Warren Denny: Allen consulting Group has undertaken study of Financing Urban Public Infrastructure. QPC wants to produce sensible argument in relation to how this can be achieved. This may fit with proposed super ministry for infrastructure and transport that state government has announced.

[See comment on 'super ministry' options]

Tom Richman: This announcement was in the Courier Mail, but there were few details. It is useful to support government in getting money together. Allen report was most useful with respect to PPPs - and verbal advice from their staff was even more critical of this mechanism. QPC needs to advocate Allen's conclusions to government.

Sonya Jeffcoat: Responses to requests for information about super ministry were similar to press. Proposal is to combine DSD, DLGP and Transport

Warren [and Sonya]: there is a problem of a lack of planning Queensland wide. The issue of increasing densities near transport calls for a regional planning authority.

Peter Hyland: Local authorities have their own planning.

Sonya: the problem is resources - and often local authorities lack these

Tom: There is a need to get Brisbane Airport Corporation under control, and to be able to deal with issues such as Tugun bypass debacle.

Warren: Australian Tradecoast has Brisbane City Council involvement and so should have some influence on airport - but BAC is foreign owned and doesn't care.

Peter: UDA is making a push for a super-ministry - so perhaps a combined approach should be considered.

Glen Holdsworth: it is hard to argue against super-ministry idea - but such entities can be very hard for outsiders to communicate with

Dennis Eiszale: coordination is needed, not red-tape.

Tom: government has said that lower level functions would be removed in super-ministry

Glen: why not consider Victorian model. Planning authority is very strong. It plans everything at the same time, and others (eg Vic Roads) are simply constructing authorities.

Bob McCallum: in Queensland's model Main Roads would not be part of proposed super-ministry - only Transport Department. Also there is a value in considering NSW model.

Tom: APC should get person formulating this proposal to make a presentation.

Peter: Nigel Brown from DSD is already on this committee. It is understood that Paul Fennerley is frustrated in his role.

Warren; Jeff Booth (ULI in America) has been asked to do a presentation. He has a lot of information on others' different practices.

Sonya: on 26th Geoffrey Booth is giving a breakfast presentation on how planning is done.

John Craig: forming a super-ministry has probably been proposed because government does not know what to do - and just want to be seen to be doing busy. It is always better to change what is being done and how it is being done first, with organizational structural change as last stage. A major source of problem is that Queensland's public administration is dysfunctional - because change has been driven by the simplistic ideas of interest groups and this has damaged base of practical knowledge and experience. Queensland's government machinery has reverted (due to politicisation in 1990s) to what it was like in 1960s when it was dominated by purely clerical 'administrators' before the process to develop professionalism and purposefulness in 1970s. Also there are clear signs of financial constraints. Queensland could only borrow about $7bn to increase tax rates by 10% - and this is not a lot when current capital spending is $5bn pa - and government previously claimed this was unsustainable without tax increases. Significant tax increases could impact on the economic structure.

Warren: There are examples which illustrate the existence of an administrative mess

Tom: The problem comes back to money. Planning that was done by many entities who looked at transport system was that they did not take their exercise seriously because there was obviously no money.

Glen: is this an election issue?

Consensus: no

John: this in itself is not election issue, but there is widespread disaffection because many interest groups finds that there is something they care about that is not right (eg hospitals, families, judicial system) - a situation like the 'unfocused anger' that Goss Government faced.

Bob: functions of Transport Department are unclear - but seem limited

Peter: projects that are managed by government involve procedures that are too complex - and unrealistic for business environment

Tom: the problem all comes back to money

Glen: it is a mistake to confuse coordination and effective management with getting money. There is a general problem in Queensland related to a lack of good management - though paper shufflers are a problem for all states. This is why regional authorities may be preferred to huge ministries.

[See comment on Management]

John: The problem is not only to improve administration. There seems also to be a financial constraint - which appears to require upgrading the tax base. This is an area in which PCA could also take an interest - because it represents property owners who also benefit directly (ie from higher property values) when community incomes are raised.

Glen: management is inadequate

Peter: PCA supports more effective government coordination - but particularly wants to see projects happening. The best approach is to focus on projects and get them up.

