Panel discussion | Respected leaders Australia’s infrastructure bodies

► Jim Miller, Chair, Infrastructure Victoria ► Tony Shepherd AO, Chair, Infrastructure SA ► Nicole Lockwood, Chair, Infrastructure WA

► Adrian Dwyer, Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia

Adrian Dwyer (AD): Thank you very much for joining us today. I might just get each of you to briefly reflect on the achievements and impacts of the respective i-bodies that you’ve been involved with over time, and how they’ve contributed to good projects and good reforms. Nicole, we might start with you because you’ve been on two.

Nicole Lockwood (NL): Thanks, Adrian. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. We’ve got the benefit of being almost last to the table in Western Australia. I spent a long time on the Infrastructure Australia Board, very frustrated that our state government wouldn’t play the game in terms of long-term planning and working in with the national system. So, it is a big relief to see Infrastructure WA born and now fully running.

I think, as with all of these things, they take time to come to life. And we’ve been through quite a long process to get our organisations set up and complete our long-term planning work. What’s clear is that the i-body approach is critical for the scale of challenges that we’ve got coming. They’re all system issues, and the problem with any form of government is that they are all about silos. It is very difficult, even in a cabinet structure, to get whole-of-system thinking. What’s exciting for us is that we were able to take the benefit of the lessons of the other i-bodies and what they’d learned. Each i-body has quite different characteristics, but I think they have the same mission, which is really about creating a long-term perspective that allows governments to make good, strong decisions. For us, we are right in the thick of hearing back from our Government on their response, but already we’ve seen them taking account of our recommendations in the recent budget and really thinking about it from a systems perspective. So, it’s quite a shift from what we’ve seen in the past.

Jim Miller (JM): I think my reflections are threefold. One, it works; that’s important. Two, it’s broad; that’s important. And three, it’s having a real impact in the community, and that’s important. What do I mean by that? Looking at it through an Infrastructure Victoria lens, we’ve done two 30-year strategies now. Our first 30-year strategy in 2016 saw 92 per cent of the 137 recommendations progressed by Government. We put out our second strategy last year and 89 per cent of the 94 recommendations have been supported either in whole or in part by government. They’re very helpful metrics to give you confidence it works.

It’s broad. That’s important because it’s not just focused on building projects and transport projects. It’s looking at behaviours and a very broad definition of infrastructure, particularly when it comes to social housing, density and so forth. As for the community, we’re able to engage with people in ways that governments or departments may not be able to, or perhaps would choose not to, and that’s creating real benefits. We have worked in partnership with groups like Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, which has had some wonderful initiatives that we’ve been able to support and assist in getting delivered – things like social and affordable housing. Victoria now has a $5-billion big housing build program, born off the back of a lot of the great work that Infrastructure Partnerships Australia has done over many years.

Then there are steps to transport network pricing, road user charging or whatever step you want to talk about. Again, that requires some engagement at the community level so politicians can be comfortable that those kinds of initiatives, which haven’t really been done before in the way that’s been contemplated, can be accepted. That partnership, and more people saying the same thing, could indeed be one of the greatest legacies for the i-bodies, both at this point, and hopefully going forward.

Tony Shepherd AO (TS): Infrastructure SA is one of the newer i-bodies and we’re very pleased with the progress we’ve made. It started with the assurance process: How do you evaluate projects? And then when you have approval and you’re funded, how do you deliver them efficiently? That assurance is now widely accepted across all agencies in South Australia. It’s this discipline that is paying off well.

We’ve got a new government in South Australia and that’s always a challenge. The relationship between an i-body and a government is essentially based on trust, and that’s trust you have to work on and build on. The trust, I think, is building in South Australia. We’ve got an excellent relationship with the new Premier, who is very enthusiastic about our work and very keen to get our views on future developments, programs and projects. Jeremy Conway, our CEO, has also got us more deeply involved with industry and business in general, not just focusing on government agencies, but the users and the providers of infrastructure, and asking them what they require. Out of that has sprung a project called the Northern Water Supply Project whereby we’ve gone out and talked to, and developed plans with, major users like resources companies, the agriculture sector, the Department of Defence and SA Water. We’ve come up with a concept for a desalination plant in the Spencer Gulf. The plant would supply water to the northern provinces of South Australia, which are screaming for water, and ripe for investment and development. So, that’s a slightly different approach for an i-body, but it’s certainly one that seems to be working very well and has complete support from the Government.

