TOWN OF CLAREMONT AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT … · AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 9 FEBRUARY, 2018 Page 1 5 REPORTS OF THE CEO 5.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE 5.1.1 COMPLIANCE

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

NOTICE OF MEETING

A MEETING OF THE


TO BE HELD IN THE TOWN OF CLAREMONT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, MEETING ROOM 3,

308 STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT.,

FRIDAY, 9 FEBRUARY, 2018

COMMENCING AT 8:00AM

Liz Ledger Chief Executive Officer Date ___________________

Page ii

DISCLAIMER

Persons present at this meeting are cautioned against taking any action as a result of any Committee recommendations until such time as those recommendations have been considered by Council and the minutes of that Council meeting confirmed.

AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 9 FEBRUARY, 2018

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ......... III

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES ....................................... III

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS ....................................................... III

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ................. III

5 REPORTS OF THE CEO ................................................................. 1

5.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE ........................................................... 1

5.1.1 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2017 .............................................. 1

5.1.2 RISK MANANGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW ............................. 5

6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............................................................. 9

7 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COMMITTEE .............................................. 9

8 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING ..................................... 9

ATTACHMENT 1 – RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK .......................... 4


Page ii


Page iii


AGENDA

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Audit and Risk Management Committee Meeting Minutes – 14 November 2017.

https://www.claremont.wa.gov.au/MediaLibrary/TownOfClaremont/Documents/Minutes-November-14-2017-Audit-and-Risk-Management-Committee.pdf

https://www.claremont.wa.gov.au/MediaLibrary/TownOfClaremont/Documents/Minutes-November-14-2017-Audit-and-Risk-Management-Committee.pdf


Page 1

5 REPORTS OF THE CEO

5.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

5.1.1 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2017

File Ref: FIM/0070-02

Attachments: Compliance Audit Return 2017 (Attachment 1) Compliance Audit Return Report (Attachment 2)

Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Author: Danielle Uniza Senior Governance and Risk Advisor

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 February 2018

Purpose

To present the 2017 Compliance Audit Return for review by the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Background

Regulation 14 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 requires that a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December is completed each year. The completed Compliance Audit Return (CAR) must be reviewed by the Town’s Audit and Risk Management Committee before being presented to Council for adoption. The adopted CAR is to be certified by both the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer before it is submitted to the Executive Director of the Department of Local Government and Communities by 31 March. The Compliance Audit Return (CAR) is a statutory reporting tool that seeks to evaluate that Town’s compliance with targeted sections of the Local Government Act 1995 over the past calendar year.

Discussion

In completing the Compliance Audit Return, relevant officers designated by the Chief Executive Officer have undertaken an audit of the Town’s activities, practices and procedures in line with the Local Government Act 1995 and its associated regulations. To ensure that a thorough audit has been undertaken, the Town has evidenced each of its responses by citing references to relevant internal and external documents under the ‘Comments’ section of Attachment 1.


Page 2

The internal audit has identified no areas of non-compliances however a number of opportunities for procedural improvement (OFI) have been identified as summarised in Table 1.

Compliance Area Compliant Non-Compliant

OFI

Commercial Enterprises by Local Government

5 0 0

Delegation of Power/Duty 13 0 2

Disclosure of Interest 16 0 2

Disposal of Property 2 0 0

Elections 1 0 0

Finance 14 0 0

Integrated Planning and Reporting 7 0 1

Local Government Employees 5 0 0

Official Conduct 6 0 0

Tenders for Providing Goods and Services 25 0 2 Table 1 – Town of Claremont Compliance Audit Return Result Summary

As the Town seeks to continually improve its internal processes and procedures, a number of processes have been identified for further enhancement. The detailed list of recommendations have been included in this report as Attachment 2.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2017, Resolution 32/17: That Council adopts the 2016 Compliance Audit Return.

Financial and Staff Implications

Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995 s.7.13(1)(i) Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 cls. 13-16

Consultation

The CAR is completed in consultation with various business units, reviewed by the Governance unit, and overseen by the Executive Leadership Team.

Strategic Community Plan

Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government, a leader in community service standards.

Demonstrates a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.


Page 3

Urgency

In order to meet statutory deadlines, the Compliance Audit Return must be endorsed by the Audit & Risk Management Committee so that it can be submitted to Council for adoption at the 20 February 2018 OCM.

Voting Requirements

Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee

1. Recommend Council adopt the Compliance Audit Return 2017 as presented.

2. Receive a further report regarding the completion of ‘Recommended Actions’ as outlined in Attachment 2 at its next meeting.


Page 4


Page 5

5.1.2 RISK MANANGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW

File Ref: RSK/00168

Attachments: Risk Management Framework (Attachment 1)

Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Author: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Proposed Meeting Date: 9 February 2018

Purpose

Report presents a draft Risk Management Framework for review by the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Background

Following an external review of it’ risk management practices, Council in December 2014, adopted its formal Risk Management Framework. At the time the framework provided the foundations for designing, implementing, monitoring and reviewing risk management throughout the organisation. The Audit and Risk Management Committee have, from time to time received updated status reports on identified risks and progress on actions to mitigate those deemed necessary to reduce. Following review and adoption of Council’s Claremont Ahead 2027 - Strategic Community Plan, a review of identified underlying documents has commenced.

Discussion

A review of the Risk Management Framework has been completed to ensure alignment with the Claremont Ahead 2027 and provided in Attachment 1. In addition to ensuring compliance with the International Risk Management Standard AS AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009, the revised framework specially aims to:

Ensure that the Town achieves its strategic objectives as set out in the Strategic Community Plan, ‘Claremont Ahead 2027’;

Highlight which areas of the Town’s risk profile have the capacity to deliver the maximum benefit or maximum harm, and to identify those areas which should receive priority action;

Establish a reliable basis for decision making and ensure that risk is included as a fundamental component in the planning process;

Ensure the effective allocation of resources;

Determine how risk should be reported to Council, the Audit Committee


Page 6

and Risk Management Committee, and external auditors;

Foster an organisational culture which promotes proactive behaviour regarding the identification and treatment of risk;

Identify and prepare for emerging risks, future events and change; and

Improve stakeholder confidence and trust. The draft also further defines;

the three broad risk categories relative to the Town being strategic,

operational and special,

risk appetite and recommends appetite ‘levels’ across the key risk areas

of Council,

the framework process including risk identification, management,

assessment, rating, type, and reporting, and

specific roles and responsibilities relating to the management of risk.

