‘It’s not mine’: economist Saul Eslake on Hobart cableway report

Economist Saul Eslake is concerned a DA for a controversial cable car appears to falsely credit him as the author of analysis backing it.

Saul Eslake. Picture: RICHARD JUPE

Prominent economist Saul Eslake has expressed concern that the development application for Hobart’s controversial cable car appears to falsely credit him as the author of an economic analysis backing the project.

At several points the DA recently submitted by the Mt Wellington Cableway Company either says the 2016 analysis was “prepared by Saul Eslake” or lists his name as its author.

However, Mr Eslake said he was not the author and was “concerned” about being represented as responsible for work done by another economist, Phil Bayley.

“They (the company) have for reasons best known to themselves continued to portray Phil’s work has having been mine,” Mr Eslake said. “I’d rather they didn’t do it. The MWCC are being a little disingenuous in the way in which they are portraying it ... it’s not true. I think they owe it to themselves and to the broader community to be truthful.”

Mr Eslake, who has a national profile, said his involvement with the project was to peer-review Mr Bayley’s assumptions.

He found the report used “credible methodology” and came to “reasonable conclusions” based on “plausible assumptions”.

“I stand by what I wrote, although if it were being done today I would expect Phil to perhaps make different assumptions about the number of people who would come off cruise ships,” Mr Eslake said.

“One of the important assumptions was that the cable car would be extensively used by people who came to Tasmania for a day on a cruise ship. I suspect in a post-Covid world you would use different numbers.”

He was concerned that some might think he was “taking the credit” for Mr Bayley’s work.

MWCC chairman Chris Oldfield said the company “maybe should have” worded parts of the DA more clearly, acknowledging that Mr Eslake was not the author of the economic impact study, but rather of its peer review. He said there was no attempt to mislead anyone, with the report itself clearly identifying Mr Bayley and his firm.

“I wasn’t aware it was referred to as that (Mr Eslake’s work, in parts of the DA),” Mr Oldfield said. “I know that Saul has given an endorsement for the work that was done. We were pleased that Saul agreed with the methodology that was used.”

He did not believe the decline in cruise ship visits would materially affect the project’s viability. “Cruise ships are important but they are not what is fundamental to this project,” he said.

Mr Eslake said he did not have a personal view on the $50m project, except that it should not receive government subsidies.