AD: Analysis of Australian and New Zealand Infrastructure Pipeline data shows there is $499 billion worth of projects in the pipeline. Simultaneously there’s a whole bunch of macro-economic settings and challenges around. Jim, how are you seeing those global factors play out on the capacity to deliver the pipeline?

JM: It’s a real issue, and I know government is spending a lot of time on it, which is important. As part of our role at Infrastructure Victoria, we’ve looked into how we can help directly in terms of things that flow from those challenges, like resource capacity, escalation and so forth. It’s very clear, certainly in Victoria, that government has got that covered. So, that’s great. Its a work in progress, obviously, but they’re working on it really hard.

So, then we turn our minds to what else we can do as part of that challenge. One of the things we keep trying to look at is the fiscal constraint that’s out there. We’ve got the Federal Government billions of dollars in debt. So, what do you do? Minister Stokes spoke previously about doing more with less and that’s going to be a real constraint. We haven’t really seen that for a long time because infrastructure’s been sexy for over a decade and politicians have wanted to embrace that, but that’s the next iteration for us. So, being smarter in terms of how we change, thinking about how we can do things differently, and how we can change behaviours and processes is really important for i-bodies to try and assist in solving those problems.

TS: Jim’s nailed it, really. The first questions you ask when the department or agency comes forward with a new project or build are, ‘Do you need it?’, ‘Do we have existing resources that could be used or modified for use at a much lower cost?’, and, ‘Could we actually get it from the private sector as another alternative?’. And you’ve got to know; there are restrictions on Government, and public debt has grown enormously during COVID-19 and it’s unsustainable. Budgets are already stressed to the maximum, so we really have to look at the alternatives before we start investing serious taxpayer money. Then, if we do decide we need to invest, we’ve got

to make sure that money is spent wisely, prudently and cost effectively. Innovative ideas must also play a part. New South Wales is now really big on recycling. If you can’t get locally produced steel, recycled steel is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying it from China at the moment. That is the sort of stuff we’ve got to look at, as well.

AD: Nicole, I mentioned a few of the challenges, such as global supply chain disruptions and energy markets. Do you think they change the role of the i-bodies? Do they have to be more agile? Do they have to do something different for Government in the face of all those external stimuli?

NL: I think they do, because again the role is unique in terms of looking across the system. In Western Australia, we have an extra complexity. When you look at the pipeline of infrastructure in every other state, the majority of that is delivered and enabled by government. In Western Australia, however, the government spend is dwarfed by the spend of industry. So, we have an extra element of how to work in with the private sector in their large builds. When you add these other factors on top, that ability for any group, but in our instance an i-body, to be a conduit between government and industry is really important.

Unfortunately, over time, in my experience of working in government and around government, those relationships have become weaker and weaker. Industry conversations with government 10, 15 or 20 years ago were quite strong, and there was a good understanding of the relationship. Due to a range of worries about things like risk and procurement, and other things that get in the way of process, those relationships are not strong like they used to be. So, I’ve certainly found i-bodies can still play that role, because we’re a little bit divorced from the purchasing part of government. That’s a really important role for the i-bodies to play – to inform government of where the opportunities are and where the risks with industry are, and potentially doing some whole-of-system planning.

In Western Australia, we used to just wait until there was a downturn in another state, and we just grabbed from the other states and off we’d go again. We can’t do that now because you’re all firing and, in reality, the whole globe’s firing. So, this is a very different time. We’re going to pay 30 per cent more, which means that for every taxpayer dollar, we’re getting a third less. That is not a good outcome for anybody.

AD: Jim, I’d like to expose the tension between the stability you provide as an i-body with a long-term, 30-year strategy, versus having to react to this changing environment. How are you balancing that in the advice you’re giving to government?

