neilmny wrote:This document was signed off by a person allegedly found to have unacceptable conduct in relation to integrity and breaching ethics and code of conduct rules. ... She said the board would ask the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) to investigate the allegations. Chair of the Parks Victoria board Andrew Fairley said the chief executive was sacked "as a result of unacceptable conduct in relation to integrity" which breached its ethics policy and public sector code of conduct."
If the alleged conduct etc. was in relation to the Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan or the FHAC Draft Master Plan does this affect the validity of the documents?
The nature of the allegations is unclear. However, it seems to me that the sacking and IBAC involvement indicate that whatever was done was fairly serious and fairly certain. Sacking and IBAC are not undertaken for liberating a PV pen. The commercial direction of the DMP and now the master plan is a radical change, and one that may not stand up to scrutiny.
My submission destroys a number of aspects of the DMP, starting with spurious "facts" that have not been checked. I'm working on a sensitivity analysis. There's a lot of unknowns, like the cost of the toilets at intervals of about two hours, with water tanks, say $2 million. If a PV ranger is to enforce the rules then there needs to be a place to stay. At a remote area cost of $2000/square metre each hut will be about $100,000, if not more. The huts need to be fireproof and able to stand up to snow. Add the $15-20 million for the High Plains Road upgrade. Add the maintanance cost, WAG $500,000 a year. Add admin costs, say $200,000 a year. Add staff, say $500,000 a year. Add public liability insurance, no idea of the cost. Add a heap of other things that were not included. These items were excluded to make the return on investment (ROI) look good. Bollocks.
At page 89 the DMP has figures for platform use, 247 bookings for 30 months, or about 100 bookings a year, or $3150 income. deduct, say $1000 for admin and the net profit after expenses is about $2000. The platforms and some tracks cost $800,000, say $700,000 for the platforms. ROI is 2000/700,000 = 0.29%. This is with grossly misleading PV information that would be actionable if it were not a government body. Straight line depreciation over 20 years is $35,000 a year.
The platforms are a terrible use of funds. So will the FHAC, but on a much larger scale. It's important to practise on a small scale before losing money in a big way.
At this stage my bottom line is that the DMP is a great work of fiction and totally unsuted as a basis for planning. There will need to be a further DMP with real data. This of course will delay the time to market. I'd give McGregor Coxall until 30 April 2016 to walk the FHAC, check the log books, check the sources, cost everything, review the master plan, review the EIS and business plan, and write a second DMP. If McGregor Coxall cannot do this then the obvious remedy is for a refund plus McGregor Coxall to pay for the loss of income due to the delay. At total benefits cited in the DMP of over $40 million a year, McGregor Coxall can pay $3 million a month until the second DMP is produced. It will be interesting if McGregor Coxall staff can be held personally liable.