Project Iron Boomerang

It is now around a decade since Australian entrepreneur and UQ alumnus Shane Condon devised
Project Iron Boomerang, in which a 3000km railway line would link Queensland’s Bowen Basin’s
coal resources to the iron ore resources of Western Australia’s Pilbara mines. Iron ore would be
sent eastwards, and coal would be sent westwards along the railway line and, at each end of the
railway, steel production would take place for export markets. But nothing much seems to have
happened despite bold initial claims. Early on, some commentators dismissed the project on the
basis that Australian wages were simply too high for the steel to be made for a competitive
international price. Although the project is envisaged as a private sector venture, its sheer scale

and potential implications for regional development mean that it attracts the attention of State and
Territory governments, especially with the Australian dollar now far lower than it was at the time
the project was first proposed.
Imagine that you are an economist working for the Department of Premier and Cabinet in the
Queensland Government and have been asked to prepare a critical analysis of the project as a
briefing for the Queensland Premier, who expects the Western Australian Premier and Northern
Territory Chief Minister to raise the future of the project when they all meet in mid 2020. Your
expertise in the evolutionary/complex systems approach to economics is the reason that you in
particular have been asked to write this briefing, since previous advice has been informed by
traditional economic thinking and the Premier is keen to know whether your approach leads to
different perspectives on the feasibility and potential impact of the project.
****Marks will be awarded for:
(i) Evidence of the extent of relevant reading that has been undertaken, both in terms of breadth
and depth, especially from the scholarly literate rather than merely referring to media reports and
sources that have not been peer reviewed (9 marks);
(ii) Grasp of theoretical issues/absence of mistakes in explaining key concepts (8 marks)
(iii) Insight, critical thinking and creativity evident in applying theoretical perspectives to the topic
(10 marks) ;

(iv) Quality of writing and presentation, given the target audience (6 marks);
(v) Accuracy and consistency of referencing (2 marks).
In relation to (iii), note that if you are merely reporting what others have said and showing you
have understood it, then you will be unlikely to score more than 5/10 on this criterion; we want to
see evidence that you can make original connections and/or display critical insight by using the
theory yourself.