Oversight of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022 Annual Report 2023–24
Oversight of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022 Annual Report 2023-24
PDF - 2MB
Oversight of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022 Annual Report 2023-24
PDF - 2MB
This report provides a snapshot of voluntary public interest disclosures made between 1 October 2023, when the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022 (PID Act) commenced, and 30 June 2024. It also details our work under the PID Act, including advice and training, and our monitoring and auditing activities.
This is the first annual report relating to the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022 (NSW) (the Act) that my office has prepared. The Act commenced on 1 October 2023, and the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (the PID Act 1994) was repealed on the same date. Accordingly, while this report addresses the activities of my office over the full 12 months, including preparing for the commencement of the Act during the first 3 months of the financial year, the data in this report covers only a period of 9 months.
A strong ‘speak up’ culture that encourages public officials to report wrongdoing is important for ensuring the integrity of the public sector. An integral part of that ‘speak up’ culture is having in place a framework that facilitates public interest reporting of wrongdoing by:
The Act is an important part of building and maintaining this framework.
The NSW Ombudsman has a long history in championing whistleblower protection in NSW, and this has continued with the new Act. We have a number of functions in addition to receiving disclosures as an integrity agency:
This report outlines how we have approached these functions, as well as providing an overview of the voluntary public interest disclosures (PID[s]) made under the Act and the activities of agencies to train relevant staff and raise awareness of how to report wrongdoing among all public officials.
The report is structured in the same manner as my reporting obligation under the Act.2
Part 1 outlines the legislative framework for the PID scheme in NSW and describes our role under the Act.
Part 2 provides an overview of the activities of my office during the reporting period. This includes the activities we have undertaken to fulfil our functions under the Act.
Part 3 provides an overview of the activities of the PID Steering Committee, including recommendations made to the Minister during the reporting period.
Part 4 provides information about compliance by agencies with the Act.
Part 5 contains information relating to voluntary public interest disclosures made to agencies during the reporting period.
Part 6 reports on the agencies that have failed to provide my office with an annual return within the prescribed period, as required by section 78(2) of the Act.
This first report under the Act will provide a baseline or starting point for tracking the way in which voluntary PIDs are made and handled in NSW, including the outcome of disclosures. As the Parliamentary Committee noted when it recommended changes to agency reporting to our office, collecting and reporting on this type of information will assist in:
…improving public officials’ and authorities’ understanding of the PID Act. It will also provide better data on the effectiveness of agencies’ handling of public interest disclosures and assist the Ombudsman to deliver focused training and audit programs.3
It will take some time to achieve this, but we believe that all public officials deserve to have an effective framework within which they can come forward and report serious wrongdoing. They must also have the confidence that either their agency or the agency they report to will deal with their disclosure appropriately and provide them with the support and if necessary, protection required as a result of their decision to act in the public interest by speaking up.
The Act commenced on 1 October 2023. On that date the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (the PID Act 1994) was repealed.
A strong ‘speak up’ culture that encourages public officials to report wrongdoing is important for ensuring the integrity of the public sector. Good government relies on public officials speaking up when they witness, or otherwise become aware of, wrongdoing in the public sector.
An integral part of that ‘speak up’ culture is having in place a framework that facilitates public interest reporting of wrongdoing by:
The Act provides the framework in NSW for public officials to report serious wrongdoing in or affecting the public sector. Importantly, it protects public officials, witnesses and other persons from detriment or liability that might arise as a result of PIDs.
The objects of the Act are to:
When a public official makes a report of suspected or possible wrongdoing in the NSW public sector, their report will be a PID, if it has certain features which are set out in the Act.5
When a PID is received, it is important that the recipient quickly recognises that they have received a PID. Agencies therefore have to have an effective assessment process in place to ensure they can identify whether a report has the features of a PID, and therefore whether it is a PID. If an agency has received a report that is a PID (because it has all the features set out in the Act), then the report is a PID from the moment it is made, whether or not the agency recognises it as a PID.
PIDs attract special protections under the Act. These include:
The Act is concerned with reports of serious wrongdoing in or affecting the public sector. The concept of ‘agency’ is the Act’s central concept for what is and is not considered to be the public sector in NSW.
PIDs are generally reports of serious wrongdoing made by ‘public officials'9. The main category of public officials are those employed in or by an agency, or who are otherwise in the service of an agency. This means it is necessary to understand whether the relevant entity is an ‘agency’, in order to know whether the relevant person is a public official.
The concept of agency is also important because PIDs are made to agencies and, when received, it is agencies that may have the relevant obligations to investigate or otherwise deal with them, as well as to take other action — such as to support and protect the PID maker, to notify our office when a reportable event occurs and to provide their annual return to our office.
The definition of which entities are ‘agencies’ under the Act is broad and includes government departments, local government authorities, public universities, local Aboriginal land councils and integrity agencies.10
There are 3 types of PIDs in the Act. These are:
Agencies have an obligation under the Act to provide an annual return to our office about the voluntary PIDs they have received in the preceding year. In Part 5 of this report, we provide a breakdown of the information we have received from agencies about the voluntary PIDs they received during the reporting year.
The protections in the Act for a person who makes a PID will generally apply to all 3 types of PIDs. Agencies are not required to report to us on the mandatory and witness PIDs they receive.
Once an agency has received a PID, it will be subject to special obligations under the Act.
For voluntary PIDs, agencies are required to:
All PIDs must relate to serious wrongdoing (including a disclosure of information during an investigation of serious wrongdoing) in some way. Under the Act, ‘serious wrongdoing’ means one or more of the following:
The following are the integrity agencies under the Act.
Each integrity agency typically is concerned with a particular type of serious wrongdoing. For example, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is concerned with corrupt conduct, while our office is typically concerned with serious maladministration, the Auditor-General with conduct involving serious and substantial waste of public monies, and the NSW Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) with government information contraventions.