JM: Well, the good news for the i-bodies is that, in a lot of ways, that’s our day job. When things are changing, we’ve got the capacity to be able to stand back and, as Nicole said, have that system-wide view. We’ve got the resources and capacity to be able to say, ‘Okay, what do we do here?’ and to basically help be part of the solution. Our team did some fantastic work on some real-time advice to Government on COVID-19, which we could do internally and release within a matter of weeks to assist Government. We didn’t have all the answers, but we were meaningfully contributing to the problem-solving process.

Again, our ability to communicate is important – to go out to the community and say, ‘We don’t know what the answer is’. We can go and ask questions that we don’t know the answer to, and say, ‘Well, what do you think?’ Government does a great job of consulting, but we can go even more broadly and ask tougher questions. We’ve consistently done that, and have consistently been excited and engaged by the quality of responses we get back from all levels.

AD: The Government just passed legislation on its 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and net zero by 2050. There’s a delivery task associated with meeting those goals and it’s in line with the state’s commitments. I’m interested in how each of the bodies you chair intend to make your work stream and contribution towards that delivery task.

TS: The role of the i-bodies is as an independent reviewer, to have a good look at this delivery task and assess whether the proposed solutions are the best use of the investment. Is this what’s required? Has it been done efficiently? Has it been looked at in a national context and will it satisfy what the Government’s policies are? So, when we start talking about these massive numbers of investment in each state and at the federal level, I think i-bodies come to the forefront with their independent and careful expert review of the investment.

NL: I think it’s about defining ‘what does 43 per cent mean?’ I think we’ve come up with a number, which is great, because we’ve got a target we can work towards. But what Minister Stokes talked about this morning is spot on. If you don’t understand how to make a change in your design process first and then your procurement process at the beginning, and you don’t fully understand the huge time frame to deliver these projects, then you’ve actually baked in their negative impacts long before they are constructed.

We’re immediately looking for tools, templates and guidance that we can pass through to agencies to say, ‘If we want a carbon base case, you’re going to need to show us these metrics in a business case for us, as an i-body reviewing the project, to be comfortable.’ I think that’s a job we need to do together because everyone needs to know the answer to this. There’s no point us doing that. That’s the benefit of the i-body network, we can collaborate on tools that every part of the industry is going to need.

JM: The big thing I’d call out in addition to that is we need to be super clear. It’s wonderful that the legislation has passed, but we need definition on exactly what it means. Let’s assume that definition is provided and we say it’s going to be really hard. One

of the big reasons is that the technology is evolving. We talk about green hydrogen, but that doesn’t exist today. It certainly doesn’t exist cost effectively. So, that pathway is going to be one of uncertain technology. There’s going to be a lot of pain as it goes through and we’re seeing this in real time in Victoria. The community wants the emissions target, but with things like the transmission lines in Western Victoria to facilitate renewables, for example, the community really, really dislikes them. So, they’re saying, ‘Yes, I want renewables, but don’t build a transmission line in my backyard.’ There’s a real issue there.

The i-bodies can play a real role here with their ability to engage with the community. We advise, governments decide. We’ve just given some advice to the Victorian Government on how it goes about attending to the gas transition. About 20 per cent of Victoria’s energy is sourced from gas, which is a challenge for meeting its emissions reduction targets.

TS: I think that’s a great role for Infrastructure Australia. Our electricity system on the east coast of Australia, especially the transmission system, is totally inadequate. The link from New South Wales, by the west of Victoria, back to Melbourne, has taken so long to get off the ground; it’s an absolute disgrace. We have systems that were set up as independent, almost competitive systems. If we want a transition to sustainable electricity, then interconnection is absolutely at the foundation of it. The HumeLink Project delays are a real issue for electricity supply in Victoria. How do we connect with the new zones in western New South Wales? How do we connect properly to Sydney if we don’t build a transmission line? These are ‘one plus one equals two’ questions. They don’t seem to be debated. I think that’s a great role for the state i-bodies, but it’s also a great coordinating role for Infrastructure Australia as it’s a national question. That’s one it can take great leadership on, while working with us.

AD: Given that this is a whole-of-government task, every part of every government will be focused on its area of the decarbonisation journey. How do you determine which of the parts your respective organisations can contribute to, rather than duplicate what’s happening elsewhere?

NL: Well, we’ve seen this happen in relation to fuel excise. States are moving because they need to, but the worry is you then get this inconsistent approach. So, ideally, nationally significant issues need to be dealt with as a network. In which case, you look to the Federal Government to lead on them. And hopefully a reshaped Infrastructure Australia will have some mandate around national leadership. In the absence of national leadership, states are busy trying to keep up and deal with things as best they can, so they’re not left exposed. Over this last period of government, there’s been a lot of that and that’s not ideal for anybody. So, jurisdictions have been looking at each other and saying, ‘It looks like they’re on the right pathway; let’s join them.’ But this means things can become very piecemeal, very quickly.

AD: Jim, you’ll have it in the big documents or you’ll do specific things where you think there’s a gap?

JM: We can go and have a sensible, mature conversation with government and say, ‘Here’s what we think. What do you think?’ And they’ll say, ‘Look, we’re doing it this way.’ And sometimes we’ll say, ‘great’, such as when we talked about construction-related issues. There’s a lot of opportunity where governments say, ‘This is really hard. We don’t know the answer here.’ We can play a meaningful role. We want to keep pushing out into areas where it’s hard, and into areas that have community impacts, as well. That’s a really important role that we can play because of our independence. Again, we’ve already seen we’ve been able to enter into issues that have been politically complex and have complex community implications, such as the location for a second Melbourne Port. Despite both sides of politics having very different views, we’ve been able to find a solution that is accepted.

So, look, it does work, and there is that framework there. Hopefully that’s giving confidence that through i-bodies, there is the ability to have a sensible conversation, not duplicate work, be additive and do things a bit differently to government, and hopefully create a better outcome.

AD: Now, I’m just going to ask Tony and Jim this. As you know, Nicole and Mike Mrdak are leading the review into Infrastructure Australia at the moment. What do you want to see come out of that review?

TS: Well, I think two excellent people have been appointed as reviewers, because of their deep experience, both at the national level and at a state level. Infrastructure Australia was created by Anthony Albanese and I assume that he is still equally enthusiastic, if not more enthusiastic, about it. So, there’s an opportunity here to rebuild it and get it into its proper role. Infrastructure Australia should be represented, or considered, at cabinet. Whenever government is looking at major investments or major developments that might require investments, Infrastructure Australia should be there and should be represented. That would be the first goal I’d have – build that trust with government, be taken seriously and be involved in all major decision-making involving infrastructure or potential infrastructure, or networks and systems. I think that’s really where they need to get back to, as that’s where they started.

JM: I’ll add a couple of things, starting with a very basic concept: make sure it’s sufficiently resourced. The way that Infrastructure Victoria is set up means our funding is locked in. Government can change it, but if they don’t change it, we get it. So, we get $10 million a year to do what we do. From what I understand with Infrastructure Australia, sometimes they get less than that, and sometimes they get more than that, but each

year is a journey. How can you do long-term planning in the context of that level of uncertainty? It’s virtually impossible. Full respect to the teams to be able to do what they’ve done in that construct previously.

I’d encourage the Federal Government to be brave. From what we’ve spoken about today, the i-body model works. So, lean into certain iterations of that model that look a bit tougher than others and have the confidence that it works. Having certainty on the model is so important, and being really clear and holding yourself accountable to it, and the Government accountable to responding to it. You don’t want more papers or reports to sit on a shelf and gather dust. If the i-bodies do that, we are not helping and we should go away. Fortunately, in a lot of cases, that’s not happening, but that’s a really important one to look in the eye and get a solution for.

AD: Nicole, any surprises?

