• Advertisement

Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion

Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Postby marcnut1996 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:51 pm

Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act 2017:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/taaea2017n12637.pdf (pdf)
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2017/12 (NSW Legislation website, not pdf)

I was looking at this amendment act that was passed in April 2017. The main purpose of this act is to amend the Transport Administration Act 1988 :
*affirm that Sydney Trains and NSW Trains are not part of RailCorp
*establishing a Residual Transport Corporation (RTC)
*converting RailCorp to a state owned corporation and renamed Transport Assets Holding Entity (TAHE)

The act has been assented and Schedule 1 of the amendment act has commenced (the functions of Sydney Trains, NSW Trains, and establishment of RTC) and is now reflected on the current 1988 Act, but Schedule 2 of the amendment act (RailCorp -> TAHE) has not commenced yet (so maybe sometime this year?)

On page 23 and 24 of the pdf, RTC functions are listed as:
RTC has the following functions:
(a) to hold, manage, operate and maintain transport assets vested in or
owned by it, or to be vested in or owned by it,
(b) to conduct any business (whether or not related to any of its other
functions) that it considers will further its objectives,
(c) any other functions conferred or imposed on it by or under this or any
other Act.

This is now Schedule 9 of the 1988 Act (https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/1988/109/sch9)

On page 33 of the pdf, however, TAHE (future RailCorp) functions are listed as:
For the purposes of this Act, the listed functions of TAHE are as follows:
(a) to hold, manage, operate and maintain transport assets vested in or
owned by it, or to be vested in or owned by it,
(b) to establish, finance, acquire, construct and develop transport assets to
be vested in or owned by it,
(c) to promote and facilitate access to the part of the NSW rail network
vested in or owned by TAHE in accordance with any current NSW rail
access undertaking or otherwise lease or make available transport assets
vested in or owned by TAHE to other persons or bodies,
(d) to acquire and develop land for the purpose of enabling TAHE to carry
out its other functions (including the acquisition of land under
section 12).


Does any insider or law people know what's the difference between RTC and TAHE? Also, whats "Residual Transport" anyway?
Lives in Region 9, loves buses in Western Sydney.
marcnut1996
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:21 pm
Location: Sydney Region 9, formerly at Region 7, Singapore and Hong Kong
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Favourite Vehicle: The new CB80s at Ryde

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby marcnut1996 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:43 pm

In addition, in the TfNSW Annual Report 2016-17, on page 237, it says:
On 1 July 2017 Residual Transport Corporation (RTC) was established under the Transport Administration Amendment
(Transport Entities) Act 2017. Transport for NSW has determined that RTC is an entity under its control from 1 July 2017 for
financial reporting purposes. The purpose of RTC is to hold, manage, operate and maintain transport assets.
Transport for NSW, a controlled entity of the Department of Transport, has received an exemption from NSW Treasury from
preparing consolidated financial statements on the basis that the Department of Transport, as the parent entity of Transport
for NSW, produces consolidated financial statements. These financial statements are for the Transport for NSW parent entity
only.
RailCorp will progressively transition to the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE). TAHE may eventually hold additional
public transport assets for the State, including public transport assets currently held by Transport for NSW. The transfer of
assets is intended to occur progressively over the next few years

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system ... 016-17.pdf (pdf, automatic download)

I still can't see the difference between the two.
Lives in Region 9, loves buses in Western Sydney.
marcnut1996
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:21 pm
Location: Sydney Region 9, formerly at Region 7, Singapore and Hong Kong
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Favourite Vehicle: The new CB80s at Ryde

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Bjwh86 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:43 pm

Why couldn’t they just name the new entity “TfNSW Network and Access”?

So everything would fall under TfNSW as the integrated transport authority with the responsible departments under that brand?

Eg: Transport - Sydney Trains
Transport - NSW Trains
Transport - Buses
Transport - Ferries
Transport - Regional Transport
Transport - Network and Access
Transport - School Bus Services


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bjwh86
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:59 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby boronia » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:47 pm

Being a "corporation" probably enables the government to hide its goings-on from public scrutiny.

Same as what they do with road projects.
Last edited by boronia on Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again May 2018
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
 
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:18 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 1621 times
Favourite Vehicle: Dennis

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby tonyp » Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:16 pm

Bjwh86 wrote:So everything would fall under TfNSW

I think it's more the case that everything needs rescuing from under TfNSW.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7516
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 787 times
Been thanked: 916 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Bjwh86 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:11 pm

tonyp wrote:
Bjwh86 wrote:So everything would fall under TfNSW

I think it's more the case that everything needs rescuing from under TfNSW.


More likely just the knobs running it! Get a decent team and TfNSW can really be something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bjwh86
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:59 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby grog » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:13 am

The aim would be to take the assets and spending off budget, like Sydney Water. If the entity was to borrow to build new infrastructure the debt would be held against the asset and not show up on the budget.

For example, if you wanted to spend $3 billion on signalling over 3 years, rather than costing the budget $1 billion per year for 3 years, it might cost the budget $100 million a year over 30 years through the Sydney Trains operational budget (as the consumer of the asset).
grog
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Linto63 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:27 am

But it ultimately it is all consolidated, irrespective on which entity's books the asset sits. Regardless of who owns a major asset like a signaling system or a train, it is likely to be capitalised (i.e. parked on the balance sheet as an asset) and then expensed over the period of its deemed useful life. So a $3 billion signaling upgrade amortised over 30 years will only show as costing $100 million per annum.
Linto63
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:44 pm
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby simonl » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:50 pm

marcnut1996 wrote:Does any insider or law people know what's the difference between RTC and TAHE? Also, whats "Residual Transport" anyway?

Probably a slur on the non metro parts of the system.

As for the other aspects, I expect boronia and grog have the correct answer. In later years, such exemptions are unlikely to be sought and the assets and liabilities will be hidden off the books. Why this is legal, I have no idea really except that it's a loophole that they would rather exploit than fix. If the state or other government own a corporation, one would think their books should be open to public scrutiny. Or does it just make it harder to track down?
simonl
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 847 times
Been thanked: 364 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Linto63 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:08 pm

marcnut1996 wrote:Does any insider or law people know what's the difference between RTC and TAHE? Also, whats "Residual Transport" anyway?
No insider or lawyer, but perhaps TAHE will become the owner of active assets from which an income is derived; trains, tracks and stations leased to NSW TrainLink and Sydney Trains and any thing else that produces income.

RTC from which the 'residual' term would suggest, would hold the other dormant assets; withdrawn rolling stock, closed tracks, closed stations, reserved future corridors, heritage items etc from which there is no income.

A cynic may suggest that this could be a clearing of the decks exercise in the run up to a future privatisation.:shock: But agree it may well be some accounting trickery pokery to manipulate the government's budgetary / net borrowing position.
Linto63
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:44 pm
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Tonymercury » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:53 am

marcnut1996 wrote:
Does any insider or law people know what's the difference between RTC and TAHE?


Yes, the people who composed it and the High Court.
Tonymercury
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Botany NSW
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Fleet Lists » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:17 am

As I have said before even the high court often does not know as judges often have different interpretations.
Living in the Shire.
User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
 
Posts: 20292
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 11:49 am
Location: The Shire
Has thanked: 996 times
Been thanked: 1092 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby Tonymercury » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:22 am

Fleet Lists wrote:As I have said before even the high court often does not know as judges often have different interpretations.


But judgements are judgements.
Tonymercury
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Botany NSW
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Postby 1whoknows » Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:37 pm

seems simple to me TAHE owns the track and related hardware whilst RTC is responsible for oversight of operations which could include a future privatisation model. Nothing unusual about that type of legislation having dealt with similar things in my previous life.

Its been around for most of the second half of the 20th century - a point which NSW now seems to have arrived at. Keep banging the rocks together guys.
Cats are best.
User avatar
1whoknows
 
Posts: 3484
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:55 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 246 times



  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Sydney / NSW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andy O, Google Adsense [Bot], tonyp, Westside and 19 guests