38 minute read
National priorities, state projects: Australia’s new machinery of government – panel discussion
National priorities, state projects:
Australia’s new machinery of government
L–R: David Webster, Phil Davies, David Quinn, Jim Betts, Jonathan Kennedy
Chair: Panellists:
Jonathan Kennedy, Executive Director – Policy and Strategy, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia • Jim Betts, Chief Executive, Infrastructure NSW • Phil Davies, Chief Executive, Infrastructure Australia • David Quinn, Chief Executive, Building Queensland • David Webster, Deputy Secretary – Commercial, Department of Treasury and Finance (Victoria)
Key points:
• The creation of the ‘I-bodies’ across national and major state governments creates the beginnings of better cooperation between jurisdictions. • The independence of these agencies means they can engage the public on complex and potentially unpopular longer-term changes, to enable better infrastructure services. • There is an important role in deepening the sophistication of project assessment tools. • The need to evolve procurement and service delivery models will test the depth and reach of skills in the public sector.
The creation of independent infrastructure agencies at the federal and state level is driving expectation of improved project selection and prioritisation through enhanced assessment.
Jonathan Kennedy (JK): As we have heard from today’s proceedings, there is now a very palpable sense of expectation in the sector and the wider community about the outlook for project selection and prioritisation, and arguably for infrastructure reform more broadly. The creation of independent agencies both at the federal level and the state level has clearly been the key driver of this expectation. In this context, what are the levers that the independent agencies have at their disposal, in terms of actually delivering community expectation? How do you, as agencies, respond if governments take a different view? Jim, as the longest-serving Chief Executive on the panel, I will ask you to go fi rst.
Jim Betts (JB): Infrastructure NSW has been through an interesting evolution over the last four years, since it was established. The balance that we’ve had to strive on is, at one end, to be independent, because that’s a critical part of the value that we add. On the other hand, it’s to be part of the team that is making deliberative decisions about large amounts of taxpayers’ money, particularly in the context of once-in-a-generation opportunities like the lease of poles and wires. Yes, we should be independent, but the critical discussions will generally take place behind the closed doors of the Government, not in the pages of the media, and that’s where we think we can add significant value. In the back half of last year, we put advice to the Premier around an updated State Infrastructure Strategy. That was, in many ways, a deeply contested process, since we were engaging in a very collegiate way with the key agencies, but also contesting the data – making sure that the critical questions were addressed and answered.
By the time our advice went to the Premier, it had been tempered in the fire of debate between different agencies, but that was done in such a way that we emerged with enhanced collaborative relationships on the other side. There is a balance that can be struck between independence with a majority private-sector independent board, on the one hand, and being part of discussion within government that is collegiate and constructive, on the other.
JK: David, would you share the view that it’s more of a more collegiate approach than a front-page approach on these things?
David Quinn (DQ): Definitely. Building Queensland is effectively a brand-new entity that is just being established. There’s a real focus by the new Labor Government in Queensland to establish an independent body to try and depoliticise the process. The board that is shortly to be appointed for Building Queensland will be majority private sector. The real focus of the Government was to try and pull together a pipeline of projects moving forward. We’re quite objective; we’re charged with providing that independent expert advice to the Government. The projects that we look at will still be owned by the agencies, or owned by the Government-owned corporation. At the end of the day, it won’t be me who’s fronting up to Cabinet seeking funding for a project – it will be the agencies. The agencies have to have that confidence that we’re looking at a project in an objective manner. That’s the biggest lever that we have to pull at this point in time. In terms of [a situation occurring in which] government doesn’t accept our recommendations, we have to be pragmatic about that. We have a lot of obligations in relation to publishing project summaries, and publishing a very well-articulated cost-benefit analysis to our website, so that if government elects to make a decision that’s counter to what we recommended, it will ultimately be very visible. That’s the right of a democratically elected government – to do what they want to do.
JK: Phil, as Anthony Albanese’s speech illustrated, pressure to deliver on this expectation is perhaps greater at a Federal level than an Infrastructure Australia level. What’s your view on that?
Phil Davies (PD): The stars are the aligned in terms of that independence. We have a newly invigorated IA with independence, with its own board that has the right to appoint the Chief Executive. Off the back of that, the most important step has been the construction of this evidence base, which manifested in May, in terms of the Northern Australia Audit, and particularly the Australian Infrastructure Audit. This is a Partnerships conference; we’ve got an opportunity here for a strong partnership across the whole sector, across each jurisdiction. We’ve got an evidence base to work off to develop the 15-year Infrastructure Plan, which is the basis for this stronger pipeline of projects that we’re working to. If everyone lined up here is on the same page in terms of needing a more strategic approach than perhaps in recent times, we need to look at the bigger picture, and do a better job of articulating the strategic merits and strategic contexts for some of these longer-term solutions.
JK: David, the legislation creating Infrastructure Victoria was passed by Parliament yesterday. From a central agency perspective, what is the added value that you are hoping IV will bring to the table?
David Webster (DW): While the independent bodies come across in terms of more contestable advice, I don’t think anything that they come out with is going to be unknown to the bureaucracy and government. What they can bring to the table – we have already talked about the lack of trust in the decision-making process – is actually lifting the hood on some of the discussions that happen inside government, some of the analysis that goes on in
Above: David Webster Right: Phil Davies government, and some of the trade-offs that have to be made. Independent bodies can actually have that dialogue with the public, and bring them along on the decision-making process. In a way, it’s much more difficult these days for governments to do that, and even more so for the bureaucracy.
JK: A theme that’s also quite current is project coordination across jurisdictions. This is a further emerging theme, particularly given the growing pipeline of greenfield and brownfield assets coming to market. How realistic is a nationally coordinated approach, given competing state priorities, and how desirable is it as a goal?
JB: The creation of a national infrastructure market, in terms of making sure that good practice is being spread and shared across jurisdictions, is really important. We’re looking at a major correctional facility in northern New South Wales at the moment; we’re turning to Ravenhall and getting great support from the Victorians at an official level, in terms of intellectual capital, sharing of documentation, and so on. That’s the kind of collaboration across state borders that is really valuable, and we’re very much open to that, as well.
It’s important that we generate project pipelines that are explicit, so that we can see where there might be unhelpful overlaps, or work where we might be in danger of overheating the market or generating skill shortages. I don’t think it’s a show stopper; it’s a shame that we don’t collaborate more, but certainly among people on this platform, and increasingly among bureaucrats across jurisdictions, there is a will to share information. Knowledge of what’s happening with the Melbourne Metro is not going to significantly impact the New South Wales approach to the delivery of its commitments for the Sydney Metro project. But it’s helpful to share the information, particularly if two major rail PPPs are being brought to market broadly at the same time.
JK: Just to pick up on that point, Jim, about best practice in information sharing – Phil, do you see that as IA’s role, in terms of not necessarily sequencing projects across the Federation, but driving best practice, serving as a vehicle for information collation?
PD: Yes, certainly. It was interesting listening to the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, who spoke of a big focus there on data and analytics. That’s an area that we identified through our audit. There’s more work to do in terms of getting better use out of existing infrastructure – that’s not been a strong focus for us – but, going along with that, there’s also work around developing best practice and sharing data, as Jim said. That’s not to say being in each other’s pockets, but just making sure that we’ve been as smart as we can be. There’s a role for IA in that, in terms of facilitating and encouraging that. That will only strengthen over the coming years.
JK: David, just a slightly different take on the question: there’s a contrasting position between the Commonwealth and the states on issues such as public transport – road versus rail. Does that contrast make coordination less feasible?
DQ: It certainly makes it challenging, there’s no doubt about that. In the Queensland context, you’ve heard from the Government a very strong desire to see urban rail feature quite prominently on the
Queensland landscape, particularly in South East Queensland, where population pressures are going to drive us to have to do something. The audit that Phil released earlier this year spoke about the significant cost of congestion in South East Queensland, and it also spoke about population growth. In South East Queensland, the population will grow by roughly 1.5 million people between now and 2030 – that’s effectively 100,000 people per year. We’re going to have to find a happy medium; the Government is certainly very desirous of seeing some funding coming through.
At the moment, the project that is front of mind is the second stage of the Gold Coast light rail, where the Queensland Government is involved in discussions with the Federal Government regarding whether there can be some funding contribution made by the Commonwealth. Cross River Rail, which Mr Albanese referred to, is again effectively the number one priority for the new Labor Government going forward. We’re going to have to find a solution here somewhere. We do need roads, and we do need rail. An interesting example that was given to me the other day was the Pacific Motorway, heading down towards the Gold Coast. At one section of road, we have the equivalent of 14 lanes of traffic, including service lanes. You can’t just keep on adding lanes. Eventually, you need to address the problem in a number of different ways, and that includes finding a solution to public transport. So, it is a challenge, but it’s one that we have to address.
JK: Jim, it’s something that I know you’ve been quite vocal on.