Our office has multiple roles under the Act.
The Ombudsman’s functions under the Act are:
Reporting to the Ombudsman in its role as the oversight agency
The NSW Ombudsman is an integrity agency under the Act. Distinct from our role as the oversight agency under the Act, as an integrity agency we can receive PIDs about any type of serious wrongdoing.
Our ordinary jurisdiction is the handling of complaints about maladministration, and the investigation of suspected maladministration. As such, we can investigate PIDs that we receive or that are referred to us which allege serious maladministration concerning agencies and public officials that are public authorities within our jurisdiction under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
Our staff are public officials under the Act, and as such they may make reports of serious wrongdoing and attract the protections under the Act. We have published a PID Policy which covers how we will deal with PIDs received by our disclosure officers, including PIDs which relate to us and those which relate to other agencies. As an agency under the Act, we are subject to the same obligations as other agencies under the Act.
We have established a dedicated unit (the PID Unit) to support the exercise of our functions as the oversight agency under the Act. The PID Unit is operationally separate from the branches of our office that support the exercise of our functions as an agency/integrity agency, including our functions of receiving and investigating complaints, including PIDs.
We published a comprehensive suite of 18 PID guidelines shortly before the commencement of the Act (draft versions had been published prior to this to allow for agencies to provide feedback).
The guidelines are a core reference for agencies and public officials, and the primary guidance material we publish.
We also published a model PID Policy for agencies to use and adapt to their context.
PID guidelines on the Ombudsman website
In the lead up to the 1 October 2023 commencement of the Act, we provided information and awareness sessions across the NSW public sector to assist the sector to be ready for the commencement of the Act. This included face-to-face and online sessions, supported by live action videos and animations, which we distributed to agencies.
Following the commencement of the Act, we continued to deliver information sessions to a range of audiences, including professional standards and investigation teams, leadership groups and Statutory Boards and Trustees.
Between 1 October 2023 and 30 June 2024, we presented 56 information and awareness sessions in person and online to over 2,600 attendees.
‘PID Bytes’ are short videos we created that highlight key aspects of the Act.
In the lead up to the commencement of the Act we produced a series of 7 PID Bytes on topics such as “Top 5 things an agency can do to prepare for the PID Act” and “What is a speak up culture and why is it important?”.
In July 2024 we released a second tranche of PID Bytes, which now total 19. As at the time of reporting, the PID Bytes have been viewed over 58,000 times.
At the end of 2023, we established a PID Community of Practice. The Community of Practice is an opportunity for public officials with specific roles under the Act to share experiences and ideas for operationalising the Act.
The group met in person for the first time in March 2024, and virtually in August 2024. Members will meet four times per year. At the time of writing, there were approximately 100 members.
In August 2024, we delivered the first PID awareness week in NSW. This was aimed at raising the level of understanding across the public sector about how the Act works and the importance of a ‘speak up’ culture.
We hosted 9 live online presentations with a range of speakers from our office and other agencies, including:
We also delivered targeted sessions for contractors, subcontractors and volunteers in agencies and disclosure officers.
621 people logged into the sessions, and session recordings were uploaded to YouTube. At the time of preparing this report, the session recordings have been viewed almost 2,000 times.
During PID Awareness Week we launched a suite of fact sheets and posters for agencies to use to raise awareness amongst their staff.
Prior to the commencement of the Act, we established a small team led by a First Nations Principal Engagement officer to focus on the delivery of online and face-to-face training and awareness to support Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) to meet their obligations under the Act.
Our work has included virtual roundtables to raise awareness of the Act with the NSWALC Zone Directors and LALC CEOs; the creation of core content in a range of formats and continued the expansion of our external stakeholder networks through face-to-face visits to LALCs.
We visited LALCs in regional areas in NSW including Gandangara, Mudgee, Narromine, Trangie and Dubbo.
Examples of our awareness work includes:
During the reporting period we responded to 323 requests for advice. The demand for advice was highest in the 6 months from 1 July to 31 December 2023 (the quarters that fell either side of the commencement of the Act) but remained strong throughout the reporting period. The team advised agencies from across the public sector including departments, integrity agencies, local government authorities and LALCs.
Following the commencement of the Act, we saw a noticeable increase in the number of enquiries about dealing with PIDs, which coincides with agencies operationalising the Act. Agencies also sought advice about topics including receiving and assessing a disclosure, options for dealing with voluntary PIDs, and protections under the Act including how to maintain confidentiality.
During 2023-24 we worked on developing an operating model for the provision of support to whistleblowers in the NSW public sector. We looked at relevant research and different models in Australia and internationally to understand what best practice looks like.
As a result, we commenced the establishment of a Whistleblower Support Team to provide impartial support to public officials in NSW who have made, or are seeking to make, a PID. Its purpose is to empower those people with information and objective guidance, and, where necessary, to assist with referring them to appropriate professional expertise such as legal advice or wellbeing support. The Whistleblower Support Team is co-located with and reports to the same Deputy Ombudsman as the broader PID Unit but maintains an information barrier (‘confidentiality screen’) in respect of the requests for advice and support it receives.
By 30 June 2024 a Manager Whistleblower Support had been hired, and the recruitment of two Senior Whistleblower Support Specialists was nearing completion.
Under the Act, agencies are required to provide training to their disclosure officers and managers within 6 months after the commencement of the Act, or 3 months after they commence in the role if it was later than 6 months after the Act commenced.19 Disclosure officers and managers must be given refresher training at least every 3 years.20
We developed two eLearning courses to assist agencies meet this training requirement. The courses were provided to agencies in September 2023 to upload onto their Learning Management Systems (LMS).
