As mentioned above, the issue highlighted most in concern with transparency and accountability for PPPs is regarding the value for money. This is primarily understood as the cost related to a project of PPPs when compared with in-house provision, whether the contracts of PPPs are within the interest of public. For this purpose, the case example of Melbourne City Link project can be referred to (Ghere, 2001). The project began in the year 1995 and it is a classic case reference for difficulties that arise from the absence of transparency and accountability. Structuring of the contract had been done as a BOOT that was “Build Own, Operate Transfer” which eventually costed more than 2 billion dollars.
The miring of this project had been done in public controversy, exaggerated due to the absence of data available for the public regarding the details of risk allocation and costings (Hodge and Greve, 2007). The Act for Freedom of Information was not applicable to a “Special Project” that enabled the legislation for allowing overruling the requirements of the due process. The Auditor-General had been identified as the refusal of government for disclosing the limit of the obligation across the contractor. The contractor, Transurban was responsible for management of future flows of traffic for generation of toll revenue across the contractor. The critics had been seen as sceptical regarding long- term benefits of finance for the government. Complaints had been placed that the interests of contractor were favourable for the payer of tax (Hodge and Coghill, 2007).
Based on this case example, the key implication is that government maintaining secrecy regarding costing can result in taking up favourable decisions for the contractors.