Victoria’s road-safety ambition is enshrined in a single phrase — Towards Zero — yet a recent performance audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) has raised pointed questions about whether the strategy’s machinery is keeping pace with its goals. The audit, which examined how effectively the state is managing its road-safety framework, found a series of gaps in accountability, data use, and program evaluation that, VAGO concluded, are hampering the state’s ability to drive down deaths and serious injuries on Victorian roads.
What is Towards Zero, and why audit it now? #
Towards Zero is Victoria’s road-safety strategy, operating under the Safe System framework endorsed by the World Health Organisation. It is built on the premise that no death or serious injury on the road is acceptable, and that the transport system — not just individual road users — must be designed to absorb human error without lethal consequence. The strategy sets rolling targets for reductions in fatalities and serious injuries, and sits across multiple agencies: the Department of Transport and Planning, VicRoads (now integrated into the department), Victoria Police, the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), and local government.
VAGO performance audits are not financial reviews. They ask a harder question: is a program actually achieving what it was set up to achieve, and are the agencies responsible managing it well? Given that road trauma costs the Victorian community an estimated $6 billion a year — a figure cited in TAC and government documentation — VAGO determined the strategy warranted independent scrutiny.
What VAGO measured #
The audit assessed whether the lead agencies overseeing Towards Zero had clear roles and responsibilities, whether they were collecting and using data effectively to inform decisions, whether they were evaluating their programs rigorously, and whether they were transparent with the public about progress — or the lack of it.
Auditors examined agency governance arrangements, internal reporting structures, program evaluation frameworks, and public performance reporting. They also looked at how agencies were responding to emerging evidence, including data on new risk areas such as drug-impaired driving, heavy vehicle safety, and the safety of vulnerable road users including cyclists and pedestrians.
Where the audit found shortfalls #
VAGO’s findings were candid. The audit concluded that accountability arrangements across the agencies involved in Towards Zero were not sufficiently clear — meaning it was not always obvious which body was responsible for driving action on a specific safety risk or target. In a multi-agency framework, diffuse accountability is a structural hazard: when everyone is responsible, no one is.
On data use, VAGO found that while agencies were collecting considerable volumes of road-safety data, the translation of that data into program decisions was inconsistent. Some interventions lacked clear evidence bases, and evaluation of whether programs were actually reducing trauma was patchy. In plain terms: some programs were running without robust proof that they were working, and without systematic plans to find out.
Performance reporting to the public was also identified as an area requiring improvement. VAGO found that public-facing reports did not always give a complete or sufficiently candid picture of progress against targets. Reporting on serious injuries — which represent a far larger burden than fatalities — was identified as needing greater rigour and consistency.
The audit also noted that Victoria’s serious-injury data has long been complicated by the way hospital admission records and TAC claims data are reconciled. Inconsistencies in serious-injury counting have made year-on-year comparisons difficult and have, at times, obscured the scale of the problem relative to fatality figures alone.
The agencies’ response #
As is standard in VAGO audits, the relevant agencies — principally the Department of Transport and Planning and the TAC — were given the opportunity to respond to findings before publication. Both agencies accepted the audit’s recommendations, at least in principle, which is not unusual: agencies rarely reject VAGO findings outright, since the audit process is collaborative and the recommendations are typically developed with agency input.
What matters more, advocates and independent observers note, is the quality and pace of implementation. VAGO recommendations are not legally binding orders. There is no penalty for slow uptake beyond the political and reputational pressure that public accountability creates. The audit report itself notes expected timelines for implementation of each recommendation, and VAGO monitors progress through follow-up processes — but enforcement is ultimately a matter for the government and the parliament, not the Auditor-General’s office.
At the time of publication, the Department of Transport and Planning had indicated it was progressing work on clearer agency roles and a strengthened evaluation framework. Specific timelines for individual recommendations varied, with some flagged for completion within 12 months and others described as longer-term structural reforms.
Why this matters beyond the numbers #
It can be tempting to read road-safety audit findings as a bureaucratic concern — a matter of frameworks and reporting templates rather than human lives. That framing misses the point entirely. Behind every gap in accountability or unevaluated program is a risk that something preventable will keep happening because no one has confirmed it is being addressed.
Victoria has made genuine progress on road trauma over decades. Seatbelt laws, random breath testing, speed cameras, and improvements to road infrastructure have collectively saved thousands of lives since the 1970s. But that historical progress can create a false sense that the system is working optimally. VAGO’s audit is a reminder that good intentions, even backed by substantial public investment, do not automatically translate into effective outcomes without rigorous governance.
Serious injuries in particular represent an area where complacency is dangerous. A person left with a permanent disability after a crash does not appear in fatality statistics, but their life — and the lives of those around them — is profoundly and permanently changed. If the counting and reporting of serious injuries is inconsistent, the scale of the problem is underestimated, and pressure to act is correspondingly reduced.
What advocates are watching #
Road-safety advocates, including those working with survivors of serious crashes and with disability organisations, have long argued that the political attention given to road trauma fluctuates with headline fatality figures. When annual road deaths fall, public and parliamentary pressure tends to ease — even if serious injuries are rising or plateauing.
The VAGO audit adds institutional weight to calls for more consistent, transparent, and evidence-driven reporting. If the government’s response is implemented fully and on time, advocates say, the framework for holding the system accountable will be meaningfully stronger. If implementation stalls or is partial, the audit risks becoming another document on a shelf — well-intentioned but ineffective.
Parliament’s Public Accounts and Estimates Committee has the power to call agency heads before it to account for progress on VAGO recommendations. Whether that mechanism is used will depend partly on political will and partly on continued public interest in road safety as a governance issue, not just a traffic statistic.
What to watch going forward #
VCN will continue to track the implementation of VAGO’s recommendations through departmental reporting, parliamentary committee hearings, and TAC data releases. Key indicators to watch include the release of an updated evaluation framework for Towards Zero programs, improvements in public reporting on serious injuries, and evidence of clearer delineation of agency responsibilities.
Victoria’s next road-safety strategy horizon will also be a critical moment. How the lessons of this audit are embedded in the architecture of any successor framework — not just acknowledged in a response document — will be the real test of whether VAGO’s scrutiny has changed anything of substance.
If you or someone you know has been affected by road trauma or a serious injury, support is available around the clock.
- Lifeline — 13 11 14 (24/7 crisis support)
- Beyond Blue — 1300 22 4636
- 13YARN — 13 92 76 (24/7 support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples)
- Crime Stoppers — 1800 333 000 (to report road-safety concerns or dangerous driving)
