Towards a new deal on infrastructure?

Before the Queensland Government rushes to spend the Treasurer’s surplus on iconic “megaprojects”, new institutions and processes need to be established to develop a sound basis of decision-making, prioritise spending and increase public consultation. Commerce Queensland, the state’s main employer group, has suggested an infrastructure council involving key business and government representatives to discuss infrastructure needs. This approach, however, would not incorporate the needed hard-headed, independent analysis and wider public involvement and hints of “deals made behind closed doors”. Other suggestions include a national infrastructure summit, but this would be a talkfest of little long-term value. The Federal Labor Party has proposed a National Infrastructure Advisory Council, but the details are still unclear.

An alternative, and one proposed here for Queensland that would really distinguish the state from other jurisdictions, is for an expert, statutory authority that might be called the State Priorities Commission. It would determine the state’s infrastructure priorities, openly evaluate infrastructure proposals and, consult with business and the community.

The commission would also audit current infrastructure, identify gaps and make public recommendations for improvement. Done annually, this would provide a report card on Queensland’s infrastructure and improve long-term expertise. The commission could serve one other useful function. The government could send any new major infrastructure proposal to the commission for independent evaluation. The government could use the commission’s governing legislation to establish priority areas, timeframes for reporting and assessment criteria for evaluation. Elected officials would still have the final say over infrastructure decisions. Nevertheless, the commission would offer government better quality information on which to make decisions to produce maximum benefit, improve public participation in decision-making, increase accountability and assist in the more efficient allocation of taxpayers’ funds on big projects.

Australian government abounds with successful models of this kind, especially at the federal level. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has successfully assessed state shares of federal grants, and in the past, determined the financial situation of “claimant” states for additional federal funds. It has a public consultation as well as an investigatory and research function. The Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) and its contemporary, the Productivity Commission, have provided independent analysis on appropriate levels of government assistance for all industry sectors. Open public hearings, draft reporting processes and opportunities for consultation have promoted public participation, improved the quality of information about industry and made governments more accountable.

State governments have largely eschewed such open processes found at the federal level. State government assistance to industry has long been fraught with special concessions and deals that have remained secret on the grounds of a need for commercial-in-confidence agreements. Despite the lessons of corruption revealed by successive royal commissions in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia during the 1980s, governance of infrastructure allocations are still open to improvement.

Queensland, which is so important to Australia’s future economic development and urban settlement, needs a modern system of governance to deal more effectively with the state’s increasingly important infrastructure priorities. In particular, Queensland needs an independent body that has the expertise and open processes to not only assist in overcoming short-term politics, vested interests, misallocation of funds and inadequate evaluation, but also be seen as having real integrity that is going to be so crucial to sustain confidence and trust in Australia’s fastest growing state.