JB: I managed to get my name in the Daily Telegraph, criticising Prime Minister [Tony Abbott], so I think I’ve spoken on that one. It seems a very arbitrary cut-off point to me, not to include urban public transport, when you look at the major contribution that functioning cities will make to the national economy.
JK: David, if you could put your IV hat on rather than your central agency hat, what do you consider the optimal role of IA and the Commonwealth to be, and are we there yet, or do we need further work?
DW: These state bodies will obviously reflect state priorities. If you look at the truly national projects – and we’re talking the Hume, the Bruce Highway, inland freight – there are things of national significance that IA should be lifting their eyes up to, above the narrow gaze that we, as states, will have.
JB: Not to the exclusion of the other investments; I’m sure you would agree with that.
DW: The focus on productivity-enhancing infrastructure at the state level is good for the national economy. IA can’t ignore the sheer amount of GDP that comes out of the Sydney and Melbourne CBDs, so the focus should be on where the dollars go to get the most bang.
JK: Another issue that has been raised over the course of today is capacity constraints; specifically, constraints on public services, and on the capacity to procure and deliver a growing pipeline of work. How extensive are these constraints, and what can government – and the private sector, for that matter – do to address them? Jim, representing the state with the largest pipeline of work, this is probably particularly pertinent for New South Wales.
JB: Yes, it is. When I think about the things that jurisdictions have done right, [one of them is] to hold on to their best talents. Think of Rodd Staples delivering the North West Rail Link (now Sydney Metro Northwest), moving on with a large team of people who’ve learned, the hard way, the skills associated with delivering major rail projects. That creates a phenomenally capable resource within the Top: David Quinn New South Wales public sector, and also a known Below: Jim Betts quantity in terms of the private sector’s interaction with us, and the confidence that they can derive from that.
In Victoria, [the same is done by] people like Corey Hannett. Holding onto the talent that we teach as they come through is important. We sometimes swim against the tide of remuneration constraints, and so on. Without wishing to sound too starry-eyed about it, to be in the room at the moment when you have a government doing what is going on in New South Wales is a real turn-on for people who want to get involved where the action is in national infrastructure, and build stuff that will be there for 100 years. We’ve got a selling proposition in the public sector that is a pretty compelling one, even if we can’t compete on dollars all the time.
DW: Building on that, we also need to get better at having fluidity between the private sector and the public sector. I don’t think that we have that fluidity, which Europe certainly does, and both sides can benefit from the insights of having worked on the other side.
JK: In Queensland’s case, is there a risk that there will be a brain drain to New South Wales and Victoria? continued on page 108
SECURING QUEENSLAND’S FUTURE
Planning for infrastructure presents unique challenges for every government, and nowhere is this more evident than in Queensland. As Australia’s second-largest state, it is nearly seven times the size of Great Britain, and more than double the size of Texas. While the current population is approximately 4.7 million, Queensland has a population density of just 2.7 people per square kilometre. By comparison, the population density of New South Wales is around nine people per square kilometre.
By 2036, Queensland’s population is expected to grow to more than seven million, with growth centred primarily on South East Queensland (SEQ) and coastal centres. Around 1.7 million extra people are forecast to call SEQ home by 2036, which is an increase of 54 per cent on the current population. Across the state, people are living longer, and with more people reaching retirement age in the coming decades, there will be an increased pressure on health services, and more demand for different housing types and new dwellings.
Meeting the infrastructure needs of this vast geographic area and growing population has become challenging in recent times. Growth in SEQ means that road connections are increasingly under pressure, with congestion and delays reducing economic efficiency. The Australian Infrastructure Audit estimates that the cost of delays caused by congestion on the Brisbane–Gold Coast–Sunshine Coast transport network in 2011 was around $2 billion. In the absence of any additional capacity, the cost of delays across the region is projected to grow to around $9 billion in 2031.
A diverse climate, characterised by extended periods of drought and extreme weather events such as floods and cyclones, tests the resilience of both communities and assets. Recent infrastructure investment has been geared towards recovering and rebuilding in the wake of natural disasters, particularly in regional areas. Between 2010 and 2013, transport network reconstruction costs came to a total of $6.4 billion to repair 8741 kilometres of state-controlled roads (more than 25 per cent of the total), and 1733 bridges and culverts.
The Queensland economy is also undergoing a period of structural change and diversification, as it transitions from the historic surge in resources investment towards broader-based drivers of growth. A slowdown in the global economy, along with declining revenues in the mineral and energy export sector, has impacted employment and economic growth. Beyond Queensland, the world economy is also changing. The rise of Asia and its growing middle class is creating new opportunities. Queensland is well positioned to capitalise on these opportunities, with demand for key exports such as resources, tourism, agriculture and education expected to grow strongly in the coming years.
The decline in mining sector investment, and the impacts of droughts, means that diversification in these areas will be essential to the long-term economic sustainability of many regional communities, which are home to one-third of Queensland’s population. Economic growth in these areas depends on the success of supply chains and connections to port, rail and road infrastructure. Developing Queensland’s knowledge industries in association with key universities at Rockhampton, Cairns and Townsville has the potential to expand the reach of the state’s globally recognised tropical expertise. New markets will also help to drive a more sustainable and broader-based tourism industry in these regions.
Meeting the challenge
Efficient, resilient and productive infrastructure will be critical to addressing these challenges, and will ensure that Queensland’s economy continues to grow, and that living standards are maintained for generations to come. The Queensland Government plays an important role in helping to meet the ever-increasing service needs of the community, and improving productivity and competitiveness for industry.
So far in 2015, a lot has been done to boost business confidence, support job creation, and encourage investment in productive infrastructure. The 2015 State Budget, which was delivered in July, features a $10.1 billion capital works programme for 2015–16, supporting 27,500 jobs throughout the state. This includes $3.9 billion on roads and transport, $2.4 billion on energy and water, and $1.3 billion on health and community infrastructure. Much of this investment is focused on building resilience to drought and extreme weather in local communities, and providing employment opportunities in regional Queensland.
A number of major road projects have also kicked off in 2015, including the landmark $1.6 billion Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the congestionbusting $1.162 billion Gateway Upgrade North project in Brisbane, and upgrades to improve the safety and capacity of the Bruce Highway, the state’s key freight route. All of these are being delivered in partnership with the Australian Government, and with involvement from the private sector. Over the next four years, more than $18.8 billion will be invested in Queensland’s overall transport infrastructure under the Queensland Transport and Road Investment Programme (QTRIP), sustaining almost 15,000 jobs over the life of the programme.
Elsewhere in the state, the Queensland Government is continuing to invest in new and upgraded venues for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, which is to be held on the Gold Coast, and is progressing important planning work for a number of other key projects, including the Queen’s Wharf Brisbane Integrated Resort Development, and the Townsville Integrated Sports and Entertainment Centre. To ensure that environmental impacts are properly managed, the Coordinator-General continues to assess a number of significant projects.
Work is also underway to develop a Gas Supply and Demand Action Plan, reinforcing Queensland’s status as a leading jurisdiction for onshore gas supply, market development and demand issues.
The establishment of Building Queensland (BQ) as a statutory body will provide the Queensland Government with independent advice on infrastructure matters. BQ will be overseen by an eight-member board, with representatives from the private and public sectors providing depoliticised advice to the state government. A key role of BQ will be assisting with business cases for projects between $50 million and $100 million, and leading business cases for projects that exceed $100 million. Initially, this will include the Cross River Rail project, which is designed to increase capacity on Brisbane’s inner-city rail network; the Sunshine Coast (Beerburrum to Nambour) Rail Upgrade; the Train Control System Upgrade Project; and a number of Health ICT projects. Business cases led by BQ will confirm the productivity gains anticipated from projects, timeframes for delivery and the net economic benefit to the state.
The Queensland Government is also working closely with Infrastructure Australia (IA), and has recently submitted an updated Infrastructure Priority List, which includes seven new priority projects and five existing projects. The submission includes Stage 2 of the Gold Coast Light Rail project, which will provide a vital connection between the existing light rail and heavy rail lines in Australia’s fifth-largest city. Other priority projects include the Mount Isa–Townsville Rail Corridor Upgrade; upgrades to the Ipswich Motorway; and Cunningham Highway and Pacific Motorway/Gateway Motorway merge.
The state is also seeking to take advantage of the economic development opportunities highlighted by IA’s recent Northern Australian Audit and the Australian Government’s ‘White Paper on Developing Northern Australia’. Almost three-quarters of northern Australia’s population lives in Queensland, and the state government is investigating a range of opportunities related to transport, water, ports and other economic infrastructure in North Queensland that may form the basis of future submissions to IA’s Infrastructure Priority List.