NL: No, not at all. What’s been really pleasing is that the feedback from the whole system has been that Infrastructure Australia has a really important part to play in the future, and I wasn’t sure we’d hear that. I thought people would see this as an opportunity to grab some space for themselves, but I think people are understanding that the scale of the challenges we’re facing as a country need to be dealt with, one at a national level, and two at a systems level. We can debate about what parts of infrastructure you think Infrastructure Australia should play with, but the reality is that these opportunities sit between sectors. So, if you want to talk about the future of hydrogen, it’s about power, water and transport. If you want to talk about decarbonisation, it’s about energy and transport. It’s not one sector. So, what we’re going to come back to the government with is, first, the government needs to give this organisation a mandate. There is a huge amount of support for the quality of the work, but it doesn’t go anywhere and people are not going to engage with something in which they see no outcome. And then there is the opportunity to create something structurally that has a systems capability that allows the states to be part of it, and that allows industry to be a part of it – something that can give government a really clear path on where they go next. So, net zero and 43 per cent is a great example; what does everybody need to be doing along this journey to get us to that goal? Mike and I have been very grateful. A lot of you in the room have participated, and we’ve had huge engagement and support for the organisation. I think we’re going to come back to government with something quite strong and I look forward to hearing how they want to take it forward.

AD: Well, that was a great note to finish on. Thank you, Jim, Nicole and Tony.

Jim Miller is Chair of the Infrastructure Victoria board, Vice Chair at J.P. Morgan and Director at Household Capital. Miller was an Executive Director at Macquarie Capital from 1994–2015 and, with experience across a range of sectors, he led over $120 billion in transactions, and worked with both government and private sector clients. Miller has extensive experience in infrastructure, having worked in the areas of regulated assets, transport, energy, utilities and resources, and social infrastructure. He has both a bachelor degree and a Masters of Economics from Macquarie University. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries Australia.

Tony Shepherd AO is Chairman of Venues NSW, the AFL GWS Giants and Bingo Industries Pty Ltd, and is the Inaugural Chairman of Infrastructure SA and Chair of the NSW Modern Manufacturing Taskforce. He is also a Director of Racing NSW, Enviropacific Pty Ltd, Virgin Australia International Holdings Limited and Snowy Hydro Limited. Shepherd has had an extensive career in Australia and overseas in the private and public sectors. He pioneered private infrastructure with projects such as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, Melbourne CityLink and EastLink.

Shepherd was the inaugural Chairman of WestConnex, and oversaw the listing of Transurban, Transfield Services and Connect East. Shepherd was President of the Business Council of Australia, Chairman of the National Commission of Audit and Chairman of ASTRA (the subscription TV association). He is a Member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and a Patron of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

In June 2012, Shepherd was named an Officer of the Order of Australia.

Nicole Lockwood was appointed Chairperson of Infrastructure WA in October 2021. Lockwood is passionate about the creation of engaged and thriving cities. With a background in law and regional economic development, she works with Government and the private sector to develop long-term infrastructure plans to secure the future prosperity and liveability of our cities and regions.

Lockwood has recently been appointed as the Strategic Advisor to the Future of Fremantle Planning Committee, charged with re-imagining the port precinct beyond its industrial life. She also holds board roles with NBN Co, Green Building Council of Australia, the Western Australian Association for Mental Health, Child and Adolescent Health Service, Airbridge, and the Malka Foundation.

Adrian Dwyer is the Chief Executive Officer of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia – the nation’s leading industry think tank and executive member network, providing research focused on excellence in social and economic infrastructure. Dwyer’s career spans business, policy and public service roles across the private sector, and the New South Wales and Australian governments – with expertise across transport, utilities and social infrastructure markets, and wider public administration.

Dwyer served as Infrastructure Partnerships Australia’s head of policy from 2011 until 2015, where he led major studies on road pricing reform, contracting and financing models, among others. In 2015, Adrian left Infrastructure Partnerships Australia to serve as the Executive Director of Policy and Research at Infrastructure Australia, the Commonwealth Government’s statutory infrastructure body. At Infrastructure Australia, Dwyer led the development of the first Australian Infrastructure Plan – a 15-year reform map for Australia’s infrastructure markets, alongside other major reports and studies.

