The department has a systematic approach to receiving, investigating and responding to reports of pollution incidents. However, the department does not analyse and report on the extent of environmental harm caused by pollution incidents reported to it, whether its response has minimised harm to the environment, whether its regulatory approach has improved compliance, particularly by Environment Protection Licence (EPL) holders (licensees).

Parliamentary reference - Report number #205 - released 15 September 2010

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