Re your third last para, not only should Governments be very wary of employing consultants, they should employ more specialists themselves, as they used to do. We now have the ridiculous situation where Government Departments are employing engineering consultants to check other consultants work to determine if it is valid, realistic, value for money etc, because they sacked all their in-house engineers decades ago. This also means that each time they let a contract, any expertise gained remains with the consulting groups.
It's not the consultants but the governments (both Liberal and Labor) which has consistently pushed this crazy methodology. They treat all expenditure on GP events as a net benefit when much of this spending simply displaces other spending inside Victoria. The licence fee paid to Bernie E (rumoured to be $30m) is confidential so a comprehensive CB analysis is impossible - but in any event this fee provides no benefit other than the right to hold the event.
The Labor Government does not need to employ consultants since many of its civil servants are political lapdogs who will do what they know their masters want. Where was the public servant opposition to the recently cancelled Commonwealth Games? This cancellation will cost Victorian taxpayers north of $580m most of which will accrue to Malaysia as a cancellation fee. This vastly exceeds the costs associated with the GP.
Making political appointments to the Public Service has been a terrible sin on both parties but Labor has carried it to extremes - Daniel Andrews has done permanent damage to Victoria. Two effects: The Government only hears what it wants to hear and the appointees are, in any event, incompetent. The incompetence mirrors a broader recent trend in the Australian public service. Appoint to senior administrative roles generalist managers without specific knowledge of the field they are administering. Its a tragedy for Australia and even senior Labor ministers are wailing about the extreme levels of incompetence when non-specialists with out economics training are running things such as the NDIS, the GP and other major events.
Speaking as a moderately fit type, I'd rather take part in an event than watch a competition between top-level athletes in the same sport.
But the subsidies for mass participation events are tiny, probably small enough that a legitimate calculation would show a net benefit. For example, I recently took part in the Mooloolaba triathlon. Total expenditure by participants was estimated at $6 million. The local council has a subsidy pot of $1.5 million, spread across ten or more major events. Assuming $150k each, that's a subsidy of 2.5 %, compared to at least 30% for Grand Prix.
As a resident of inner-urban Brisbane with an obvious interest in our convoluted local debates about arrangements for the 2032 Olympics, I am struck by the incidence of commentators who can't see any consideration other than the glamour of a big sporting event as important - even though part of the reason why the Gabba demolition and redevelopment isn't going ahead is very well-grounded and widespread concern that this would have entailed the demolition of a neighbouring primary school, among other negative effects.
Re your third last para, not only should Governments be very wary of employing consultants, they should employ more specialists themselves, as they used to do. We now have the ridiculous situation where Government Departments are employing engineering consultants to check other consultants work to determine if it is valid, realistic, value for money etc, because they sacked all their in-house engineers decades ago. This also means that each time they let a contract, any expertise gained remains with the consulting groups.
Now we just need an extended social cost-benefit analysis of the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.
I was asked about this when the deal was initially signed, and said we were paying a lot for a fairly short-lived upsurge in community pride.
The cutbacks announced by Miles will certainly improve the cost-benefit ratio
It's not the consultants but the governments (both Liberal and Labor) which has consistently pushed this crazy methodology. They treat all expenditure on GP events as a net benefit when much of this spending simply displaces other spending inside Victoria. The licence fee paid to Bernie E (rumoured to be $30m) is confidential so a comprehensive CB analysis is impossible - but in any event this fee provides no benefit other than the right to hold the event.
The Labor Government does not need to employ consultants since many of its civil servants are political lapdogs who will do what they know their masters want. Where was the public servant opposition to the recently cancelled Commonwealth Games? This cancellation will cost Victorian taxpayers north of $580m most of which will accrue to Malaysia as a cancellation fee. This vastly exceeds the costs associated with the GP.
Making political appointments to the Public Service has been a terrible sin on both parties but Labor has carried it to extremes - Daniel Andrews has done permanent damage to Victoria. Two effects: The Government only hears what it wants to hear and the appointees are, in any event, incompetent. The incompetence mirrors a broader recent trend in the Australian public service. Appoint to senior administrative roles generalist managers without specific knowledge of the field they are administering. Its a tragedy for Australia and even senior Labor ministers are wailing about the extreme levels of incompetence when non-specialists with out economics training are running things such as the NDIS, the GP and other major events.
A econ MA from any decent university should be able to do the CBA. It; no rocket science.
Bloody good point. We had similar snow job in Wollongong after claims re a world cycling event (although fit types may say THAT was worth it!!)
Speaking as a moderately fit type, I'd rather take part in an event than watch a competition between top-level athletes in the same sport.
But the subsidies for mass participation events are tiny, probably small enough that a legitimate calculation would show a net benefit. For example, I recently took part in the Mooloolaba triathlon. Total expenditure by participants was estimated at $6 million. The local council has a subsidy pot of $1.5 million, spread across ten or more major events. Assuming $150k each, that's a subsidy of 2.5 %, compared to at least 30% for Grand Prix.
As a resident of inner-urban Brisbane with an obvious interest in our convoluted local debates about arrangements for the 2032 Olympics, I am struck by the incidence of commentators who can't see any consideration other than the glamour of a big sporting event as important - even though part of the reason why the Gabba demolition and redevelopment isn't going ahead is very well-grounded and widespread concern that this would have entailed the demolition of a neighbouring primary school, among other negative effects.