Reports
Workers compensation claims management
What this report is about
Workers compensation schemes in NSW provide compulsory workplace injury insurance. The effective management of workers compensation is important to ensure injured workers are provided with prompt support to ensure timely, safe and sustainable return to work.
Insurance and Care NSW (icare) manages workers compensation insurance. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) regulates workers compensation schemes. NSW Treasury has a stewardship role but does not directly manage the schemes.
This audit assessed the effectiveness and economy of icare’s management of workers compensation claims, and the effectiveness of SIRA’s oversight of workers compensation claims.
Findings
icare is implementing major reforms to its approach to workers compensation claims management - but it is yet to demonstrate if these changes are the most effective or economical way to improve outcomes.
icare’s planning and assurance processes for its reforms have not adequately assessed existing claims models or analysed other reform options.
icare's activities have not focused enough on its core responsibilities of improving return to work and maintaining financial sustainability.
SIRA has improved the effectiveness of its workers compensation regulatory activities in recent years. Prior to 2019, SIRA was mostly focussed on developing regulatory frameworks and was less active in its supervision of workers compensation schemes.
NSW Treasury's role in relation to workers compensation has been unclear, which has limited its support for performance improvements.
Recommendations
icare should:
- Ensure that its annual Statement of Business Intent clearly sets out its approach to achieving its legislative objectives.
- Monitor and evaluate its workers compensation scheme reforms.
- Develop a quality assurance program to ensure insurance claim payments are accurate.
NSW Treasury should:
- Work with relevant agencies to improve public sector workers compensation scheme outcomes.
- Engage with the icare Board to ensure icare's management is in line with relevant NSW Treasury policies.
SIRA should:
- Address identified gaps in its fraud investigation.
- Develop a co-ordinated research strategy.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #393 - released 2 April 2024
Cyber security in local government
What this report is about
NSW local councils provide a wide range of essential services and infrastructure to their communities and are increasingly reliant on digital technologies.
Councils need to manage cyber security risks to ensure their information, data and systems are appropriately safeguarded. Councils also need to be prepared to detect, respond and recover when a cyber security incident occurs.
The audit assessed how effectively three selected councils identified and managed cyber security risks.
The audit also included the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (Office of Local Government) and Department of Customer Service (Cyber Security NSW), due to their roles in providing guidance and support to local councils.
Audit findings
The audit found that the selected councils are not effectively identifying and managing cyber security risks. Each of the councils undertook activities to improve their cyber security during the audit period, but this audit found significant gaps in their cyber security risk management and cyber security processes.
Such gaps result in unmitigated risks to the security of information and assets which, if compromised, could impact their local communities, service delivery and public infrastructure.
Cyber Security NSW and the Office of Local Government recommend that councils adopt requirements in the Cyber Security Guidelines for Local Government, but could do more to monitor whether the Guidelines are enabling better cyber security risk management in the sector.
Audit recommendations
In summary, the councils should:
- integrate assessment and monitoring of cyber security risks into corporate governance processes
- self-assess their performance against Cyber Security NSW's guidelines for local government
- develop and implement a risk-based cyber security improvement plan and program of activities
- develop, implement and test a cyber incident response plan.
Cyber Security NSW and the Office of Local Government should regularly consult on cyber security risks facing local government, and review the effectiveness of guidelines and related resources for the sector.
While this report focuses on the performance of the selected councils, the findings and recommendations should be considered by all councils to better understand their risks and challenges relevant to managing cyber security risks.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #392- released 26 March 2024
Design and administration of the WestInvest program
What this report is about
WestInvest is a $5 billion funding program announced in September 2021 to provide ‘local infrastructure to help communities hit hard by COVID-19’ in 15 local government areas (LGAs) selected by the government. It was divided into three parts: $3 billion for NSW government agency projects; $1.6 billion for competitive grants to councils and community groups; and $400 million for non-competitive grants to councils.
Following the change of government at the 2023 election, the program was renamed the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program. Funding decisions made for the community and local government grants were retained, but multiple funding decisions for the NSW government projects were changed.
The audit objective was to assess the integrity of the design and implementation of the program and the award of program funding.
Findings
The design of the program lacked integrity because it was not informed by robust research or analysis to justify the commitment of public money to a program of this scale.
The then government did not have sufficient regard to the implications for the state's credit rating. A risk to the credit rating arose because the government may have been perceived to be using proceeds from major asset sales to fund new expenditure, rather than pay down its debt.
Decisions about program design were made by the then Treasurer's office without consultation with affected communities. The rationale for these decisions was not documented or made public.
For the NSW government projects, funding allocations did not follow advice from departments. Many funded projects did not meet the objectives of the program.
The two other rounds of the program were administered effectively, except for some gaps in documentation and quality assurance. The program guidelines did not require an equitable or needs-based distribution of funding across LGAs and there was a significant imbalance in funding between the 15 LGAs.
Recommendations
Our recommendations for the administration of future funding programs included:
- considering whether competitive grants are the best way to achieve the program's purpose
- completing program design and guidelines before announcements
- ensuring adequate quality assurance.
We also recommended that when providing advice for submissions by Ministers to Cabinet, agencies should ensure that departmental advice is clearly identified and is distinct from other advice or political considerations.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #391 - released 28 February 2024
Effectiveness of SafeWork NSW in exercising its compliance functions
What this report is about
This report assesses how effectively SafeWork NSW, a part of the Department of Customer Service (DCS), has performed its regulatory compliance functions for work health and safety in New South Wales.
The report includes a case study examining SafeWork NSW's management of a project to develop a realtime monitoring device for airborne silica in workplaces.
Findings
There is limited transparency about SafeWork NSW's effectiveness as a regulator. The limited performance information that is available is either subsumed within DCS reporting (or other sources) and is focused on activity, not outcomes.
As a work health and safety (WHS) regulator, SafeWork NSW lacks an effective strategic and data-driven approach to respond to emerging WHS risks.
It was slow to respond to the risk of respirable crystalline silica in manufactured stone.
SafeWork NSW is constrained by an information management system that is over 20 years old and has passed its effective useful life.
While it has invested effort into ensuring consistent regulatory decisions, SafeWork NSW needs to maintain a focus on this objective, including by ensuring that there is a comprehensive approach to quality assurance.
SafeWork NSW's engagement of a commercial partner to develop a real-time silica monitoring device did not comply with key procurement obligations.
There was ineffective governance and process to address important concerns about the accuracy of the real-time silica monitoring device.
As such, SafeWork NSW did not adequately manage potential WHS risks.
Recommendations
The report recommended that DCS should:
- ensure there is an independent investigation into the procurement of the research partner for the real-time silica detector
- embed a formal process to review and set its annual regulatory priorities
- publish a consolidated performance report
- set long-term priorities, including for workforce planning and technology uplift
- improve its use of data, and start work to replace its existing complaints handling system
- review its risk culture and its risk management framework
- review the quality assurance measures that support consistent regulatory decisions
Read the PDF report.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #390 - released 27 February 2024
Flood housing response
What this report is about
Extreme rainfall across eastern Australia in 2021 and 2022 led to a series of major flood events in New South Wales.
This audit assessed how effectively the NSW Government provided emergency accommodation and temporary housing in response to the early 2022 Northern Rivers and late 2022 Central West flood events.
Responsible agencies included in this audit were the Department of Communities and Justice, NSW Reconstruction Authority, the former Department of Planning and Environment, the Department of Regional NSW and the Premier’s Department.
Findings
The Department of Communities and Justice rapidly provided emergency accommodation to displaced persons immediately following these flood events.
There was no plan in place to guide a temporary housing response and agencies did not have agency-level plans for implementing their responsibilities.
The NSW Government rapidly procured and constructed temporary housing villages. However, the amount of temporary housing provided did not meet the demand.
There is an extensive waitlist for temporary housing and the remaining demand in the Northern Rivers is unlikely to be met. The NSW Reconstruction Authority has not reviewed this list to confirm its accuracy.
Demobilisation plans for the temporary housing villages have been developed, but there are no long-term plans in place for the transition of tenants out of the temporary housing.
Agencies are in the process of evaluating the provision of emergency accommodation and temporary housing.
The findings from the 2022 State-wide lessons process largely relate to response activities.
Audit recommendations
The NSW Reconstruction Authority should:
- Develop a plan for the provision of temporary housing.
- Review the temporary housing waitlist.
- Determine a timeline for demobilising the temporary housing villages.
- Develop a strategy to manage the transition of people into long-term accommodation.
- Develop a process for state-wide recovery lessons learned.
All audited agencies should:
- Finalise evaluations of their role in the provision of emergency accommodation and temporary housing.
- Develop internal plans for implementing their roles under state-wide plans.
Read the PDF report
Parliamentary reference - Report number #389 - released 22 February 2024
Regional road safety
What this report is about
Around one-third of the state’s population lives in regional NSW, but deaths on regional roads make up around two-thirds of the state’s road toll.
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is responsible for managing road safety outcomes across the NSW road network. This audit assessed the effectiveness of TfNSW’s delivery of road safety strategies, plans and policies in regional areas.
The NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026 has the stated goal of ‘no death or serious injury occurring on the road transport network’ by 2050.
What we found
There is a disproportionate amount of trauma on regional roads, but there are no specific road safety plans or trauma reduction targets for regional NSW.
TfNSW advises that the setting of state-wide road safety targets is consistent with other jurisdictions and international best practice. However, the proportion of road fatalities and serious injuries in regional NSW is almost the same as ten years ago.
There is no regional implementation plan to assist TfNSW to target the Road Safety Action Plan 2026 to regional areas.
TfNSW considers that local road safety outcomes should be managed by councils, but only 52% of regional councils participated in its Local Government Road Safety Program (LGRSP) in 2022–23. This program has not been updated since 2014, despite commitments to do so in 2021 and 2022.
TfNSW has not undertaken a systematic and integrated analysis of the combined impact of its road safety strategies and plans in regional NSW since 2012.
TfNSW reports against the Community Road Safety Fund (CRSF) annually but there is no consolidated, public reporting on total road safety funding allocated to regional NSW. The Fund underspend increased from 12% in 2019–20 to 20% in 2022–23.
What we recommended
We recommended TfNSW:
- develop a regional implementation plan to support the NSW Road Safety Action Plan, including a framework to annually measure, analyse and publicly report on progress
- develop a plan to measure and mitigate risks causing underspend in the CRSF
- expedite the review of the LGRSP including recommendations to increase involvement of regional councils.
Disclosure of confidential information
Under the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (the Act), the Auditor-General may disclose confidential information if, in the Auditor-General’s opinion, the disclosure is in the public interest, and that disclosure is necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions.
Confidential information in the Act means Cabinet information or information subject to legal privilege. This performance audit report contained confidential information.
The NSW Premier has certified that in his opinion the disclosure of the confidential information was not in the public interest.
The confidential information has been redacted from this report.
Under section 36A(2) of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, the Auditor-General may authorise the disclosure of confidential information if, in the Auditor-General’s opinion, the disclosure is in the public interest and necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions. Confidential information under the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 means Cabinet information, or information that could be subject to a claim of privilege by the State or a public official in a court of law. This performance audit report contained confidential information which, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, is in the public interest to disclose and that disclosure is necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions.
On 26 October 2023, pursuant to section 36A(2)(b) of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, the Auditor-General notified the NSW Premier of the intention to include this information in the published report, having formed the opinion that its disclosure is in the public interest and is necessary for the exercise of the Auditor-General’s functions.
On 23 November 2023, pursuant to section 36A(2)(c) of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, the NSW Premier certified that, in his opinion, the proposed disclosure of the confidential information contained in this report was not in the public interest. The Premier’s certificate follows. Section 36A(4) states that a certificate of the Premier that it is not in the public interest to disclose confidential information is conclusive evidence of that fact.
The issuance of the certificate by the NSW Premier prevents the publication of this information. The relevant sections of the report containing confidential information have been redacted.
One-third of the New South Wales population resides in regional areas, but two-thirds of the state’s road crash fatalities take place on regional roads.
Between 2017 and 2021, the average number of fatalities for every 100,000 of the population living in regional New South Wales was 8.33 — approximately four times higher than the equivalent measure for Greater Sydney. Similarly, the average number of serious injuries in regional New South Wales over the same period was 75.24 per 100,000 of the population, compared with 50.53 in Greater Sydney. Further, more than 70% of people who lose their lives in accidents on regional roads are residents of regional areas.
Residents of regional areas face particular transport challenges. They often need to travel longer distances for work, health care, or recreation purposes, yet their public transport options are more limited than metropolitan residents. Vehicle safety is also an issue. According to the NSW Road Safety Progress Report 2021, of the light vehicles registered in New South Wales that were manufactured in or after 2000, 48.4% of light vehicles in regional areas had a five-star Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) rating, compared to 54.8% in metropolitan areas. Road conditions in regional areas can also be more challenging for drivers.
Regional New South Wales covers 98.5% of the total area of the state. The road network in New South Wales is vast — spanning approximately 200,000 kilometres.
The road network includes major highways, state roads and local roads. Speed limits range from 10 km/hr in high pedestrian shared zones, up to 110 km/hr on high volume and critical road corridors. Eighty per cent of the network has a 100 km/h speed limit, which is mostly applied as a default speed limit, regardless of the presence of safety features and treatments.
Speed is the primary causal factor in more crashes in New South Wales than any other factor, and car crashes in regional areas are more likely to be fatal because of the higher average speeds involved.