Dwyer was appointed Infrastructure Partnerships Australia’s Chief Executive Officer in March 2018.

Multiple disruptions are shaping the infrastructure sector, including the global net zero focus, and funding shifts driven in part by government stimulus packages and digital transformations. In IFM Investors’ recent Infrastructure Outlook report, the company highlighted some of the areas that it believes investors will hear a lot about. This article details one of those areas – the role of sustainable aviation fuels in the energy transition.

To achieve global net zero ambitions, the energy mix for the transport sector is expected to shift over the long term to employ clean and renewable sources of energy. A scenario developed by the International Energy Agency is useful in highlighting the directional step change that is required across the sector over the coming decades (Figure 1).1

Much focus has been on the electrification of road transport; however, significant effort is also being made to decarbonise the aviation industry. While new aircraft technologies have a role to play, keeping pace with expected longterm demand for air travel will require additional solutions.

Alternative fuels, including sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), have been identified as a potential solution for helping to meet the industry’s climate targets (Figure 2). Part of the broader category of biofuels, SAFs can be safely mixed with conventional jet fuel, use the same infrastructure and do not require aircraft modification.2

The International Air Transport Association expects that production could potentially be in the billions of litres by 2025 under optimal conditions and with appropriate policy support.3 Countries across Europe, for instance, are looking at supportive policy changes with various governments, having defined and implemented SAF 2030 mandates to support the shift to biofuels, with a European Union–wide mandate expected from 2025.4

A number of crossfunctional coalitions across various regions are also forming to support the take-up of SAFs, with various airlines announcing commitments, as well.

British Airways, for example, as part of International Airlines Group, has committed to powering 10 per cent of flights with SAF by 2030. Ryanair is targeting 12.5 per cent over the same time frame. American Airlines has announced SAF commitments totalling more than 120-million gallons, signalling the integral role that SAF will play in its sustainability strategy this decade. Similarly, Australia’s national carrier, Qantas, recently announced that it has signed an agreement to purchase 10-million litres of SAF in 2022, with an option to purchase up to another 10-million litres in 2023 and 2024 for flights from Heathrow Airport. This represents up to 15 per cent of its annual fuel use out of London.

Successfully scaling up SAF will require a step change in the level of collaboration between airports, airlines,

Figure 1. Global transport – consumption by fuel type (2020–2050) Figure 2. International Air Transport Association’s Schematic CO2 Emissions Reduction Roadmap governments and producers. But doing so has the potential to create wideranging, long-term benefits. ♦ 1 www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 2 www.iata.org/contentassets/ d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saffact-sheet-2019.pdf 3 www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/ sustainable-aviation-fuels/ 4 www.iata.org/contentassets/ d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/factsheet---us-and-eu-saf-policies.pdf

IFM Investors was established more than 25 years ago by a group of Australian superannuation funds to protect and grow the long-term retirement savings of their members. To achieve this we think in terms of decades, not years. Committed to delivering strong returns over the long term, we focus on sustainable investments that generate social and economic benefits for the wider community, including essential infrastructure assets, such as toll roads, ports and airports. As at 30 September 2022 we invested on behalf of 631 like-minded institutions worldwide. The A$206 billion entrusted to us by these investors incorporates the retirement savings of more than 120 million working people. To find out more visit ifminvestors.com

DEBT INVESTMENTS | INFRASTRUCTURE | LISTED EQUITIES | PRIVATE EQUITY

Past performance is no indicator of future performance. This information has been prepared without taking into account the investment objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular person or entity. This material does not constitute an offer, invitation, solicitation or recommendation in relation to the subscription, purchase or sale of securities in any jurisdiction and neither this material, nor anything in it, will form the basis of any contract or commitment. IFM Investors Pty Ltd recommends that before making any investment decision, each prospective investor should consider whether any investments are appropriate in light of their particular circumstances and refer to the appropriate information memorandum for further information. IFM Investors Pty Ltd ABN 67 107 247 727, AFS Licence No. 284404, CRD No. 162754, SEC File No. 801-78649. IFM-21SEP2022- 2435411

Dr Samiya Tabassum, Professor Michelle Leishman and Dr Muhammad Masood measuring plant performance at Macquarie University’s Plant Growth Facility

The renowned research hub is developing sustainability innovations to address climate change in urban environments.

