05.12.2012 Views

Department of Transport Annual Report 2010 - 2011

Department of Transport Annual Report 2010 - 2011

Department of Transport Annual Report 2010 - 2011

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Key efficiency<br />

indicators<br />

Average cost<br />

per day per<br />

maritime<br />

infrastructure<br />

asset managed.<br />

Key efficiency<br />

indicators<br />

Average survey<br />

cost per<br />

commercial<br />

vessel.<br />

Key efficiency<br />

indicators<br />

Average cost<br />

per private<br />

recreational<br />

vessel<br />

registration.<br />

2007-08<br />

actual<br />

2008-09<br />

actual<br />

2009-10<br />

actual<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

target<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

actual<br />

$61.17 $63.34 $69.61 $63.07 $58.28<br />

2007-08<br />

actual<br />

2008-09<br />

actual<br />

2009-10<br />

actual<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

target<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

actual<br />

$2,124 $2,749 $2,662 $3,210 $2,429<br />

2007-08<br />

actual<br />

2008-09<br />

actual<br />

2009-10<br />

actual<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

target<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

actual<br />

$59.99 $79.83 $93.87 $104.01 $113.26<br />

Reasons for significant<br />

variance<br />

The 2009-10 actual<br />

included costs associated<br />

with the functional transfer<br />

<strong>of</strong> coastal infrastructure<br />

from DPI to the DoT.<br />

Reasons for significant<br />

variance<br />

The variation between the<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11 budget target and<br />

the <strong>2010</strong>-11 actual was<br />

due to lower staffing costs<br />

attributable to a lower<br />

than expected number<br />

<strong>of</strong> surveyed vessels and<br />

improved data collection<br />

for regional services and<br />

corporate overhead costs<br />

resulting in a more accurate<br />

allocation <strong>of</strong> costs.<br />

Reasons for significant<br />

variance<br />

New costing models<br />

developed for the DoT have<br />

more accurately identified<br />

Marine Safety’s costs<br />

across the regions that align<br />

directly to this service. This<br />

along with an unanticipated<br />

drop in the estimated<br />

number <strong>of</strong> recreational boat<br />

registrations combined to<br />

increase the actual cost per<br />

vessel.<br />

Key efficiency<br />

indicators<br />

Cost to maintain<br />

marine pollution<br />

response<br />

preparedness<br />

per registered<br />

vessel.<br />

Key efficiency<br />

indicators<br />

Average cost<br />

per household<br />

contacted<br />

under the<br />

‘TravelSmart’<br />

scheme.<br />

2007-08<br />

actual<br />

2008-09<br />

actual<br />

2009-10<br />

actual<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

target<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

actual<br />

$48.01 $35.40 $34.96 $29.08 $24.48<br />

2007-08<br />

actual<br />

2008-09<br />

actual<br />

2009-10<br />

actual<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

target<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11<br />

actual<br />

$105.98 $219.47 $204.21 $335.51 $182.42<br />

Reasons for significant<br />

variance<br />

The <strong>2010</strong>-11 actual is<br />

lower than both the<br />

2009-10 actual and the<br />

<strong>2010</strong>-11 budget due to<br />

the original estimate<br />

including additional costs<br />

<strong>of</strong> $250,000 for oil spill<br />

mapping, which did not<br />

eventuate.<br />

Reasons for significant<br />

variance<br />

The method to calculate the<br />

KPI has been changed to<br />

include only the nett cost<br />

to the State Government,<br />

excluding grants received<br />

during <strong>2010</strong>-11.<br />

The <strong>2010</strong>-11 actual is below<br />

the <strong>2010</strong>-11 budget target<br />

because the grant was<br />

secured after the KPI target<br />

was established and the<br />

program scale was doubled<br />

(from 5,000 to 10,000<br />

households) at no extra<br />

cost. The cost effectiveness<br />

improved as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />

grant income.<br />

101

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!