The responsibility for managing road safety outcomes across the entire New South Wales road network lies with Transport for NSW (TfNSW), pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Transport Administration Act 1988.
While its safety responsibilities are state-wide, TfNSW does not own or directly manage all of the road network in regional New South Wales, which spans approximately 200,000 kilometres. Approximately 80% of the roads are classified as Local Roads and are administered and managed by local councils. Local councils also maintain Regional Roads that run through their local government areas. TfNSW is responsible for managing State Roads (approximately 20% of roads), which are major arterial roads. It also provides funding for councils to manage over 18,000 km (approximately 10%) of state-significant Regional Roads.
According to TfNSW, between 2016 and 2020, there were 9,776 people killed or seriously injured on roads in regional New South Wales. Adding to the tragic loss of life, according to TfNSW, the estimated cost to the community between 2016 and 2020 resulting from regional road trauma and fatalities was around $13.7 billion.
TfNSW also noted that the ‘risk of road trauma is pervasive, and a combination of effective road safety measures is required to systematically reduce this risk’.
TfNSW released its first long-term road-safety strategy in December 2012, which introduced the goal of ‘Vision Zero’ — a long-term goal of zero deaths or serious injuries on NSW roads. The terminology was changed to ‘Towards Zero’ in the 2021 Road Safety Plan and has been retained in the NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026. Towards Zero has the stated goal of ‘no death or serious injury occurring on the road transport network’ by 2050.
The objective of this audit is to assess the effectiveness of TfNSW’s delivery of ‘Towards Zero’ in regional areas.
In making this assessment, the audit examined whether TfNSW:
- is effectively reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries on regional roads
- has an effective framework, including governance arrangements, for designing and refreshing the NSW Road Safety Strategy 2012–2021 and the NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026
- effectively makes use of whole-of-government and other relevant sources of data to support decision-making, and to evaluate progress and outcomes
- effectively manages accountabilities, including roles and responsibilities, with respect to road safety outcomes and the use of data.
This audit focused on the policies and strategies used by TfNSW for managing road safety outcomes in regional areas. We did not evaluate individual road safety projects, programs and initiatives as part of this audit.
Whilst Regional Roads and Local Roads (as defined by the Road Network Classifications) are owned and maintained by local councils, we included these roads in this audit as TfNSW may advise and assist councils to promote and improve road safety, as well as manage grant programs that focus on improving road safety outcomes on these roads. Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, references to ‘regional roads’ refer to all classifications of roads in the state which are in regional New South Wales, irrespective of their ownership.
Local councils in regional areas are key stakeholders for the purposes of this audit, and we interviewed eight as part of the audit process (noting that this was not intended to be a representative sample). Road asset management by local councils is also out of scope for this audit as it is the focus of a subsequent performance audit by the Audit Office of New South Wales.b
The Audit Office of New South Wales has undertaken several performance audits relating to road safety since 2009 and these have been referenced while undertaking this audit. They include:
- Condition of State Roads (August 2006)
- Improving Road Safety: Heavy Vehicles (May 2009)
- Improving Road Safety: School Zones (March 2010)
- Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras (July 2011)
- Regional Assistance Programs (May 2018)
- Mobile speed cameras (October 2018)
- Rail freight and Greater Sydney (October 2021).
Conclusion
TfNSW has acknowledged that there is a disproportionate amount of road trauma on regional roads in the NSW Road Safety Strategy 2012–2021, the NSW Road Safety Plan 2021, and the NSW Road Safety Action Plan 2022–2026. However, TfNSW has not articulated or evaluated a strategy for implementing road safety policy in regional New South Wales to assist in guiding targeted activities to address regional road trauma. There is also no transparency about the total amount of funding invested in improving road safety outcomes for regional New South Wales.
People living in regional New South Wales make up one-third of the state’s population, but deaths on regional roads make up around two-thirds of the state’s total road toll. This statistic is almost the same in 2023 as it was ten years ago when TfNSW released its first long-term road safety strategy.
More than 70% of people who died on roads between 2012 and 2022 in regional New South Wales were residents of regional areas. Speed is the greatest contributing factor to road fatalities and serious injuries across the entire state. However, it is responsible for more fatalities on regional roads (43%) than in Greater Sydney (34%).
TfNSW’s road safety strategies and plans acknowledge that most road fatalities occur in regional New South Wales but none of its existing strategies or plans show evidence of tailoring measures to suit particular regional settings or ‘hot spots’. There are infrastructure initiatives (such as Saving Lives on Country Roads) and behavioural programs targeting regional areas (such as Driver Reviver). However, these activities are not aligned to a regional-specific strategy or plan that addresses issues specific to regional areas.
TfNSW has state-wide responsibility for managing road safety outcomes. TfNSW advised the audit that a regional plan and regional trauma reduction targets are not needed as the state-wide plan and targets apply equally for all areas of New South Wales, and local road safety factors are best managed by local councils. TfNSW partners with local councils. However, only 52% of councils in regional New South Wales participate in TfNSW’s Local Government Road Safety Program, compared to 84% of councils in metropolitan areas. TfNSW has not undertaken any evaluations to determine whether projects completed under the Local Government Road Safety Program have reduced road trauma at the local level.
Notwithstanding the above points, TfNSW works with local councils (who are road authorities for local roads in their respective areas under the Roads Act 1993) and other key stakeholders such as the NSW Police Force to achieve the NSW Government’s road safety policy objectives.
TfNSW advised that ‘the setting of state-wide road safety targets is consistent with other jurisdictions and international best practice. Importantly, delivery of road safety countermeasures is tailored and applied with a focus on road user groups across all geographic locations to maximise trauma reductions’. There may be legitimate reasons for the existing approach, as articulated by TfNSW. However, the proportion of road fatalities in regional New South Wales roads has not reduced since 2012 – despite a long-term reduction in the overall number of deaths on the state’s roads between 2012–2021. The audit report has recommended that a regionally focused implementation plan could address this issue. TfNSW has accepted this report’s recommendation that such a plan be developed.
Specific road safety initiatives targeted to regional areas have not been implemented or expanded
| Text removed pursuant to section 36A of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW), in compliance with the issuance of a Premier’s certificate preventing the publication of this information. |
TfNSW increased the use of other forms of automated enforcement (such as tripling enforcement hours in mobile speed cameras).
However, the use of automated enforcement has a strong metropolitan focus with most red light and fixed speed cameras being in metropolitan areas. Average speed cameras are the only camera type overwhelmingly located in regional areas but these apply only to heavy vehicles and are positioned on major freight routes.
There is no consolidated, public reporting of what proportion of total road safety funding is directed to regional New South Wales each year. The main source of funding for road safety in New South Wales, the Community Road Safety Fund, has been underspent since 2019.
Fines from camera-detected speeding, red-light and mobile phone use offences are required to be used solely for road safety purposes through the Community Road Safety Fund (CRSF), as set out in the Transport Administration Amendment (Community Road Safety Fund) Act 2012.
