The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has improved the overall surface condition of State Roads in the last decade. Country road surfaces are now generally much better. Ride quality has improved and cracking has been reduced. The RTA has also achieved a substantial reduction in the number of structurally deficient bridges over the same period. 

Despite a significant increase in the State’s contribution to maintenance since 1999-2000, the RTA has deferred road rebuilding projects. The RTA is rebuilding at less than half its long term target, and has not met this target at any time this decade. The RTA has not identified how it will address deferred rebuilding, although it advises it is developing a new road network management plan which will address this.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #157 - released 16 August 2006

Fraud risks, and fraud control obligations, are growing at a rate which demands that more be done.  Our 2005 report showed that still only 50 per cent of NSW public sector organisations had achieved an adequate level of performance in developing and implementing a fraud control strategy.  In response to this, our 2005 report provided a range of recommendations for improving fraud control and urged that fraud control become a key item for attention by audit committees.

We recognise that organisations need a simple and effective way to review and monitor how effectively they are implementing fraud control strategies.  This kit has been developed for precisely that purpose.  Its development reflects an extended period of consultation, focus-group review and pilot-testing to ensure that that the kit is simple to use, practical and flexible.  The kit assists organisations to meet their fraud control obligations in a cost-effective manner, tailored to their situation and based on risk.

• Fraud Control Improvement Kit
• Fraud Control Improvement Kit: Health Check Worksheet

Parliamentary reference - Report number #156 - released 20 July 2006

Overall the results were mixed. There is some good news but this is such a basic and vital issue that we must conclude that a good deal more needs to be done. Three agencies did not have sufficient information to provide a balanced view of services. And two of these agencies could not tell us whether their services actually made a difference to customers. Across the ten programs we found many examples of good practice, but some variation in the quality and coverage of performance measures. Agencies that we identified as not having sufficient information to judge services were either unaware of its importance, collected data on activities but not results or reported system limitations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #153 - released 21 June 2006

In our opinion the Government’s ‘no net cost to government’ requirement was a legitimate (but not the only possible) basis for the tunnel bid process. The Government was entitled to decide that tunnel users meet the tunnel costs. Structuring the bid process on the basis of an upfront reimbursement of costs incurred (or to be incurred) by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) was therefore appropriate.

In our opinion, however, the Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider the implications of an upfront payment involving more than simple project cost reimbursement (i.e. the ‘Business Consideration Fee’ component). In addition, the RTA was wrong to change the toll escalation factor late in 2002 to compensate the tunnel operator, Cross City Motorway Pty Ltd, for additional costs.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #152 - released 31 May 2006

The overall level of fare evasion is now lower, and the revenue forgone much less, than in 2000. The estimation of fare evasion, detection of fare evasion and management of fare compliance by RailCorp, State Transit and Sydney Ferries has improved, although Sydney Ferries needs to improve further.

However, only one in four fines for fare evasion are paid within 12 months. This is worse than in 2000. And the number of frequent fare evaders has almost trebled. State Debt Recovery Office and the transport agencies need to develop new and improved strategies to reduce the level of fine default and to better manage frequent fare evaders.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #150 - released 26 April 2006

The Audit Office is of the opinion that whilst agencies have taken steps to combat fare evasion, the current arrangements are not adequate and improvement is required. A significant number of passengers travel without paying the due fare, resulting in many millions of dollars in revenue foregone. Even when infringed, the majority does not pay the fine. To some extent it would appear to be due to the lack of a provision requiring evaders to produce valid identification.

There is a need for the State Rail Authority and the State Transit Authority to estimate more reliably the extent of fare evasion. Only with more accurate estimates can the most appropriate response to fare evasion be developed.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #78 - released 5 December 2000

The Audit Office has recently completed a performance audit of the information published in the annual reports of eight public sector agencies. Although there is much guidance material on preparing annual reports, the performance audit found that the quality of published performance information in annual reports often falls short of what is considered best practice.

The aim of this Guide is to assist agencies to prepare annual reports that provide performance information that demonstrates accountability for the expenditure of public monies.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #77 - released 29 November 2000

Agencies have made some notable attempts to nominate objectives and define measures of performance and report against them each year. However, the quality of the performance information varies and in most cases falls short of what is accepted as best practice. The result is diminished accountability, transparency and openness.

Agencies still have problems reporting outcomes and results and frequently regress to reporting activities and plans. Few annual reports discussed setbacks and failures (particularly in the same detail as successes) or compared performance to goals or targets. And none of the agencies benchmarked their achievements against the results of operators in other jurisdictions or the private sector.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #76 - released 29 November 2000

The Audit Office is of the opinion that the Department’s levels of regulatory activity in respect of road passenger transport regulation may have exceeded optimum levels. The Department’s current focus on processing activity limits the Department in achieving all of its desired outcomes. The Audit Office considers that a change in the approach to undertaking and managing road passenger transport regulatory activities would achieve better outcomes for the community and a better use of resources within the Department.

The Audit Office believes that while there is scope to make some improvements from procedural changes, such changes would not be sufficient to generate significant improvements.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #75 - released 6 September 2000