Re: Competative tendering in Track Maintenance abandoned.

["Graham Smith" <dysonsmith@hunterlink.net.au>]

The larger question to resolve is whether national competition policy is
serving the whole industry well, or whether we are getting declining
standards, because tenders are going to the lowest tenderer, without regard
for quality.

There is also the issue of whether the split of the previous authority into
different entities has produced inefficiencies. I refer firstly to the turf
war over the safeworking manuals.

Secondly, I quote an acquaintance who works with RSA ina senior engineering
capacity. With the break-up, he has encountered the problem that there are
now insufficient staff within RSA who have the safeworking qualifications to
be able to sign off on some of their risk management strategies. This
obviously results in delays and consequent increased cost, and maybe
contributes to decreasing maintenance standards.

This issue is a hot topic in Britain at the moment with the Rail Regulator
proposing to fine Railtrack 10 million pounds for their failure to meet
required standards, let alone the continuing debate there about high prices
for ever-declining levels of passenger service in particular.

It is to be hoped that the McInerney inquiry will look at these broader
issues, and not allow itself to be blinded by the market forces ideology
which dominates our political landscape.

Graham Smith

David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
Hp1V4.45$465.515380@news0.optus.net.au">news:Hp1V4.45$465.515380@news0.optus.net.au...
> Bruce Greening (bgreeni@attglobal.net) wrote:
>
> > The NSW Govt. has anounced that competative tendering of track
> > maintenance has been abandoned. This includes the Hunter Valley contract
> > that was ready to be let, the tendering etc. procass being complete.
>
> This could theoretically be in breach of national competition policy.
> I suspect any aggrieved potential tenderers would find a sympathetic ear
> at the ACCC. Even if there is no actual breach of the Act, the ACCC could
> still strongly condemn the action.
>
> Cheers
> David