The CRSF has been underspent every year since 2019–20. The underspend has increased from 12% in 2019–20 to 20% in 2022–23 where the full year underspend was forecasted to be $104 million. Of this underspend, $13.5 million was dedicated for regional road infrastructure projects. TfNSW advised the audit that much of the underspend is the result of delays to infrastructure projects due to COVID-19, bushfires, and floods, as well as skills shortages. However, TfNSW has not provided any evidence that it had a plan to mitigate these risks – meaning the level of underspend could continue to grow. TfNSW also advised ‘there is no reason to expect budget management and controls will not return to pre-COVID circumstances’.
In total, TfNSW received $700 million in funding for road safety in 2021–22 (including federal contributions and the Community Road Safety Fund). Of this, $411 million (or ~59%) was directed to regional New South Wales. This is the most recent comprehensive financial data that was provided by TfNSW to the audit team. The 2022–23 NSW Budget allocated $880 million for road safety in 2022–23, with a forecasted total allocation for road safety of $1.6 billion in recurrent expenses and $0.8 billion in capital expenditure over the period 2022–23 to 2025–26.
Appendix one – Response from Transport for NSW
Appendix two – The Safe Systems framework and NSW road safety strategies and plans
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
© 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 #386 - released 30 November 2023
Regional, rural and remote education
What this report is about
Students in rural and remote areas of NSW face greater challenges compared to their metropolitan peers.
This report examined how the NSW Department of Education (the department) is ensuring that rural and remote students have access to the same quality of early childhood, school education, and skills pathways as metropolitan students.
What we found
A decade since the previous (2013) strategy to address educational disadvantage, there remain considerable gaps in access and outcomes between rural and remote students and metropolitan students.
The Rural and Remote Education Strategy (2021–24) is unlikely to address these longstanding and known issues of educational disadvantage in rural and remote areas.
Key enabling factors such as resourcing a dedicated team, setting performance measures, and establishing suitable governance arrangements were not put in place to support effective implementation of the 2021 strategy.
The department has programs aimed at addressing remoteness challenges, but does not know if these initiatives improve access or outcomes.
The department does not monitor or report on student access or outcomes according to geographic location.
What we recommended
The Department of Education should:
- develop a new strategy that addresses disadvantage in regional, rural and remote education
- establish and report publicly on regional, rural and remote key performance indicators
- improve data collection by using a standard remoteness classification
- improve governance arrangements for regional, rural and remote education
- review the resources provided for regional, rural and remote areas that recognises the additional costs
- develop an approach that ensures all students can access best practice modes of delivery.
In February 2021, the department of Education (the department) released the ‘Rural and Remote Education Strategy (2021–2024)’. The strategy sets a vision that ‘every child in regional New South Wales has access to the same quality of education as their metropolitan peers’. It recognises that students in rural and remote areas of New South Wales face greater challenges compared to students in metropolitan locations. These challenges contribute to regional, rural and remote students underperforming on major educational indicators compared to their metropolitan peers.
In recent years, regional, rural and remote communities experienced a series of natural disasters as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic and subsequent school closures, the department introduced new initiatives aimed at minimising the disruption to children including online learning and small group tuition.
The department established a regional, rural and remote education policy unit in 2021 to support delivery of the strategy and its vision.
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the department’s activities to ensure that regional, rural and remote students have access to the same quality of early childhood, school education, and skills pathways as their metropolitan peers.
In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:
- The department developed and implemented a strategy that enables regional, rural and remote students to access the same quality of early childhood education, school education, and skills pathways as students in metropolitan New South Wales.
- The department has been addressing the complexities and needs of regional, rural and remote early childhood education, school education, and skills pathways.
The department's rural and remote education strategy is unlikely to achieve its vision that every child in regional New South Wales has access to the same quality of education as their metropolitan peers. Shortcomings in the design and implementation of the strategy have meant there is little to report on its impact after more than two years since its release.
The department did not take on board lessons learned from the previous strategy. The department did not provide additional resources to meet the strategy aims, establish strong central coordination, set timeframes, set measures of success, or identify new programs to address gaps in regional and remote access and outcomes. Instead, the department relied on matching existing programs and activities across its business areas to meet the stated actions and goals of the strategy.
There was not enough work put in to plan for successful implementation. A changeover in staff responsible for coordinating implementation of the strategy and lack of fit-for-purpose governance arrangements slowed its momentum. The department took one year to recruit a central team and almost two years to set up governance that gives relevant department executives oversight of the strategy. This was not fast enough to support a four-year strategy with an ambitious vision.
The department did not establish a program logic model, set baseline measures or develop an evaluation plan to assess the impact of the strategy. Consequently, it has not adequately monitored changes in access or outcomes for regional, rural and remote students. Two years after its release, there has not been any public reporting against the actions or outcomes of the strategy.
The department is not addressing the complexities of delivering regional, rural and remote early childhood, school education and skills pathways. There are a range of programs targeted to overcoming challenges of remoteness, but the department does not monitor data to determine whether these programs are sufficient to close the persistent gaps in access and outcomes for regional, rural and remote students.
A decade after the Rural and Remote Education Blueprint was launched in 2013, there remain considerable gaps in access and outcomes between metropolitan and regional, rural and remote areas. The department identifies 'equity' as a key value in its strategic plan but does not monitor or report on performance against key indicators according to geographic location. Data produced in response to our requests for this report demonstrate that previously identified gaps in access and outcomes remain.
Different areas of the department recognise the challenges of delivering services in regional, rural and remote locations and have developed specific programs or approaches aimed at addressing these challenges. The department does not know whether these interventions are sufficient to close the gaps in access or outcomes. Schools we spoke with as part of the audit reported significant ongoing challenges with attracting and retaining staff, providing a full curriculum and accessing support services when needed.
This chapter examines the process to develop the Rural and Remote Education Strategy (2021–2024). It considers whether there was a comprehensive program of stakeholder consultation, whether relevant research and evidence was incorporated and whether an effective performance monitoring system was established.
The department made genuine efforts to consult with stakeholders on the new strategy
The department had a clear process to engage and obtain feedback from key stakeholders during the development of the new strategy. It developed a range of documents to support the consultation process including a stakeholder engagement plan, communications plan, and presentation. The department used the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation principles to help ensure that relevant stakeholders were included in the planning and decision-making process.
In late 2019, the department began its first phase of consultations with internal and external stakeholders to get their views on rural and remote education. It consulted internally with department directors, advisory groups, and learning communities, and externally with government agencies, service providers, non-government schools, and universities.
In March 2020, the department developed a stakeholder engagement paper to test the key issues from stakeholder consultations. Four focus areas were identified and included in a consultation paper that went out to key stakeholders for the second round of consultations in May 2020.
In the third consultation phase, the department conducted a workshop with stakeholders to review the earlier feedback, prioritise issues, identify gaps, and provide further input.
This consultation process enabled the department to identify issues and challenges to inform the new strategy. However, it was already aware that the blueprint was having limited success, and had already identified potential focus areas, following the evaluation of the blueprint in 2019.
The department did not consider recent research when developing the new strategy
The department's guidance materials promote the importance of considering research during policymaking. The guidelines describe the need to understand a topic, consult with stakeholders, identify gaps in existing knowledge, and ensure future work is informed by current literature.
In 2013, the department published a literature review on rural and remote education to inform the blueprint. The literature review found that students in rural and remote schools were not performing as well as their metropolitan peers, and that this performance gap was widening. The review attributed this to the higher number of children from low socio-economic backgrounds attending rural and remote schools. The review also identified several other factors that could negatively impact performance outcomes for rural and remote students. The department used the findings of the literature review to develop the key focus areas in the 2013 blueprint.
When the department began developing the new rural and remote education strategy in 2019, it recognised the need to review the literature on recent international initiatives. However, it has not yet released this review. This means that the department could have missed important new developments since it last examined the literature in 2013. Incorporating up-to-date research is important where past strategies have not met all their intended outcomes.
A national review into rural and remote education in 2018 examined Australian and international literature to inform its findings. The review made 11 recommendations to the Australian and state governments. While the NSW Government was not required to formally respond to the review, it could have considered the work done by that review when developing the new strategy. Several review recommendations are addressed in the strategy, while several others are only partly addressed. Gaps between review recommendations and specific strategy actions include improving the availability of quality accommodation, substantially reducing the waiting times for specialist assessments of students with learning difficulties and disabilities and increasing access to high quality distance education.
In 2019, the department commissioned a rural and remote project to contribute a research and evidence base to the new strategy. The main aim of the project was to help the department understand how it could better support rural and remote schools to increase educational outcomes. There was not enough time for this review to be completed prior to the release of the strategy. As of June 2023, the research project had not yet been released.
The strategy did not address all findings and recommendations from a recent evaluation
In 2020, the department's Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) published an evaluation of the blueprint. The evaluation examined how the actions in the blueprint were implemented. It recommended that a new strategy be developed, and made recommendations for things that should be incorporated into the strategy.
The blueprint aimed to ensure students in rural and remote areas could access the same quality of education as their metropolitan peers. The blueprint identified four focus areas to meet that aim:
- quality early childhood education
- great teachers and school leaders
- curriculum access for all
- effective partnerships and connections.
The department developed several initiatives to help meet the objectives of each of the four focus areas. These initiatives are described in Exhibit 5 below.
| Key focus area | Initiative |
| Quality early childhood education |
|
| Great teachers and school leaders |
|
| Curriculum access for all |
|
| Effective partnerships and connections |
|
The evaluation found that initiatives in two of the four focus areas – Quality early childhood education and Curriculum access for all – had performed well. However, the evaluation found that initiatives in the other two focus areas – Great teachers and school leaders and Effective partnerships and connections – did not achieve intended outcomes.
On the whole, the evaluation found that the 'remoteness gap' between rural and remote students and metropolitan students had not reduced since the blueprint was introduced. It recommended that the department continue its focus on rural and remote education by developing a new evidence-based strategy that focused on student outcomes and clear measures of success.
Objectives and actions in the new strategy were similar to those in the blueprint
The 2021 strategy sets an overall vision that 'every child in regional New South Wales has access to the same quality of education as their metropolitan peers'. It also states that the department 'is committed to ensuring all rural and remote students have equitable access to educational opportunities'.
| Rural and Remote Education Blueprint (2013) | Rural and Remote Education Strategy (2021–24) |
| Provide more children with access to quality early child education in the year before school. | Ensure all students have access to quality preschool in the year before school. |
| Ensure rural and remote schools have greater capacity to attract and retain quality teachers and leaders. | Increase supply of high-quality educators in rural and remote communities. |
| Build the capacity of teachers and leaders in rural and remote schools. | Better develop rural and remote teachers to deliver quality learning opportunities. |
| Address wellbeing needs through effective partnerships and connections. | Address wellbeing needs through connections with local communities. |
| Develop partnerships so that rural and remote students have access to quality pathways into further education, training, or employment. | Build partnerships to increase student access to post-school opportunities. |
Four areas in the blueprint remained a focus in the new strategy – early childhood education, teacher recruitment and retention, curriculum, and student wellbeing support services. Each focus area identifies a goal, as well as the aims and actions that contribute to those goals.
While this shows the department identified that these areas required continued attention, most actions were to 'increase', 'expand' or 'improve' existing programs and resources. The new strategy did not propose any new ideas or solutions, despite the blueprint achieving limited success in improving outcomes for rural and remote students.
There were no baseline or target measures set to monitor progress of the new strategy
The blueprint evaluation recommended that the department develop a new evidence-based strategy which focused on improving student outcomes. It also recommended the department use a program logic methodology to ensure there was a clear definition of success, adequate measures of success, and continual monitoring to ensure success.
Program logic models are a visual representation of the various components of a program. They can be used to illustrate program priorities, inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and assumptions. Logic models are used to explain how a proposed solution will address a specific problem. They are important because they can help test assumptions, build business cases, and identify potential enablers or barriers that could impact the project.
The department did not complete a program logic model during development of the new strategy, nor did it define measures to monitor whether the strategy's overall vision for quality education or the commitment to equitable access was on track to be achieved.
The department has not comprehensively monitored changes in educational outcomes in regional, rural and remote areas since the evaluation of the blueprint in 2020. This evaluation had seven indicators of educational outcomes by remoteness. The measures used in the evaluation could have provided a starting point given the similarity in focus areas between the blueprint and the new strategy. Not addressing past review recommendations increases risks that issues will be repeated.
The policy unit advised it has plans to set up a dashboard to monitor performance across the department's business plan measures by remoteness. This is intended to identify areas where system-wide improvements are required. This is not a comprehensive account of the strategy outcomes because the business plan measures don't capture all the goals of the strategy.
There were no timeframes or resources identified for implementing new strategy actions
The strategy has an overall timeframe of 2021–2024 but does not clarify when it expects the vision, goals, or aims to be achieved, or actions to be implemented.
The department's guidance on policymaking sets out how projects should be transitioned between the policy and implementation teams. This guidance is intended to help ensure the policy intent and scope of the project are not lost during the delivery of the project. The guidance highlights that the policy team should establish clear project implementation timeframes. It is important to have clear timeframes because it enables teams to measure progress, manage resources, and prioritise actions to ensure project outcomes are achieved.
The strategy states that there is a further $1 billion of investment planned over the next three years for rural and remote education but does not identify how this is allocated across its focus areas. It is important to identify the resources required to support the implementation of a program so that program objectives are met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The previous blueprint identified much lower funding of $80 million but more clearly showed how it would be allocated for identified actions across the four focus areas.
In response to our requests, the department separately identified $1.286 billion in expenditure for regional, rural and remote schools referenced in the strategy. Most of this expenditure related to existing department programs and activities rather than new initiatives. The total amount included:
- $576.9 million for new and upgraded schools
- $365.8 million for upgraded information technology equipment and resources
- $120 million for school facility upgrades to be co-funded by schools
- $60 million to replace school roofs
- $60 million for the COVID Intensive Learning Support Program
- $32 million for the Early Action for Success program
- $29.7 million for staffing incentives
- $21.7 million for literacy and numeracy interventions
- $18.8 million in school location allowances
- $1.45 million for the Rural Learning Exchange Pilot
- $0.4 million for Rural and Remote Network initiatives.
This chapter examines the arrangements in place to implement the strategy. It considers whether effective governance arrangements are in place and how progress is monitored and reported.
This chapter considers the effectiveness of arrangements to ensure regional, rural and remote students have access to quality early childhood education, school education, and post‑school transitions.
This chapter considers the department's arrangements to monitor educational and wellbeing outcomes of students by remoteness. It reports on differences in outcomes between students in metropolitan areas and those in regional, rural and remote areas.
Those living in regional, rural and remote areas can have greater difficulty in accessing government services, often needing to travel long distances, or facing lower service levels than provided in major cities. This context is important when considering educational and wellbeing outcomes, given the disruptive effects of waiting or missing out on important services.
The rest of this chapter details key measures in the department's outcome and business plan.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
© 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 #385 - released 10 August 2023
State heritage assets
What the report is about
This audit assessed how effectively the Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) is overseeing and administering heritage assets of state significance.
Heritage that is rare, exceptional or outstanding to New South Wales may be listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977. This provides assets with legal recognition and protection. Places, buildings, works, relics, objects and precincts can be listed, whether in public or private ownership.
Heritage NSW has administrative functions and regulatory powers, including under delegation from the Heritage Council of NSW, relevant to the listing, conservation and adaptive re-use of heritage assets of state significance.
In summary, the audit assessed whether Heritage NSW:
- is effectively administering relevant advice and decisions
- is effectively supporting and overseeing assets
- has established clear strategic priorities and can demonstrate preparedness to implement these.
What we found
Heritage NSW does not have adequate oversight of state significant heritage assets, presenting risks to its ability to promote the objects of the Heritage Act.
Information gaps and weaknesses in quality assurance processes limit its capacity to effectively regulate activities affecting assets listed on the State Heritage Register.
Heritage NSW has adopted a focus on customer service and recently improved its timeliness in providing advice and making decisions about activities affecting listed assets. But Heritage NSW has not demonstrated how its customer-focused priorities will address known risks to its core regulatory responsibilities.
Listed assets owned by government entities are often of high heritage value. Heritage NSW could do more to promote effective heritage management among these entities.
What we recommended
The report made eight recommendations to Heritage NSW, focusing on:
- improving quality assurance over advice and decisions
- improving staff guidance and training
- defining and maintaining data in the State Heritage Register
- clarifying its regulatory intent and approach
- sector engagement and interagency capability to support heritage outcomes.
The Heritage Act 1977 (the Heritage Act) and accompanying regulation provide the legal framework for the identification, conservation and adaptive re-use of heritage assets in New South Wales.
The Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) has responsibility for policy, legislative and program functions for state heritage matters, including supporting the Minister for Heritage to administer the Heritage Act.
Heritage assets that are rare, exceptional or outstanding beyond a local area or region may be listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act. These assets include places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects and precincts, and assets that have significance to Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. Assets nominated for and listed on the State Heritage Register ('listed assets') may be owned privately or publicly, including by local councils and state government entities.
The Heritage Act establishes the Heritage Council of NSW (the Heritage Council) to undertake a range of functions in line with its objectives. Heritage NSW provides administrative support to the Heritage Council, for example providing advice on assets that have been nominated for listing on the State Heritage Register. Many of Heritage NSW’s core activities also relate to exercising functions and powers under delegation from the Heritage Council. These include making administrative decisions about works affecting listed assets, and exercising powers to regulate asset owners’ compliance with requirements under the Heritage Act.
Heritage NSW states that heritage:
| …gives us a sense of our history and provides meaningful insights into how earlier generations lived and developed. It also enriches our lives and helps us to understand who we are. |
According to Heritage NSW, an effective heritage system will facilitate the community in harnessing the cultural and economic value of heritage.
The objective of this audit was to assess how effectively the Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) is overseeing and administering heritage assets of state significance.
For this audit, ‘heritage assets of state significance’ refers to items (including a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct) listed on the State Heritage Register ('listed assets'), and those which have been nominated for listing.
ConclusionThe Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) does not have adequate oversight of state significant heritage assets. Information gaps and weaknesses in certain assurance processes limit its capacity to effectively regulate activities affecting assets listed on the State Heritage Register. These factors also constrain its ability to effectively support voluntary compliance and promote the objects of the Heritage Act, which include encouraging conservation and adaptive re-use.Heritage NSW has adopted a focus on customer service and recently improved the timeliness of its advice and decisions on activities affecting listed assets. But Heritage NSW has not demonstrated how its customer service priorities will address known risks to its regulatory responsibilities. It could also do more to enable and promote effective heritage management among state government entities that own listed assets.The information that Heritage NSW maintains about assets listed on the State Heritage Register ('listed assets') is insufficient for its regulatory and owner engagement purposes. Data quality and completeness issues have arisen since the register was established in 1999. But Heritage NSW's progress to address important gaps in the register, and its other information systems, has been limited in recent years. These gaps limit Heritage NSW’s capacity to detect compliance breaches early and implement risk-based regulatory responses, and to strategically target its owner engagement activities to promote conservation and re-use. Heritage NSW makes decisions on applications for works on listed assets, requiring technical skills and professional judgement. But Heritage NSW does not provide its staff with adequate guidance to ensure that consistent approaches are used, and it lacks sufficient quality assurance processes. There are similar weaknesses in Heritage NSW's oversight of decisions on applications that are delegated to other government entities. Heritage NSW has prioritised the implementation of customer service-focused activities, policies, and programs to reduce regulatory burdens on asset owners since 2017. For example, Heritage NSW has refreshed its website, introduced new information management systems, and implemented new regulation for the self-assessment of exemptions for minor works. However, Heritage NSW has not taken steps to mitigate oversight and quality risks introduced with the reduced regulatory burdens. Heritage NSW has made some, but to date insufficient, progress on a key project to update its publications. These documents (over 150 publications) are intended to play an important role in promoting voluntary compliance and supporting heritage outcomes. Heritage NSW started a new project to update relevant publications in April 2023. Heritage NSW has recently implemented processes to improve its efficiency, such as screening new nominations for listing on the State Heritage Register. Heritage NSW has also reported improvements in the time it takes to decide on applications for works affecting listed assets. In the third quarter of 2022–23, 87% of decisions were made within the statutory timeframes. This compares to 48% in 2021–22. Heritage NSW has similarly improved how quickly it provides heritage advice on major projects, with 90% of advice reported as delivered on time in the third quarter of 2022–23, compared to 44% in 2020–21. Assets owned by state government entities comprise a large proportion of State Heritage Register listings. These assets are often of high heritage value or situated within large and complex precincts or portfolios. But Heritage NSW does not implement targeted capability building activities to support good practice heritage management among state government entities and to promote compliance with their obligations under the Heritage Act. The expected interaction between Heritage NSW's strategic plans and activities, and the priorities of the Heritage Council of NSW, is unclear. Actions to clarify the relevant governance arrangements have also been slow following a review in 2020 but this work re-commenced in late 2022. Heritage NSW has been progressing work to draft reforms to the Heritage Act. This follows recommendations made in a 2021 Upper House Inquiry into the Heritage Act. To build preparedness for future reforms, Heritage NSW will need to do more to address the risks and opportunities identified in this audit report. In particular, it will need to ensure it has sufficient information and capacity to implement a risk-based regulatory approach; clear and effective governance arrangements with the Heritage Council of NSW; and enhanced engagement with government entities to promote the conservation and adaptive re-use of listed assets in public ownership. |
This chapter assesses the effectiveness of Heritage NSW's oversight of state heritage assets, including its visibility of listed assets, and its oversight of regulatory decision-making. It also assesses Heritage NSW's activities to engage with owners to meet their obligations under the Heritage Act and to support heritage outcomes.
This chapter assesses the timeliness of Heritage NSW’s provision of advice, recommendations, and decisions on heritage issues to support heritage management outcomes with respect to listed assets.
This chapter assesses whether the Department of Planning and Environment (Heritage NSW) has established clear strategic priorities to effectively oversee and administer activities related to listed assets, and its preparedness to implement reforms. It also assesses the adequacy of planning activities and governance arrangements to support the achievement of strategic directions.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
© 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 #384 - released 27 June 2023
Regulation of public native forestry
What this report is about
The Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) is a state-owned corporation that manages over two million hectares of public native forests and plantations supplying timber to sawmills across NSW.
The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for regulating the native forestry industry in NSW.
FCNSW must comply with Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOAs), which set out rules for how timber harvesting may occur.
Most harvesting is undertaken under the Coastal IFOA, which commenced in 2018.
This audit assessed how effectively Forestry Corporation of NSW manages its public native forestry activities to ensure compliance, and how effectively the Environment Protection Authority regulates these activities.
What we found
Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) clearly articulates its compliance obligations.
While FCNSW undertakes monitoring of its contractors, it does not do so consistently and does not target its monitoring activities on a risk basis.
FCNSW has largely fulfilled mandatory Coastal IFOA training requirements, but has not yet trained other staff who would also benefit from the training.
Contractor compliance appears to be improving, but there are gaps and inconsistencies in FCNSW's documentation of this.
FCNSW is not measuring its overall compliance to determine how it is tracking against its target.
The EPA undertakes proactive inspections of Coastal IFOA harvesting operations on a risk basis. However, it does not assess the risk at harvest sites covered by other IFOAs.
Most EPA compliance staff have received basic training, but few have received more advanced training required to effectively undertake forestry inspections.
Some EPA offices do not have the necessary equipment to undertake forestry inspections.
The EPA and FCNSW are not implementing all elements of a Memorandum of Understanding that aims to promote a cooperative relationship between the agencies.
What we recommended
The report made recommendations to FCNSW which aim to improve:
- staff training
- consistency of compliance reviews and data capture
- targeting of compliance activities
- measurement of performance.
The report made recommendations to the EPA which aim to improve:
- risk-assessments
- staff training
- staff equipment.
The report also recommended that FCNSW and EPA should fully implement their Memorandum of Understanding.
The Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) is a state-owned corporation that supplies timber to sawmills in New South Wales, including timber harvested from public native forests. FCNSW is responsible for the management of around two million hectares of public native forests and plantations. Around half the area of native forests is permanently set aside for conservation.
Public native forestry is regulated through the Forestry Act 2012, Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and associated regulations. Under the Forestry Act 2012, the objectives of FCNSW include, where its activities affect the environment, to conduct its operations in compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. This involves the integration of social, economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes.
In undertaking its native forestry operations, FCNSW must comply with Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOA), issued jointly by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, which set out rules to protect species and ecosystems where timber harvesting is occurring, and aim to ensure forests are managed in an ecologically sustainable way. FCNSW must also ensure that its contractors undertake forestry operations in line with IFOAs. The Coastal IFOA, developed in 2018, consolidated the four IFOAs for the Eden, Southern, Upper and Lower North East coastal regions of New South Wales into a single IFOA. The other three current IFOAs are Brigalow Nandewar, South Western Cypress and Riverina Redgum (the Western IFOAs).
The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for regulating native forestry in New South Wales. Under the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, one of the objectives of the EPA is to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in New South Wales, having regard to the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development. This includes monitoring FCNSW’s compliance with IFOA conditions, including by maintaining and enforcing a compliance program.
The Coastal IFOA also introduced a new structure and regulatory approach for IFOAs, establishing outcomes, conditions and protocols. The conditions set mandatory actions and controls intended to protect threatened plants, animals, habitats, soils and water. The protocols, referenced in the conditions, set out additional enforceable actions and controls intended to support the effective implementation of the conditions.
Public native forestry is the largest component of hardwood supply in New South Wales. The 2019–20 bushfires had a major impact on regional communities, and large areas of native forest. This heightened environmental risks and challenges in public native forestry. Five million hectares of New South Wales was impacted, including more than 890,000 hectares of native State Forests. This is over 40% of the coastal and tablelands native State Forests in New South Wales.
In addition to effective compliance activities, the success of the regulatory approach to public native forestry operations depends on how wood supply yields are modelled, and ensuring that harvested volumes do not exceed these yields. This is of particular importance in areas where forests have been severely damaged by fire. This audit did not consider sustainable yields. Recent reviews of this include an independent review of the FCNSW sustainable yield model and a Natural Resources Commission review in 2021.
This audit assessed how effectively Forestry Corporation of NSW manages its public native forestry activities to ensure compliance, and how effectively the Environment Protection Authority regulates these activities.
Conclusion
|
Appendix one – Responses from agencies
Appendix two – About the audit
Appendix three – Performance auditing
© 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 #382 - released 22 June 2023
Financial Management and Governance in MidCoast Council
Introduction
The Auditor-General's financial and performance audits of local councils aim to improve financial management, governance and public accountability across the local government sector.
Annual Local Government reports to Parliament have consistently highlighted risks and weaknesses across the sector in relation to financial management and governance. We will continue to focus on these matters as a priority area in our forward work program.
While this report focuses on MidCoast Council, the findings should be considered by all councils to better understand the challenges and opportunities when addressing financial sustainability and financial management needs.
Findings and recommendations around the effectiveness of long-term financial planning, comprehensive and timely financial reporting and financial management governance arrangements are relevant for all councils.
What this report is about
The Local Government Act 1993 requires councils to apply sound financial management principles, including sustainable expenditure, effective financial management and regard to intergenerational equity.
This audit assessed whether MidCoast Council has effective financial management arrangements that support councillors and management to fulfill their responsibilities as financial stewards.
What we found
MidCoast Council has not met all legislative and policy requirements for long-term financial planning.
From FY2019–20 to FY2020–21, the Council had financial management and governance gaps. Some gaps were addressed throughout FY2021–22.
MidCoast Council experienced significant challenges in its implementation of a consolidated financial management system following amalgamation in 2016 and the merging of MidCoast Water in 2017. This led to gaps in finance processes and data quality.
What we recommended
The report recommends that MidCoast Council should:
- ensure its long-term financial plan meets legislative and policy requirements
- undertake service reviews to better understand net costs to inform budget and financial planning decisions
- improve the quality of asset management information to inform budget and financial planning decisions
- use the financial management components of the MC1 system to its full potential
- address control and process gaps identified in audits and reviews
- ensure competency of those responsible for finance and budget
- ensure financial sustainability initiatives account for the cost of services and asset management information.
Effective financial management is important in ensuring that councils achieve their long-term objectives, remain financially viable and deliver intended benefits to the community.
Sustainable financial management has been a priority for the local government sector since 2013 and continues to be one of the highest rated risks and priorities among councils in 2023.
According to data provided by the Department of Planning and Environment, during FY2020–21, NSW local councils:
- collected $7.8 billion in rates and annual charges
- received $5.8 billion in grants and contributions
- incurred $4.8 billion of employee benefits and on costs
- held $16.8 billion of cash and investments
- managed $175.2 billion in infrastructure, property plant and equipment
- entered into $3.7 billion of borrowings.
The Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) requires local councils to apply sound financial management principles including responsible and sustainable expenditure, investment, and effective financial and asset management. Under the LG Act and the Local Government Regulation 2021 (LG Regulation) councils are required to:
- establish and monitor their budget position
- clearly establish approaches to raise revenue, including from rates and other sources
- develop and implement integrated planning to ensure financial sustainability in line with community priorities and needs
- regularly report on their financial performance through financial statements.
The objective of the audit is to assess whether MidCoast Council (the Council) has effective financial management arrangements that support councillors and management to fulfil their financial stewardship responsibilities. It considers whether:
- the Council has an effective governance framework for financial management, through the existence of governance, risk management, internal controls and provision of adequate financial management training, including whether:
- governance, risk management and internal controls are in place for financial management
- adequate financial management and governance training and support has been provided to councillors, management and operational managers.
- the Council has quality and comprehensive internal financial management reporting, including whether:
- councillors and management have identified and implemented essential internal financial management reporting elements
- council’s financial systems and data have integrity, and support identified financial management report production requirements
- council reports are relevant, consistent, reliable, understandable, and tailored towards the requirements of key users (appendix two provides more information about the characteristics of effective financial management reporting).
- the financial management governance and reporting arrangements support councillors and management to fulfil their financial stewardship responsibilities, including whether councillors and management use internal financial management reporting to:
- support budget decisions, resource allocation and cost setting (for example fees and charges)
- monitor financial sustainability
- assess operational efficiency, financial services and investments
- make improvements where necessary.
This audit completed fieldwork during November 2022 to February 2023. The audit period of review was from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2022.
Conclusion
MidCoast Council has not effectively carried out long-term financial planning to address its identified long-term financial sustainability challenges.
MidCoast Council has not met all legislative and policy requirements to effectively carry out long-term financial planning. It has not effectively considered and communicated how it will achieve financial sustainability goals and has not identified options to achieve such goals through its long-term financial plan.
Since 2020, and throughout 2021 and 2022, MidCoast Council has identified a need to focus on developing strategies for financial sustainability following the projected operating deficit for its general fund over the next ten years.
In September 2022, the Council took early steps to implement plans that aim to address the identified financial sustainability issues, but the Council has not yet established effective processes to analyse the true cost of services and address its unreliable asset condition data. Both are required to accurately inform its long-term resourcing strategy.
Between FY2019–20 and FY2020–21, MidCoast Council had gaps in its financial management and governance arrangements. The Council has taken some actions to address the gaps throughout FY2021–22.
Between FY2019–20 and FY2020–21, MidCoast Council did not ensure effective financial management governance and reporting arrangements. Over that time, the Council did not perform monthly reconciliation and reporting processes that would provide timely information and assurance to management and councillors over the Council's finances. It did not ensure that all financial management reporting met statutory deadlines for submission to councillors.
During this period, reviews, financial audits and internal audits identified risks to, and gaps in, finance processes, systems and controls. The consequences of these gaps were increased use of manual processes, and risks to the integrity of financial data and information used by management.
During FY2021–22, MidCoast Council implemented actions and processes that have increased transparency and led to improved financial governance. These include addressing and implementing some audit recommendations, and implementing monthly financial management reporting and month-end reconciliations.
MidCoast Council has commenced a $21 million program to improve its customer experience, asset management, ICT and back office business processes. The Council advises that this program has a five-year implementation timeframe and it expects to achieve financial benefits over the ten years following commencement.
MidCoast Council experienced significant challenges in its implementation of a consolidated financial management system following amalgamation in 2016 and the merging of MidCoast Water functions in 2017. This has led to gaps in finance processes and data quality within the system.
In 2016, following amalgamation, MidCoast Council commenced work to procure and implement an enterprise resource planning system which included a consolidated financial management system. In 2017, Council further merged with MidCoast Water and arrangements were made to implement the system (MC1) after the functions of MidCoast water were incorporated. The Council continued to use four separate financial management systems until it commenced a progressive implementation of MC1 from 2019 to 2021. Across MC1's implementation, the Council experienced significant challenges relating to change management, user functionality and configuration.
This meant that the Council did not ensure that all of its staff were using MC1 effectively and efficiently, which led to gaps in finance processes and data quality, and delays in delivering integrated and automated financial processes across the amalgamated Council.
Since implementation, MidCoast Council has used MC1 to carry out finance processes required to collect rates, prepare budgets, monitor expenditure and income and prepare financial statements.
Appendix one – Response from agency
Appendix two – Characteristics of effective financial management reporting
Appendix three – About the audit
Appendix four – Performance auditing
© 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 #381 - released 16 June 2023
