## 5 Discussion of the Australian HSR Risks
### Concept Phase Risks Preventing Realisation
#### 5.2.3 Political Risk  
[PERSON] highlights how political agendas often influence megaprojects, resulting in cost overruns and delays due to shifting priorities and scope adjustments driven by political interests [14]. In the Australian context, the development of HSR is no exception. P8 mentions the pressure of political timelines, noting that _\"we're never more than a year or so away from an election, state or federal, somewhere along the line. And so there's always going to be somebody who doesn't like it\"_. This demonstrates how political cycles continuously affect long-term project decision-making. P2 further mentions how a coincidentally large number of projects are aligned with political cycles. P2 further elaborates, stating, _\"so there's this fixation that basically you, for major projects, you give yourself 4, 8, 12 years to do it\"._  
This political fixation on deadlines often leads to overly ambitious promises, contributing to the frequent issue of projects running over time and over budget due to politically driven agendas rather than realistic planning. [PERSON]'s [72] work supports this perspective, highlighting that political pressures frequently result in ambitious timelines and budgets for infrastructure projects, often leading to inflated expectations and eventual overruns. A report by Infrastructure Australia, Infrastructure Decision-making: Political Influence and Project Outcomes [73], also outlines the strong influence of political decision-making on infrastructure projects. The report explains how political interests often dictate project selection, funding, and timelines, with political cycles frequently causing scope changes and shifting priorities, impacting long-term infrastructure planning. P6 noted that, whilst a _\"good project management process is about an excellent benefit-cost ratio\"_, the political process is vastly different and relies on marginal seat analysis. Marginal seat analysis plays a key role in approving or rejecting HSR in Australia due to the political influence on infrastructure decisions. Governments prioritise projects that benefit marginal seats, as winning votes in these electorates is crucial for election outcomes. If the HSR route does not significantly impact these seats, there might be less political incentive to approve it. Conversely, politicians may push harder for the project's approval if it does benefit such areas. Local interests often outweigh national priorities, with representatives of marginal seats opposing projects that do not directly benefit their constituents. Additionally, since election cycles (every 4 years) drive project timelines, large-scale infrastructure like HSR, which has long-term benefits but few immediate outcomes, might face political resistance due to its lack of short-term visibility. This focus on electoral timing can delay or hinder HSR approval, especially if marginal seat voters perceive more immediate local needs. P6 mentioned that the political process is about marginal seat analysis. However, P6 also noted that  
_\"relying on the marginal seat analysis of politicians is a very unstable way to plan a project because with 3 and 4 year terms of governments, unless the project's sustainable in its own right, the marginal seat analysis is very transient and can change very quickly\"._  
These political challenges reflect deeper structural issues. For example, institutional analysis helps contextualise how fragmented governance structures and federal-statemisalignment can undermine long-term infrastructure planning and risk allocation. This is reflected in P3's observation that the federal government may be \"exceedingly reluctant to commit $70 billion for a high-speed rail to connect between Sydney and Newcastle\", as it spans only one state. Conversely, P1 counters that HSR should be seen as benefiting the national economy, regardless of geography. Additionally, elements of path dependency theory help explain the persistent policy inertia and bias toward road and aviation infrastructure.