21 smaller agencies and regional councils that did not have their own LMS were provided access to the LMS we use to support our fee-based training service. 365 people from these 21 agencies have completed the course for disclosure officers, and 452 people have completed the course for managers.
In March 2024, we launched our ‘PID for LALC’ training, initially delivered as virtual training sessions online. From April, we conducted face-to-face sessions of this training to managers within LALCs.
As at 30 June 2024, we had provided PID training to 55 of the 118 LALC CEOs and to 131 LALC staff and board members.
The Act requires agencies to notify our office when a reportable event occurs. These notifications must occur as soon as possible following the event. Information about reporting is available in our Reporting to the Ombudsman guideline.
Categories of reportable events
Reportable events under the Act are:
We received 126 reportable event notifications between 1 October 2023 and 30 June 2024. Over half of these notifications (53%) related to arrangements entered into under s 81 of the Act.
Notifications relating to detrimental action offences are made when an agency becomes aware of an allegation of a detrimental action offence as well as when an agency becomes aware that a detrimental action offence has been committed.
When we receive a detrimental action offence notification, we contact the agency for further information to ascertain whether the agency is appropriately dealing with the matter, the seriousness of the allegation and what further monitoring action we will take.
Table 1: Number of Notifications made to the NSW Ombudsman for the 2023-24 reporting period
Notification type | Number |
|---|---|
Notifications about alleged or possible detrimental action offences (s 34(4)) | 19 |
Notifications about decisions to cease or not investigate a disclosure (s 55(3)) | 40 |
Notifications about arrangements to exercise functions on behalf of an agency (s 81) | 67 |
Total | 126 |
We developed a new portal for agencies to submit their 2023-24 annual return. The portal was launched in June 2024. We supported relevant agency staff to use the portal by holding a webinar, developing a series of user guides and providing helpdesk support. Parts 4 and 5 of this report contain information about the annual returns received in this reporting period.
The Act establishes a PID Steering Committee. The functions of the Steering Committee are to:
When the Act commenced on 1 October 2023, the Steering Committee (which had existed under the previous PID Act) was reestablished to continue to perform these key functions. The members of the Committee are:
The Ombudsman is the chairperson of the Steering Committee.
Each Committee member can nominate someone to exercise the functions of a member either generally or for a particular purpose. Seven of the Committee members have made general nominations, and some nominations have changed from time to time.
At the time of writing, the nominated representatives for each Committee member are:
The Steering Committee met on 20 November 2023 and 25 March 2024. The following members (or their nominees) attended each of the meetings.30
20 November 2023
25 March 2024
During the reporting period the role of the Committee has been primarily to oversee, guide and assist our office in our work to implement the Act.
At each meeting our office has also reported to the Committee on emerging operational issues with the Act reported by agencies, as well as any suggestions made by agencies for legislative change. The Committee has provided their insight into these operational and legislative issues.
The Committee commenced the collation and review of possible areas for legislative change for the purpose of providing advice and making recommendations to the Special Minister of State and the Premier.
During the reporting period, the Committee did not provide advice to the Minister.
The Committee will continue to monitor the operation of the Act and identify ways in which it can be further improved in the future.
Prior to the commencement of the Act, our office identified that the following issues were not fully addressed by the Act. In our ‘Special Report to Parliament on the Public Interest Disclosures Bill 2021'31 we indicated that we would ask the Steering Committee to consider these issues and report back their advice to Government.
The relevant issues are:
One of our roles in oversighting the Act is to audit and monitor how agencies exercise their functions under the Act.
In 2023–24 we developed a self-assessment audit to establish a baseline of compliance with the Act across the sector.
We issued this self-assessment audit to 597 agencies after 30 June 2024, to ensure agencies had a reasonable period of time to implement the Act before completing the audit. A second self-assessment audit will be undertaken to allow for comparison.
The self-assessment nature of the audit provides agencies with an opportunity to assess and report to us on their compliance with the Act, and act immediately to address any identified shortcomings in ensuring they comply with the Act.
The audit results will feed into our future engagement, advice, audit and monitoring work with a view to supporting agencies to improve their compliance and understanding of the Act.
We will report on the outcome of the 2 self-assessment audits in a separate audit report.
The Act allows an agency to arrange for another agency to exercise its functions on its behalf. Agencies can also arrange for entities (which are not agencies) to exercise the following functions:
Agencies are required to notify the Ombudsman of any such arrangements. They are also required to prominently publish the details of the arrangement the agency’s public website and the agency’s intranet (if an agency has them).
During the reporting period, 67 agencies notified us they had entered into an arrangement with another agency or entity. We undertook a desktop audit by reviewing the websites of these agencies to ascertain their compliance with the publication requirement.
We found that only 48% of these agencies had published the details of the arrangement on their public website. We will continue to monitor and engage with the agencies to increase their level of compliance with this obligation.
The Act provides that all agencies must have a PID policy.32 The Act also sets out the mandatory information which must be included in a PID policy, and states that the PID policy must be prominently published on the agency’s public website and intranet (if the agency has them).33
During the reporting period, we conducted 329 desktop audits of agency websites and their PID policies (if published) to determine:
Table 2 presents the number of the agencies subject to the website audit by agency type and the corresponding outcome.
Table 2: PID policy website audit by agency type
Agency type - s 16 of the Act | # desktop audits | # of agencies with current PID Policy published | # agencies with no public website | # of agencies with public website but PID policy not published |
Local government authority | 145 | 95 | 1 | 49 |
Statutory body representing the Crown | 47 | 11 | 8 | 28 |
A public authority whose conduct or activities an integrity agency is authorised by another Act or law to investigate or audit | 42 | 17 | 4 | 21 |
Local Aboriginal Land Council | 24 | 0 | 17 | 7 |
NSW Health Service | 10 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
An integrity agency | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 |
A State-owned corporation or subsidiary of a State-owned corporation | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Public service agency | 45 | 27 | 1 | 17 |
Teaching Service of New South Wales | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Parliamentary Department | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
TOTAL | 329 | 165 | 33 | 131 |
165 (50%) agencies of the audited agencies had a PID Policy, which met the content requirements under the Act, and which was published on their website.
Of the remaining 164 agencies, 33 (20%) did not have a public website. 131 (40%) of all agencies audited either had no PID policy published on their website, or their policy still referenced the PID Act 1994.
We contacted all agencies that did not have a PID policy published on their website and provided them with information on the requirement to have a PID policy under the Act.
Table 3. Agency compliance with PID policy publication requirement
Agency compliance with PID policy publication requirement | Number |
Current PID Policy published on agency website | 165 (50%) |
No PID Policy published on agency website | 131 (40%) |
No website identified | 33 (10%) |
Total | 329 |
One of the objects of the Act is to promote a culture in which PIDs are encouraged. 34 Agencies are also required to include information in their annual return to us about the measures taken by the agency to promote a culture in which PIDs are encouraged.
481 agencies (85%)35 reported taking measures to promote a ‘speak up’ culture, with most agencies reporting taking more than one type of measure. 58 responses indicated no measures were taken to promote a speak up culture.
Figure 1. How agencies promoted a ‘speak up’ culture
Agencies must ensure all public officials associated with the agency are made aware of —
Agencies reported on awareness activities that were undertaken during the return period. Of the 563 agencies36 that submitted an annual return to us, 534 (95%) reported that they had taken some form of awareness activity to ensure public officials associated with the agency were aware of the items listed above.
We asked agencies to report on the activities undertaken as well as the manner in which they raised awareness of the Act with their public officials. The most common method used for awareness activities included:
Agencies also reported on the type of awareness activities undertaken (see Figure 2). The 3 most common awareness activities were:
Figure 2. PID awareness activities undertaken by agencies
183 (33%)37 agencies reported that they had undertaken awareness activities which were not in our list of possible awareness activities. We asked these agencies to provide further details on the activities they had undertaken. Figure 3 below outlines these additional awareness activities in categories.38
90 of 183 (49%) agencies reported that PID content was also included in the mandatory training the agency provides its employees.39 34 (19%) reported that they implemented dedicated PID awareness campaigns, including developing internal PID videos and promoting the Act on computer screensavers.
26 of these 183 (14%) agencies responded that they had not otherwise undertaken awareness activities because they did not have public officials associated with their agency.
We will use this information to further refine the list of awareness activities in the portal for the 2024-25 annual return.
Figure 3. Additional PID awareness activities undertaken by agencies
An agency must ensure each of the following people receive training in relation to their responsibilities under the Act and the agency’s PID policy:
The time within which the training is to be provided, and the frequency of refresher training, are specified in the Regulation.41
478 (85%) agencies reported that their head of agency, all disclosure officers, and/or all managers received training on the agency’s PID policy and on their responsibilities under the Act.
85 (15%) agencies indicated that none of the staff in these roles had received training during the return period.
Figure 4. Compliance with training requirements across all agencies by role type
Across all agencies, the compliance rate of the provision of PID training to persons in the following roles were reported to be:
73% of agencies indicated they included content about the Act in their induction training. This would mean that all new staff have undertaken some form of PID training, regardless of role. The breakdown is in Figure 4B.
Agencies must provide the Ombudsman with an annual return, which must contain the information, and be provided in the manner, prescribed by the Regulation.42
The Ombudsman has issued a Guideline 'Reporting to the Ombudsman' that outlines these requirements.
An agency’s annual return is in 2 parts:
Agencies’ returns concerning the voluntary PIDs they have received must be divided into the following categories:
Category 1 – voluntary PIDs relating to the agency
A voluntary PID relates to an agency if the disclosure is about serious wrongdoing:
Category 2 – other voluntary PIDs
These may include:
Agencies must provide the following information about each voluntary PID received or dealt with during the return period:
An agency is also to include in the annual return information about purported PIDs that were assessed as not being PIDs:
An agency must provide an annual return to the Ombudsman in relation to each period of 12 months ending on 30 June (the return period).45 This means that typically the return period will be 1 July to 30 June of each year. For the purposes of this report, the return period refers to 1 October 2023 to 30 June 2024.
Between 1 July 2023 and 30 September 2023, the PID Act 1994 was in effect. This meant that agencies received and dealt with PIDs under the former disclosure scheme until the commencement of the new Act. These disclosures do not form part of this report.
Data only relates to voluntary PIDs
An agency is only required to report to us on the voluntary PIDs they receive and deal with during the return period. Agencies are not required to include in their annual return information about any disclosures received or dealt with by any agency that are mandatory or witness PIDs.
‘Over-reporting’ of the number of unique voluntary PIDs in the sector
When a voluntary PID is received by one agency and then referred to another, the second agency will have then also ‘received’ the PID. Consequently, both agencies will report the voluntary PID in their annual returns, which means that there is likely an over-reporting of unique voluntary PIDs.
Over-reporting will also arise where a PID maker makes a disclosure to multiple agencies, each of whom will have received the PID and should include it in their annual return.
For future reporting periods we will explore ways to capture information that may enable us to provide a more accurate estimate of the number of unique voluntary PIDs received across the sector during the reporting period.
Bulk uploads of annual return data identified inconsistencies
PID annual return reporting under the Act requires the capture of significantly more data than had previously been required under the PID Act 1994.
Several larger agencies told us they needed an ability to bulk upload their data due to the large number of voluntary PIDs they had received and the number of agencies on whose behalf they would be reporting. We facilitated this through interim measures that allowed for the bulk upload of data via a digital portal.
Analysis of this data indicated that there were deviations in the data field descriptions used by some agencies and those outlined in our Reporting to the Ombudsman Guideline, which has resulted in some inconsistencies in the type of data recorded against the different fields by different agencies.
As we develop phase 2 of the portal for future annual returns, we will ensure that we embed more and clearer guidance to agencies on the collation and recording of annual return data in relation to the voluntary PIDs received.
Data cannot be directly compared with previous annual reports under the PID Act 1994
The reporting obligations which were prescribed under the former disclosure scheme are not comparable to the obligations implemented in the current Act. For this reason, a direct comparison between the reports submitted under the PID Act 1994 is not possible. Some significant differences include, but are not limited to, the below:
Under the new Act we identified a significantly higher number of agencies which are required to provide an annual return to us, than under the PID Act 1994.46 As a result, we received more returns than in previous years.47
This increase can also be attributed to the greater awareness that agencies have of the Act and the annual return requirement as a result of our engagement and our provision of a portal for complying with this requirement.
We identified 1,276 public sector entities as agencies under the Act. Of these:
597 is the total number of all other agencies, as represented in Figure 5 below. In this report we refer to this group as the “general cohort”.
In the annual return we asked agencies to identify which category of agency (as defined under the Act) they best fit within. We further broke down some of these categories to present the data in a form that was more indicative of the information we received in the annual returns.
The agency types we have reported on are:
The agency group ‘Public Service Agency’ includes a wide range of agencies but is largely made up of government departments listed in Schedule 1 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (GSE Act). A list of these agencies is included at Appendix A.
The group called ‘University’ includes the 10 universities established by NSW legislation, as well as 58 organisations that are linked or affiliated with a university,50 and considered to be an agency for the purposes of the Act.
The agencies which are included under ‘Public authority which can be investigated or audited by an integrity agency’ are those which identified this as the category which best described how they came to be an agency under the Act (however, most other agencies under the Act are also subject to the jurisdiction of the integrity agencies).
For the purposes of this report, we have excluded SLMs and CTs from the majority of our reporting and analysis and only report on the general cohort. We do so because, while there is a large number of SLMs and CTs (when compared to other agencies in the sector), they have very few associated public officials and have only reported to have received 1 voluntary PID between them.
Figure 5. Agency types broken down by type (general cohort) (n=597)
1,242 agencies (97% of all 1276 agencies) submitted an annual return in 2023-24.
Of these:
The 6% of agencies in the general cohort that did not submit an annual return were all LALCs. All of the SLMs and CTs provided their annual return after the required date. This is explained further in Part 6 of this report.
Figure 6. Composition of agencies that submitted an annual return
Table 4. Annual return submission rates 2023-24
Agencies | Agencies | Returns | Annual return compliance |
Total agencies | 1,276 | 1,242 | 97% |
General cohort | 597 | 563 | 94% |
SLMs | 564 | 564 | 100% |
CTs | 115 | 115 | 100% |
Agency types
Excluding SLMs and CTs, most annual returns were submitted by local government authorities 148 (26%). This was followed by statutory bodies representing the Crown 115 (20%) and LALCs with 84 15% of annual returns submitted. Figure 7 shows these top 3 agency types comprised 62% of annual returns from the general cohort.
An agency may arrange for another agency to exercise that agency’s functions under the Act, which can include submitting their annual return.51
185 agencies (15% of the 1242 agencies which submitted an annual return) reported they had entered into an arrangement with another agency to submit the annual return on their behalf. The breakdown of these agency types is provided in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Annual returns made by way of a s 81 arrangement (n=185)
The annual returns show that 1,330 voluntary PIDs were received in the reporting period.
The highest number of voluntary PIDs were received by public service agencies 412 (31%). Voluntary PIDs received by integrity agencies comprised 26%, followed by statutory bodies representing the Crown at 21%. These 3 agency types received 79% of all voluntary PIDs.
Figure 9. Number of voluntary PIDs by agency type (n=1330)
We asked agencies to provide us with the number of their full time equivalent (FTE) employees. Figure 10 below shows the number of voluntary PIDs received by size of agency (on the basis of the FTE).
The 13 agencies with more than 10,000 FTE comprised 2% of agencies and reported 41% of the voluntary PIDs received across the sector (540). Most agencies, 167 (30%) reported having between 101 and 1,000 FTE employees. These agencies received a total of 404 voluntary PIDs (30% of all voluntary PIDs in the sector).
Figure 10. Number of FTE employees and voluntary PIDs received by size of agency
As part of their annual return, agencies must separate voluntary PIDs into two categories and report separately on each category.52 These categories, as detailed earlier in this report, are:
Of the 1,330 voluntary PIDs received, 61% fell into Category 1 and 39% fell into Category 2.
Figure 11. Proportion of Category 1 and Category 2 voluntary PIDs (n=1330)
Most agencies reported that they received a significantly higher proportion of Category 1 PIDs, with the exception of integrity agencies which reported that 99% of the voluntary PIDs they received were part of Category 2.
Figure 12. Category 1 and Category 2 voluntary PIDs received by integrity agencies (n=351)
In their annual return, agencies are required to report on how they received each voluntary PID.
Agencies reported that most voluntary PIDs were received in writing (80% of the 1330 voluntary PIDs received).
Table 5. Voluntary PID mode of submission
How voluntary PID submitted | 2023-24 |
437 (33%) | |
Online | 280 (21%) |
Post | 40 (3%) |
In writing (email, online or by post)* | 306 (23%) |
Phone | 166 (12%) |
In person | 90 (7%) |
Verbally (phone or in person)* | 11 (>1%) |
*Some agencies reported the receipt mode as only ‘in writing’ or ‘verbally’ without a further breakdown as to the method in which the PID was actually received.
A report is received by an agency when it is:
Of the 1,330 voluntary PIDs received, agencies reported that most (796 or 60%) were received by ‘another disclosure officer for an agency’, meaning a disclosure officer for the agency other than the head of agency. Voluntary PIDs reported directly to the head of agency or not addressed to a specific individual but sent to the agency’s registered address, email address or other usual address (thereby taken to be made to the head of agency) comprised 36% of all voluntary PIDs received in 2023-24.
Table 6. Recipients of voluntary public interest disclosures
Recipient | 2023-24 |
A manager of the person making the disclosure | 50 (4%) |
Another disclosure officer for an agency | 796 (60%) |
The head of an agency | 92 (7%) |
Sent to the agency’s registered address, email address, or other usual address and not addressed to any specific individual53 | 381 (29%) |
Subject to section 24(3)(c) – a Minister or a member of a Minister’s staff | 11 (<1%) |
PID makers can choose to remain anonymous when making a disclosure. Agencies reported that 392 (29%) of PID makers chose to remain anonymous, while the majority did not (70%).54 Under the Act, a disclosure is an anonymous PID only if, after considering the circumstances of the PID and any material which relates to it, it is determined that there is no reasonable or practical way of communicating with the PID maker.55 (This means that a person may make a PID without disclosing their identity, but this would not be considered an ‘anonymous’ PID under the Act if the person provided a means by which they could be contacted, for example an email address using a pseudonym).
Figure 13. Proportion of PID makers remaining anonymous (n=1330)
Figure 14. Voluntary PIDs that were also purported PIDs (n=1330)
For each voluntary PID, agencies are required to report whether the serious wrongdoing involved 1 public official or more than 1 public official, and, if applicable, the relationship between the maker of the disclosure and the public official whose serious wrongdoing the disclosure was about.
Most agencies reported that most voluntary PIDs involved only 1 public official.
761 (57%) voluntary PIDs received involved 1 public official, and 555 (42%) involved more than 1 public official.
Figure 15. Number of public officials involved in serious wrongdoing subject of a voluntary PID (n=1330)
Agencies reported on the relationship between the maker of the disclosure and the public official whose alleged serious wrongdoing the disclosure was about. The largest proportion of voluntary PIDs received were those where the PID maker was a coworker with the person subject of the PID (41%). In 33% of all voluntary PIDs the relationship was either not reported by the agency or was not disclosed. This may be because the agency had not captured the relevant information.
Figure 16. Relationship between the PID maker and public official(s) subject of the PID (n=1330)
The Act defines serious wrongdoing as one or more of the following:
A voluntary PID may make an allegation, or may make multiple allegations, that fall into more than one category of serious wrongdoing.
Agencies in their annual returns are supposed to identify all categories of serious wrongdoing to which a voluntary PID relates. However, it appears likely that in many cases agencies are reporting only the most obvious or prominent category, or the category that the PID maker themselves has identified. For example, most allegations of corrupt conduct will also fall within the definition of serious maladministration, but most PIDs reported as being about corrupt conduct are not reported as also being reports of serious maladministration.
192 (14%) voluntary PIDs have been reported by agencies as involving multiple categories of serious wrongdoing.
Information about voluntary PIDs that are reported as relating to more than one category of serious wrongdoing is provided in Table 7. The top 5 combinations are represented in that table.
Table 7. Voluntary PIDs containing more than 1 type of serious wrongdoing
Types of serious wrongdoing reported | Number of voluntary PIDs |
Corrupt conduct Serious maladministration | 85 |
Corrupt conduct A serious and substantial waste of public money | 50 |
Serious maladministration A serious and substantial waste of public money | 20 |
Corrupt conduct Serious maladministration A serious and substantial waste of public money | 16 |
Corrupt conduct A privacy contravention | 7 |
Figure 17 shows the allegations of serious wrongdoing identified in voluntary PIDs received by agencies. The majority of voluntary PIDs are reported as having alleged corrupt conduct (70%). The second most common type of serious wrongdoing reported was serious maladministration (29%).
Figure 17. Type of serious wrongdoing reported
An agency is to provide the following information in an annual return in relation to the voluntary PIDs that they have dealt with during the return period:
Action taken on voluntary PIDs – all agencies
Of the 1330 voluntary PIDs received by agencies during the reporting period, a total of 735 were reported as finalised as at 30 June 2024.
Of these, 401 (55%) were reported to us as having been investigated, including 116 (16%) that were subject to external investigation.
Of the 177 matters reported as finalised by integrity agencies, 131 (74%) were dealt with by the integrity agency under section 56(2) of the Act. Section 56(2) allows an integrity agency to deal with a voluntary PID which does not relate to it in accordance s 58 of the Act, or another Act or law which authorises the integrity agency to investigate the relevant serious wrongdoing (for example, ICAC may deal with such a voluntary PID under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988).
Figure 18. Action taken by agency (n=735)
Action taken on voluntary PIDs – excluding integrity agencies
Excluding those dealt with by integrity agencies, 558 voluntary PIDs were reported as having been finalised in the reporting period. Of these:
In 4% of cases the agency reported that it ceased to deal with the disclosure because it was assessed not to be a voluntary PID.
Figure 19. Action taken by agency (excluding integrity agencies) (n=558)
Findings of serious wrongdoing
Of the voluntary PIDs finalised during the reporting period, serious wrongdoing was reported to have been found in 81 matters following investigation.
Corrective action taken
An agency must take corrective action if the outcome of an investigation into a voluntary PID includes a finding that serious wrongdoing or other misconduct occurred.57 Corrective action under the Act includes:
In the annual return, agencies are required to report on the corrective action taken, proposed to be taken, or recommended to be taken by the agency. An agency can take multiple forms of corrective action in relation to one voluntary PID (in this reporting period 158 corrective actions were taken in relation to 111 voluntary PIDs).
Corrective action pursuant to section 69(4) of the GSE Act was reported to have been taken in relation to 37 voluntary PIDs, comprising 23% of the 158 corrective actions reported. Training and education were reported as the corrective action taken in relation to 30 (19%) matters, and improvements to procedure or policy was the corrective action taken in relation to 29 (18%) matters.
Figure 20. Corrective action taken by agencies (n=158)
Referrals under the Act can be made to:
Referrals made to an integrity agency
Agencies reported they made 159 referrals to integrity agencies. Of these,
In most cases, where voluntary PIDs were referred to an integrity agency they were directed to the integrity agency whose ordinary jurisdiction is the relevant category of serious wrongdoing.
Figure 21. Referrals made to integrity agencies (n=159)
Note: A voluntary PID could be referred to more than one integrity agency
Agencies reported that they received 180 (14%) voluntary PIDs by way of referral from another agency. 118 (66%) of these referred voluntary PIDs were received from an integrity agency.
Table 8. Voluntary PIDs referred from another agency (n=180)
Agencies that referred voluntary PIDs to another agency are listed below by agency type
Referring agency by type | 2023-24 |
Integrity agency | 118 (66%) |
Local government authority | 29 (16%) |
Public service agency | 19 (11%) |
NSW Health Service | 6 (3%) |
Statutory body representing the crown | 4 (2%) |
Parliamentary Departments | 1 (<1%) |
NSW Police Force | 1 (<1%) |
Local Aboriginal Land Council | 1 (<1%) |
Public authority which can be investigated or audited by an integrity agency | 1 (<1%) |
A purported PID is a disclosure that is:
Through our engagement with agencies preparing their annual return, we have identified that there is some confusion around what a purported PID is. This may have impacted on the accuracy of the data received in the annual returns.
An agency is required to include the following information about purported PIDs that were not in fact PIDs in their annual return:
Agencies reported receiving a total of 162 purported PIDs that were not in fact PIDs. 124 (77%) were made by public officials and 38 (23%) by individuals who were not public officials.
Reasons provided for not dealing with the disclosure as a PID included:
Table 9. Reasons for NOT dealing with purported PIDs as a voluntary PID
Reason for NOT dealing with purported PIDs as PID disclosure | Number of purported PIDs |
Not made by a public official | 14 |
Not a report of serious wrongdoing | 94 |
Other reasons | 54 |
We asked agencies that reported ‘other reasons’ to provide more detail as to why they did not deal with, or ceased to deal with, a purported PID as a PID. In relation to 16 (30%) reports, agencies told us that the disclosure did not have the requisite features of a PID. Other responses given included:
13 agencies did not provide further reasons. In 2 cases the agency (both LALCs) told us that the reason for their failure to deal with the purported PID as a PID was that the CEO was new to the role. Some of the responses indicate a poor understanding of the Act. For example, the Act provides that an individual employee grievance relating only to that employee and with no implications beyond those personally affecting them, is not a PID.59 However, apart from that exclusion, the fact that a matter may be dealt with as a ‘human resources’ or ‘staff misconduct’ issue does not mean that it may not also be a PID.
The Act requires us to include in this report information about any agencies that failed to provide the Ombudsman with an annual return within the period specified by the Act.60
Of the 1,276 identified agencies, 34 agencies have not provided us with an annual return (< 3%). All 34 of these agencies were LALCs (84 LALCs did provide us with an annual return). A list of the 34 agencies that did not provide an annual return is available in Appendix B to this report.
Through our engagement with the Aboriginal Land Council network, it is apparent that there are challenges for some LALCs to fulfil their governance and statutory obligations given their size and resourcing. We have established a specialised engagement team within the PID Unit which engages specifically with LALCs to raise their awareness and understanding of the Act, deliver training and provide contextualised resources. We will continue to engage with LALCs to ensure that they are supported to fulfil their reporting obligations.
Agencies must provide an annual return to the Ombudsman in relation to the return period, within 30 days of 30 June.61 The Ombudsman can approve for the annual return to be provided at a later time. 82% of agencies requested an extension to provide their annual return.
Table 10. Number of agencies that requested extension to submit their 2023-24 annual return
Agency group | Number of extensions |
Agencies (general cohort) | 339 |
Statutory Land Managers | 564 |
Common Trusts | 115 |
Total | 1018 |
One agency62 submitted the annual return outside of the prescribed period due to it only recently becoming aware that it is considered an ‘agency’ under the Act.
686 other agencies provided their annual return after the due date for submission.63 Apart from 7 agencies (listed in Appendix B) these 686 agencies were:
Aboriginal Languages Trust
Art Gallery of NSW Trust
Australian Museum
City West Housing
Crown Solicitor's Office
Dams Safety NSW
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Department of Communities and Justice
Department of Customer Service
Department of Education
Department of Enterprise, Investment and Trade
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Department of Regional NSW
Department of Transport
Destination NSW
Fire and Rescue NSW
Health Professional Councils Authority
Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal
Infrastructure NSW (iNSW)
Land and Housing Corporation
Legal Aid NSW
Library Council of NSW
Local Land Services
Long Service Corporation
Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (Powerhouse Museum)
Museums of History NSW
Natural Resources Commission
NSW Electoral Commission
NSW Government Telecommunications Authority
NSW Reconstruction Authority
NSW Skills Board
NSW Treasury
NSW Trustee and Guardian
Office of Sport
Office of the Independent Review Office
Office of the NSW Rural Fire Service
Office of the Registrar Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW)
Parliamentary Counsel's Office
Premier's Department
Public Service Commission
Service NSW
State Library of NSW Foundation
State Sporting Venues Authority
Sydney Ferries
Sydney Metro
Sydney Opera House Trust
Sydney Trains
TAFE Commission Board
TAFE NSW
Teachers Housing Authority
The Cabinet Office
Venues NSW
Western Sydney Parklands Trust
Amaroo Local Aboriginal Land Council
Armidale Local Aboriginal Land Council
Baryulgil Square Local Aboriginal Land Council
Birrigan Gargle Local Aboriginal Land Council
Bogal Local Aboriginal Land Council
Bowraville Local Aboriginal Land Council
Cobar Local Aboriginal Land Council
Cobowra Local Aboriginal Land Council
Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council
Collarenebri Local Aboriginal Land Council
Cummeragunja Local Aboriginal Land Council
Forster Local Aboriginal Land Council
Glen Innes Local Aboriginal Land Council
Goodooga Local Aboriginal Land Council
Gugin Gudduba Local Aboriginal Land Council
Jana Ngalee Local Aboriginal Land Council
Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council
Leeton and District Local Aboriginal Land Council
Lightning Ridge Local Aboriginal Land Council
Moombahlene Local Aboriginal Land Council
Narrabri Local Aboriginal Land Council
Narromine Local Aboriginal Land Council
Purfleet/Taree Local Aboriginal Land Council
Tharawal Local Aboriginal Land Council
Thunggutti Local Aboriginal Land Council
Trangie Local Aboriginal Land Council
Tweed/Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council
Walgett Local Aboriginal Land Council
Warren Macquarie Local Aboriginal Land Council
Wee Waa Local Aboriginal Land Council
Weilmoringle Local Aboriginal Land Council
Weilwan Local Aboriginal Land Council
Wellington Local Aboriginal Land Council
Wilcannia Local Aboriginal Land Council
Coonamble Local Aboriginal Land Council
Jubullum Local Aboriginal Land Council
Land and Housing Corporation
Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council
Teachers Housing Authority
Walhallow Local Aboriginal Land Council
Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council
1 Section 72(1)(d).
2 Section 76(1).
3 Committee on the Ombudsman, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Crime Commission, Review of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994, p. 35. Report - Review of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994.PDF
4 Section 3.
5 Part 2, Division 2.
6 Section 40.
7 Part 3, Division 2.
8 Section 64.
9 The meaning of ‘public official’ is in section 14.
10 The meaning of ‘agency’ is in section 16.
11 Section 24.
12 Section 27.
13 Section 23.
14 Section 22.
15 Section 13.
16 Section 19.
17 Part 6, Division 2.
18 Section 78.
19 Section 48(2) and clause 4(2) of the Regulation.
20 Clause 4(3) of the Regulation.
21 Section 34(4)(a).
22 Section 34(2).
23 Section 34(4)(c).
24 Section 34(4)(d).
25 Section 81(4)(b).
26 Ibid.
27 Section 68.
28 Section 67.
29 There have been several senior officers in the position of Commander of the Professional Standards Command representing the Commissioner at Steering Committee meetings.
30 A number of the nominees listed as having attended the 25 March 2024 meeting have since had a change in their position title. The title listed is the role they held at the time of the meeting.
31 Special Report by the NSW Ombudsman on the Public Interest Disclosures Bill 202
32 Section 42.
33 Section 43.
34 Section 3(a).
35 Excluding Statutory Land Managers and Common Trusts.
36 Excluding Statutory Land Managers and Common Trusts.
37 Excluding Statutory Land Managers and Common Trusts.
38 5 agencies did not provide further details on the activities.
39 As distinct from mandatory PID training specified in section 48(2) of the Act.
40 Section 48(2).
41 Clauses 4(2) and (3).
42 Section 78 of the Act, clauses 5 and 6 of the Regulation.
43 Under section 81 of the Act, an agency can arrange for another agency or entity to exercise all or some of their functions.
44 A purported PID is defined in the dictionary (Schedule 2 of the Act) as a disclosure that is:
45 Section 78(2).
46 Under the PID Act 1994 agencies were referred to as ‘public authorities’. The definition of which entities were considered ‘public authorities’ was not as clear as under the new Act.
47 Under the PID Act 1994 public authorities were required to provide their report (now a return) on a 6 monthly basis.
48 Established or Continued Under the Crown Land Management Act 2016. Crown reserves are managed in collaboration between the community and the government. This network of community-minded organisations, which includes local councils, incorporated groups, not-for-profit corporations as well as over 550 volunteer boards are responsible for overseeing more than 7,800 Crown reserves throughout New South Wales.
49 Trust established in respect of a Common under the Commons Management Act 1989. Publicly owned land overseen by the state government on behalf of the people of NSW is known as crown land. These include cemeteries, recreation areas, pasture grounds and beaches. Crown land managers operate the day-to-day operations of Crown reserves, through a partnership between the community and the government. Commons trust boards often depend on volunteers which play a vital role in the management and operation of their common.
50 Examples include commercial consulting companies of a university, other registered higher education institutions that are related to a university.
51 Section 81(2).
52 Clause 6(1) of the Regulation.
53 Under section 27(2) of the Act, these disclosures are taken to be made to the head of an agency.
54 Less than 1% of agencies provided no response to this question.
55 Schedule 2 Dictionary.
56 Section 13.
57 Section 66(1).
58 Section 27.
59 Section 26(3)(a).
60 Section 76(1)(e).
61 Section 78(1).
62 Albury Base Hospital.
63 All of these agencies requested and were granted an extension of time, but did not provide the return within that extended timeframe.
We acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we work and pay our respects to all Elders past and present, and to the children of today who are the Elders of the future.
Artist: Jasmine Sarin, a proud Kamilaroi and Jerrinja woman.