Infrastructure priorities and Indigenous interests

Never dream on infamy, but go.

Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act 2, scene 7.

The latest Infrastructure Australia publication, the Infrastructure Priority List 2020 has just been released (link here).

I reported on previous infrastructure related publications (here, and here), and both of these posts included links to a number of previous posts.

Infrastructure Australia is a wholly advisory body, with a remit to collate a list of nationally significant priorities in the infrastructure sector (link here).

This latest report has a number of priorities and initiative of particular relevance to Indigenous interests, remembering that Indigenous citizens are also users of mainstream infrastructure and thus benefit to greater or lesser degrees depending on their location and other factors such as income and wealth. For example, infrastructure which benefits major commercial interests may not benefit Indigenous citizens pro rata since they are less likely to be shareholders either directly or indirectly through superannuation. On the other hand, Indigenous citizens, at least in remote regions, are probably much more mobile than mainstream citizens, and thus will benefit more than pro rata from any upgrades to road infrastructure.

The three issues raised in the report of most direct relevance to Indigenous interests are the inclusion (since February 2019) of remote housing overcrowding on the Infrastructure Priority List as a high priority (refer page 74); the new inclusion of an Indigenous art and cultural facilities program as a ‘high priority initiative’ (page 102); and the new inclusion of mobile telecommunications coverage in regional and remote areas as a ‘high priority initiative’ (page 103).

All three of these initiatives were identified by Infrastructure Australia which is of course commendable. But it does point to a lack of organised support either within state and territory governments and/or within Indigenous peak bodies for key infrastructure investments. If there is one thing that has been reinforced by the recent debates over the allocations of sports programs nationally, it is that the political system is highly focussed on aligning the allocation of available public sector resources to key political constituencies and objectives. In this world, advocacy and lobbying are the fuel driving the political engine. To to be blunt, the inclusion of these issues on the Infrastructure Australia priority list is no guarantee whatsoever that they will be funded in either the near or medium term.

Finally, it is worth asking what is the point of this exercise. Like any public policy process, there are potential plusses and minuses.

On the plus side, it provides a degree of transparency of the overarching infrastructure needs of the nation that would otherwise not be there and not be updated regularly. And it expands the opportunity for pressing needs to be given airplay from within an official government advisory body.

On the minus side, there must always be the suspicion that this is a mechanism used by government to manage potential criticism from interests whose core infrastructure needs are not being met. The very existence of Infrastructure Australia, as well as its ‘priority’ lists creates the impression that Governments are considering currently unfunded proposals and will eventually fund them. In fact, there is no formal link between the ‘advice’ of Infrastructure Australia and governments’ funding decisions.

A second, and related risk, is that the very existence of a long list of unfunded initiatives provides a mechanism whereby governments can assuage particular interest groups by choosing to fund smaller and cheaper projects instead of larger and potentially more important projects. The inclusion of the ‘Indigenous arts and cultural facilities’ program ‘priority’ is a good example of this risk. While arts and crafts programs are important both to Indigenous interests and to mainstream tourism interests, they are nowhere near as much of a priority as the remote housing issue.

Finally, there appears to be no effort by the Infrastructure Australia Board to effectively prioritise the scores of initiatives included in its lists. This is perhaps a function of the legislative remit for Infrastructure Australia (governments do not want explicit public advice) and perhaps a function of a lack of imagination. Nevertheless, it is a significant flaw that the substantial effort and resources allocated to compiling these priorities are limited to essentially presenting the results ina neutral way as equally important, equally impactful, and equally beneficial. Yet the reality is that this is just not the case.

While it is the role of governments to make the final decisions on the allocation of public investments, the public interest would be tangibly advanced if Infrastructure Australia took the next step and publicly identified the necessary and essential infrastructure investments required in the national interest over the coming decade or two. Yes this would be contentious. Yes they might get it wrong. But it would engender a real debate about substantive issues across the community, and this would be a good thing.

It is time Infrastructure Australia stopped worrying about its reputation (infamy) and gave it a ‘go’.