Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Security of critical IT infrastructure

Security of critical IT infrastructure

Transport
Planning
Compliance
Information technology
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk

Roads and Maritime Services and Transport for NSW have deployed many controls to protect traffic management systems but these would have been only partially effective in detecting and preventing incidents and unlikely to support a timely response. There was a potential for unauthorised access to sensitive information and systems that could have disrupted traffic.
 
Until Roads and Maritime Services’ IT disaster recovery site is fully commissioned, a disaster involving the main data centre is likely to lead to higher congestion in the short-term as traffic controllers would be operating on a regional basis without the benefit of the Traffic Management Centre.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #248 - released 21 January 2015

Published

Actions for Managing Gifts and Benefits

Managing Gifts and Benefits

Planning
Finance
Transport
Environment
Compliance
Fraud
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration

Overall, the audited entities are managing some aspects of gifts and benefits effectively but other aspects require improvement. We found that all five entities had gifts and benefits policies that addressed some but not all of the attributes of a sound policy. All five have communicated their gifts and benefits policies to staff and external stakeholders, although in each case we identified opportunities to better communicate their policies.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #228 - released 27 March 2013

Published

Actions for The Cross City Tunnel Project

The Cross City Tunnel Project

Transport
Treasury
Premier and Cabinet
Planning
Environment
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Risk

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