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


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.


RSS 2.0

How to make a partnership pay its way

By Edward Blakely - posted Wednesday, 8 March 2006

Public-private partnerships have taken on an ugly meaning in the wake of the Cross City Tunnel. But we need not throw out the baby with the bathwater, as we need them more than ever to carry out the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy.

The idea of these partnerships is very old, but today they have new meaning because governments are strapped for cash to finance new infrastructure and the debt of these partnerships does not show up on government books.

As well, the government does not have to hire workers to collect the tolls, which looks frugal; and it can take credit for new roads, schools, parks and hospitals and still be in the black. This is a good deal. But things go wrong when the process is not handled correctly.


Governments are merely leasing the new infrastructure when they enter into these partnerships. When you take on a car lease, for example, you are not paying for the car but for the use of it. As a result, you have to have the cash or reserves to pay the bill if anything goes wrong with the car, even though you do not own it.

As with a car lease, the government gets to use the asset - bridge, school or park - for the life of the lease. At the end of the lease period, the asset belongs to the government, fully paid for.

And, as with any lease, the government and the lender have to be certain the fees are paid for the full period of the lease arrangement. Here is where the trouble starts.

In too many instances, the finance company or lender-investment banker is more interested in getting the deal than in ensuring the fees are paid. And the investment banker gets fees for putting the contract together, not for managing the project for its life. In fact, the investment banker sells the project to superannuation funds or foreign investors as soon as the deal is made. The banker makes money whether the project is good or bad for the government.

No public-private partnership is simple; each one involves a lot of lawyers, accountants and sophisticated financial engineers. But, in the end, the project has to collect more in fees than it costs to run. The government gets what it needs (road, trains or other items) and, most of all, the investors get paid back.

It is called making the risk equation right. Remember, the investor is doing the government a favour by advancing the funds for the project. So the investor wants no risks. After all, the government would have to pay for this project anyway.


So the risk of making sure the project pays the fees is the government's, in one way or another. In some cases, the government improves the fees by closing off alternative routes - as in the case of a tunnel. In other cases, such as schools and hospitals, the government may prevent private schools or private hospitals from operating nearby.

Although the latest inquiries and reports on these partnerships focus on the operators of the project, this is not the issue: the problem is the financial structure of the project.

Four simple actions are needed in any partnership deal. First, an independent board must review all partnerships options. The reviewers must be people with expertise in the field who have been appointed for terms longer than an election cycle. Second, an external contractor, not a consultant hired by the investment banker, must review the feasibility of the project. Third, a fund to protect against default must be set up. And, finally, it is wise to enter into projects that are part of a longer-term strategy, such as the City of Cities Strategy, and are part of a bipartisan long-term contract to protect the assets from political manoeuvring.

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

First published in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 1, 2006.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

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

About the Author

Edward J. Blakely is Honorary Professor of Urban Policy at the United States Studies Centre, Sydney University. Professor Blakely is an international expert on urban planning and development and most recently head of recovery in New Orleans. He also served as the Chair of the Sydney Metropolitan Plan Reference Panel 2003-2004. He can be heard on the radio Sunday nights at 8PM on internet radio Blakely City Talk broadcasts the same podcast anytime.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Edward Blakely

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

Photo of Edward Blakely
Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy