Australia’s dubious recent history of infrastructure investment might have added another chapter, with a new report from Infrastructure Australia revealing that Perth’s Freight Link project has been hastily conceived and poorly planned, with alternatives not properly assessed. From The ABC:
The report said the WA Government’s business case “outlines strong links” with state priorities and policies.
But “at the time of the assignment (May 2015), the Perth Freight Link is not directly mentioned” in eight key strategic planning documents, the report found.
They included the State Planning Strategy 2050, Direction 2031 and Beyond, the WA Regional Freight Transport Network Plan, Draft Perth Freight Transport Network Plan, the Draft State Port Strategy Plan and the Fremantle Port Inner Harbour Port Development Plan…
The Opposition said it showed the Perth Freight Link was not part of long-term planning, and did not adequately consider other options, including the construction of a new outer harbour in Cockburn Sound.
“We believe this is a flawed project. We don’t believe the work has been done to justify the $2 billion expenditure,” Opposition transport spokeswoman Rita Saffioti said…
Ms Saffioti said it was clear that the project was given priority for political, rather than strategic reasons.
“This is a project that the Abbott Government wanted to fund because they didn’t want to fund public transport,” she said.
“Now they [the State Government] have been forced to this project and what we’re seeing is Colin Barnett going ahead with this project basically because the Abbott Government has given them some money”…
The report showed the option of an outer harbour was never considered, and that of the 12 options, only the Perth Freight Link was subjected to any detailed assessment.
“A rapid BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) was not completed for additional options to determine if the preferred option provided the greatest net benefits,” it said.
Meanwhile, The West Australian reports that Infrastructure Australia‘s assessment claims there are “substantial risks” around the project’s total cost, whilst also noting that the assessment system used for the link had “significant weaknesses” that had a bias against low-cost options.
Infrastructure Australia’s latest report adds further weight to the Productivity Commission’s (PC) recent scathing assessment of the governance, selection and execution processes used by Australia’s governments for the provision of public infrastructure, and the PC’s recommendation that governments build a “credible and efficient governance and institutional framework for project selection”, that includes “properly conducted cost–benefit studies of large projects, and their disclosure to the public”.
Australia will struggle to boost productivity and living standards as long as our governments continue picking infrastructure projects based on pre-conceived biases and/or political motivations, rather than through objective and transparent assessments.
unconventionaleconomist@hotmail.com
