My speaking notes follow, below.
Planning and Governance
Reservations
for major roads in Perth are defined in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), usually
for many years, prior to the road being built.
While some
parts of the current PFL are shown in the MRS, others are not. To get them into
the MRS requires a statutory process by the WA Planning Commission, including
public submissions, and formal adoption.
It may not be legal to build those parts of the PFL that
are outside an MRS highway reservation. This would
appear to include parts of High St, and land for new grade separations at
Stock/Leach, Carrington/Leach, High/Stirling and Stirling/Marmion and large
parts of any tunnel option.
We should be looking very closely at the Main Roads
Amendment Bill currently before Parliament. This
grants powers to the Commissioner of Main Roads to undertake works outside road
reservations, including clearing
vegetation without the need to comply with the Environmental Protection Act.
Infrastructure Australia says the Business Case lies (or at best misleads) about
alignment with State Strategic Priorities:
"The Business
Case outlines strong links between the Perth Freight Link Project and State
priorities, policies and initiatives … but the Perth Freight
Link project is not directly
mentioned in any of the State plans and policies it mentions.
This appears to be
yet another reason why the 'Moving People' and 'Moving Freight' strategies are
being rewritten - to comply with the Government’s political narrative.
Contractual
The current PFL
proposal appears to be to call tenders for its construction soon: before details have been decided and
before the statutory planning process has been completed.
This will
create significant risk and uncertainty for potential tenderers to build the
PFL, especially when combined with uncertainty about with the proposed sale of
the Fremantle Port and the possibility of a change of government.
Letting a
contract for the PFL under these circumstances will mean it will cost
tax-payers more than if the details have been decided through proper process.
Tenderers will
either load their prices up-front to allow for the uncertainties or prepare
their tenders in such a way as to maximise extra payments during the course of
the contract.
Either way it
is certain to be expensive.
It also
increases the probability of litigation between the State and the successful
tenderer if the uncertainties continue to grow. This will tend to result in
delays and further costs that will only be productive to the legal profession.
Exactly the
same applies to the sale or leasing of Fremantle Port, which the Minister for
Transport has said he wants to have signed off by July/August.
Tenderers will
reduce the price they are willing to offer if PFL is uncertain.
If the Port is
sold with an expectation about the PFL that is not finally met, the State will
be exposed to litigation.
It would save
significant taxpayers money and possible litigation to first finalise planning
for port development and freight access and then, if you must, offer the Port for sale.
Appraisal
Public investment
is usually assessed using benefit-cost analysis. A project is only justifiable
if:
a)
the
benefits over time exceed the costs; and
b)
the
amount by which they do so is greater than for any alternative way of
addressing the problem.
The second, in
particular, has not been demonstrated for the Perth Freight Link.
Infrastructure Australia itself has not been able to
get sufficient information to satisfy itself that the PFL is the best option
for dealing with the land transport needs of WA's international container trade.
Indeed, IA 'damns with faint praise' when it concludes: "After accounting for these [risk and uncertainty] factors, Infrastructure Australia still has a high degree of confidence that the BCR is greater than 1.0:1 for the project".
According to IA, "Major risks for the project include costs, environmental approvals and community support", which doesn't leave much in the way of certainty, especially as the final link to the port has not yet been defined or costed.
IA could not state that the project is warranted because it didn’t have comparable information on alternatives and therefore could not assess whether other options would provide better value to the WA community.
The evaluated PFL project was selected from 12 possible ones on the basis of subjective criteria, with only the 'preferred' project being subject to full benefit-cost analysis.
Indeed, IA 'damns with faint praise' when it concludes: "After accounting for these [risk and uncertainty] factors, Infrastructure Australia still has a high degree of confidence that the BCR is greater than 1.0:1 for the project".
According to IA, "Major risks for the project include costs, environmental approvals and community support", which doesn't leave much in the way of certainty, especially as the final link to the port has not yet been defined or costed.
IA could not state that the project is warranted because it didn’t have comparable information on alternatives and therefore could not assess whether other options would provide better value to the WA community.
The evaluated PFL project was selected from 12 possible ones on the basis of subjective criteria, with only the 'preferred' project being subject to full benefit-cost analysis.
None of the 12 options included adequate consideration
of the Outer Harbour.
Ethics
Engineers Australia’s Code of Ethics
requires professional engineers to promote
sustainability. This includes engage
responsibly with the community and other stakeholders:
- being sensitive to public concerns
- informing employers and clients of the likely consequences of
proposed activities on the community and the environment
- promoting the involvement of all stakeholders and the community in
decisions and processes that may impact upon them and the environment.
It also
includes:
- balancing the needs of the present with the needs of future
generations
- considering all options in terms of their economic, environmental
and social consequences
It is clear that the present PFL process is not promoting the involvement of all stakeholders and the community
in decisions and processes that may impact upon them and the environment.
It is clear that not all options have been considered in terms of their economic, environmental
and social consequences; especially the development and use of the outer
harbour and the option of moving freight at night.
It is unfair of the
Government to put professional engineers involved in the PFL in a position
where they are being asked to act unethically.
Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA
