Creating trust and value through good governance
People's willingness to support one another, quickly adapt to changing circumstances and follow the advice of experts, institutions and leaders has helped Australia to respond well to the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from other recent disasters.
Community trust was essential for this positive response. It will also dictate the effectiveness of new approaches to sustainability and resilience proposed in this chapter. Similarly, the success of the 2021 Plan's reforms, such as the introduction of time-of-use energy tariffs (see the Energy chapter) or road user pricing (see the Transport chapter) rely heavily on community trust.
Good governance builds strong relationships between people and institutions. It allows citizens to trust decision-makers to act on their behalf and with their best interests at heart.105
In infrastructure decision-making, good governance is strengthened by inclusive engagement practices, the use of community data for evidence-based decision-making, greater transparency, and coordinated long-term planning. To deliver on these objectives, governments at all levels need to change their cultures and build capacity.
Inclusive engagement grants equal opportunities to all members of the community. It involves providing easy-to-understand information and consulting with a wide range of people using processes that are easy to participate in. As well as building trust ininstitutions, it helps to create infrastructure that is fit for its purpose, has strong community approval and provides value for money.
To support effective decision-making, there needs to be robust and timely data about the needs, preferences and aspirations of communities for their local areas. This will support fact-driven decisions that ensure projects more effectively meet community needs. Stakeholders also need enough time to consider, comment on and meaningfully assess decisions.
If project proponents are clear and transparent about how and why they are developing infrastructure projects, communities will trust their decisions and accountabilities will be clearly established. It is essential to provide easy access to up-front, publicly available information on how infrastructure is being paid for and the costs and responsibilities for keeping it running. This can be achieved by publishing transparent information about the development of an infrastructure project, how it will address all stakeholders' strategic objectives, and releasing post completion reviews.
Long-term strategic planning also results in better community outcomes and builds community trust. By integrating land use and infrastructure decisions, governments can identify future infrastructure needs, set aside land for developing assets, and ensure regulation enables complementary uses for land in the surrounding areas. This will ensure infrastructure is developed at the least cost while minimising disruption to surrounding land use and local environments.
| 2.3 Recommendation Build community trust in infrastructure decision-making and institutions by ensuring infrastructure decisions are transparent, and reflect place-based community needs and preferences. Proposed sponsor: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: Infrastructure investment assurance and assessment agencies, state and territory treasuries and state and territory infrastructure bodies | ||||
| When this should impact: |
| Where this should impact: |
| |
|
| 2.3.1 Improve community sustainability and build trust by embedding the quadruple bottom line in government decision-making and assessment. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments Supported by: State and territory infrastructure bodies | |||
|
| Facilitate participatory community engagement and build trust by clarifying consistent engagement and reporting requirements, resourcing plans and measurement mechanisms. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Ensure consideration of the quadruple bottom line by adding engagement standards across assurance process stages. Proposed lead: Infrastructure investment assurance and assessment agencies Supported by: State and territory treasuries and state and territory infrastructure bodies | |||
|
| Increase transparency and maintain social licence by reporting on activities as part of Environmental, Social and Governance and Corporate Social Responsibly reporting processes using existing standards and measures. Proposed lead: State and territory treasuries | |||
|
| Improve the business case for community engagement by conducting research on the benefits of effective engagement. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Understand the effectiveness of engagement activities in meeting quadruple-bottom-line outcomes, including equity and accessibility, by producing public reports on the impact of community feedback on decisions. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| 2.3.2 Make more transparent and consistent decisions throughout infrastructure projects and services by responding to, and understanding, place-based community needs and preferences at state and territory, regional and local government levels. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Align decision-making with community needs and preferences by incorporating decision-makers, communities, infrastructure owners and operators into early strategic planning stages. Collect information by conducting audits, assessing place-based community data and publicly releasing findings. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments Supported by: Local governments and state and territory infrastructure bodies | |||
|
| Facilitate transparent place-based decisions by creating a framework to support the collection and public release of reliable, meaningful and comparable data across agencies and local governments. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments Supported by: Local governments and state and territory infrastructure bodies | |||
|
| 2.3.3 Build community trust by providing transparent, timely and clear information about infrastructure decision-making and post completion assessments. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments Supported by: Infrastructure investment assurance and assessment agencies, state and territory treasuries and state and territory infrastructure bodies | |||
|
| Increase transparency by committing to, developing and releasing post completion reviews. Establish delivery dates for staged reviews when the project begins. Include information on whether the economic case in the project's business case was realised, lessons learnt, and whether the project was on time and within budget. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Improve transparency and community trust and understanding by publicly releasing key information supporting infrastructure decisions, subject to privacy and data sovereignty considerations. Proposed lead: The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory infrastructure departments | |||
|
| Encourage national consistency and cross-sector coordination by developing a national report highlighting best practice, including case studies based on publicly released data. Proposed lead: Infrastructure Australia Supported by: State and territory infrastructure bodies, infrastructure investment assurance and assessment agencies, state and territory treasuries and industry representative groups | |||
|
| 2.3.4 Improve community certainty and confidence and meet long-term community needs by sequencing infrastructure delivery. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Ensure the acquisition and management of corridors in the long-term interests of users and taxpayers by identifying high-value corridors, conducting corridor feasibility studies and establishing Joint funding and governance arrangements. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Allow infrastructure co-Iocation, precinct development and agency cost-sharing by centrally managing land acquisition and management. Proposed lead: State and territory government property agencies | |||
|
| Meet infrastructure costs while maintaining community support by developing transparent, hypothecated levies on adjacent land and infrastructure service catchments, such as the Western Australian Government's Metropolitan Region Improvement Tax. Proposed lead: State and territory treasuries | |||
Measuring progress
|
| Lessons learned Percentage of nationally significant infrastructure projects that have undertaken a post completion review | ||
| Governance | Target: 100% | Timeframe: |
|
|
| Trust in infrastructure industry Percentage of Australians with trust in the infrastructure sector106 | ||
| Governance | Target: Top 5 nations | Timeframe: |
|
|
| Participation in regulation design Australia's ranking among OECD nations for stakeholder engagement when developing regulations107 | ||
| Governance | Target: Australia to top 5 OECD nations | Timeframe: |
|
