Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Public Private Partnerships no 'magic pudding'

By Tristan Ewins - posted Monday, 11 December 2006


This difference alone adds around 20 per cent on average to the cost of PPPs. On top of that, as Davidson explains, “the merchant banks who create the financial vehicles for PPPs [expect] … a 25 to 100 per cent return on equity.”

This impost is further exacerbated by the participation of those who ACTU Secretary Sharan Burrow has described as “the 5 per cent club”.

In an article for the Evatt foundation, Burrow lists the institutional investors, lawyers, accountants, merchant bankers and others who “take what could be a public sector infrastructure project and turn it into a private sector commercial venture, in order to both provide the infrastructure and make a quid”.

Advertisement

The end result of all these additional costs is that the public ends up paying more for a PPP than a publicly financed enterprise, whether that takes the form of tolls or regular public payments.

Answering the prevailing orthodoxy

What, then, does the current orthodoxy have going for it, that such arrangements continue to be made?

Many of the claims are dubious at best. Some revolve around essentialist arguments regarding the virtues of the private sector; its capacity for innovation and a supposed propensity to provide projects “on time and on budget”. Private sector innovation can be captured, however, through competitive tendering - without any need for private finance and its consequent inefficiencies.

The most common claim, though, is that Public Private Partnerships involve a transfer of “risk”. Again, despite these claims, the reality is different.

As the examples of the NSW cross-city tunnel and the Victorian Citylink project show, many PPPs still make governments bear the risk that the project will fall short of expected earnings, even to the point where governments are expected to eliminate the “competition” (for example, by closing off publicly financed roads). Should a government break a contract which guarantees the closure of said routes, then it becomes liable for the loss of projected earnings.

The bottom line, however, is that the public expect governments to provide services and infrastructure in health, education, ports, roads, rail: and this responsibility cannot be outsourced to the private sector. If a PPP fails, governments are held responsible, and they inevitably have to pick up the pieces, either by bailing out the private providers or otherwise financing the continued provision of essential infrastructure and services.

Advertisement

As the example of public transport franchisees Connex and Yarra Trams in Victoria shows, governments can be driven to subsidise private providers to the tune of hundreds of millions in order for services to remain viable. In this instance the Victorian State Government, failing to take said services back into public ownership, agreed to subsidise these firms to the tune of $580 million.

Is there a better way?

Earlier this year the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) released a report on Public Private Partnerships. Titled Reform of Public Private Partnerships: How to Harness Private Capital To Genuinely Work In Partnership With The Public Sector (PDF 472KB), the report argues the case for a new organisation: a “National Infrastructure Finance Corporation” (NIFC). The idea of such a body, to be financed jointly (on a 50/50 basis) by government through the Future Fund, and by pooled superannuation funds, is to provide a means of funding essential infrastructure while bypassing some of the common pitfalls associated with PPPs.

Certainly there is an urgent and demonstrable need for greater investment in public infrastructure, and the idea of an NIFC is one innovative response to a crisis that has been looming for quite some time now.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

First published in New Matilda on December 1, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Tristan Ewins has a PhD and is a freelance writer, qualified teacher and social commentator based in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a long-time member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). He blogs at Left Focus, ALP Socialist Left Forum and the Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy.
.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tristan Ewins

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Tristan Ewins
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy