From: Philip Johnston [mailto:scribepj@bigpond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:45 AM
To: 'jim.chalmers.mp@aph.gov.au' <jim.chalmers.mp@aph.gov.au>
Subject: Centralise responsibility to the Productivity Commission to evaluate a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis for each future State rail infrastructure project over $20m - offered by the Productivity Commission in 2009 - Ergas & Robson

Attention:  Shadow Treasurer, Jim Chalmers    

The Writer refers to his below email sent 1 April 2021 that seeks the Australian Labor Party to support new Commonwealth legislation (pursuant to Section 96 and Section 98 of the Australian Constitution) to compel State Govts to provide (to the Productivity Commission) a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis for each proposed future State rail infrastructure project over $20m.  Back in 2009, the Productivity Commission offered to evaluate Cost-Benefit Analysis prepared by the States that justify huge infrastructure expenditures.

Such new legislation will save at least a billion dollars of the Public Purse annually; possibly several billions of dollars annually in the early years before the States learn to prepare a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis that will be scrutinized by the Commonwealth Productivity Commission.

My below email, and my Discussion Paper, evidence that the NSW Premier is adept at building rail projects that have proven to be highly cost-ineffective.  Possibly Gladys forgot that Sydney already had a heavy rail between Circular Quay, Wynyard, Town Hall and Central Railway, when she agreed to building a parallel, juxtaposed, adjacent light rail (taking out George St) that cost $1 billion dollars and was completed 12 months late, with a lot of litigation.

Gladys’s is now spruiking “the possibility of an 11-kilometre tunnel between Blackheath and Mount Victoria” without an iota of an understanding as to whether the tangible Benefits would exceed the mammoth tangible tunnel building Costs.

NSW government reveals plan to build Australia's longest road tunnel at Blue Mountains

My Discussion Paper points out that SECT 96 'Financial assistance to States' of the Australian Constitution allows the Commonwealth Parliament to make financial grants to the States predicated "...on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit....".  

Due to the magnitude of the on-going annual tax payer wastage evident in Annexure ASECT 96 behooves the Commonwealth Govt. to 'Centralise' responsibility for measuring, quantifying and ranking all proposed rail infrastructure projects, upon the ‘efficiency experts’, namely the Productivity Commission

SECT 96 'Financial assistance to States' places a legal obligation upon the Commonwealth Govt to pass specific new laws to ensure that the 46% of Australia’s six States annual revenue expenditure funded from the Commonwealth Govt is expended cost-effectively.

I welcome speaking with anyone in the ALP that wants to ensure that Australia’s six States expend their budgets a lot more effectively/efficiently by accepting the Productivity Commission’s offer in 2009 to be a centre of excellence or reference for cost–benefit analysis within the Australian Government, preferably in an independent entity, such as the Productivity Commission.

NB:      Why do I want to talk to the ALP?  Because 46% of Australia’s six States annual revenue expenditure is funded from the Commonwealth Govt.

Phil Johnston aka Bank Teller
0434 715.861

From: Philip Johnston [mailto:scribepj@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 4:51 PM
To: 'jim.chalmers.mp@aph.gov.au' <jim.chalmers.mp@aph.gov.au>
Subject: Centralise responsibility to the Productivity Commission to evaluate a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis for each future State rail infrastructure project over $20m - offered by the Productivity Commission in 2009 - Ergas & Robson

Attention:  Jim Chalmers    

Click on the below blue embedded threads

Annexure A provides URL threads to a welter of articles/reports of cost blowouts, construction completion delays and usage/patronage paucity in too many recent major State rail infrastructure projects that have wasted many billions of dollars of the Public Purse. 

Yesterday I posted to you 2 @ CDs, 2 @ DVDs and 2 @ A4 hardcopy to:

Jim Chalmers MP                                   

Federal Labor Member for Rankin

Shadow Treasurer
PO Box 349
Woodridge, QLD 4114

The 2 CDs auto-open in a Windows Operating System at my (1st Attachment) which is my Letter to Jim Chalmers dated 31 March 2021 that recommends that the Shadow Treasurer place in the House Despatch Box during Question Time a 'Written Question With Notice' (2nd Attachment) for attention of the Federal Treasurer.

The Writer is a retired Infrastructure banker that worked at CBA for 37 years.  His wants the Public Purse expended cost-effectively and has expended well over 100 hours preparing his Discussion Paper that seeks the Commonwealth Govt to legislate that the States submit a Conforming Cost-Benefit Analysis to the Productivity Commission for all prospective future transport infrastructure projects that includes a Base Case Financial Model of at least 20 years of projected cashflows in a large Excel spreadsheet that calcs that –

·         the IRR is higher than the hurdle rate (required yield) that might be negative; and

·         ideally evidences a positive NPV that shouldn’t be negative.     .

In 2009 the Productivity Commission offered to take carriage for "systematic auditing of cost–benefit analyses .... by being a centre of excellence or reference for cost–benefit analysis within the Australian Government." (3rd Attachment)

Below is an extract from section 6.4 conclusions of 6. Evaluating major infrastructure projects: how robust are our processes? published on the Productivity Commission website in 2009: 

"We are not optimistic that changes to cost–benefit analysis processes alone can counteract these powerful trends. Nonetheless, we think three changes would have merit:

• a requirement for all cost–benefit analyses to be disclosed that would also highlight which projects had not been subjected to economic project evaluation

• far greater and systematic auditing of cost–benefit analyses, both at the stage of the financing decision and post-project completion. In contrast, there is little or no such audit currently, and in many instances, cost–benefit analyses are not even updated, maintained or properly archived after the initial ‘go/no go’ decision is taken.

• the establishment of a centre of excellence or reference for cost–benefit analysis within the Australian Government, preferably in an independent entity, such as the Productivity Commission."


Australia’s Productivity Commission –

(i)            has the specialist cost-benefit appraisal expertise that Australia’s six States patently do not; and

(ii)           will make objective decisions at arm’s length.

As the Productivity Commission further invests in CBA resources/skill/expertise (with additional economic analysts and civil engineers) its Gatekeeper ‘Public Purse’ safety net role will reap additional economies of scale – not attainable by individual States.

Section 96 and Section 98 of the Australian Constitution behoove the Commonwealth Govt to enact legislation to stop Australia’s six States wasting billions of the 46% of Australia’s six States annual revenue expenditure as evidenced in my Discussion Paper 

I studied at Macq Uni for 10 years part-time (whilst working at CBA) and attained two finance degrees.  4th Attachment is my Masters of Finance Degree from Macquarie University.

5th and 6th Attachments are images of the CD and CD Case that I posted to you yesterday.  Burnt CDs enable greater integrity than a USB Stick.

Phil Johnston aka Bank Teller
0434 715.861

 

 

[bottom.htm]