Bridging the Divide: From Research to Action

Good evening everyone, and thank you, David Hensher and the Sydney University’s Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, for inviting me to share my thoughts on this important topic.

I’m speaking to you as the lawyer on this panel. Not the one who models demand, not the one who designs government policy, but the one who sits in the engine room of infrastructure projects — the place where policy ambitions and research insights collide with procurement law, governance and regulatory frameworks, politics and long-term contracts.

And what I see every day is this: good ideas either survive or die at that collision point. Brilliant academic research or bold government policy will only succeed if the legal framework allows it.

That’s the “divide” we’re here to talk about. And I’d suggest it isn’t just academia to government. It’s academia to law to government.  Because without a legal pathway, even the best research rarely makes it into practice.

Why the legal framework matters

Let me give you an example. Suppose an academic paper demonstrates that congestion charging would improve network efficiency and equity. Or that Mobility as a Service would reduce car dependency. The evidence might be compelling.

But governments can’t just say, “That’s great research — let’s implement it.” They have to make it work within the legal framework: procurement law, probity obligations, environmental approvals, regulations, political considerations and long-term contracts that can last 20 or 30 years.

That framework becomes the operating system of the project. Unless that operating system is designed to allow innovation, the evidence can’t be translated into action. And that’s why lawyers are so central to this conversation.

The barriers

Now, where do things break down? I see three main barriers.

First, risk aversion. Governments, and the private sector partners they contract with, are punished when things fail. So even if research points to a better way, they often default to the “tried and tested.”

Second, procurement and regulatory rigidity. Our probity rules and regulatory regimes make it hard to test or pilot the kinds of innovations academics often recommend. Once a procurement process or contract is underway, there’s very little room to adapt to new ideas.

Third, confidentiality. In New South Wales, for example, public–private partnership contracts are published with heavy redactions and restrictions on the disclosure of the PPP company’s financial performance. That makes it difficult for academics and policymakers to access the data they need to test whether policies are working. A better approach would be to draft PPP contracts so they expressly allow government to disclose the financial statements of the PPP company. That would support accountability and create a stronger feedback loop for evidence-based reform.

The Toll Review – a case in point

Let me turn to a concrete example: the recent NSW Toll Review.

That review concluded what many academics have been saying for years — that the tolling system is complex, inequitable, and not fit for purpose.

But here’s the challenge: the government is locked into long-term concession contracts. Those contracts make it legally and financially very difficult to implement the kinds of reforms that research has been recommending.

So even though the evidence base is strong, existing contractual obligations act as a roadblock.

The lesson is clear: contract design matters. If we want governments to be able to respond to research insights and evolving policy needs, we need contracts that leave space for adaptation over time.

How lawyers can help bridge the divide

So how do we build that bridge between research and action?

One: Contract flexibility. We can embed pilot programs, review points, and adaptive obligations into long-term agreements. That way, governments aren’t locked into yesterday’s assumptions for the next 30 years.

Two: Transparency. We need to reduce the level of redaction and allow disclosure of PPP company financials, subject only to narrow commercial-in-confidence exceptions. Transparency isn’t a threat — it’s the foundation of trust and evidence-based reform.

Three: Commercial reality. We can’t forget that private sector participants need to make a profit if they’re going to deliver transport infrastructure and services. That’s not a dirty word — it’s what makes projects bankable and sustainable. Good commercial lawyers are well placed to help academics and governments understand what’s required for projects to be both innovative and financially viable.

Four: Risk allocation that supports innovation. If investors and contractors are expected to implement new approaches based on academic research, they can’t be left carrying all the downside risk. Shared risk and gain-share / pain-share models are needed to align interests and incentivise innovation.

Takeaways

So let me leave you with this thought: to bridge the divide between research and government action, we also need to bridge the divide between research and law.

The Toll Review shows how inflexible contracts can block reform. Confidentiality provisions show how secrecy can choke off the evidence base.

If we want innovation in transport, we need procurement models and contracts that allow it — not just academic research that supports it.

And that’s where lawyers can make a difference. Not by standing in the way, but by designing legal and contractual pathways that actually make research implementable.