by Lophophaps » Sat 26 Jan, 2019 2:27 pm
There's a ghastly plan for huts and horrible infrastructure for the Bogong High Plains and Feathertop region, the Falls Creek to Mount Hotham Alpine Crossing, FHAC. Nothing makes sense. It's similar to the Halls Island proposal in that there will be new huts on crown land in semi-remote places, some of which will be serviced by helicopters. Parks Victoria were economical with the truth, and the fools in a private company that prepared the reports have no idea what they were on about. I'm still involved with this, attempting to get answers, but PV prevaricate and tell porkies.
One aspect I looked at very closely was the return on investment. The people pushing this had very suss maths and did not understand economic modelling. To give you an idea, the first report said it would cost about $20 million and the second report said about $33 million. The use figures were wrong – they said 4000 people estimated, I proved that the correct figure was close to zero.
The economics are further worsened by another aspect that was not mentioned in any reports in depth. If the proposal goes ahead then many current users will stay away, leading to much less spending in local communities. Like Halls Island, the proponents hope for small numbers of rich people, but the maths does not add up. It's far better to have a lot of people each spending less than the rich people. This is a very basic aspect of business management – have diverse income streams so that when one ceases there are others. Better to have a million customers spending $10 each than 10 customers spending $1 million each.
Further, the less affluent are going there because they want to, attracted by the natural character of the land. Compare this to a small number of people coming due to a commercial enterprise. Less affluent people like me will go there if the place is like it is now, no need to prod. But what if the market for the rich turns, or the company ceases to trade?
I totally demolished the purported economics, showing that rather than the 7:1 return the proponents say will result from the FHAC (Invest $1, get $7 back) the return is closer to 0.7:1 (spend a dollar, get back 70 cents).
I have not read all the Halls Island information but I cannot find an detailed economic analysis. If there is one, could someone please post a link or details?
In December 2019 the World Fly Fishing Championship will be in Tasmania. The cost for this will be minimal to government, and there will be a significant capital injection at local and state level. The return on investment is big, far bigger than the Halls Island proposal. There was something similar at Falls Creek. There was a bike race, lots of riders, support staff, family, friends, from memory some 3000 people each spending $125. The cost to local council was about $20,000.
I'd like to see figures for the fly fishing championship, bushwalkers, angers, anyone that uses the area now.
There's also the reputational loss, something I detailed in my FHAC submission. If Halls island goes ahead it will partly destroy Tassie's well-deserved reputation as a place to visit for remote trips. Even those touching the edges such as at Cradle Mountain may think twice if the reputation drops. It takes a long time to build a reputation, and this can be lost in an instant with one ill-advised action. Mr Joyce knows about this.
I'm deeply concerned about the aesthetics of the proposal. However, if the economics can be found to be flawed then there's more of a chance of success at having this proposal tipped into the deepest part of Lake Malbeena. Marginal Liberal electorates may have their member more amenable to opposing the proposal. The Central Highlands Council may listen to economic reasoning.
A small point. The huts in the designer's pictures seem to be mighty close to trees. The Central Plateau is under bushfire threat right now. Do the huts meet the relevant bushfire code?