Michelle Leishman, a Distinguished Professor at Macquarie University, believes that the world’s cities are at a pivotal moment.

She says that a reimagining of city planning and construction is needed to help the planet transition to a low-carbon future, and mitigate climate change impacts.

In this scenario, smart green technologies will create new ways of incorporating, managing and engaging with nature in cities. Green-blue cities (urban areas that incorporate natural systems) will reduce the effects of rising urban heat, lessen pressure on biodiversity, and alleviate energy and food shortages.

‘Australia can be at the forefront of nature-smart, livable future cities,’ says Leishman. ‘There are enormous opportunities to deliver transformational change through healthy, nature-rich cities that provide long-term societal benefits. But we must act now. Australia risks falling further behind Europe and other developed nations.’

As Director of Macquarie University’s Smart Green Cities initiative, Leishman is part of a team undertaking groundbreaking research – ranging from projects on vegetation that best suit hotter climates, to urban greening, river health and living seawalls.

‘As complex systems, cities combine the built and natural environments within the context of human society,’ says Leishman. ‘We need to bring together researchers from multiple disciplines to tackle the challenges cities face. This is what Smart Green Cities is trying to achieve.’

The hub’s work is timely. The world faces rapid population growth, extreme heat, increasing climate variability, greater pollution, biodiversity loss, and declining human health and wellbeing.

These problems will be most acute in cities, particularly in low socio-economic areas that tend to be hotter, further from the coast, densely populated, and have less vegetation.

The figures are staggering. Urban areas occupy less than four per cent of the planet’s land, but are home to more than half its population.1 By 2050, almost 70 per cent of people will live in cities, estimates the United Nations.2

Urban heat islands will become a bigger problem as temperatures warm. These areas experience higher temperatures than outlying areas, due to the concentration of buildings, and infrastructure that absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat. Cities a few degrees hotter during heatwaves could experience catastrophic conditions.

‘Sadly, more people die from extreme heat than from all other climate-related weather events combined,’ says Leishman. ‘Some cities could experience such extreme heat that they become uninhabitable if we don’t introduce more nature-based adaptation solutions into urban areas.’

Leishman says that COVID-19 has created an opportunity to act. ‘The pandemic has revealed humanity’s fundamental need for green (vegetation) and blue (water) spaces, and access to nature in cities. It’s a chance to reset and rethink about smart green cities.’

Longer term, there is growing interest in nature-based solutions and rising investment in smart city technologies. This includes the application of sensors, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the Internet of Things to manage complex energy and transit systems.

Formed in 2016, Smart Green Cities is a leading collaborative hub connecting industry, government, researchers and the community. The goal is to create livable urban environments through evidence-based research and problem-solving.

More than 50 researchers, including a vibrant cohort of PhD candidates, are associated with Smart Green Cities. The hub is based at Macquarie University’s Wallamattagul campus in North Ryde.

Smart Green Cities has a crossdisciplinary focus. In addition to research strengths in conservation, biology, ecology and other environmental fields, it has a growing focus on computing, engineering, and technology. Human health and wellbeing, governance and finance are other emerging research strengths.

‘It’s increasingly clear that environmental solutions on their own aren’t enough to transform cities,’ says Leishman. ‘We also require a paradigm shift in thinking on legal and governance frameworks for cities, and how we invest.’

Industry collaboration is a strength of Smart Green Cities. The hub has research partnerships with Sydney Water, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the greenlife industry, local councils, industry bodies and other stakeholders.

The hub’s collaboration extends to other research centres. It has partnerships with the university’s Centre for Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Finance, and the Sustainable Energy Research Centre.

The hub also collaborates with Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) based at Macquarie University, including the Blue Economy CRC, Digital Finance CRC, and the SmartCrete CRC, which is researching concrete efficiency and sustainability.

