The Commonwealth Infrastructure Priority List is due for de-listing, according to John Austen (“Time to call time on Infrastructure Australia”, Pearls and Irritations, October 8, 2021). With Intergenerational and Auditor-General reports it shares the fate of public administration ignored by the public. We ought to be interested in what projects the government wants to spend our money on. These are big ticket items but who could name the top three at either Federal or State level?
A lack of direction from the Commonwealth Government seems to have produced lethargy in response, the citizenry being unfazed with opaque vision and a loss of confidence in merit as a transparent selection criterion. For a government that tries hard not to govern (small, very small government) it is hard to present big picture thinking on infrastructure. This is an area that offers the greatest bang for buck if your game is pork-barreling. Even the big idea of inland rail is more chess piece (probably the knight as it can move around corners) than excitement trigger, as have plans for very fast train services (which Austen refers to as a fantasy). Projects like the Maldon to Dombarton freight rail link have won votes fraudulently many times over without result.
Establishing a priority list is a great potential safeguard against corruption through preferment, if only we knew it. Such lists are prioritized and sorted into near, medium and long-term periods. Projects advanced in the queue are signals of interference by vested interests. A properly constituted National Integrity Commission could develop a corruption quotient to forewarn of inherent corruption potential. Transport and Communications is the sector most amenable to infrastructure planning so needs to be watched carefully. It is the same kryptonite that developers are to local government.
The benefit of national projects is intended to be enjoyed nationally, though Melbournians might not be too warm towards Sydney’s West Connex. The regions clamor for compensatory provision to enhance their capability and inter-connectedness. Proposals such as transplanting some naval facilities from Garden Island in Sydney Harbour to Port Kembla suggest upside for multiple locations and a more fitting welcome for cruise ships (we don’t want to ‘stop the boats’ but rather berth them). The Maldon – Dombarton interrupted project aimed at getting freight off the roads, providing benefits to many road users. TODs (Transport Oriented Developments) are still favored for adding value to existing infrastructure, both public and commercial.
As Austen says, to achieve productivity Infrastructure Australia should recommend a “policy of interoperable – standardized – transport networks to support interstate and international trade and commerce”. That it has not done this is an argument for its abolition.
So, euthanize IA already. But what will replace and perform its intended function? Where could it nest that would give infrastructure less chance of being weaponized for corrupt purposes? I like Austen’s suggestion of the Finance portfolio, subject to Auditor-General surveillance and reporting. Public enquiries would also foster citizen engagement to the extent that many could say, yes, they can name the top three projects on the Commonwealth Infrastructure Priority List and when they are slated for commencement and completion. Vale, IA.
Awesomely Astute 