Discussion Paper     Annexure A    Annexure B    

Public Purse

Federal, State and Territory Governments are obligated under parliamentary legislation to expend funds raised from taxation or other means cost-effectively, predominantly expended upon health, education and transportation of taxpayers and prospective taxpayers.

For major infrastructure projects, evidence of cost-effective expenditure should included submitting (at least six weeks prior to Financial Close) a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis to Australia's longstanding cost-efficiency appraisal expert, namely the Federal Productivity Commission, to evaluate/audit (at arm's length) each Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis for each future State or Territory infrastructure project with forecast Capex that exceeds $20,000,000, starting with proposed rail infrastructure. 

SECT 51(i) and SECT 51(xxxiv) and SECT 98 ("The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State") of the Australian Constitution behoove the Commonwealth Govt to enact legislation to 'Centralise' responsibility upon the most skilled Commonwealth Govt agency at evaluating 'what is and what is not a cost-effective rail infrastructure project'.

Below is a vital requirement in the first of the Nine Steps of a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis:

"Step 1: Specify the set of options

Identify a range of genuine, viable, alternative policy options to be analysed. You must consider at least three options, one of which must be non-regulatory. Your agency is responsible for the choice of options.  A ‘do nothing’ or ‘business as usual’ option will usually provide the base case against which the incremental costs and benefits of each alternative are determined. In some cases, doing nothing may be the best option available. Only costs and benefits that would not have occurred in the base case should be included in the C-BA."

In the case of Sydney's recent Central Business District and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project, ‘do nothing’ or ‘business as usual’ (the first of al least three alternative public transport options) would have entailed calculating the cost of restricting George St. Sydney to only bus public transport to/from Randwick and Kingsford with no longer having to share Sydney's famous "George St" with commercial and private motor vehicles.  Because the farcical justification for the State Liberal Party's tram set to ruin the most vital CBD street in Sydney, namely George St., was that buses could not function with all those cars and trucks.  Ipso facto, exclude the cars and trucks at a pittance of the cost.

 

Casual empiricism suggests that public transport usage (over the next 50 years) between both Randwick and Kingsford to/from Central Railway station, and onto Circular Quay, could have been provided for 10% circa of the +$3,000,000,000+ tram set capital expenditure, plus 50 years of the 120 tonnes, 67 metres long light rail operating expenditure, had George St been restricted to State Govt diesel or electric buses (not inflicted with a light rail network). Significantly, unlike these heavy trams, electric buses do not require an ungainly external electricity supply.

 

 

[bottom.htm]