It is with interest that I see the 'Clem 7' tunnel in Brisbane drops it's toll yet again.

It was suggested, no doubt by consultants, that it would carry around 60,000 vehicles per day, yet, it is less than a third of that figure.

When you do the numbers quickly, 60,000 at and average of say $5 = $300,000 per day.

This placed a vale on the shares of one dollar. They are now around 2 cents.

So, the question is, should the consulting firm that came up with this number, be made to re-pay two thirds of thier consultancy fee for getting it wrong.

So perhaps it's time that consultants need to have professional indemnity insurance so they take the fall as well when they get it so wrong.

After all, so many lives are effected by thier poor judgement, yet, they simply go off and make a mess of project after project and seem to be 'bullet proof' when it comes to accountablillity.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Blame the payer, not the piper.

A 'real' consultant would have advised either not to build yet more roads, or to have the state build it, and provide it at no immediate charge, like the rest of our road system.

Toll roads are part of the neo-liberal 'free' market solution we can do without.

Why didn't they build a railway instead?

Or a tramway.

Economics isn't really my strong point, but I really only see failed public private partnerships.

Either
a) The new private entity is given such a monopoly that it defeats the supposed benefits of private competition and effeciency gains. Service is downgraded, jobs are lost and the money goes overseas, and the community is left with a lemon and no alternative to take their business anywhere else.

b) The new private entity goes broke because they cant make enough money due to the government regulation ensuring they still provide a service to the whole of the community, rather than just the highest profit areas.

c) The government bends over in the contract negotiation, and Guarantees the new private operator a profit regardless of what happens, via use of taxpayer funded compensation, or forcing consumers to use the new private company's services (closing surface roads). You QLanders haven't experienced that pearler yet. Be thankful you're not in NSW.

The best definition of PPP (Public Private Partnerships) I have seen is the following:

A PPP is where risk and overruns go to the public sector, profit to the private sector and political donations to the party in government.

To answer your question Rehctub- MAYBE- if they can make a case out of it (and there are many fraudulent claims or companies, possible sabotage)- I think they should be able to demand legal compensation- having said that, nobody forces a company to accept the estimates.

HOWEVER
I think there should be a special law that ensures any private entity with either particular ownership or right to control/profit over infrastructure such as roads, water, electricity and telecommunications NOT be allowed to do so- it would open up our infrastructure to an even stronger level of corruption and willingness to compromise their undeserved 'property' because they can more easily pass the back and make someone else pay for their greed when it crashes and burns.
(I guess I should admit they shouldn't be allowed to run roads etc at all).

Given that consultants will do a study within the framework specified by the client. Like statistics, they can differ widely.

Considering that the Queensland government hired the consultants, and they would benefit from inflated numbers, Anna Bligh is the first stop for accountability.

Officials do not do the jobs for which they are paid ie. making decisions. A consultant is used to validate changes but without the burden of accountability. SES still earn bonuses due to the impression of 'continuous improvement' and change management despite negative outcomes.

There may be legitimate cases where technical expertise is not available in-house, but as rehctub states no accountability if the private sector gets it wrong.

Another trend is to outsource to 'managed services' where staffing costs can be hidden in other business costs giving the appearance of reducing the size of the PS. The result is casual staff hired via the provider earn less (even with casual loading) than permanent PS employees at the same level, with all the benefits of leave etc.

The only area in which outsourcing leads to higher wages is in the IT field but in the lower paid clerical/call centre roles wages are lower via a managed service. Meanwhile the SES continues to grow.

Many consultancy reports are self-fulfilling, recommending cuts with outsourcing options to reduce risk. The cuts often go ahead without the outsourcing to legitimise staff reduction due to budget demands. Officials will cherry pick recommendations to suit a pre-conceived agenda. Imagine if the money wasted went towards reforming hospitals.

Public servants are also under pressure from minister's offices budget wise and if the Minister wants extra support from a department, this requires extra personnel but no corresponding increase in budget especially after 'popularity' cuts to the public service.

The result is usually pillaging staff from other areas or cuts through natural attrition, in a 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' process to be able to support a minister's office often blurring the line between impartial public service and government PR. Often the changes are to give the appearance of greater service rather than the reality.

The Department of Finance really needs to reform government purchasing and outsourcing, which in it's current form sit in complete opposition to the APS Codes of Conduct and APS Values in relation to transparency, OH&S and other workplace issues.

P.S.

Consultants do carry professional indemnity insurance as they can be sued for negligence. However, in this case I am sure that you will find that they are covered by disclaimers based on the information provided by the government.

The real issue here, as someone has already identified, is the nonsense of the PPP style evasion of state responsibility.

Of course the consultants in this job only did what they were paid to do.

But it is time we simply got back to the state providing the infrastructure up-front, from tax revenues, and it is past time that governments kept insisting that it was a sin to increase taxes.

That said, as far as roads go, the roadwork in and around Brisbane is a shocking waste of tax monies.

What was needed was more railways, more and different buses, more cycling and walking infrastruture, not yet more and bigger roads.

And it would be appreciated if 'some' money was spent outside Brisbane, in RARA land.