Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
Post Reply
User avatar
marcnut1996
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:21 am
Favourite Vehicle: Custom Endeavour
Location: Sydney Regions 1 & 6, formerly at Regions 7 & 9
Contact:

Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by marcnut1996 »

Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act 2017:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... n12637.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/~/vi ... 8/109/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 1, loves buses in Western Sydney.

User avatar
marcnut1996
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:21 am
Favourite Vehicle: Custom Endeavour
Location: Sydney Regions 1 & 6, formerly at Regions 7 & 9
Contact:

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by marcnut1996 »

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 1, loves buses in Western Sydney.

Bjwh86
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:59 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Bjwh86 »

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

User avatar
boronia
Posts: 19418
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:18 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Fire engine; PD4107
Location: Sydney

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by boronia »

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 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again June 2021
@ The Museum of Fire.

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9428
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by tonyp »

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"

Bjwh86
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:59 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Bjwh86 »

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

grog
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by grog »

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).

Linto63
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Linto63 »

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.

simonl
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by simonl »

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?

Linto63
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Linto63 »

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.

Tonymercury
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Botany NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Tonymercury »

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.

User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
Posts: 21513
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Shire

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Fleet Lists »

As I have said before even the high court often does not know as judges often have different interpretations.
Living in the Shire.

Tonymercury
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Botany NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by Tonymercury »

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.

User avatar
1whoknows
Posts: 3615
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by 1whoknows »

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.
"Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out"
David Horowitz.

User avatar
marcnut1996
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:21 am
Favourite Vehicle: Custom Endeavour
Location: Sydney Regions 1 & 6, formerly at Regions 7 & 9
Contact:

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by marcnut1996 »

In this year's TfNSW annual report, it mentions:
Establishment of the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) builds on these reforms. Consolidation of Transport asset ownership enables implementation of a change in asset management and provides the Transport cluster with contemporary structures to ensure the rapidly growing asset base is managed to deliver ongoing benefits. A key outcome is an effective, efficient and
commercial approach to the management of transport assets, particularly property.

During 2017–18, we achieved some critical milestones, including legislative change that established Sydney Trains and NSW Trains as independent, stand-alone agencies (formerly subsidiaries of RailCorp), expansion of RailCorp’s functions to enable it to ‘hold, manage, operate and maintain’ transport assets, and the establishment of the Residual Transport Corporation that will, in future, own assets that are not suitable for TAHE ownership.
In short, RTC owns assets that TAHE cannot own.
Lives in Region 1, loves buses in Western Sydney.

User avatar
swtt
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:49 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities)

Post by swtt »

1whoknows wrote: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.
So much similar to the RIC (Rail Infrastructure Corporation) and RAC (Rail Access Corporation), with CityRail back in the day running over RIC's tracks which is delegated out by RAC?

User avatar
marcnut1996
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:21 am
Favourite Vehicle: Custom Endeavour
Location: Sydney Regions 1 & 6, formerly at Regions 7 & 9
Contact:

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by marcnut1996 »

The rest of the act starts today, and hence RailCorp ceases to exist and has been replaced by TAHE.
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/about- ... outh-wales
Lives in Region 1, loves buses in Western Sydney.

Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”