to agency executive teams, particularly in terms of trends in agency spend, tenure and compliance with policies and procedures
- strengthening on-boarding and off-boarding processes, including establishing checklists to on-board and off-board contingent labour, making provisions for knowledge transfer, and assessing, documenting and capturing performance information.
This chapter outlines our audit observations, conclusions and recommendations, arising from our review of governance and processes in relation to the management of sensitive data.
Key conclusions and sector wide learnings
Information technology risks are rapidly increasing. More interfaces between agencies and greater connectivity means the amounts of data agencies generate, access, store and share continue to increase. Some of this information is sensitive information, which is protected by the Privacy Act 1988.
It is important that agencies understand what sensitive data they hold, the risks associated with the inadvertent release of this information and how they are mitigating those risks. We found that agencies need to continue to identify and record their sensitive data, as well as expand the methods they use to identify sensitive data. This includes data held in unstructured repositories, such as network shared drives and by agency service providers.
Eighty-eight per cent of agencies have established policies to respond to potential data breaches when they are identified and 70 per cent of agencies maintain a register to record key information in relation to identified data breach incidents.
Key areas where agencies can improve their management of sensitive data include:
- identifying sensitive data, based on a comprehensive and structured process and maintaining an inventory of the data
- assessing the criticality and sensitivity of the data so that the protection of high risk data can be prioritised
- developing comprehensive data breach management policies to ensure data breaches are appropriately managed
- maintaining a data breach incident register to record key information in relation to identified data breaches incidents, including the estimated cost of the breach
- providing on-going training and awareness activities to employees in relation to sensitive data and managing data breaches.
Appendix one – List of 2019 recommendations
Appendix two – Status of 2018 recommendations
Appendix three – In-scope agencies
© 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.
Fraud Survey
In a report released today, the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford provides a snapshot of reported fraud in the NSW public sector and an analysis of NSW Government agencies’ fraud controls based on a survey of 102 agencies.
Implementation of the NSW Government’s program evaluation initiative
The NSW Government’s ‘program evaluation initiative’, introduced to assess whether service delivery programs achieve expected outcomes and value for money, is largely ineffective according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.
Government services, in areas such as public order and safety, health and education, are delivered by agencies through a variety of programs. In 2016–17, the NSW Government estimates that it will spend over $73 billion on programs to deliver services.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #277 - released 3 November 2016
Public sector management reforms
The Public Service Commission is making good progress with leading the implementation of public sector management reforms, according to a report released today by the Acting New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Whitfield.
'The Commission developed a sound evidence base for the reforms and gained wide public sector support by engaging with agency heads and using public sector working groups to develop options', said the Acting Auditor-General. 'They developed good guidance for government agencies and have improved the senior executive structure in the NSW public sector', he added.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #264 - released 28 January 2016
