STUFF the Port’s Plans
A Parliamentary Committee on Finance and Public Administration is currently having a close look at the PoMC’s business case for channel deepening, and the PoMC’s contractual arrangements with Boskalis
The Channel Deepening Project, and the so called “benefits” to be bestowed on us, are predicated on business as usual continuing on apace - and forever. It can’t of course – how can the current system of production, distribution, consumption and disposal survive in a world with finite resources?
PoMC is relying on our irreplaceable, scarce and jointly owned resources to gamble on a future which most rational people can see is not going to pan out the way the PoMC is hoping. Aside from running out of resources to keep manufacturing all the stuff to put into the containers to get shipped all around the world; what ship operator is going to want to sail from Asia (our biggest trading partner) all the way to the Melbourne (almost twice as far as ports such as Brisbane or Darwin) when oil keeps going up and up in price (and gets more and more scarce)?
Have a look at this really great Youtube on STUFF – Where it comes from, why we buy it, and where it ends up (link below).
The story of STUFF: http://www.storyofstuff.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And: Here's what hundreds of our supporters said in a joint submission to the Parliamentary committee.
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration
Legislative Council
Parliament of
Re:
As shareholders of the
The costs of losing or damaging the range of services presently provided by the Bay for free have been excluded from the economic modelling and decision making. PoMC has relied on a ‘business as usual’ mindset, projecting steady growth into the future. There is no lack of learned opinion that we can no longer subscribe to the business as usual mindset.
Estimating ‘net present value’ (NPV) in 2007, PoMC used a cost figure of $590m. Costs are now almost $1 billion so the claimed benefits have diminished substantially. PoMC is advocating benefits based on cost reductions flowing to end users, whilst also introducing a container levy. End users will not benefit as importers and exporters costs have already increased via the levy, leaving no savings to pass on.
To achieve its benefit/cost ratio of 3.3, PoMC used the gross benefit figure of $1.936 billion not the net benefit, and divided it by the total cost estimate less the ‘sunk’ costs already spent. PoMC also fails to point out that only one third of the economic benefit flows to Victorian interests.
Using the more conservative and realistic assumptions below, the NPV is reduced to minus $540 million:
· Cost of around $1 billion,
· Project valuation over 10 years with a terminal value
· 12% discount rate not the 6% used by PoMC
· Conservative estimate of future shipping fleet composition
On these conservative figures, this is a dis-benefit to Victorians. Clearly the project is already unjustifiable, even before any more costs blow-outs occur.
I also have grave concerns about the
The secrecy surrounding the
Yours sincerely,
Name:
Address:
Date:
Previous page: Contact Blue Wedges
Next page: Media Releases