A review of organisational risk has commenced and a further report outlining the outcomes and recommendations will be presented to the ARMC and Council as each stage (strategic, Operational and special) is completed. It is recommended the ARMC, on review the draft, recommend Council adopt the Risk Management Framework.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 9 December 2014, resolution 193/14, That Council adopt the; 1. Draft Risk Management Framework 2. Draft Risk Categories 3. Draft Audit Committee of Terms of Reference as presented.

Financial and Staff Implications

Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995 Local Government (Audit) Regulation – cl.17

Communication / Consultation

Draft to be reviewed by the ARMC prior to adoption by Council


Page 7

Strategic Community Plan

Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

Provide and maintain a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.

Urgency

N/A

Voting Requirements

Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee recommend Council adopt the draft Risk Management Framework as reviewed.


Page 8


Page 9

6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

7 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COMMITTEE

8 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING


Page 10


AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

A T T A C H M E N T S

9 FERBUARY 2018



5. REPORTS OF THE CEO



ATTACHMENT 1 – COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2017

Pages 12


Claremont - Compliance Audit Return 2017

No Reference Question Response Comments Respondent

1 s3.59(2)(a)(b)(c) F&G Reg 7,9

Has the local government prepared a business plan for each major trading undertaking in 2017.

N/A No major trading undertaking commenced during the period.

Les Crichton

2 s3.59(2)(a)(b)(c) F&G Reg 7,10

Has the local government prepared a business plan for each major land transaction that was not exempt in 2017.

N/A No major land transaction commenced during the period.

Les Crichton

3 s3.59(2)(a)(b)(c) F&G Reg 7,10

Has the local government prepared a business plan before entering into each land transaction that was preparatory to entry into a major land transaction in 2017.

N/A No land transactions preparatory to major land transaction commenced during the period.

Les Crichton

4 s3.59(4) Has the local government given Statewide public notice of each proposal to commence a major trading undertaking or enter into a major land transaction for 2017.

N/A No major trading undertaking or land transaction commenced during the period.

Les Crichton

5 s3.59(5) Did the Council, during 2017, resolve to proceed with each major land transaction or trading undertaking by absolute majority.

N/A No major trading undertaking or land transaction commenced during the period.

Les Crichton

Commercial Enterprises by Local Governments


1 s5.16, 5.17, 5.18 Were all delegations to committees resolved by absolute majority.

N/A No delegation in place for Committees.

Danielle Uniza

2 s5.16, 5.17, 5.18 Were all delegations to committees in writing.


Danielle Uniza

3 s5.16, 5.17, 5.18 Were all delegations to committees within the limits specified in section 5.17.


Danielle Uniza

4 s5.16, 5.17, 5.18 Were all delegations to committees recorded in a register of delegations.


Danielle Uniza

5 s5.18 Has Council reviewed delegations to its committees in the 2016/2017 financial year.


Danielle Uniza

6 s5.42(1),5.43 Admin Reg 18G

Did the powers and duties of the Council delegated to the CEO exclude those as listed in section 5.43 of the Act.

Yes The delegations from Council to the CEO within the delegated authority register are all compliant with s5.43 of the Act.

Danielle Uniza

Delegation of Power / Duty

Certified Copy of ReturnPlease submit a signed copy to the Director General of the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries together with a copy of section of relevant minutes.

1 of 12

Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries - Compliance Audit Return


7 s5.42(1)(2) Admin Reg 18G

Were all delegations to the CEO resolved by an absolute majority.

Yes Delegated Authority Register was last reviewed by Council at 16 May 2017 OCM, Item 13.2.1 Delegated Authority Register; adopted by absolute majority.

Danielle Uniza

8 s5.42(1)(2) Admin Reg 18G

Were all delegations to the CEO in writing.

Yes Refer to Delegated Authority Register; electronic copy may be viewed on the Town’s website. TRIM D-17-12125, COM/00031-03

Danielle Uniza

9 s5.44(2) Were all delegations by the CEO to any employee in writing.


Danielle Uniza

10 s5.45(1)(b) Were all decisions by the Council to amend or revoke a delegation made by absolute majority.

N/A There were no Council decisions to revoke a delegation.

Danielle Uniza

11 s5.46(1) Has the CEO kept a register of all delegations made under the Act to him and to other employees.


Danielle Uniza

12 s5.46(2) Were all delegations made under Division 4 of Part 5 of the Act reviewed by the delegator at least once during the 2016/2017 financial year.

Yes Delegated Authority Register was last reviewed at the 16 May 2017 OCM, Item 13.2.1 Delegated Authority Review, and carried with an absolute majority.

Danielle Uniza

13 s5.46(3) Admin Reg 19

Did all persons exercising a delegated power or duty under the Act keep, on all occasions, a written record as required.

Yes All documentation is recorded on the Town’s data management system; TRIM Folder COM/00031-03.

Danielle Uniza


1 s5.67 If a member disclosed an interest, did he/she ensure that they did not remain present to participate in any discussion or decision-making procedure relating to the matter in which the interest was disclosed (not including participation approvals granted under s5.68).

Yes There were two instances of a disclosure of interest made by an Elected Member. In both instances, the Elected Member left the room for that report item.

OCM 17 October 2017, Item 13.1.1 &OCM 21 November 2017, Item 17.1.1

Danielle Uniza

Disclosure of Interest

2 of 12



2 s5.68(2) Were all decisions made under section 5.68(1), and the extent of participation allowed, recorded in the minutes of Council and Committee meetings.

N/A No instances occurred. Danielle Uniza

3 s5.73 Were disclosures under section 5.65 or 5.70 recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the disclosure was made.

Yes Refer to OCM 17 October 2017, Item 13.1.1, OCM 21 November 2017, Item 17.1.1 & OCM 21 February 2017 Item 17.1.1

Danielle Uniza

4 s5.75(1) Admin Reg 22 Form 2

Was a primary return lodged by all newly elected members within three months of their start day.

Yes There was one new Elected Member in 2017 that lodged a primary return (GOV/003).

Danielle Uniza


Was a primary return lodged by all newly designated employees within three months of their start day.

Yes Refer to TRIM Folder GOV/00068

Danielle Uniza


Was an annual return lodged by all continuing elected members by 31 August 2017.


Danielle Uniza


Was an annual return lodged by all designated employees by 31 August 2017.


Danielle Uniza

8 s5.77 On receipt of a primary or annual return, did the CEO, (or the Mayor/ President in the case of the CEO’s return) on all occasions, give written acknowledgment of having received the return.


Danielle Uniza

9 s5.88(1)(2) Admin Reg 28

Did the CEO keep a register of financial interests which contained the returns lodged under section 5.75 and 5.76

Yes Disclosure of Interest Register last updated 11/1/2018 TRIM D-17-26870

Danielle Uniza

10 s5.88(1)(2) Admin Reg 28

Did the CEO keep a register of financial interests which contained a record of disclosures made under sections 5.65, 5.70 and 5.71, in the form prescribed in Administration Regulation 28.

Yes All lodged disclosures made under s5.65, s5.70 & s5.71 are registered in TRIM Folder GOV/0005 and on the electronic register TRIM D-17-26870

Danielle Uniza

11 s5.88 (3) Has the CEO removed all returns from the register when a person ceased to be a person required to lodge a return under section 5.75 or 5.76.

Yes Financial Interest Register is reviewed for currency every 3 months as per Compliance Management Calendar

Danielle Uniza

12 s5.88(4) Have all returns lodged under section 5.75 or 5.76 and removed from the register, been kept for a period of at least five years, after the person who lodged the return ceased to be a council member or designated employee.

Yes Archived Financial Interests are kept in GOV/00068. Records are kept in line with State requirements.

Danielle Uniza

3 of 12



13 s5.103 Admin Reg 34C & Rules of Conduct Reg 11

Where an elected member or an employee disclosed an interest in a matter discussed at a Council or committee meeting where there was a reasonable belief that the impartiality of the person having the interest would be adversely affected, was it recorded in the minutes.

Yes OCM 17 October 2017 Item 13.1.1

Danielle Uniza

14 s5.70(2) Where an employee had an interest in any matter in respect of which the employee provided advice or a report directly to the Council or a Committee, did that person disclose the nature of that interest when giving the advice or report.

Yes OCM 21 February 2017 Item 17.1.1

Danielle Uniza

15 s5.70(3) Where an employee disclosed an interest under s5.70(2), did that person also disclose the extent of that interest when required to do so by the Council or a Committee.

Yes OCM 21 February 2017 Item 17.1.1

Danielle Uniza

16 s5.103(3) Admin Reg 34B

Has the CEO kept a register of all notifiable gifts received by Council members and employees.

Yes Gift and Contributions To Travel Register is available on the Town’s website (TRIM D-17-25123)

Danielle Uniza


1 s3.58(3) Was local public notice given prior to disposal for any property not disposed of by public auction or tender (except where excluded by Section 3.58(5)).

Yes 1.Lease of 331-333 Stirling Hwy Trim D-17-185892. Lease of portion Lot 30 Lapsley RoadTrim D-18-01152

Les Crichton

2 s3.58(4) Where the local government disposed of property under section 3.58(3), did it provide details, as prescribed by section 3.58(4), in the required local public notice for each disposal of property.

Yes 1.Lease of 331-333 Stirling Hwy Trim D-17-185892. Lease of portion Lot 30 Lapsley RoadTrim D-18-01152

Les Crichton

Disposal of Property


1 Elect Reg 30G (1) Did the CEO establish and maintain an electoral gift register and ensure that all 'disclosure of gifts' forms completed by candidates and received by the CEO were placed on the electoral gift register at the time of receipt by the CEO and in a manner that clearly identifies and distinguishes the candidates.

Yes Refer to ’Electoral Gift Register’ on the Town’s website

Danielle Uniza

Elections


Finance

4 of 12



1 s7.1A Has the local government established an audit committee and appointed members by absolute majority in accordance with section 7.1A of the Act.

Yes Refer to OCM 17 October 2017 & OCM 7 November 2017

Danielle Uniza

2 s7.1B Where a local government determined to delegate to its audit committee any powers or duties under Part 7 of the Act, did it do so by absolute majority.

N/A No committees have delegation.

Danielle Uniza

3 s7.3 Was the person(s) appointed by the local government to be its auditor, a registered company auditor.

Yes Auditors were appointed on 1 March 2016 for three financial years commencing 1 July 2015. Auditors were parts on the WALGA panel.

Danielle Uniza

4 s7.3, 7.6(3) Was the person or persons appointed by the local government to be its auditor, appointed by an absolute majority decision of Council.

Yes Refer to OCM 1 March 2016

Danielle Uniza

5 Audit Reg 10 Was the Auditor’s report for the financial year ended 30 June 2017 received by the local government within 30 days of completion of the audit.

Yes Report was received on 6 November 2017. Trim D-17-29551

Les Crichton

6 s7.9(1) Was the Auditor’s report for the financial year ended 30 June 2017 received by the local government by 31 December 2017.

Yes Report was received on 6 November 2017. Trim D-17-29551

Les Crichton

7 S7.12A(3) Where the local government determined that matters raised in the auditor’s report prepared under s7.9(1) of the Act required action to be taken by the local government, was that action undertaken.

N/A There were no matters raised in the auditor’s report.

Danielle Uniza

8 S7.12A (4) Where the local government determined that matters raised in the auditor’s report (prepared under s7.9(1) of the Act) required action to be taken by the local government, was a report prepared on any actions undertaken.


Danielle Uniza

9 S7.12A (4) Where the local government determined that matters raised in the auditor’s report (prepared under s7.9(1) of the Act) required action to be taken by the local government, was a copy of the report forwarded to the Minister by the end of the financial year or 6 months after the last report prepared under s7.9 was received by the local government whichever was the latest in time.


Danielle Uniza

10 Audit Reg 7 Did the agreement between the local government and its auditor include the objectives of the audit.

Yes Included in engagement letter signed 5 April 2016 for a three-year period (TRIM D-16-06905)

Les Crichton

5 of 12



11 Audit Reg 7 Did the agreement between the local government and its auditor include the scope of the audit.


Les Crichton

12 Audit Reg 7 Did the agreement between the local government and its auditor include a plan for the audit.


Les Crichton

13 Audit Reg 7 Did the agreement between the local government and its auditor include details of the remuneration and expenses to be paid to the auditor.


Les Crichton

14 Audit Reg 7 Did the agreement between the local government and its auditor include the method to be used by the local government to communicate with, and supply information to, the auditor.


Les Crichton

6 of 12



1 s5.56 Admin Reg 19DA (6)

Has the local government adopted a Corporate Business Plan. If Yes, please provide adoption date of the most recent Plan in Comments. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

Yes Council adopted a Corporate Business Plan on 9 June 2013.

Les Crichton

2 s5.56 Admin Reg 19DA (6)

Has the local government adopted a modification to the most recent Corporate Business Plan. If Yes, please provide adoption date in Comments. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

No Following the adoption of its modified Strategic Community Plan, ’Claremont Ahead 2027’, the Town has a drafted a Corporate Business Plan that is currently pending adoption.

Les Crichton

3 s5.56 Admin Reg 19C (7)

Has the local government adopted a Strategic Community Plan. If Yes, please provide adoption date of the most recent Plan in Comments. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

Yes In its meeting held on 9 June 2013, the Town adopted its Strategic Community Plan ’Claremont Ahead 2023’.

Danielle Uniza

4 s5.56 Admin Reg 19C (7)

Has the local government adopted a modification to the most recent Strategic Community Plan. If Yes, please provide adoption date in Comments. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

Yes In its meeting held on 27 June 2017, the Town adopted its modified Strategic Community Plan ’Claremont Ahead 2027’.

Danielle Uniza

5 S5.56 Has the local government adopted an Asset Management Plan. If Yes, in Comments please provide date of the most recent Plan, plus if adopted or endorsed by Council the date of adoption or endorsement. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

N/A Danielle Uniza

6 S5.56 Has the local government adopted a Long Term Financial Plan. If Yes, in Comments please provide date of the most recent Plan, plus if adopted or endorsed by Council the date of adoption or endorsement. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

N/A Danielle Uniza

7 S5.56 Has the local government adopted a Workforce Plan. If Yes, in Comments please provide date of the most recent Plan plus if adopted or endorsed by Council the date of adoption or endorsement. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to respond.

N/A Danielle Uniza

Integrated Planning and Reporting

7 of 12



1 Admin Reg 18C Did the local government approve the process to be used for the selection and appointment of the CEO before the position of CEO was advertised.

Yes Proposal to appoint Interim CEO for 12 month term from internal applicants approved 15 November 2016 (190/16)

Les Crichton

2 s5.36(4) s5.37(3), Admin Reg 18A

Were all vacancies for the position of CEO and other designated senior employees advertised and did the advertising comply with s.5.36(4), 5.37(3) and Admin Reg 18A.

N/A Interim CEO position advertised internally as provided by Admin Reg 18A(1)(b).The Town has not designated any employees as senior employees as set out in s.5.37 (1).

Les Crichton

3 Admin Reg 18F Was the remuneration and other benefits paid to a CEO on appointment the same remuneration and benefits advertised for the position of CEO under section 5.36(4).

N/A The Interim CEO position was not required to be advertised as provided by Admin Reg 18A(1)(b).

Les Crichton

4 Admin Regs 18E Did the local government ensure checks were carried out to confirm that the information in an application for employment was true (applicable to CEO only).

Yes Checks were conducted on internal applicants.

Les Crichton

5 s5.37(2) Did the CEO inform council of each proposal to employ or dismiss a designated senior employee.

N/A The Town has not designated any employees as senior employees as set out in s.5.37 (1).

Les Crichton

Local Government Employees

8 of 12



1 s5.120 Where the CEO is not the complaints officer, has the local government designated a senior employee, as defined under s5.37, to be its complaints officer.

N/A CEO is Complaints Officer

Les Crichton

2 s5.121(1) Has the complaints officer for the local government maintained a register of complaints which records all complaints that result in action under s5.110(6)(b) or (c).

Yes Register maintained however no complaints received that resulted in order that person against whom the complaint was made to be publicly censured, to apologise publicly, or to undertake training.

Les Crichton

3 s5.121(2)(a) Does the complaints register maintained by the complaints officer include provision for recording of the name of the council member about whom the complaint is made.

Yes Les Crichton

4 s5.121(2)(b) Does the complaints register maintained by the complaints officer include provision for recording the name of the person who makes the complaint.

Yes Les Crichton

5 s5.121(2)(c) Does the complaints register maintained by the complaints officer include provision for recording a description of the minor breach that the standards panel finds has occured.

Yes Les Crichton

6 s5.121(2)(d) Does the complaints register maintained by the complaints officer include the provision to record details of the action taken under s5.110(6)(b) or (c).

Yes Les Crichton

Official Conduct


1 s3.57 F&G Reg 11 Did the local government invite tenders on all occasions (before entering into contracts for the supply of goods or services) where the consideration under the contract was, or was expected to be, worth more than the consideration stated in Regulation 11(1) of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations (Subject to Functions and General Regulation 11(2)).

Yes Refer to RFT 2016-08 Cleaning Town Buildings & RFT 2017-01 Waste Collection

Danielle Uniza

2 F&G Reg 12 Did the local government comply with F&G Reg 12 when deciding to enter into multiple contracts rather than inviting tenders for a single contract.

N/A No multiple contracts in lieu of single contract sought.

Les Crichton

Tenders for Providing Goods and Services

9 of 12



3 F&G Reg 14(1) & (3)

Did the local government invite tenders via Statewide public notice.


Danielle Uniza

4 F&G Reg 14 & 15 Did the local government's advertising and tender documentation comply with F&G Regs 14, 15 & 16.


Danielle Uniza

5 F&G Reg 14(5) If the local government sought to vary the information supplied to tenderers, was every reasonable step taken to give each person who sought copies of the tender documents or each acceptable tenderer, notice of the variation.


6 F&G Reg 16 Did the local government's procedure for receiving and opening tenders comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 16.


Danielle Uniza

7 F&G Reg 18(1) Did the local government reject the tenders that were not submitted at the place, and within the time specified in the invitation to tender.

