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

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

In the cases we examined, we found that agencies working together can improve services or results. However, the changes were not always as great as anticipated or had not reached maximum potential. Establishing the right governance framework and accountability requirements between partners at the start of the project is critical to success. And joint responsibility requires new funding and reporting arrangements to be developed.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #149 - released 22 March 2006

In our view the contracts in the New Schools Privately Financed Project were established and let in a way that greatly assists their potential for delivering value for money. The contracts in the New Schools Privately Financed Project are at an early stage of their 30 year lives and the savings and other benefits are not guaranteed. The contracts will need to be carefully managed over the 30 year period to ensure that benefits are realised and that costs do not escalate beyond expectations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #148 - released 8 March 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 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

The Audit Office has undertaken an audit on Government Office Accommodation. The audit examined the cost effectiveness of long-term leasing versus ownership and the housing of agencies involved with the delivery of core government activities.  Core activities are those intrinsically linked to basic and ongoing functions of Government and Parliament.

It recommends that:

• the Government consider owning office accommodation, as opposed to leasing, for its long-term core needs, subject to a case by case analysis of the relevant financial and nonfinancial factors

• the Government undertake an analysis of the costs/savings from proposed asset sales of office accommodation in light of the demonstrated need for long-term office accommodation (for core needs) New, Expired and Expiring Leases

• given the findings of the own versus lease case studies presented in this report, it is recommended that the Government require agencies to undertake, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works and Services (DPWS) a cost/benefit analysis of available accommodation options prior to committing to any proposed major new leases

• the Government direct the DPWS, in collaboration with all agencies, to negotiate the renewal of all major expired/expiring leases (where continued occupancy is warranted) in order to reduce the financial risk of above-market rent increases and the risk of cancellation of leases (Major leases are defined, for the purposes of these recommendations, to be those over $500,000 rental per annum or a net lettable area over 1,000 square metres) Management of Property Information

•  in order to improve the integrity of the Government Office Accommodation Database, agencies be required to respond to the annual data request from DPWS by a predetermined date

• a senior officer within each agency be required to certify to the accuracy of information provided by an agency as input to the database maintained by DPWS

• DPWS verify, on a sample basis, information provided by agencies as input to the Government Office Accommodation Database Premier’s Memorandum No 97-2

• the compliance by agencies with Premier’s Memorandum No 97-2 Government Office Accommodation and Property Disposal be established by DPWS.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #45 - released 11 December 1997

The audit found that the process for the lease and development of the Showground site commenced on the basis that no Government moneys would be provided and no theme park activities would be allowed. However despite this a State Government subsidy of between $84.8m and $106.8m (in net present value terms) is to be provided for the development and the area of the Showground to be leased to Fox was extended to comprise 24.3 hectares of the 28.8 hectare site to allow Fox also to develop a family entertainment park.

The audit also found that the process commenced under the former Government were intended to ensure that no one party was placed above another however, the actual processes employed up to the General Election in March 1995 were so flawed as not to be relied upon to select a preferred proponent or to justify dispensing with a tender process.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #44 - released 8 December 1997