Underpinning this planning and investment in infrastructure is the government’s Advance Queensland initiative. Advance Queensland is a comprehensive suite of programmes designed to encourage new industry and research collaborations, and create the knowledge-based jobs of the future. The Queensland Government is investing $180 million over four years, to position the state as an attractive investment destination with a strong innovation and entrepreneurial culture.
The state has released new, streamlined assessment processes and clear guidelines for market-led proposals, to make it easier for the private sector to partner with government to build and fund innovative solutions to Queensland’s infrastructure needs.
A new approach to infrastructure planning
While much work is already underway, rapidly emerging technology, the changing service needs of Queenslanders and competing priorities for limited funds mean that a fundamental shift is required in the way that Queensland plans, prioritises and delivers infrastructure.
Long-term infrastructure planning has a critical role to play in facilitating the shifts in the economy that will stimulate growth and job creation, and encouraging private sector innovation into the future. After three years without an infrastructure plan, the Queensland Government is getting on with the job of delivering a State Infrastructure Plan.
The State Infrastructure Plan outlines a bold new strategic direction for infrastructure in Queensland – one that fosters innovation in planning, investment, delivery and use of infrastructure, and better communication and engagement with stakeholders. The Plan identifies what the government ultimately wants from its infrastructure (objectives), and how this can best be achieved (directions). The objectives and directions will help to guide and align planning across government and industry, and decision-making across government.
The Plan also outlines a range of responses that the Queensland Government will adopt to help address the challenges that Queensland will face over coming decades. Some of these responses, either in the short or long term, will require built infrastructure or changes to existing infrastructure. Other responses will challenge traditional concepts of service delivery to make better use of existing infrastructure, or alleviate the need to build new infrastructure.
Importantly, the State Infrastructure Plan is designed to provide confidence and certainty to business, industry and the community by outlining the programme of proposed government infrastructure over the next four years. An additional five- to 15-year programme provides an opportunity for the private sector to understand the state’s challenges, and to develop innovative solutions. Annual updates to these programmes will provide a clear understanding of government-proposed investment, and future opportunities for industry’s business and workforce planning needs.
While the programme focuses on infrastructure delivered by the Queensland Government, the State Infrastructure Plan is also a valuable tool for planning infrastructure across government and the private sector. The Plan recognises the significant investment that local government makes in infrastructure, and the programme provides local authorities with a thorough understanding of key state government projects and regional priorities.
The draft State Infrastructure Plan has been released for consultation, with the finalised Queensland State Infrastructure Plan to be released in early 2016. Visit www.dilgp.qld.gov.au to view the Plan.
continued from page 103
DQ: To answer both questions, the first answer is yes – like Jim and David, I am all for developing capability internally. One thing that we are very keen to see happen with projects is teams that go right across the full spectrum of procurement, from the early stage through to business cases, procurement and delivery, so that you get that continuity. Capability is one thing that we are very keen to develop, and at the same time, we also need to tap into the private sector, because of the contemporary knowledge and skills that can be found there.
In relation to the circumstances of Queensland at the moment, I don’t think our concern is so much losing people from the public sector to the southern states; our bigger concern is losing that external capability that is now turning its back and heading south where the projects are. As projects come onstream in Queensland, we do have that concern – will the right expertise be available to the Queensland market at that point in time?
That leads to why the Government is very keen on releasing a 15-year state infrastructure plan in early 2016. In years one to four of that infrastructure plan, we talk about funded projects so people have visibility of the projects that are coming to market, and the projects that are funded in that one- to fouryear time horizon. Years five through to 15 are going to identify the challenges and the opportunities [of the plan]. We’re encouraging agencies to start getting their heads around finding solutions, but we’re also giving the private sector the opportunity to start looking at market-led proposals so they can start engaging government to say: ‘Look, you’ve got a constraint in year six or year seven; we believe we have particular expertise in that area, and we would like to sit down with the Government and talk about how we might be able to address it’. So, yes, it is a challenge.
JK: Phil, the Commonwealth obviously doesn’t procure quite the same level of infrastructure as the states – or anywhere near it, for that matter. The capacity constraint theme is more specifically of unsolicited bid frameworks and their refinement. Will that fall into IA’s agenda at some point?
PD: More broadly with the capability, the feedback we’ve been getting in the last few months talking about the audit and the Plan is that we’ve got to get back to fundamentals. We need to build that strong pipeline of early projects all the way through to well-developed solutions, and give confidence to everyone – really give confidence to the supply chain – to say, ‘This is what the forward programme
looks like, so you can be confident in organising your resources around that’.
In a national context, there have been an awful lot of resources moved to New South Wales from Victoria in the last year or so, to work on all of Jim’s projects. My sense is that people are more mobile, certainly in the last few years, than they have been in the past. Equally, we’ve lost some capability overseas, and one of the areas that we are challenged in is better use. That’s an area where we can probably be smarter and, again, having a national focus on things like that is beneficial, to think about which problems we are trying to solve. How can we get the capability to actually help us with some of that? That’s difficult in the context of the agenda here in New South Wales, for example, where you’re building new infrastructure – and you can only do one thing at a time, as well. This Plan, which we will pull together before the end of the year, will hopefully give us confidence, so we can see what’s ahead, and people can build their capability around that. Equally, the whole supply chain can have confidence and build its response.
JK: Project assessment is another emerging theme. To a degree, project assessment will always be both an art and a science, but that doesn’t preclude improvements. Is that something, Phil, that you think IA can show some leadership on?
PD: Yes, IA has had a role since it was established to assess projects over $100 million on behalf of the Federal Government. My sense in recent times is that we’ve been, as a nation, very project-focused. The opportunity is to take a broader strategic look at some of these projects, and the contribution that they’re making not only within systems and networks, which could be better, but also in terms of our cities. Particularly, how are these going to provide an opportunity for urban regeneration or development in areas like Western Sydney, which was talked about earlier? There’s a broader strategic merit assessment that we do as part of our process. Often, that’s a smaller part of the process. We’re trying, through this planning process, to do a better job of working with colleagues here and elsewhere to define the problem that we’re trying to solve.
That’s often where we can skip over that last step. We need to define the problem that we’re trying to solve; think more at a system level and a network level and work through assessing options and getting them through a full business case.
DW: Certainly, for some of the city-shaping infrastructure, the starting point should be something along the lines of, ‘What sort of city do we want? How do we want it to operate?’ Then, work out from there the best infrastructure to actually deliver that. For the vast majority of transport infrastructure, traditional cost-benefit analysis is adequate. When you’re talking about the really transformational infrastructure, if we’re serious about talking about productivity-enhancing infrastructure, then we’ve got to really think hard about wider economic benefits (WEBs), how we articulate that, and where we go from our WEBs debate.
JK: Jim, do you think there’s a case at a state level for a broader suite of tools to assess projects on their merits?
JB: Cost-benefit analysis is like any tool: it’s useful up to a point, and it’s a valuable discipline for making sure that you’re not building some really stupid stuff. The starting point has to be, as David said, a macro view about what sort of city you want to live in, and the infrastructure that is going to support that vision. Then you apply the disciplines at the back end. Some institutions can get trapped in cost-benefit analysis for a period of time – including Infrastructure Australia, if I can say that, which was receiving proposals and then evaluating them into really, really fine levels of detail. So, we’re arguing about whether the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for Melbourne Metro was 1.2 or 1.21 – that’s not a particularly productive use of anybody’s time. One of the things we did in the State Infrastructure Strategy was to state what makes sense and what hangs together as being a good prioritisation, and then apply the discipline for the final investment decisions, taken through things like cost-benefit analysis and assurance processes.
JK: Stepping back from projects for a moment, and to broader reform – particularly to those reforms that really target funding and growing capacity – David, in Queensland’s case, the funding challenges are fairly clear, and they’ve been spoken of today quite extensively. Given that asset sales are off the table for now, what funding options are available to the current Government?
DQ: It’s challenging in relation to what the Queensland Government is looking at. There are various measures being clearly examined, and debt restructuring is going on in relation to the balance sheets of Government-owned corporations to try to free up the capital. Clearly, value capture is
another area that we want to explore very actively; it’s something that has been used very successfully overseas. Again, [these are] different population demographics and sizes, but we want to look at value capture. Other funding streams that aren’t necessarily in the reform area, but should be considered, are market-led proposals. We really want to engage the private sector.
There are savings that the Government is going to have to identify. The Gold Coast light rail, for instance, is an example of where the Queensland Government has said that, subject to getting some Federal Government assistance, [it] will find savings internally within Government to fund the state’s contribution. There are myriad options to consider. We don’t have a ‘one big bang’ approach. We don’t have that avenue available. Therefore, it’s going to have to be a series of levers and buttons that we are going to have to push or pull in order to fund the infrastructure, because – and I go back to my earlier comments – we cannot afford to do nothing. That’s not an option for us, so we’re going to have to take this forward.
JK: If I could ask each of you to see yourselves in five years’ time, looking back, what sort of legacy would you hope to have left from your current role?
JB: I’ve been very lucky to land in a jurisdiction that’s doing everything that’s been going on in the last two years in New South Wales – a fantastic plan, fully funded across all different sectors of infrastructure. The critical challenge now is to translate a world-class plan into world-class delivery. I know that sounds like a cliché, but we need to get the best talent here, we need to get the best systems. We’re ramping up external assurance through Infrastructure NSW. We’re going from the advisory body and planning body, into an assurance body, and potentially a delivery body, as well. We will be judged by the success of the projects that are delivered, and their impacts on the community over that five-year period. Every day at the moment in New South Wales, there are new milestone announcements being made. When you’ve got such an ambitious agenda, the scale of the risk associated with that increases, and the scale of public expectation increases, and it’s incumbent upon people like me to be part of the solution, assisting the Premier in delivering that agenda.
DQ: From a Building Queensland perspective, in five years’ time I want us to have developed that suite of priority projects for the state. I want us to be seen both within government and externally as a body that does apply best practice, and actually develops projects – in some cases taking them through procurement and delivery. It really is about demonstrating that you can show value for money and meet community needs; they’re probably the two major drivers for me in relation to how I’d like Building Queensland to be seen in the future. If we can achieve that, then we’ve gone a long way towards securing the needs of the state going forward.
PD: From an IA perspective, hopefully we will have launched two plans in five years’ time – one at the end of this year. Fundamentally, outcomes for me will be a very strong partnership with everyone here, and those who aren’t, in terms of Federal, state and territory relationships, with a very strong pipeline of projects that have everything from a concept all the way through to boots on the ground. We’d also want to see a sustainable pipeline there well into the future. IA is a facilitator, but also a source of best practice and the champion of change, and a source of data to actually support some of the decision-making.
DW: Obviously, the infrastructure plan and best practice processes are things that I am keen to see succeed, but I also would like to see a greater degree of public trust in the process. I want to see the public buy into what we’re collectively achieving for Australia in terms of better infrastructure decisions, growing productivity and growing GDP.
Philip Davies is the Chief Executive Officer of Infrastructure Australia, with a fresh mandate to provide independent expert advice to all levels of government on infrastructure policy and planning. Infrastructure Australia publicly advocates for reforms on key issues including means of financing, delivering and operating infrastructure, and how to better plan and utilise infrastructure networks.
Infrastructure Australia also recently released the Australian Infrastructure Audit, the nation’s much needed, comprehensive independent review of Australia’s infrastructure, and our future needs across transport, water, energy and telecommunications.
Before joining Infrastructure Australia as Chief Executive Officer, Mr Davies led AECOM’s Infrastructure Advisory business in Asia Pacific, providing government and privatesector clients with infrastructure policy, strategy, business, program, planning and operations advice.
While Director of Traffic Operations for Transport for London (TfL), Mr Davies developed a long-term vision for proactive, long-term integrated transport management in London, including the development of the London Transport Command and Control Centre.
He is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of Engineers Australia.
Jim Betts is the Chief Executive Officer of Infrastructure NSW, an independent statutory agency that provides specialist advice to the New South Wales Government on infrastructure investment and prioritisation. Most recently, this included making more than 80 recommendations to Government on the next round of critical infrastructure for New South Wales – set out in the State Infrastructure Strategy Update 2014.
Mr Betts joined Infrastructure NSW in June 2013, following five years as the Secretary of the Victorian Department of Transport, and four years as the Director of Public Transport at the Victorian Department of Infrastructure. Key personal achievements during this time included the delivery of the $38 billion Victorian Transport Plan, and the overhaul of Victoria’s legislative framework to integrate the planning of transport and land use.
Mr Betts’ 25 years of experience spans strategic transport planning, infrastructure delivery, and transformational structural reform, including privatisation, private finance and regulatory reform, and also includes senior roles in the British Government.
David Webster is Deputy Secretary, Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, where he is responsible for providing strategic commercial, financial and risk management advice to the Victorian Government.
Activities include managing the state’s balance sheet, prudential supervision of the public financial corporations, public-private partnerships (PPPs), infrastructure investment, commercial and property transactions, and the monitoring and governance of the state’s major Government Business Enterprises.
Prior to joining government, Mr Webster had 20 years’ experience in equity, advisory and debt transactions in economic and social infrastructure and transport (including airports, rail, road, hospitals, schools, water and wastewater), and project finance oil and gas.