N/A No late tenders were submitted.

Danielle Uniza

8 F&G Reg 18 (4) In relation to the tenders that were not rejected, did the local government assess which tender to accept and which tender was most advantageous to the local government to accept, by means of written evaluation criteria.

Yes Refer to RFT 2016-08 Cleaning Town Buildings (OCM 27 June 2017) & RFT 2017-01 Waste Collection (3 October 2017)

Danielle Uniza

9 F&G Reg 17 Did the information recorded in the local government's tender register comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 17.

Yes Danielle Uniza

10 F&G Reg 19 Was each tenderer sent written notice advising particulars of the successful tender or advising that no tender was accepted.

Yes Danielle Uniza

11 F&G Reg 21 & 22 Did the local governments's advertising and expression of interest documentation comply with the requirements of F&G Regs 21 and 22.

N/A No instances occurred. Les Crichton

12 F&G Reg 23(1) Did the local government reject the expressions of interest that were not submitted at the place and within the time specified in the notice.


13 F&G Reg 23(4) After the local government considered expressions of interest, did the CEO list each person considered capable of satisfactorily supplying goods or services.


14 F&G Reg 24 Was each person who submitted an expression of interest, given a notice in writing in accordance with Functions & General Regulation 24.


15 F&G Reg 24AD(2) Did the local government invite applicants for a panel of pre-qualified suppliers via Statewide public notice.


10 of 12



16 F&G Reg 24AD(4) & 24AE

Did the local government's advertising and panel documentation comply with F&G Regs 24AD(4) & 24AE.


17 F&G Reg 24AF Did the local government's procedure for receiving and opening applications to join a panel of pre-qualified suppliers comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 16 as if the reference in that regulation to a tender were a reference to a panel application.


18 F&G Reg 24AD(6) If the local government to sought to vary the information supplied to the panel, was every reasonable step taken to give each person who sought detailed information about the proposed panel or each person who submitted an application, notice of the variation.


19 F&G Reg 24AH(1) Did the local government reject the applications to join a panel of pre-qualified suppliers that were not submitted at the place, and within the time specified in the invitation for applications.


20 F&G Reg 24AH(3) In relation to the applications that were not rejected, did the local government assess which application(s) to accept and which application(s) were most advantageous to the local government to accept, by means of written evaluation criteria.


21 F&G Reg 24AG Did the information recorded in the local government's tender register about panels of pre-qualified suppliers, comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 24AG.


22 F&G Reg 24AI Did the local government send each person who submitted an application, written notice advising if the person's application was accepted and they are to be part of a panel of pre-qualified suppliers, or, that the application was not accepted.


23 F&G Reg 24E Where the local government gave a regional price preference in relation to a tender process, did the local government comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 24E in relation to the preparation of a regional price preference policy (only if a policy had not been previously adopted by Council).


24 F&G Reg 24F Did the local government comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 24F in relation to an adopted regional price preference policy.


11 of 12



25 F&G Reg 11A Does the local government have a current purchasing policy in relation to contracts for other persons to supply goods or services where the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, $150,000 or less.

Yes Refer to Procurement Policy LG509

Danielle Uniza

I certify this Compliance Audit return has been adopted by Council at its meeting on

Signed Mayor / President, Claremont Signed CEO, Claremont

12 of 12






ATTACHMENT 2 – COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN REPORT

Pages 1


No. Section Response Recommendation/ Comments Priority

NIL

9 Were all delegations by the CEO to any employee in writing. Yes (R) Officers with subdelegations to be notified in writing via internal memo/ letter. Medium

13

Did all persons exercising a delegated power or duty under the Act keep, on all occasions, a written

record as require Yes

(R) Create a 'Record of Exercise of Power' register to capture all delegations exercised.High

3

Were disclosures under section 5.65 or 5.70 recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the

disclosure was made. Yes

(R) All disclosures should be noted within the 'Disclosure of Interest' agenda item as well as

within the report heading. Forms to be completed at the time the disclosure is made.

Medium

7 Was an annual return lodged by all designated employees by 31 August 2017. Yes

(R) Memo to be sent out with Annual Return forms outlining legislative obligations and

timelines High

NIL

NIL

NIL

2

Has the local government adopted a modification to the most recent Corporate Business Plan. If Yes,

please provide adoption date in Comments. This question is optional, answer N/A if you choose not to

respond. N/A

(R) Corporate Business Plan to be adopted by Council/ placed on website

High

NIL

NIL

6

If this regulation applies, tenders are to be publicly invited according to the requirements of this

Division before the local government enters into any of the contracts regardless of the consideration.

[Regulation 12 inserted in Gazette 18 Sep 2 Y

(R) Formal authorisation of officers to open tenders.

High

9

Did the information recorded in the local government's tender register comply with the requirements of

F&G Reg 17. Y

(R) Create electronic tender register with standardised documents.Medium

Compliance Audit Return Report

Official Conduct

Tenders for Providing Goods and Services

Commercial Enterprises by Local Governments

Delegation of Power / Duty

Disclosure of Interest

Disposal of Property

Elections

Finance

Integrated Planning & Reporting

Local Government Employees





5.1.2 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW

ATTACHMENT 1 – RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Pages 12


RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

1

1. INTRODUCTION: WHY DO RISK MANAGEMENT? The Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 Regulation 17 requires that the CEO review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to risk management, internal controls and legislative compliance. The review is to be reported to the Town’s Audit & Risk Management Committee every two years. As such, the Town seeks to implement an effective risk management system that identifies risks relating to its strategic and operational plans, mitigates risk through internal controls, and ensures that its legislative compliance requirements are continually met. This will be achieved by adopting an Integrated Risk Management Framework (IRMF) that will dually serve as a crucial informing strategy for its wider Integrated Planning Framework and meet requirements as specified within the Regulations. It is anticipated that the IRMF will add value to the Town’s decision-making processes by guiding prioritisation and allocation of resources, improving ability to achieve the objectives of the organisation, and by promoting forward planning. What is “Risk”?

The International Risk Management Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009 (“AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009”) defines risk as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives”, measured in terms of likelihood and consequence. Risk Management is the process of applying a logical and systematic method of identifying, evaluating, treating, monitoring and communicating risks associated with any activity, function or process. In the context of the Town of Claremont, risk can be categorised into three broad types: • Strategic Risks are those risks which are generally entity wide, may impact on the ability of

Council to achieve its objectives set out in the Strategic Community Plan and / or the delivery of critical services;

• Operational Risks are those risks which may impact on the achievement of directorate,

business unit or service unit plan objectives; and • Special Risks are risks specific to an area of operation within the business unit (i.e. Aquatic

Centre, CCH, Library, etc.), or risks for special events (i.e. Christmas in Claremont, Terrace Nights, etc.) held by, and within, the Town.

Risk Management Objectives In adopting this Integrated Risk Management Framework (“IRMF”), the Town aims to:

Ensure that the Town achieves its strategic objectives as set out in the Strategic Community Plan, ‘Claremont Ahead 2027’;

Highlight which areas of the Town’s risk profile have the capacity to deliver the maximum benefit or maximum harm, and to identify those areas which should receive priority action;

Establish a reliable basis for decision making and ensure that risk is included as a fundamental component in the planning process;

Ensure the effective allocation of resources;

Determine how risk should be reported to Council, the Audit Committee and Risk Management Committee, and external auditors;

Foster an organisational culture which promotes proactive behaviour regarding the identification and treatment of risk;

Identify and prepare for emerging risks, future events and change; and

Improve stakeholder confidence and trust.


2

2. OUR APPETITE FOR RISK

“Risk appetite” is the level of risk that the Town is prepared to accept in delivering its key strategic and operational objectives, and its special operations/ projects. The Town’s approach to risk appetite is to minimise exposure to reputational, compliance and financial risk, whilst accepting and encouraging an increased degree of risk in pursuit of its key strategic objectives. It is recognised, however, that appetite for risk varies according to the activity undertaken; as such, that acceptance of risk is subject always to ensuring that potential benefits and risks are fully understood before developments are authorised, and that sensible measures to mitigate risk are established. Risk Appetite - Ratings

The Town’s overall Risk Appetite is a 3. Although organisational units or programs may operate at higher risk/reward levels of 4 or 5, Council’s role as a Local Government Instrumentality leads to a preference for balanced risk.

Level Description

5 High Risk Appetite The Town is willing to accept a high risk of potential disruption to service delivery, environmental harm, reduced organisational wellbeing, OH&S exposure, reputation damage, financial loss or exposure, significant incidents(s) of regulatory non-compliance, and degradation of assets.

4 Moderately High Risk Appetite

The Town is willing to accept a moderately high risk of potential disruption to service delivery, environmental harm, reduced organisational wellbeing, OH& S exposure, reputation damage, financial loss or exposure, significant incidents(s) of regulatory non-compliance, and degradation of assets.

3 Balanced Risk Appetite

The Town is willing to accept only a balanced risk of potential disruption to service delivery, environmental harm, reduced organisational well being, OH&S exposure, reputation damage, financial loss or exposure, significant incidents(s) of regulatory non-compliance, and degradation of assets.

2 Low Risk Appetite The Town is not willing to accept risks in most circumstances that may result in disruption to service delivery, environmental harm, reduced organisational wellbeing, OH&S exposure, reputation damage, inancial loss or exposure, significant incidents(s) of regulatory non - compliance, and degradation of assets. A score of 2 usually means that the Town sees more risk than potential reward in an initiative.

1 Risk Averse Appetite The Town is not willing to intentionally accept risks in any situations that may result in disruption to service delivery, environmental harm, reduced organisational wellbeing, OH&S exposure, reputation damage, financial loss or exposure, significant incidents(s) of regulatory non-compliance, and degradation of assets. Any item with a score of 1 should have positive controls in place to ensure that harm cannot happen.


3

Some key areas of risk for the Town are listed below: Ethical Leadership - Risk Appetite 1 Without a strong emphasis on ethics, the Town cannot be successful in achieving the objectives of its Strategic Community Plan and fulfil its responsibilities to the community. Ethics, integrity and critical thinking will be expected of all Elected Members, Committee Members, and employees. Strategic Initiatives - Risk Appetite 3 The Town cannot be successful in achieving the objectives of its Strategic Community Plan without clear goal setting, and forward planning. As such, consistency in decision-making towards achieving the Town’s strategic and operational goals is expected of all Elected Members, Committee Members, and employees, particularly when considering allocation of resources and prioritisation of objectives. Understanding that unanticipated issues may arise from time to time, the Town will make every effort to achieve, or significantly progress, its key deliverables as identified within its Corporate Business Plan to work towards the overall achievement of Claremont Ahead 2027. This risk approach takes into account balancing the Town’s resources in ensuring that statutory services are first being met, whilst still making significant progress towards achieving its long-term plan. Reputation - Risk Appetite 2 The Town will continue to build its credibility through consistent and transparent communications, meaningful and purposeful community engagement, strong leadership and forward planning strategies. The Town’s Elected Members, Committee Members, and employees are expected to uphold values within the Town’s Code of Conduct at all times, whilst ensuring to take a customer-centred approach when dealing with its constituents. Governance – Risk Appetite 2 The Town will put in place a strong governance framework with a focus on principles of good governance, informed and consistent decision-making, and compliance with all legislative, regulatory and reporting requirements whilst promoting continuous improvement. Community and Relationships - Risk Appetite 3 Every effort will be made to ensure that the Town develops strong and positive relationships with the community and with other key stakeholders. The Town will ensure that all community, and individual, considerations are taken into account in its decision-making through a ‘big-picture’ approach. Financial Resources – Risk Appetite 2 The Town will carefully manage expenses, plans and financial commitments to remain within its approved annual and long term budgets. In order to ensure that the Town is well equipped for financial uncertainty, the Town considers its budget with a long-term outlook through effective long term financial planning, and a long term asset management plan. Environmental Responsibility - Risk Appetite 3 The Town will act responsibly by adopting environmentally sustainable practices within the resources it has available for this purpose. Occupational Health and Safety - Risk Appetite 2 The Town places a high priority on providing a safe workplace for staff, volunteers and contractors. This includes fostering a work place that focuses on a healthy work/life balance and promotes a positive working environment.


4

2. OUR RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 2.1 Purpose The purpose of this IRMF is to set out Council’s risk management processes and procedures and the rationale behind them. It follows the recommendations set out in AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 which include:

Roles and responsibilities for managing risk;

How we identify, assess and rate risks (including effectiveness of controls);

How we monitor, review and report risks; and

How we measure our Risk Management performance. It should be noted that the above processes and procedures will not eliminate Council’s risk but will help to manage it in a way that is transparent and in accordance with best practice and

good governance principles. 2.2 Risk Identification Process The Town’s risk management process is about understanding its risk appetite in the context of identifying potential risk in delivering its key objectives, and in implementing internal controls to bring its residual risk as close as possible to its accepted risk appetite for that identified risk. This process involved consultation of key stakeholders, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on its progress. The Town’s risks can be identified through a number of means, including but not limited to:

Strategic planning

Internal and external audits

Analysis of CouncilFirst requests

Insurance claims

Complaints and community feedback

Project planning

Performance reporting

External review and reports by external agencies

In establishing this IRMF, the Town has identified its key strategic and operational risks through assessment of its strategic documents, and through consultation with key stakeholders.

Figure 1. Risk Management Process


5

2.3 Risk Management Process The risk management process is a series of steps that enable risks to be identified, analysed and treated in the context of the environment in which the Town operates. The main elements of the risk management process are as follows:

Communication and consultation Effective communication and consultation should take place throughout the risk management process to ensure that those accountable for implementing risk management and stakeholders understand the basis on which decisions are made.

Establish the context This identifies the Town’s objectives and defines the internal and external environment in which it operates. Understanding the external context is important in order to ensure that the objectives and concerns of external stakeholders are considered. Understanding the internal context will enable risk management to be aligned with the Town’s culture, structure, strategies and processes.

Risk identification Sources of risk, areas of impact, their causes and potential consequences should be identified. This will generate a comprehensive list of risks based on events that might create, enhance, prevent, degrade, accelerate or delay the achievement of objectives. Comprehensive identification is crucial as a risk not identified will not be included in any analysis.

Risk analysis This involves the consideration of the causes and sources of risk, their consequences and the likelihood that those consequences can occur. Existing controls and their effectiveness should be taken into account. Risk analysis provides an input to risk evaluation and decisions on the most appropriate risk treatment strategies.

Risk evaluation Risk evaluation assists in making decisions, based on the outcomes of the risk analysis, about risk treatment and priorities. Risk evaluation involves comparing the level of risk found during the analysis process with pre-established risk criteria. The risk criteria and the Town’s risk appetite will help influence the decisions on risk treatment.

Risk treatment Selecting the most appropriate risk treatment option involves balancing the cost and efforts of implementation against the benefits derived. A number of treatment options may be considered and can be applied individually or in combination. Risk treatment plans should be prepared which document how the chosen treatment options will be implemented.

Monitor and review The Risk Management process should be continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that controls are effective, new information is gathered, latest changes and


6

trends are identified, successes and failures are recorded, lessons are learned, changes in internal and external context are detected and emerging risks are captured.

2.4 Risk Assessment Process Once risks have been identified, the Town will conduct a periodic risk assessment of all new and existing risks. Risk assessment criteria has been establish for analyzing and evaluating risks. The criteria is based on the likelihood of the risk occurring (Risk Likelihood Matrix) and its consequences (Risk Consequence Matrix) – a combination of which establishes the overall level of risk (as per the Risk Level Matrix). 2.4.1 Risk Rating


7

2.4.2 Qualitative Measures of Consequence

Risk Category Insignificant

(1)

Minor (2) Major (3) Critical (4) Catastrophic

(5)

Human Safety

and Well – Being

Injury or illness is

minimal with no

medical attention

required

Injury or illness

that may require

first aid

treatment

Medical attention

or ongoing

medical treatment

No hospitalisation

or long term

effects

Potential

temporary

disability

Multiple serious

injuries or

illnesses

Permanent disability

Hospitalisation and

need for ongoing

treatment

One or more

deaths

Financial and

Legal No impact on

Town's ability to

meet its statutory

obligations

No legal

implications

Financial impact

can be absorbed

within existing

budget

Minimal legal

action with

possible minor

penalties

Minor impact on

Town's ability to

meet its

statutory

obligations (can

be measured in

days)

Low financial

impact which

may require

some budget

revision

Moderate legal

action

Some delay to

Town's ability to

meet its statutory

obligations (can

be measured in

weeks)

Financial impact

requiring budget

revision within

Sub Program or

Program

Ongoing legal

representation

required

Major delay to

Town's ability to

meet its statutory

obligations (can be

measured in

months)

Major financial

impact requiring

Town wide budget

review

Intervention by

other authorities

with legal action

initiated

Town is unable to

meet its statutory

obligations in the

long term

(exceeding one

year)

Substantial

financial impact

requiring major

changes in

Strategic

Community Plan

and Long Term

Financial Plan


8

Environment Incident

contained and

reversible with no

immediate or

short term harm

to the

environment (can

be measured in

days)

Incident

contained with

minor short term

physical

damage or non-

toxic nuisance

(can be

measured in

weeks)

Damage to the environment that requires external assistance (can be measured in months)

Some

investigation and

inspection may be

required by

external

authorities

Contamination not

contained and

extends beyond

localised site or point

of origin with long

term damage (can

be measured in

years)

Severe discomfort

and illness to

members of the

public

Uncontained,

irreversible

damage with loss

of Town assets

and infrastructure

Resulting in one

or more deaths

Some discomfort

caused to

members of the

public

Coordinated

response required

and Investigation

instigated by

external authorities

Reputation and

Governance Single,

unsubstantiated

complaint with

very low impact

May have a

negative impact

on an employee or

a team

Multiple

complaints from

a single source

Substantiated

low profile single

complaint with

tentative media

interest

May have

negative impact

on a Town

service

Multiple

complaints from

multiple sources

Attracting some

local media

attention with

localised damage

to reputation

Report or briefing

to Council is

required

A local law,

regulation or policy is required

to be developed or amended

Substantiated and

significant damage

to Town's

reputation requiring

significant efforts to

repair

Negative local,

regional and state

media coverage

requiring Town's

immediate response

Threatens the

position of Elected

Members

Disciplinary

procedures

initiated against

senior employees

Permanent or long

term damage to

Town's reputation

Negative national

media attention

Intervention of

other authorities

e.g. state

government

Commissioners

appointed

Enquiry initiated

Capacity to

Deliver Services Negligible or no

impact on critical

service delivery

Some temporary

inconvenience to

minor services

and the community

Minor

inconvenience

to critical

systems with

short term

inconvenience

for the

community (can

be measured in

days

Significant impact

on capacity to

regularly deliver

the service

Unable to meet all

statutory

obligations on

time (can be

measured in

weeks)

