The report includes comments on his financial audits of NSW Government transport, planning and industry agencies for 2009-10. A key recommendation from the report is that the New South Wales Government identify lessons learnt from the metro experience and ensure that future decision processes are developed to ensure the State never again expends such a large amount of scarce transport funding dollars and valuable time on a project that does not proceed.

The report includes comments on NSW Treasury and agencies in the finance and superannuation sectors. The New South Wales public sector superannuation funds’ investments were $42.2 billion at 30 June 2010, up from $38.5 billion in 2009. Investment returns reached 14.5 per cent in 2009-10. This is a significant improvement on the investment returns of up to negative 18.4 per cent at the peak of the global financial crisis in 2008.
 

The 2004 Review of Bus Services in NSW always envisaged that there would be a transition period as the new bus contracts were introduced. NSWTI has developed and implemented the new arrangements, and pursued a range of new initiatives including the network improvement program, strategic corridors and uniform bus fares and concessions. The new contracts provided for a performance management regime to hold operators accountable. But this is still being developed four years after the bus contracts came into effect and it remains unproven as a basis for ensuring value for money from the contracts - each of which guarantees monopoly rights to the operators.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #198 - released 10 March 2010

This audit focuses on the M4 handback. It looks at whether the road will be in good condition when the State gets it back, and whether it will cope with the extra traffic after the toll is removed. These are critical issues for taxpayers and motorists. Taxpayers don’t want to be responsible for a large repair bill and motorists don’t want to be stuck in traffic jams.

To ensure that future private sector partnerships (PPP) deal adequately with handback, we recommend that the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA):

• ensure deeds spell out an appropriate inspection and testing program to determine repairs required to bring roads up to a satisfactory condition at handback (p.11)
• ensure deeds link condition standards and maintenance approaches to changing industry standards and approaches over the life of the PPP (p.11)
• consider including in deeds a requirement that operators provide a performance bond or similar security over the cost of handback repairs (p.11)
• review the lessons learnt from the M4 tollway handback and determine whether it should seek to negotiate changes to existing tollway deeds to better deal with handback, by June 2010 (p.11)

Parliamentary reference - Report number #193 - released 27 October 2009

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

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

Following a resolution of the Legislative Council, the Audit Office has undertaken a performance audit of the Eastern Distributor. For a number of reasons, The Audit Office is not in the position to determine “whether the proposed toll and concession period represents the best deal”. In part this is the result of time constraints which do not allow a careful analysis of many toll and concession options. Similarly, the audit does not answer “whether the current proposal represents the best environmental outcome”. But each of these issues (toll and concession and environmental consequences) is discussed in the audit report.

The Audit Office recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), for any further major project of this type, ensures that it establishes a process which allows all decision makers to have a thorough understanding of the reasonableness of the proponents’ offers and their implications for the State and for the public. The Audit Office also recommends that the RTA should at the outset consult with TCorp in respect of each major project put to tender.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #42 - released 31 July 1997