Prior to joining the Department of Treasury and Finance, Mr Webster worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Funds Management in Sydney as Executive Director, running the RBS Australia Social Infrastructure Fund. Previously, Mr Webster was Investment Director at EISER Global Infrastructure Fund in London, and Head of Infrastructure Advisory at RBS London, before which he held a number of senior structured finance positions in banking, also in London. Mr Webster qualified as an Australian Chartered Accountant in 1987 and has an MBA from London Business School.
David Quinn Chief Executive, Building Queensland
David Quinn has more than 20 years’ experience across a range of sectors including transport, utilities, heavy manufacturing, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and mining. His diverse industry experience has been gained through roles with Asciano (both Patrick Ports and Pacific National Rail), the APA Group, BHP Billiton and Kraft Foods. He has also worked as a Major Projects lawyer for Herbert Smith Freehills, financing and delivering infrastructure projects both nationally and internationally.
Most recently, Mr Quinn led the Queensland Government’s commercial advisory and procurement arm, Projects Queensland. Prior to this appointment, Mr Quinn was undertaking operational and strategic consulting for Tasmanian Railways.
Qualified in both Law and Economics, Mr Quinn has experience that extends widely, from senior human resources, operational and general management roles through to negotiating and delivering major projects across both the private and public sectors.
Jonathan Kennedy is Executive Director, Policy and Strategy at Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.
WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY
Health and safety in the workplace is an important consideration for both private enterprise and government organisations. Recent amendments to health and safety regulations aim to further reduce serious accidents and consequently improve productivity. But are these reforms adequately addressing this complex and multi-faceted issue?
Evidence suggests that the reforms are succeeding, with reductions in injuries over the past few years. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, serious workplace injuries have declined by more than 15 per cent since 2003; however, Safe Work Australia estimates that workplace injuries continue to affect Australia’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as $57.5 billion annually – or 5.9 per cent of our total economy.
So what else can we do to reduce workplace accidents? One key component is obviously workplace safety training, but another largely ignored factor is the safety of the equipment being used every day by workers. While the use of personal protection equipment (PPE) such as reflective vests and protective eyewear has skyrocketed in recent years, the utilisation of tools that include safety features has been somewhat limited.
Many companies pride themselves on providing products that lead the way in safety. Most would be familiar with the automotive industry and its initiatives to improve occupancy safety. The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) provides a safety ratings system for new cars marketed in Australia. The ANCAP rating has become a key consideration for Australian consumers when making a purchasing decision on a new vehicle. Automotive manufacturers pride themselves on achieving additional ANCAP ‘stars’, and their continued innovation has made today’s automobiles safer than ever.
One company that is heavily involved in the automotive industry, and specifically safety features, is German firm Bosch GmbH. Bosch is the leading producer of automotive components worldwide, and has been a key developer of features often taken for granted, such as anti-lock braking systems (ABS). Bosch is currently developing the next generation of safety features, such as collision avoidance and reversing control systems.
Another division of Bosch that has become a market-leader in safety within its industry is its Power Tools and Accessories Division. One specific power tool with which the Bosch brand has become synonymous is the angle grinder. Angle grinders are used to grind, shape and cut various metals, but they are also commonly used on applications such as the grinding and cutting of masonry surfaces. Due to their wide range of uses, angle grinders are used by most tradespeople quite commonly. While these tools are extremely versatile, they are extremely dangerous when used incorrectly.
Utilising its expertise in automotive technology, and specifically ABS, Bosch Power Tools developed the ‘Kickback Stop’ feature for its angle grinders. This industry-leading safety feature protects the user from the ‘kickback’ phenomenon. Kickback occurs during cutting applications when the disc jams. The Kickback Stop is an electrical system that immediately cuts off the power to the machine when a jam is detected. This will significantly reduce the force transferred to the user and thus avoid any serious shoulder, elbow and wrist injuries. Additional features on the Bosch Safety Angle Grinder range include Dead Man Switches, Twist-Proof and Multi-Position Guards, Re-Start Protection and Vibration Control.
While safety features are extremely important, any angle grinder is useless without the cutting and grinding discs they are designed to function with. The Bosch heritage of producing quality angle grinders has recently seen a new addition, with the launch of an Australian-specific range of cutting and grinding discs. These quality Bosch products comply with, and exceed, all Australian and European quality and safety standards, which include speed and burst tests. Combined with the safety features on Bosch Angle Grinders, they ensure the highest possible levels of safety for end users.
The next time you purchase an angle grinder or cutting and grinding discs, ask yourself this question: do they meet the safety standards you require?