Review of

operational

capacity required

with possible

need for

additional staff

and resources

Consequences are

such that unable to

deliver normal

services and

ongoing inability to

meet statutory

obligations. (can be

measured in

months)

Ongoing need for

additional staff and

resources

Requires

assistance of

external agencies

Inability to deliver

range of services

and failure to

meet statutory

obligations is

ongoing into the

foreseeable future

(exceeding longer

than one year)

Ongoing need for

additional staff

and resources

and dependence

on external

agencies

Total loss of

capacity due


9

to loss of critical

systems

and infrastructure

2.4.3 Risk Type The areas of risk relevant to the Town may be summaries into the following five risk categories:

1. Human safety and well-being 2. Financial and legal 3. Environment 4. Reputation and governance position 5. Capacity to deliver services


10

2.5 Integrated Risk Register An Integrated Risk Register (IRR) will be used to capture the Town’s strategic, operational and special risks. The IRR will be reported to the Executive Management Team monthly, and the Audit and Risk Management Committee on a quarterly basis. While the IRR will be managed and monitored by the Governance business unit, further actions to be completed to reduce risks is the responsibility of the Manager for that relevant area.

Reference ID – This corresponds with the reference number as allocated with the Corporate Business plan. Last Review – This is the last review date (i.e. risks to be reviewed in accordance with its risk profile, further actions, etc.) Description of Strategic Risk – The ‘high level’ risk description as it relates to the Town’s specific strategic objective. Operational Impact of Strategic Risk – The ‘operational level’ risk description as it relates to the Town’s Corporate Business Plan deliverables. Risk Type – As defined in Section 2.4.3 Risk Type. Likelihood – As defined in Section 2.4.1 Risk Rating. Seriousness – As defined in Section 2.4.1 Risk Rating. Risk Rating – As defined in s2.4 Risk Assessment Criteria. This is a result of an assessment of the likelihood and seriousness of the risk as a whole.

Existing Controls – The internal controls the Town current has in place to mitigate this risk. Residual Risk – The remaining risk after the internal controls have been considered. This requires the modified risk (the original risk taking into consideration the existing internal controls) being reassessed under Section 2.4 Risk Assessment Criteria. Further Action – These are a ‘Recommended Actions’ required in order to bring the ‘risk profile’ down to the Town’s accepted risk appetite. Accountability – This is the relevant officer responsible for ensuring that this risk is appropriate mitigations. This will either be the Executive Manager or Manager for the business unit. Acceptable Risk – This is the Town’s predetermined risk appetite for that risk area. % Complete – The percentage of completion for the ‘Further Action’ as it related to reducing the risk down from the Residual Risk rating to the Town’s accepted risk tolerance (/ risk appetite). Target Date – This is the target date of completion for the ‘Further Action’ assigned to that risk. Progress Comments – This is the most recent progress update relating to the risk’s ‘Further Action’.


11

3. OUR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Audit & Risk Management Committee The Audit & Risk Management Committee are responsible for reviewing reports from the Chief Executive Officer on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Town’s systems and procedures in relation to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance. The Audit & Risk Management Committee will report to Council the results of that review including a copy of the Chief Executive Officer’s report. Chief Executive Officer The Chief Executive Officer is the overall sponsor of the risk management process and will set the tone and promote a positive risk management culture by providing firm and visible support for risk management. The CEO will review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Town’s systems and procedures in regard to risk management, internal controls and legislative compliance at least once every two calendar years and report the results of that review to the Audit Committee. Executive Management Team (EMT) EMT are responsible for the oversight of the Risk Management Framework, including the review of risk management procedures and policies on an annual basis. It is responsible for setting the tone and promoting a positive risk management culture within the Town. EMT maintains oversight of the highest level risks and takes responsibility for ensuring mitigation strategies are being implemented. Senior Governance & Risk Advisor (SGRA)

The SGRA will drive the risk management process for the organisation by liaising will key

stakeholders in both identifying risks, and in the recommendation of further actions to be

implemented as guided by the Town’s set risk appetite. Further to this, the SGRA is responsibly

for the overall reporting on the Town’s IRMF, and in the evaluation of the Town’s internal

controls through the development and implementation of a risk-based internal audit (based on

the information gathered in the IRR) from which further recommendations, advice and risk

management strategies will be proposed to the EMT for approval. This will provide assurance

on the efficiency and effectiveness of risk management processes.

Occupational Health & Safety Officer (OHSO)

The OHSO is responsible for identifying, monitoring and reporting on OHS risks for inclusion

into the IRMF reporting process. The OHSO is further responsible in ensuring that risk

mitigation actions are completed and implemented accordingly.

Operational Management Team (OMT)

Members of the OMT are responsible for completing risk management actions for risks

identified within their areas. This will be done through liaising and communication of

requirements to their relevant staff members and overseeing the action to completion.


12

Employees

All employees within the Town are expected to develop an understanding and awareness of

their risks and how they can contribute to the risk management process. It is the responsibility

of every employee within the Town to manage risks for which they are accountable. All

employees are responsible for escalating/communicating risks to their immediate supervisor.

Employees are also required to act in a manner that does not place at risk the health and safety

of themselves, other employees, residents and visitors to the Town.

4. OUR COMMITMENT TO RISK MANAGEMENT

This Integrated Risk Management Framework, the Integrated Risk Register and any

subsequent risk-based audits will be reviewed by both the Executive Management Team, and

the Audit & Risk Management Committee at least on an annual basis. However, a full and

thorough review of all processes relating the Town’s risk management system is to be formally

reviewed every three years, with the next full review due in February 2021.

This framework is to remain in force unless otherwise determined by Council.