Home' Future Building Australian Infrastructure Review : Volume 5 Number 1 Contents 32 futurebuilding Volume 5 Number 1
Peter Harris AO
Such a step would have two major bene ts:
• The knowledge of the limited scope of current
funding to meet all expectations would be shared
more widely via these groups and out into the
• The preferences of users could be incorporated
into future planning in a way that simply
consulting does not achieve.
Moreover, roads and motorist associations, and
heavy vehicle groups, will only be able to contribute
if analyses are made available to them. They won't
just expect to see a list; they'll want to look at the
costs and bene ts of each of the projects, and they'll
probably want to propose some of their own.
Such a system encourages better planning, which
is the largest failure in major infrastructure projects.
Effective infrastructure planning desperately needs more
incentives like those that this model provides. A road
fund model is a win-win for infrastructure investment.
Since the consumer groups -- roads associations
and heavy vehicle groups -- that we advocate forming
the road funding model (alongside the traditional
roads agencies) would have to be trusted with
the analyses, the doubtful claims of commercial
con dentiality when governments do not publish
cost-bene t analyses could be tested, as these groups
will be expected to consult with their members.
Publication of these analyses would -- once done
consistently and persistently -- create the pipeline
of projects that private investors have said that they
need for superannuation to play an even larger role
in investing in long-term infrastructure.
The recent innovation of state governments to
allow unsolicited bids for private investment means
that investors could also contribute to planning for
Investors will see the analyses in advance of any
announcements, and provide advice that links back
to the revenue system, which links back to the pricing
system that is the best means of getting ef cient
allocation of resourcing.
It all ts together, and could be done in advance of
any commitment by ministers, assisting governments'
decisions on which projects might become PPPs
and which would remain traditional publicly funded
design and construct (D&C) projects.
Finally, the clash between probity and innovation
can be dealt with by getting innovation input up front.
That is, the clash was put to us that innovative ideas
cannot be put to government once the tender process
is underway due to restrictions in the probity process.
Links Archive Volume 6 Number 1 Volume 4 Number 1 Navigation Previous Page Next Page