‘Through Smart Green Cities, industry and government can access researchers across Macquarie University to work on environment, sustainability and energy-related projects for cities,’ says Leishman. ‘Effectively, the hub is Macquarie’s “front door” for industry in this area.’

Smart Green Cities has three main research themes: Green and Blue Infrastructure, Smart Technologies, and Sustainable Cities, and will extend to Sustainable Energy from 2023 following the merge with Macquarie University’s Sustainable Energy Research Centre.

Dr Noushin Nasiri, Materials Engineer and Head of Macquarie University’s NanoTech Laboratory, with a nanosensor

In Green and Blue Infrastructure, Leishman and Dr Anthony Manea have collaborated with the Australian Institute of Botanical Science to test the performance and provenance of species in contrasting climatic conditions. The research will help ensure the success of future tree plantings for urban cooling and sustainable water use in Western Sydney.

In other research, Leishman is the lead Chief Investigator and part of a large research team across two universities for the landmark Which Plant Where program. As the culmination of five years of research, Which Plant Where identifies horticultural species that will survive in Australian urban landscapes, now and under future climates.

Developed by Macquarie University, Western Sydney University and Hort Innovation, Which Plant Where’s subscription-based service helps green space managers, such as local councils, and landscape architects to choose climate-smart species to facilitate resilient urban green spaces. Subscribers can search by location (postcode) or species to find trees suitable for the climate in 2030, 2050 and 2070.

‘Which Plant Where is a unique resource,’ says Leishman. ‘If we are going to increase the greening of cities, it’s vital we choose species that best suit future climates.’

Through Smart Green Cities, Macquarie University was part of

Living Seawalls project site at Blues Point, Sydney

another horticultural collaboration with the City of West Torrens, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, and the City of Charles Sturt (the AdaptWest consortium). The project assessed the effect of trees and other vegetation on reducing heat during an extreme heatwave in Western Adelaide in the summer of 2017.

Also in urban greening, Manea and Professor Damian Gore are leading a Smart Green Cities research team collaborating with Strathfield Council in Sydney. Funded by the NSW Greening our City program, the project identifies ways in which trees can improve the health, livability and workability of harsh urban environments.

In other research, Leishman and Dr Samiya Tabassum have partnered with Sydney Water to assess how recycled water affects different species and soil salinity. The project is conducted in the Australian Botanic Garden at Mount Annan, and will provide a long-term arboretum showcasing green canopy research.

In 2020, Macquarie University and Western Sydney University researchers completed a report on New South Wales school microclimates during summer. The research identified cool and hot zones in schools, enabling development of heat-smart play strategies. The researchers’ recommendations helped schools cope with summer heat.

In technology, Dr Noushin Nasiri, Head of the NanoTech Laboratory at Macquarie University’s School of Engineering, is developing wearable sensors to monitor ultraviolet (UV) levels. A tiny nanosensor in a watch-like device could potentially save thousands of lives by alerting wearers when UV rays are harmful.

Through Smart Green Cities, Associate Professor Melanie Bishop and Dr Katherine Dafforn have collaborated with the Sydney Institute of Marine Science and Reef Design Lab on Living Seawalls. This highprofile project aims to improve the ecological performance of seawalls and other marine-built structures to create healthier oceans.

The research team has developed habitat modules that can be attached to seawalls to increase habitat areas and add missing microhabitats, such as rock pools and crevices. The installations are located around Sydney Harbour.

In rivers, Associate Professor Peter Davies is collaborating with local and state governments, and academic and industry organisations, such as the Parramatta River Catchment Group, through the Our Living River project. The goal is to make Parramatta River swimmable again by 2025, and will do so by standardising the policies and practices affecting water quality.

Leishman says these and other Smart Green Cities collaborations highlight the potential impact of its research. ‘Our hub has come a long way in the past six years, but it’s just the start of what can be achieved as more stakeholders work together to create nature-rich cities that respond to the great challenge of our time: climate change.’ ♦

1 Endreny 2018 Nature Communications 9, 1160

2 UN 2019 World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision