## 5 Discussion of the Australian HSR Risks
### Going to Market  
Private sector expertise is vital in the delivery of HSR in Australia. As previously mentioned, the literature lacks a clear framework for effectively engaging the private sector. Much of the decision-making in going to market appears to rely on the experience of individuals with decision-making authority. Hence, it is imperative to identify and present the factors to consider when entering the market. P6 highlighted that when going to market, \"_market competition is criteria number 1_\". The Infrastructure Australia report on \"Infrastructure Decision-making Principles\" supports this idea and stresses the importance of a competitive marketplace to ensure optimal cost and quality outcomes for public infrastructure projects. It provides insights into how market competition is essential for balancing demand and achieving efficient project delivery, especially in large-scale public works such as HSR [73]. P5, however, worryingly highlights the difficulty of securing private industry involvement due to the high costs of the Australian HSR project. Private sector involvement in Australian infrastructure, particularly in the transport sector, appears to be waning amid heightened economic and operational pressures. This shift is highlighted by declining investor interest in transport assets, as many investors are turning towards renewable energy and other less-risky, higher-yield areas. The 2023 Australian Infrastructure Investment Report found that transport asset classes now face record-low interest from private investors, a marked contrast to the country's high demand for renewable energy investments [74]. To encourage greater private sector engagement, fostering a collaborative environment between clients and contractors is crucial. For example, in the case of the Australian HSR project, P2 highlights the benefits of an Early Tender Involvement (ETI) approach. The private sector can review, critique, and provide feedback on specifications by sharing draft tender documents before their official release. For instance, P2 recalls implementing this method on their rail project, allowing contractors to pinpoint unclear risk areas and potential reluctance to assume risk. Addressing these issues early enables more effective risk management by either retaining specific risks or creating incentives for private sector involvement. This approach refines tender specifications and increases private sector enthusiasm, aligning interests for smoother project execution. The literature views this idea as shown in Figure 12 below. P2 discusses the experience with their rail project:  
_\"For each of our stations, we went out with an 800-requirement specification. It was massive, with a 6-star Green Star rating, and it was very extensive. Naturally, the price came back horrifically expensive\"._  
He notes that the lesson learned from going to market is clear: a lengthy list of requirements will result in a significant price tag. For the P2's rail project, they explain,  
_\"What we're trying to do is say we want a safe, functional, high-frequency railway. Please price that, and then talk to us about a two-story development. Give us an option for a six-station development, and then provide your highest and best use offer\"._  
By approaching it this way, he believes the private sector can be encouraged to innovate, leading to a minimum viable scope that is the most affordable option. It will also provide the best land use option, which will naturally be more expensive. This aligns with the MoSCoW framework for defining the minimum viable scope. Figure 12: Benefits of an Early Tender Involvement (ETI) from the literature. The MoSCoW framework is a project management method used to prioritiise requirements based on their importance.