Dennis: some projects are now getting underway, often through BCC as result of discussions with PCA.

Warren: and there is a larger list of potential projects.

John: It is vital to simultaneously both upgrade management and do projects. If one tries to reform administration independent of practical programs (as was done in early 1990s) one can never tell what skills are really needed. But if one just pushes projects without upgrading management - the result will be a mess.

Tom: community attitude to public sector also needs to be more positive

Gavan Ranger: Committee does not have the competency to tell government how it should do things.

John: The problem in government is that over many years interest groups who did not have the competency to dictate how government should do things were allowed to do so.

Tom: someone from DSD should be invited to explain what they intend to do.

Warren: strategy is to concentrate on projects - whilst at the same time advocating better processes and structures. There is a need for someone to write a good account of these issues to communicate with public

[See comment on 'projects' as change strategy]

Sonya: publication might be arranged through Courier Mail

Glen: there is a lot of emphasis on planning of strategic issues - but there is a big gap in dealing with middle order questions - ie a general lack of coordinated local planning.

[See comment on middle order questions]

Next meeting - 9 December 2003

Warren Denny: Meeting will involve discussion with Geoff Booth who joined Urban Land Institute in Washington in January 2000, and has studied urban issues in US and Asia extensively. The goal is to identify what would be good for Brisbane.

Geoff Booth: The Allen Consulting report on infrastructure funding has been studied. It suggested (using NSW as the main example) that Australian governments are in good fiscal shape, and can leverage their balance sheets. In the US a large federal surplus has been transformed into a deficit - (and Iraq reconstruction funding has been debt funded). There have also been large tax cuts. Many states are heavily indebted - and fiscal imbalances are entrenched. A Courier Mail article of 1/12/03 showed Australia good fiscal position as due to tolerance of high marginal tax rates. Australians also do not mind bureaucratic intervention. There is now a need for more infrastructure investment, and for governments to fund this. However natural population increase will not justify this spending. There is concern about Queensland's 80,000 annual population growth - but California's is 500,000 pa; and the population of Asian cities (now $1.4bn) will increase to 2.7bn. Queensland's problem is insignificant. The problem is that most resources are devoted to regulation rather than planning. Having been involved in minister's task force which proposed Integrated Planning Act (IPA), it is clear that it has increased regulation and process and lost focus on the 'product'. As others have suggested, it is about 'pretending to plan'. US experience was that massive post-WWII investment in interstate highways created an overcapacity, which opened previously inaccessible real estate. Shops moved to the road junctions, and people / business followed. US cities are thus much more dispersed, and cities have emptied. Form and structure of Australian cities will change due to rural-urban shift and migration.

[see comments on Failure of Land Use Planning]

Mark Clements: Though US governments are in debt, they do not seem to have embraced PPPs.

Geoff: US has made extensive use of 'real' PPPs - which involve leveraging private funds with public funding (eg with not-for-profit housing). This is quite unlike bureaucratic model in Australia which has simply sought to find way to get private sector to fund infrastructure which will eventually be turned over to government. US public agencies are 'starved' so they can do nothing but leverage private resources - not attempt to control the whole situation as in Australia.

Comment on 'Real' PPPs

PPPs as envisaged in Australia have been basically seen as means for solving public sector problems - and are a dubious means for doing so (see also About Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure).

However it is understood that in US they are more likely to be seen as means for solving private sector problems. There is also a difference in who drives the initiative - related to the difference between the US 'business' culture, and Australia's 'bureaucratic' culture.

A case for 'real' PPPs (in relation to economic initiatives which would boost the effectiveness of industry clusters) is made in Defects in Economic Tactics, Strategy and Outcomes.

Various examples of 'real' PPPs were tried in economic domain in Queensland in late 1980s (eg for Cape York Spaceport concept, and Brisbane World Trade Centre). Both were undertaken to stimulate scope for opportunity development by private sector - and were initially successful and subsequently swamped by political / bureaucratic expectations about controlling outcomes because government had invested seed money (and this dominance made the projects commercially problematical).

However the risks of corruption / political distortions with PPP arrangements can't be ignored - noting:

authoritarian character of traditional corporate states - in which private enterprises are viewed as extensions of the state. This model has at times been associated with fascism;

capture of partnership arrangements contrary to public interest (eg US military / industrial complex; and Japanese 'construction state')

Tom Richman: 85% of US infrastructure is funded by municipal bonds

Geoff: Australia would need to establish tax concessions to make municipal bonds viable. Commonwealth government is proposing a 'new federalism' package - but there have been many previous claims about this. Australia is well placed fiscally to leverage growth - if it wants to invest for growth. But there is no commitment to growth. 100,000 migration is seen as enough. There would need to be more people to support advanced infrastructure. Australia is the same size as USA and has only 20m people - where there are 26m in Tokyo.

Ross Landsberg: There is some difference in soil and water resources

Comments on Australia's Population

Australia's feasible population is a difficult question. For example:

A large land area does not necessarily imply that a large population can be supported (eg consider Central Asia, Antarctica).

Australia currently feeds 30m people (20m domestically and 10m by exports). And even at this level there is increasing concern about the sustainability of agricultural production due to environmental fragility. Estimates of restoration costs in damaged regions are very significant - and may often not be economically viable.

There are also plausible (but unproven) suggestions that groundwater (including the Great Artesian Basin) on which much Australian (and global) primary industry depends have be a depleting, rather than a renewable, resource [1]

Undoubtedly: better management can be applied; some money can be spent on restoration; more intensive forms of agriculture developed in favourable regions; and food can be imported from more fertile countries. But it is also clear that population growth potential is much limited relative to regions elsewhere with better soil and water prospects. Accounts of the general loss of Australia's top-soil by wind-erosion during the last ice-age appear to have some credibility [1]

The Australian continent has been here 'forever' in human terms and visited periodically from civilized Asia for thousands of years - but the fact is that for tens of thousands of years none saw it as hospitable.

Tom: High density reduces livability - a feature which is manifest in California which currently has population outflow. There has been too little re-investment

Geoff: Brisbane is now denser than it was and more livable - despite the lack of effective planning. Ex Lord Mayor (Soorley) was visionary - and invested in livability (eg in bus-ways, bye-passes)

Tom: US interstate highways were built by Defense Department in response to Soviet threat - which has no Australian parallel.

Geoff: Major characteristic of Americans is that they are insecure - and constantly on edge. Australians by contrast are too comfortable - and do not worry about the world.

Glen Holdsworth: In Australia there is a strong competition between the states for growth - but this does not apply to federal level. Brisbane too often tries to copy examples from southern states - even though the status of Brisbane's CBD is much different, and the viability of the CBD could be lost. Can Brisbane have a strong CBD?

Geoff: Can create own destiny. There is no planning at state level - because Brisbane City Council is a strong political entity. Also planning in Queensland is never based on research.

[See comments on Management Gaps in Queensland]

John Craig: The lack of reliable knowledge research base for policy in Queensland applies to everything. In the 1980s when involved in economic policy issues, it was found that general community ideas generally seemed to be 15 years behind what was in leading world literature. Revealing this put pressure on Premier's Department to set up first-ever policy function. The problem is that Queensland has relied on external investors to take most initiatives - and lacks the institutions to develop / research policy (as compared with just copying trendy ideas).

Geoff: people do not value research. SEQ 2001 was prepared with lots of policy proposals - which were put forward with no back-up research. And the community tolerates inept government.

Warren: there are now major moves on the policy front. There is a need for a Regional Authority which deals with planning and infrastructure.

[See comments on Regional Authority]

Geoff: There is a lot of investment in rail - but no service frequency to build patronage.

Ross: Rail is disadvantaged by the fact that CBD is 10 blocks from the nearest railway station.

Geoff: There is infrastructure which is under-used. Densification is a key issue. Kevin Yearbury [ex DG of Local Government and Planning] used to claim that Brisbane was the Los Angeles of Australia. But it is nothing like it. There is nothing here to compare with real gridlock.

Tom: Concentrating population in cities leads to problems.

Geoff: Concentration is not a problem - if there is adequate infrastructure. Brisbane's problem is that it has a lot of regulation and no planning.

Glen: Integrated Planning Act is a noose around people's necks.

Geoff: Many provisions exist which have not been enacted. Arrangements which would have checked to ensure that system was effective were held back.

Glen: Why is development facilitated in US?

Geoff: Americans are insecure - and do not tolerate government 'carrying-on' as it does here.

Tom: This is not universal. In some US states, there are strong tax and planning regimes.

Geoff: Lack of US military spending is a significant difference in Australian environment.

John Craig: There is a fundamental difference between Australia and US in attitude to who is responsible. US was founded with a strong business tradition - and community leaders saw that they were responsible for driving initiatives. Australia was founded out of penal colony, had no strong business class and has typically relied on authorities to take initiatives.

Geoff: There is a need for better planning to solve the problem - and reduced regulation. Real estate is not a 'certain' affair - and there needs to be access to people who can make decisions.

Reducing regulation

Queensland went through an elaborate process seeking to cut red tape in the 1980s - and the lessons of this (unsuccessful) experience should be studied. In particular, it might be recognized that:

much regulation arises from interest groups with a view to restricting competition. If the red-tape reduction task force comprises those most affected by regulation they can use the opportunity to tighten the situation up;

regulation also arises from attempting to use the political process as a means for producing desired outcomes. To reduce regulation it is necessary not only to examine existing regulation, but to alter the process whereby it is generated (ie to find alternative means to achieve social and environmental goals);

regulation attempts to impose simple prescriptions on what is an infinitely complex and constantly changing reality. It can never succeed in matching this complexity - but becomes very complex in attempting to do so. Deliberate over-simplification of regulation and reliance on: increased public awareness of the issues; common sense; morality; and common law judgments to compensate may be the best option.

Tom: There can also be a risk of corruption - and this risk seems to be rising as system is ineffective.

Geoff: The logic of the IPA was to get everyone operating the same way. The Urban Renewal Taskforce is an example of a 'real' PPP.

Glen: This Taskforce has been successful because it had access to Lord Mayor.

Tom: There is a need for federal support for urban renewal - equivalent to a new Better Cities program.

Geoff: Federal government is likely to come forward with a pot of money for regional projects - a scheme equivalent to RED.

Comments on Federal urban programs

Programs such as Better Cities and RED are of marginal significance. To solve the problem it is more important to have effective mainstream mechanisms for dealing with land use and infrastructure - rather than means for coping with the fact that they aren't effective.

John Craig: It is hard to get access to anyone who will make decisions, because the politicisation of administration means that people do not have the knowledge and experience to feel confident about doing so.

Tom: Mark Latham has promised to de-politicize Commonwealth public service

Comments on why politicisation is hard to avoid

It is anything but easy for the political system to overcome the problem of politicisation, because the problem is that political leaders (and their advisers) select the people who they believe are best qualified - but they do not have enough knowledge or experience to get it right.

The Public Service was politicized and dramatically de-skilled by the Goss Government (quite unintentionally) despite the use of elaborate procedures to promote appointment on 'merit'. This arose because political advisers lacked the ability to tell who should be on selection panels. There is a major gap between public perceptions of policy issues and the detailed technical content and experience of what works or doesn't (see Deskilling was noticed last by advisers and some media). Legislation to prevent appeals against senior appointments further reinforced the bias towards politicisation.

It can also be noted that:

the present state government believes strongly in promoting a professional public service where appointments are made on merit - but has not been achieving this in practice (see Why failure due to politicisation surprises the political elites - 1999);

in 1999 the (then) CJC expressed great interest in the phenomenon of politicisation - after (a) investigating a stupid Treasury decision in relation to the Gocorp affair, and (b) finding that no one had done anything wrong because correct procedures were followed. The Effect of Public Service Politicisation suggested to them why it was hard for 'outsiders' (who lack deep knowledge and experience) to prevent such problems;

there is a need to combine both high level knowledge (ie theory) with experience (ie practice). The political system is easily 'suckered' by people who have one or the other of these capabilities at a high level - but not both (see A Real Strategic Capability in the Queensland Public Service)

Geoff: Urban Renewal taskforce was an example of how to achieve outcomes - and thus a model for reform. The Suburban Centers Improvement Program was another example. However there is a need to deal with the big picture as well. The Integrated Regional Transport Plan identified $16.5bn of unfunded projects. Gains to taxation from investments in such projects would be solid.

Glen: Where is Brisbane headed by comparison with world precedents?

Geoff: There is no US precedent. Queensland is a great place to live. Brisbane will sprawl - and make greater use of motor vehicles as transport system has not been expanded. There is a need to lay out transport structure first. Soorley set up some good management models.

Tom: Australia does not have to contend with social disparity that arises in US - eg where there are large no-go areas; some people are seen as expendable; and there is a limited safety net

Geoff: Australians still believe in 'fair go' and egalitarianism. In the US, the key issue is whether you personally win or lose.

Glen: There is a significant cultural difference between US and Australia which makes dealing with US quite difficult.

Geoff: Have to concentrate on what has worked here, and why (eg SCIPs leveraged private investment with a small amount of capital - and were not concerned with how public sector could get assets back). They involved a new model for administration. There is a critical need to find the right sort of people to work in such mechanisms. There is a need to avoid feather-bedding' of the process without achieving anything.

[See comments on Models]

Models which have worked need to be documented is relation to their features, and perceived success / failure criteria. This information then needs to be accessible to others.

Tom: Anglo-sphere countries are characterized by a loss of confidence in the public sector.

Speculation about loss of Confidence in Anglo-sphere Governments

An erosion of confidence in government in Anglo-sphere more than in other 'spheres' needs to be considered in relation to differences in the role of government.

In simplest terms the Anglo-sphere idea of government (under British Law traditions) is that it represents a 'winner take all' political majority, who are given resources to 'do things'. This contrasts with other major spheres where, for example:

in euro-sphere (under Roman Law traditions) government is more bureaucratic and less 'political' and does not so much 'do things' as represent the society /culture as a whole and develop a rational consensus amongst different interest groups to enhance their relationships; and

in East Asia (under neo-Confucian traditions) government is also basically apolitical and bureaucratic, and develops an arational consensus amongst social elites about what they are going to do in the national interest.

The loss of confidence in government in Anglo-sphere arose as a result of pressure for economic change in the 1980s where the real requirement was for change in the community so people could work together better (see comments on 'real' PPPs) - but all the political system was able to engineer was a (much less constructive) change in the public sector (ie towards smaller government).

As a result of these mistakes there has been a general Decay in Australian Public Administration

Geoff: Interchange of people between public and private sectors is very useful.

Tom: People in state government doing negotiations on PPPs are often hoping for jobs - which raises serious conflicts of interest.

Geoff: This is a risk it is worth taking. In the late 1970s, a development approval could be given in 6 weeks. Now it takes a year.

[See comments on The lessons of history]

Glen: There seems to be a move towards a social planning basis for urban design in US.

Geoff: This is being driven by aging baby-boomers who want to go back to what they are comfortable with (main street, walk-ability, porches). Since 911 people now want to re-engage much more. Also they saw wider range of urban experiences in Europe, and wanted to have something similar at home.

Sonya Jeffcoat: Strip centers have now come back, relative to shopping centres.

Glen: Shopping is now seen as an experience, not just a practical need.

Tom: US shopping centres had been virtually commercial gated-communities where certain people could be screened out. This is much less of an issue in Australia.

John Craig: Despite the better financial position of Australian governments, infrastructure funding is not straight forward. A discussion of this, and other aspects of Managing Growth in SE Queensland are on a web-site.

Geoff: Municipal bonds could be used, with repayment of bond from asset revenue.

Tom: The majority of Queensland's capital spending is in regions with limited populations

Geoff: Queensland Government will have to impose a levy for infrastructure - and should require that money be spent where it is raised.

Mark: Is there a recommended model for Brisbane City Council? Should it be bigger or smaller?

Geoff: London, New York and Brisbane all involved amalgamating many boards into a single authority. However there is a need for a regional planning and budgeting structure. Better infrastructure is vital for people to get around. Next outer-ring of local authorities are soon likely to experience 'spill-over' growth as happened to those around Brisbane when sewage scheme in Brisbane was developed (1950s and 1960s) and development costs were increased.

Tom: Is a super-ministry the answer?

Geoff: The emphasis has to be on 'product' and on the right people. If get the wrong people than no matter what is done, it won't work.

Glen: In NSW / Victoria, state takes the lead because councils are weak. Brisbane's size is an issue - given that it can not raise taxes. It is necessary for the state to take a stronger role. Municipal boundaries are less of a constraint if the state drives the process.

Next meeting: 4th February 2003

Warren Denny: Committee needs to make a fresh start

Tom Richman: There is state government announcement about Office of Urban Management and Infrastructure Coordination (OUMIC). Someone from government was to be at this meeting to explain it - but this will have to wait. There has been a favourable published response already from the Property Council.

Ross Landsberg: Information on this proposal is on a government web-site.

Sonya Jeffcoat: It is now too politically contentious to pursue with Ministers because of election

Tom: presumably proposal can be adjusted

John Craig: Suggestions are on web-site concerning How the Proposed Office of Urban Planning and Infrastructure Coordination could Work: and Why it Probably Won't. The main problem is that if it is to make authoritative 'decisions' it will lose access to the information required to do so, but if its role is primarily coordinative, then it won't be able to meet political expectations about unilaterally announcing definite plans. Some suggestions are made on web-site about reforms it could address. They basically revolve around overcoming effect of politicisation on public administration.

Tom: Proposal clearly duplicates or replaces role of Coordinator General

John: There is also a risk that attaching such functions to Treasury can result in them being diverted to means for raising revenue. Such things have happened before.

Warren: Government has announced proposals for transport spending - which contained nothing new. Also there is to be a Property Council Summit

Sonya: Allen Consulting report on Infrastructure funding is to be forwarded. A letter of response from Minister (Tom Barton) criticizes the methods used - claiming that they overstate the benefits of debt.

Tom: The main impact of public private partnerships (PPPs) is to get debts off government books.

Ross: However they have an effect on the books for much longer. Federal Labor wants an inquiry into PPPs

Evan Aldridge: Governments do not want to be in debt

John: There is a limit to what governments can borrow. A 10% increase in the taxes over which Queensland has discretion allows only something like a $7bn extra borrowing - and Queensland is currently investing $5bn pa (about $2bn pa more than had been previously regarded as sustainable). $7bn will not go far.

Ross: The fact that the political cycle (3 years) is out of sync with economic benefit cycle (about 5 years) is also significant. PPPs will only be used for marginal projects. However Gateway Bridge duplication will be a PPP. Given traffic projections this will have to be progressed very quickly.

Tom: 85% of PPPs have been done by Macquarie Infrastructure - which is soon likely to fail. Thus projects will be undertaken by people with little experience. Amro's operation could also fail.

Evan: Financing cost of an infrastructure project is only about 5%

Tom: But Macquarie Infrastructure gained over $1bn in fees over 5-6 years.

Evan: governments don't get around to doing these things

There was further debate about cost of projects in public and private sector

Peter Butler: This can't be resolved here. The best option is simply to lobby for more infrastructure spending irrespective of how it is done

Comment: This is the goal of the Infrastructure Association of Queensland. Collaboration seems likely to be useful

Ross: Government must become committed to spending.

Tom: Property Council spent a lot of money on report by Allen Consulting. What is to happen to it?

Warren: Logical thing to do is to ask government, if it disagrees with Allen Consulting, what it is going to do as an alternative. Pressure from everywhere will make the difference. This is really just a publicity issue. A regular Courier Mail article could be the way to go

Sonya: publishing such an article is very expensive

Warren: it is not envisaged that Property Council would pay

John: Increasing pressure is unlikely to be beneficial if one is standing on quicksand. The problem is that government does not have a lot of financing capacity. Neither does it have the needed skills or organizational arrangements. Weaknesses in administration that appeared in Families Department (and now appear to be emerging Queensland Health) are very widespread. There is a need for someone to do the hard work of figuring out where the money might be obtained (which comes down to taking economic strategy seriously) and how it might be appropriately organized. A proposal about how such answers might be found has been drafted [and was circulated].

Peter Hyland: Is Property Council intending to support OPMIC?

Warren: Property Council can generate topical articles to stimulate change

Evan: What about identifying projects?

Warren: Property Council intends to continue lobbying for particular projects.

Gavan Ranger: will the OPMIC the same as the Coordinator General?

Warren: that question needs to be addressed

Stuart Lummis: Is it intended to invite a minister to explain proposals? Various ministers are trying to keep projects out of PPP framework at present because those projects otherwise disappear into a vacuum for 18 months

Warren: A plan for future of group will be circulated through Sonya. An address will be arranged on Office of UMIP. Also some draft articles will be suggested

Tom: Allen Consulting report should also be circulated and made into an issue. Also there is potential for federal money, and this needs to be emphasized.

Tom: Minister (Tom Barton) has advised of state intent to borrow $4bn.

Next Meeting - unknown

Two documents were distributed:

Moving Brisbane - Newman Liberal team transport proposal
Report on Terms of Reference for Office of Urban Management and Infrastructure Coordination (OUMIC).

Sonya Jeffcoat: Property Council will put submission to Deputy Premier about proposal for OUMIC in two weeks. Office will be supported by Queensland Infrastructure Committee: Kevin Newbury; Ted Campbell; Ian Schmidt; Alan Teash; Stan Wyoych. Michael Kerry (ex BCC) will head office.

X: OUMIC seems to be concerned with urban planning - not with Urban Management. Concern for infrastructure coordination seems to have disappeared. It gives weight to SEQ 2021.

Tom Richman: it's role seems largely advisory

Y: OUMIC will deal with land supply strategy - requiring more land to be opened.

Warren Denny: this will lead to further urban sprawl.

Y: Redland will be told that its urban consolidation option is not acceptable.

Comment: There is significant potential for corrupt practices to emerge - given (a) the value of releasing land for urban development against LGA wishes and (b) the history of some individuals involved.

Sonya: will try to arrange briefing from Michael Kerry.

Tom: Next Kings Counsel has articles on the subject. Does OUMIC proposal mention Coordinator General?

Y: Proposal mentions regulatory issues and need for regulatory review. Statutory recognition is to be given to Regional Coordination Committee.

Sonya: OUMIC proposal also goes to Planning / Residential Development Committees.

Warren: Regional plan will have statutory status - and can over-ride local authorities. This gives power back to state - which needs to be reflected in legislation.

Z: still have state government that won't pay for anything

Warren: Allen report says that government has the ability to take on debt. If they spend money on infrastructure this is good for PPPs and projects. Need to create mechanisms whereby projects can be done - and override local objections to projects. Shaun was at previous meeting - and they are frustrated on infrastructure and projects - but the need for change is being recognized. Putting Mackenroth in charge aligns process with Treasury who has the money

Z: the need for this should be reinforced in in Property Council's submission.

JC: the process which depends on central decisions to over-ride objections won't work. It will lead to resistance to everything from everywhere (departments, LGAs).

Warren: this is contrary to what was said at seminar where the need for 'champions' was recognized to make projects happen

JC: there is certainly a need for champions. But the prosecutor can not also be the judge and jury - which is in effect what happens with totally centralized approach. The problem is getting anything out of Queensland's machinery of government is that it is not built on people but on formal processes / paper shuffling. [This suppresses internal leadership]

Tom: Disagree as would not have got Trade Coast or Urban Renewal Taskforce without leadership.

Sonya: Property Council has to provide feedback on Lord Mayor Newman's proposal - mainly related to TransApex idea of 5 tunnels. Premier has described proposal as fantasy as there is no money.

Tom: there would need to be 100% E-tags to prevent traffic holdups

A: questions are (a) can city afford it (b) how would tunnels tie into local networks - as long trips are infrequent (c) other things would be needed to implement this. It would fit well with congestion charges in CBD.

JC: TransApex illustrates the need for real urban management - as can't just deal with tunnel proposals in isolation.

A: TransApex is just a grab for a solution - which is not addressing the real problem eg lack of connectivity in existing road system.

Sonya: funding would be user pays and PPPs.

A: Hale Street / South Brisbane connection (Tunnel 4) should be first - as it is short and cheapest and delivers a lot of local value

Paul: were traffic estimates made in developing proposal?

Tom: some estimates by Connell Wagner

A: these were only 'strategic' figures which always are over-estimates

Z: am on project team for North South Distributor (Tunnel 2). There are some discussions on relationship with Newman proposals. But a lot of this is confidential.

B: how good are figures on tunnels?

Paul: if all tunnels were done by PPP then state would lose control of inner city roads - as control of networks would be part of PPP contract conditions

A: Melbourne City Link is a good example.

A: Tunnels would cost $3.2bn. If get 10% return (which covers only maintenance costs) then require 500,000 users / day with $2 fare. But only 2 roads in Brisbane carry > 50,000 vehicles per day. Financial viability would require forcing a lot of existing traffic into tunnels.

Warren: Property Council should argue for Tunnels 2 and 4 initially, and then advocate looking at others through a solid process.

Tom: Federal Opposition could affect situation, as they favour increased money for transport and a Better Cities program.

Sonya: are any of proposed tunnels clearly unnecessary?

X: there is no mention anywhere of light rail options. BDA did a reasonable light rail proposal at one stage.

JC: in any respectable large city there is an underground rail system which carries bulk of commuter load. What is proposed for tunnels will lock Brisbane into non-public transport focus and not lay the basis for what is needed in 20 years.

Paul: other cities worldwide have gone through a stepped process which involves: buses; light rail; metro. Brisbane can't justify the later at this stage.

JC: Property Council should be explicit about this progression.

A: there is no 'vision' about the future in Moving Brisbane statement - and it is needed.

Paul: there is no public transport vision at all

A: CBD will tend to expand south - over Brisbane river.

Tom: big residential developments should be concentrated on top of transport nodes in order to encourage public transport use.

B: OUMIC document project 3.2 m people in SE Queensland in 20 years. This requires massive increase in numbers of schools, hospitals etc. However there is already a lack of workers for building industry - as everyone has been pushed into university. All aspects of the region's growth need to be managed.

CPDS Comments April 2004

Office of Urban Management and Infrastructure Coordination (OUMIC)

While a copy of Terms of Reference has not been studied the impression given at meeting on 7 April 2004 is that the arrangements are being put in place by people who do not really understand the workings of government. In particular:

the proposal reflects the same type of thinking as generated Integrated Planning Act - a theoretical 'planning' process which was only 'process' and had no practical substance. It was insubstantial not because there was no commitment to spending money (as seems to have been assumed in linking OUMIC with Treasury), but because there was an utterly naive attempt to separate 'planning' (ie determining what organizations are going to do in future) from their mainstream management / budgeting processes;
proposal to use machinery to over-ride others' objections will be a disaster. It has all the subtly of US forces in their relationships with people of Iraq, and can be expected to:
- ensure that OUMIC loses credibility because others do not volunteer to provide it with vital information;
- create conflicts - including substantial political reactions from local authorities which could cripple the process;
- limit any non-centralized initiative so that (a) only projects with top level support can proceed; and (b) integration between different systems will tend to be poor;
- risk corruption - noting particularly (a) the value of releasing land for urban development against LGA wishes and (b) the history of some individuals involved.

Existing hold-ups on projects arise from constipated machinery of government. More political authority won't make a congealed mass flow more freely. Proof of poor quality of public administration machinery is that 'projects' (which in a well functioning organization) would be the responsibility of medium-low level management can't proceed except at top level.

The state government probably can't pay for anything much without changing tax rates and thus getting serious about economic strategy (see About Queensland's Budgets). Thus linking OUIMC with Treasury is an utter waste of time.

Queensland Property Council
CPDS Home Contact