We found no significant difference in the funding of government and opposition electorates. However, more money was given to electorates that were safely held by the major parties. These seats received $1.29 for every dollar given to marginal and independent seats with government marginals getting the least. Electorates also receive different levels of funding according to which region they are in. Such variations may reflect valid agency objectives such as meeting State Plan targets or addressing socio-economic disadvantage.

But while agencies publish who gets what, they do not adequately evaluate or explain what grant programs have achieved. As a result, there is a risk that New South Wales may not get the best value for its spending. We recommend that agencies regularly evaluate their grant programs and publish the results.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #186 - released 6 May 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

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

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