Infrastructure Buffet: 'All you can eat, not all you can waste'

Is there a case for councils to say no to infrastructure funding?

Local governments in Australia are relying more and more on grants and subsidies from state and federal partners to fund infrastructure. But are we creating a burden for future communities by opting for quantity over quality?

Has the time come to start saying no to external funding if it won’t deliver quality assets that genuinely meet community expectations?

I’m not talking about declining funds for the critical infrastructure projects we know our communities want and need – those projects based on data, evidence, forecasting and community engagement. I’m talking about those funds allocated by other levels of government that are well intentioned but don’t deliver long-term value for money.

In the world of government grants, there are funding pools councils compete for a share in, and then there are grants allocated without councils having to demonstrate a need or meet assessment criteria. The latter is where the emerging challenge lies.

Quality versus quantity

It’s old school thinking to assume communities are satisfied because their council keeps building new infrastructure.

In the past, people tended to accept that if something was being built, there was a need for it. They generally trusted their council to make good decisions on their behalf. Now, thanks to unprecedented connectivity and capacity to influence, communities have their own sense of what they need and the quality they expect.

The challenge for us as public sector managers comes when we receive funds to build infrastructure that we don’t necessarily need. Or the funds aren’t enough to deliver that infrastructure to a quality that will make it a true community asset.

Communities today want more than a shiny building. They want infrastructure that provides social, economic and environmental benefits, and they want to experience those benefits now and well into the future.

The automatic acceptance of infrastructure delivery funding, and having a ‘the more the merrier’ attitude, is creating the inter-generational inequity most communities are trying to avoid. Invariably, it’s our children who will pay for the ongoing maintenance cost of mass infrastructure projects, not us.

It’s our children who have spoken loudly and clearly that they want action on climate change and social injustices – but the funding continues to pour into building more infrastructure, at any cost. The focus is justified on the basis that it will be infrastructure delivery that creates jobs and stimulates the economy, without due consideration of long-term impacts.

As difficult as it may be, we should be saying no to funding if it won’t deliver high quality infrastructure, and not place a perpetual burden on future generations.

Winning trust

If want the community to trust us to make good decisions about infrastructure investment, we need to put the emphasis on quality, not quantity.

Here are five factors to take into consideration with the Council and community when considering if external funding will deliver a quality infrastructure outcome.

1. Information

Information is a two-way street. Councils and funding agencies need to listen to the community about their needs and expectations. Communities want more transparency about their choices and possible outcomes. It’s important they understand the quality of infrastructure planned, and how it meets local needs.

2. Adaptability

With new technology around every corner, change is inevitable. This means community infrastructure needs to be adaptable, including taking into account commercial and regulatory constraints. The ease with which we can adapt to regulatory frameworks will influence the extent of the infrastructure’s adaptability down the track.

3. Inclusiveness

Ideally, decisions about infrastructure investment should involve all parts of the community and take into account all social and economic factors. In Australia, we’re not there yet, and part of the challenge is the lack of trust between the community and government. We need to keep working towards this goal, as genuine inclusiveness is the only way to hear and address

concerns over environmental impact, universal access, and affordability of infrastructure. Shifting the focus to quality is an important next step in that journey.

4. Transparency

For the community to regain trust in decision-makers, transparency is non-negotiable. People need complete insight into the service quality and performance matrix of the infrastructure. If they trust the infrastructure’s quality, they will trust the infrastructure provider.

5. Connectivity

Infrastructure helps connect communities – it’s so much more than simply building a road. Infrastructure connects the physical world with the world of information technology. Quality infrastructure brings the community closer and promotes 'connectedness'.

Accepting every grant dollar offered may seem like a smart move right now, but it may not be in the long-term. It’s a bit like being at a free buffet and continuing to eat long after you’re full: there’s going to be a cost. A buffet is ‘all you can eat’, not ‘all you can waste’.

When it comes to infrastructure, if we focus on quality over quantity we’ll be better positioning and ourselves and our communities for long-term sustainability.