Season 3 Episode 6: Dr Jonathan Spear - on a decade at Infrastructure Victoria, the role of iBodies and the evolution of Infrastructure Victoria’s latest Infrastructure Strategy.

Speaker A: Foreign. We're very lucky today to be joined on Inside Infrastructure by Dr. Jonathan Spear, the chief executive of Infrastructure, Victoria. Jonathan, welcome.

Speaker B: Thank you very much. So pleased to be here. Big fan of the show.

Speaker A: And that is actually true as well.

Speaker B: It is.

Speaker A: I don't know if that's embarrassing for me or you or Janice, but, you know, good on you.

Speaker B: I listen to every episode, really. Yeah, yeah. You're up there with the Rest is History. Not quite there, but. Yeah.

Speaker A: Well, although you have a PhD in history, right? So that makes sense that you'd be keen on the Rest is History.

Speaker B: Uh, of course. But, uh, I'm also very, very keen on infrastructure, having spent a decade or so, uh, at iv. But, uh, yeah, I listen to a lot of podcasts. Restless History is great. Definitely recommend, uh, 99% invisible. If any of your listeners haven't listened to the series, should be promoting other podcasts. Well, if you're going to get all defensive now, Adrian, and their breakdown of the Power Broker is amazing. So anyone who work in infrastructure who hasn't listened to the 99% invisible have done a breakdown of Robert Kurow's the Power Broker. It's a banger. Check it out. Not quite as good as Inside Infrastructure, but it's pretty good.

Speaker A: Ah, well, we got right into the details. It might be worth first off explaining, um, who you are and what you do. So maybe you could. You could take us over a bit of a, uh, A little bit of the Rest is History of Tom and the Spear.

Speaker B: All right, well, uh, yeah, I'm the CEO, uh, of Infrastructure Victoria. We are the state's independent infrastructure advisor. We give advice both to the Victorian government of the day, but also all parties in the Parliament as well. And, uh, we are this year celebrating our 10th anniversary since we were created with the support of all parties in 2015. And it's been quite a journey. But prior to that, my Rest is history journey, I suppose, is I grew up in Geelong, just, uh, outside Geelong, um, and then went, uh, to uni. I studied law and arts at Monash Uni, and then started my career as a lawyer. I, uh, was a litigation lawyer with Slater and Gordon for about six years or so. Um, but in the course of that, I was always interested in history, going back to our Rest is history theme, uh, and done some work with the Australian Red Cross as a lawyer, some voluntary work. And I knew that they had a whole heap of archives that no one had touched. So I did my doctorate in history on the Australian Red Cross in the Second World War. So that was then, in a funny way led me to work in policy and strategy. And I, uh, worked for the Department of Justice for a number of years in largely, uh, policing and security policy and spent some time there also as the advisor of the Chief of Police, Christine Nixon, when she was Chief Commissioner in Victoria. Following that I had a number, um, of executive roles running strategy units in both Department of Justice, but also Premier's Department in Victoria. Uh, and that was fascinating, covering a whole lot of areas and a whole lot of disciplines that weren't just legal and legal policy, uh, but the law sometimes calls you back. And so I spent some time as general Counsel at Department of Premier and Cabinet and also running as an executive across all the policy areas and cabinet office in DPC in Victoria. That then led me to Infrastructure Victoria in a funny way because when the Andrews government was elected, one of their key initiatives was the establishment of Infrastructure Victoria. Uh, so I was lucky enough to be on the team that did the policy and the legislation and the setup of Infrastructure Victoria. And uh, it was so much fun that I've been there ever since, uh, initially as sort of deputy CEO and then the last three years as a CEO.

Speaker A: So that's, I'm good at math. So that was 2015. Um, and so I will come back to the personal history in a second. But that was. So Infrastructure Australia had been around for seven or eight years. Yeah, New South Wales had.

Speaker B: Yes, it had. Yes, that's right. And that was really helpful to us because we spent some time talking to the, um, Infrastructure Australia and New South Wales crew about what their experience had been and the legislative model and the problems that they were seeking to solve and how that worked. And we were able to take, take some of those examples and really apply that when we thought about what is the model and the purpose of.

Speaker C: Yeah, I was Victorian. Yeah, yeah. I was going to say, like, when you took those learnings, how did you feel it changed the remit for Infrastructure Victoria?

Speaker B: Yeah, it was really useful. So if you look under the hood of all the infrastructure bodies that are around Australia and New Zealand now, they all kind of sound the same. We all act really collegiately, but actually underneath the hood, each of us is quite different. And some things that really stand out are, uh, well, what is the purpose or that we're achieving or the problem we're trying to solve, but also what's the governance model? And in Victoria, we working with the government and also all parties of the Parliament identified that really the front end decision making around what are the Biggest um, problems or opportunities we need to be addressing with infrastructure. That's the thing to be looking at. What are the good projects and policies that can address those and giving advice then that is unambiguously independent was a really core part of the problem that we were trying to solve. So very front end just um, before

Speaker A: a business case, before an idea.

Speaker B: That's right, yeah. Um, sometimes these ideas kicking around for projects or policy changes and what we are able to do is bring really rigorous, multidisciplinary and unambiguously independent analysis that is rigorous and transparent and is out there for everybody to see. Now that's a little different to the problems and the purposes that some of our other advisory bodies. And I say that not as a criticism of them but because they're solving different problems. So what infrastructure New South Wales is solving for is quite different. They're, they're a lot, um, closer to government. They're much more engaged in project delivery. Uh, and of course Infrastructure Australia by another example, just been through a really enormous, um, governance and change and purpose clarification which is in a different model. You know, we've got a model that is the most independent model in Australia, um, because it's a model where uh, the minister who is the treasurer at the moment can't direct Infrastructure Victoria, uh, as to what we say or when we, when we publish things. Um, and we've got a board that is largely comprised of independent members who are um, very esteemed qualified people with minds of their own. And we've got some departmental secretaries on the board who provide a really important connection back to government.

Speaker A: So when you think about that, it's kind of lifting up from just Infrastructure Victoria and that broader constellation of eye bodies. Um, Queensland had one and it got subsumed into a department. Um, was. Is currently being turned into a. Transitioning, into a productivity commission type model. Um, some of them New South Wales, a big example to some extent a bit of a stray cat that's kind of, it's very effective and useful but it's been moved around in government. Do you think they're kind of like, uh, are they m. Are they misnamed as infrastructure organizations? Like some of them do the jobs? Uh, are they, are they the right collection of bodies because they are so different to think of them as a collegiate ibodies group, is that uh, is that a distortion of actually what.

Speaker C: Or are they delivering value in a specific jurisdiction with its own unique characteristics?

Speaker B: Yeah, I think it's more the latter. Uh, uh, I don't think they're misdemed. And I think the reality is, despite the differences between the ibodies, there's really good collaboration and information sharing. But what is critical to success in, well, just about any enterprise, but particularly with the ibodies, is being clear about what your purpose is, clear about your audience and what you're trying to achieve. And we're really clear that our purpose is to be the independent with that underlined but very collaborative infrastructure advisor that our audience, our uh, client is the Victorian government, current M government and future government, informing future governments, informing great policy across all parties of the parliament. And that clarity of purpose is something that we hold, it's in our legislation, but it's also really important in our culture and the way we operate. So you can be independent but aloof. We seek not to do that. So we seek to be independent but collegiate. You know, um, we engage with government departments and ministers, we engage with other parties of the Parliament in frank conversations. We engage with ordinary members of the Victorian community and peak stakeholder bodies. So that breadth of engagement is really important for us to both calibrate and identify what are those biggest issues, what are the good ideas out there, but also to drive change. Because the reality is you're not influential just on your own. You're influential by picking the right things to work on, doing great work on them, giving pragmatic advice, but also a coalition of advocacy that drives towards change and so you don't necessarily get the credit for it. And that's fine. But being clear about that purpose is very, very important for success.

Speaker A: If there's a. Sorry, Jas. If there's a spectrum of independence at one end and influence at the other.

Speaker C: Hm.

Speaker A: Notwithstanding that, the answer will be you want to be somewhere in the space where you can be both independent and influential. But if you had to make a choice between being independent and right or impure but impactful, where would you land?

Speaker B: Yeah, I don't. So I don't think it's necessarily that kind of dichotomy between the two. You, um, can be part of our influence is our independence because it allows us to work on the issues that really matter, work on them without a priest supposed or pre cooked outcome and um, bring multiple disciplines to it and then say it out loud. And not many people have the privilege to do that. You know, we're really conscious that that is an absolute privilege to be able to do that, particularly the public sector, but even the private sector, not many people get to operate that way. With it comes responsibility to um, seek to be Influential with a view to the long run, um, and be patient and consistent in your behaviour and advocacy over time. But also to understand that governments work in different cycles sometimes and to be appreciative of that and understand what they need while also not losing your eye to well, what are the real issues that we've got the evidence for and that people are telling us about that we really need to focus on? Our role is not to duplicate the role that uh, departments or ministerial advisors or other stakeholder bodies have who are often by necessity and by role having to be much more short term influential. Our view is it's really helpful to be giving advice on short term influential things and sometimes we're asked by um, our minister to give advice on short term things but it's a sort of a portfolio of work that we do where it's short term but often it's medium and long term things that take a while to mature but gee, when they do it can make a real difference and you've got to be able to look ahead to some of those things.

Speaker C: I mean I think about the eye bodies, uh, I think your question's a really important one because they've all wrestled with that impact independence kind of dichotomy. And you're right in some ways it's not a perfect dichotomy but you know, ia the real tension was about where they sat relative to investment decisions and investment decision making and the governance of that. And that's been the real controversy. At first they weren't seen as being close enough and so states didn't necessarily take the assurance function as seriously as they might have. That I think with insw like it, it started out closer to government and then moved in. Like, you know, it has a, it has a role that is really an advisor in the cabinet decisions and so

Speaker A: there's also the like the, the closeness to political government or the closeness to the broader bureaucracy and that, that they're sometimes not the same as.

Speaker C: Right, yeah. So like in a way I find that quite interesting. So with the infrastructure Victoria to, to, to be so independent, like where do you think are its points of influence in the policy process of Victorian government? Um, where has it really in your view made the greatest impact?

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I'll give you some examples in a minute. But our um, point of influence is very much front end. So it is diagnosis of what are the big challenges or opportunities we have in Victoria that are infrastructure related. Um, because um, actually how you frame a problem can be as influential as identifying the solutions to It. Because too often problems are framed too hourly. And so that's something that we, um, do a lot of. Um, and then our ability to influence comes through a number of channels. So, of course, it comes through publishing reports. Right. And that makes its way into the, um, ecosystem of, uh, government departments and agencies and advocacy bodies and so forth. And that's important. We also influence through the media. So the other unusual thing about infrastructure Victoria, is that, you know, one day I might be talking to ministers or we might brief cabinet about our work, but the other day, when we release our work, we do talk to the media and brief the media, and they cover our work. And that's really important, I think, to bring lots of stakeholders along with the work. And that's influential too. So every time I go on radio, I usually get asked, well, are they listening to you? Is the government listening to you? Right. Uh, and the answer is, yeah, they are. And it's not always obvious because people get pretty obsessed about mega projects, usually transport mega projects. But, um, we actually go back and look at, well, how many of the recommendations in our strategy get implemented by government over time. M. And over 80% of the recommendations we made in our, uh, 2021 strategy have either been completed or are currently underway. Now, we reckon that's a pretty good hit rate. Now, not every one of those is simply because Ivy said to do it. There's lots of reasons why governments do it, make decisions, but we've been influential in that, making other decisions. But some really specific examples you can we give about, when you look back over the 10 years of infrastructure Victoria, is the influence we've had on housing, uh, policy in Victoria, uh, in recent years. So this is one of those ones related to what, you know, you asked me about before, Adrian, where we picked the issue of housing choice. Why do people choose to live where they do? And we picked the issue of the shapes of cities and what's at stake with the shapes of cities. And we just did primary research on those two things, which there just wasn't anything really good out there. But they were, uh, big problems that drive infrastructure spending. And in the case of housing choice and in the case of city shape, a lot of people saying, well, it's unsustainable for it to keep on sprawling. But, you know, why do people keep on choosing to live in Greenfield suburbs? They just don't get it. And it's like, we think it might be a bit more complicated than people just don't get it. So we went and talked to thousands of them and what it allowed us to do is build a really good evidence base and analyze also a whole lot of um, other data sources to give good evidence about. Well, why are people choosing to live where they do? What are the implications of the shapes of our cities? And then we can give pragmatic recommendations to government about what to do about it. And what I would observe is that not only has government run with a lot of our policy recommendations, um, but the way we framed the choice about housing choices is something that has been very influential as well.

Speaker A: Um, you aren't you bringing that up because you won an award for it?

Speaker B: Well, which organization gave us that award, Adrian?

Speaker A: National Infrastructure Awards.

Speaker B: Uh, I think it was, I think

Speaker A: run by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

Speaker B: Yeah, they're quite a good organization. Prestigious, prestigious.

Speaker A: Um, I just want to um, briefly stay on the ibodies. One of the things observed, uh, about those that have been slightly longer so infrastructure New South Wales, um, ah, Infrastructure Australia is they've all had resets, um, reiterations of their model, responding to perceived frailties or different sets of problems. But um, at least legislatively Infrastructure Victoria hasn't had that. Do you think it has had kind of resets and evolutions. And if it, if it hasn't given that clearly the problems will be different now to exactly what they were 10 years ago. Do you think there is a point in the future where you could see a change to the model or some nips and tucks changes you'd like to do to make it more responsive to the contemporary challenges?

Speaker B: Yeah, it's a great question Adrian. Um, and I'm entirely biased in giving a response as the guy that did the policy and the legislation.

Speaker A: It is perfect.

Speaker B: Yeah, um, it's pretty good. Um, we have not identified any big issues with the legislation, um, or the model. We think it works. We think that the independence works. The governance composition is the right balance of the independence with the um, the mix of independent board members and secretaries, the range of roles that we have and the powers we have and the way in which we deliver the strategy and government responds. But also the minister can ask us for advice and in the meantime we can do research which is um, not at the sort of academic end. It's more sort of applied policy and investment end of research. That all works really well. I think the thing that we um, observed over time is that if you didn't have the appropriate culture and leadership and that could be quite problematic even with that model. So culture is. And leadership is incredibly important and that's something that has been led throughout by the board. So Jim Miller who's been the chair of IV UM has just come up to his 10 years. You know he um, working with Michelle Massam who was previous CEO, uh and me um and the other board members. We've been very clear throughout about the culture that we want to have and the culture of independence but of being constructive, not of being the Auditor General or the opposition, um, of being a forward looking organization that's seeking to work on the issues that really matter and bring really really high quality evidence and pragmatic recommendations. But also a culture that is curious. M um we've got a team of about 40 people, a multidisciplinary team. We consistently get very high UM scores in our sort of culture and people satisfaction scores but also what stakeholders perceive us to be. And so that goes to the culture we set about how we engage with um, all of our stakeholders, um, including the government. And so you know one change we probably do now compared when we first started was we're able to be much more open with government about what we're doing and about pre briefing government and other stakeholders before we release our work. So that there's no surprises. Early on in the organization there was a lot of skepticism on the part of both the opposition and the government about who we were and what we were going to do. Which is fair enough because we'd just been created and so when it was important that ivy be very clear that we were serious about the independence thing but we're also serious about the quality and the rigor and the pragmatism. And so over time we've been able to be um, less concerned I suppose about demonstrating that because I think everyone appreciates and understands that and we can be more open uh, with all stakeholders about what work we're doing while we're doing it.

Speaker C: And like on reflection certainly I've has a strong, what I've seen is, is a very strong policy function. Like it actually talks a lot about like so when you talk about cities you've talked a lot about like good urban development policy, compact cities and the sort of infrastructure you need around growth communities and like it plays a lot in that sort of upfront strategy and advisory function within government. Does it also have an investment assurance function like the other ibodies or does it tend to not play that sort of role?

Speaker B: Yeah, it doesn't play as much of that role. And again this is the, this is the point about what's the problem you're trying to solve. Yeah, in Victoria we've got A pretty strong investment assurance function in dtf.

Speaker C: Dtf, yeah.

Speaker B: And so while we could do that and some of our other I body, um, colleagues in other jurisdictions do do that, that wasn't regarded by the government or frankly by us as the highest value add of what we could bring. Whereas doing the upfront assessment of uh, projects and policies, doing strategic level modeling of different options and putting them forward and publishing them so people can see them in the knowledge that departments and agencies are uh, then always going to do more detailed business cases. But it's that front end that we've always thought was important. Uh, probably the one we've got most into the nitty gritty of. It is the first bit of advice we were asked for, uh, which was around ports planning, which was one of the other commitments that the government had when they came in 2014, was first to look at, well, when do we need a second container port in Victoria and where should it be located? Both of which were subject to quite a lot of controversy and uncertainty, uh, on the timing and the location. So what we were able to do is dive really deep into uh, those, the future, um, pathway of growth for the Port of Melbourne, but also compare in a lot of detail, uh, the Port of Hastings and the Bay West Port and come up with really, um, compelling answers that all stakeholders have accepted since. Which is, well, the Port of Melbourne is going to keep on growing in the next decades and we need to have a focus on that because that's good for the, for the state, for the Port of Melbourne to grow to its optimal capacity when it gets to that point. Bay west, just off Werribee, is hands down the optimal place to put a container port. And so we were very nitty gritty in that. And that's an example, I think, where we've been very influential in resolving, um, what could otherwise be quite a distracting, uh, debate.

Speaker A: Um, we kind of skipped over who you are as a person. I do note that you're wearing, um, socks with bicycles.

Speaker B: I am.

Speaker A: I, um, that may well be a hint as towards you, uh, cyclist.

Speaker B: I do spend quite a lot of time on a bike. Yes, I do.

Speaker C: Cyclist.

Speaker B: Or I'm a commuter cyclist. And. And uh, and if I'm not, if on those days when I'm not, um, riding to work, then I'm usually doing a few lefts around the boulevard in Kew and around there. Um, so, yeah, I'd love to spend time on a bike. The main reason is it gives me more time to listen to podcasts like this

Speaker A: and also your PhD. So you got the Red Cross archives. What did you find? What was your PhD actually in?

Speaker B: Yeah, so it was in the evolution of the Australian Red Cross over the course of the Second World War and its relationship with the Australian government and the Australian military. And what it found was that the Red Cross between the first and the Second World War was a pretty dormant organization. But over the Second World War, it really transformed into the professional, um, uh, ongoing institution that it is today. And so partly it's a study in how an organization changes and is governed over time.

Speaker A: Is it because of war or just like, did you attribute it to it

Speaker B: undoubtedly, because of the role it had in the war. And so that's. The other piece is, interestingly, the Australian Red Cross says it's an independent institution, uh, an independent of government. But the National Red Cross bodies across the world often struggle with actually being independent. And that was the case in the Second World War for the Australian Red Cross too, that they were very tightly, um, uh, embedded with the Australian military and the Australian government in. In doing, you know, really great humanitarian work, but undoubtedly contributing towards the. The Australian war effort. And it was very interesting to compare that with other, uh, organizations in, in other countries and also to look at the experience of the Australian Red Cross as they operated with the military in places like New guinea and the Middle east, um, where that embedding was really strong. Uh, they were almost paramilitary in that sense. And I don't mean in a critical way, but it's kind of interesting when you have organizations that say they're independent. Um, but, um, how that bears out in reality was an interesting thing to see. And, um, it's interesting now, working for an independent organization, uh, to look back at that example.

Speaker A: Um, we've known each other for a few years and you're quite. You're a gentle chap, you know, thoughtful. But our research suggests you're deep into martial arts.

Speaker B: Uh, yeah, I do. I. I practice aikido, which is Japanese. It's a Japanese martial arts.

Speaker A: Judo.

Speaker C: Y.

Speaker B: It's judo, jujitsu, kendo related. So you use weapons as well? Um, yeah, yeah. Uh, you're looking at m. Me in a way that you don't normally look at me, Adrian. At the moment. Yeah.

Speaker A: I might step back a bit. And judo's defensive. Is this more like offensive?

Speaker B: No, this is defensive. So. So what's interesting about iq, apart from that really interesting blend of styles and weapons and techniques, which is endlessly fascinating, is that the philosophy of it is very much one of dealing with, um, another Person's aggression in a way that neutralizes that aggression but doesn't end up hurting them too much either. Uh, although, you know, it's useful professionally, finding yourself face first on the floor often doesn't really help your day, but that's kind of the point. Um, so it's an endlessly fascinating, uh, art, uh, from the. From the perspective of physical thickness, but also technique, but also philosophy. So I love what I do about three times a week. And, um, you know, it's great to be learning new things as well, with an excellent sensei.

Speaker A: Um, and you have a broader interest in Japan as a country?

Speaker B: I do.

Speaker A: Is that. Which. What's the chicken?

Speaker B: Oh, no. I've loved Japan for. For a long time. I've always been interested in Japanese culture.

Speaker C: Um, have you learned any language?

Speaker B: A little bit of bad martial arts Japanese, in part because I did at university. I did kendo as well, which is the Japanese, uh, fencing, uh, with all the armor and the sticks and stuff. Adrian, you still look at me like this is a bit differently than normal.

Speaker C: Have you spent time in Japan?

Speaker B: Yeah, sorry, I've got Japan. I would go to Japan once a year if I was allowed to. Uh, I like going there, you know, sometimes.

Speaker A: Do you ever fancy living there?

Speaker B: Uh, no.

Speaker A: Because you've always lived in Melbourne, like that part of Victoria.

Speaker B: Melbourne. Melbourne and Geelong. Japan's a fantastic place to visit. Um, uh, I don't think I would want to live there. Um, I do like to go there for the infrastructure is amazing. One of the first times I really had a light bulb about the importance of infrastructure for all of us is about 10 years ago when I was in Tokyo. And you sort of look around and you go, wow, this place wouldn't really function unless it had the amazing infrastructure that does. Um, but the culture is fascinating. It's always fun being beaten up by, uh, Japanese grandmothers who are black belts in aikido. Uh, the food's great. Um, it's a wonderful and endlessly fascinating place.

Speaker A: Suggested the whiskey as well is.

Speaker B: The whiskey has been sampled, um, purely for research purposes, but it's a controlled trial that we try to run, um, for replicable results over a long period.

Speaker C: It's quite an eclectic background to then be in infrastructure policy. Um, and it sounds as though you sort of followed a sort of strategy, policy, reform route into infrastructure. And that's where government was going in terms of trying to do some of the forward thinking around its big infrastructure plays. Um, do you see yourself staying infrastructure? Is that now your legacy, passion, professionally or is it more government as a whole?

Speaker B: Your diagnosis is correct, Janice, in that, uh, my passion from very early on has been in policy and strategy. Uh, and I spent the first half of my career doing that in a sort of legal and social policy sense. What struck me about really moving into infrastructure is the transferability of some of those skills and disciplines and ways of thinking. Um, and infrastructure is endlessly fascinating. One of the cunning things that we did in the delivery of the infrastructure Victoria act is not defined infrastructure. And that has meant that we've been able to be flexible about what issues we take on. And it's meant that we've been able to take on things like housing and it's into play with infrastructure or sustainability or energy transition. Things like that mean that the breadth of what we cover is endlessly fascinating and the multidisciplinary nature of what we are to bring. So I definitely bring a policy, uh, and strategy background, but also a legal and historical discipline background. When you look at my team, um, I certainly got a couple of other history PhDs who are, who I find, uh, bring amazing value to the work that we do. Their ability to sympathise work and information and evidence and write is fantastic. But we've got some really great economists, some excellent land use planners, really good engineers, social policy people, fantastic comms team, fantastic corporate team, which helps us with that really strong culture. So one of the things I love is bringing that diversity of backgrounds and experiences that people have got to the diversity of the issues that infrastructure can bring us. And one of the toughest and most important choices we make is, well, what are we going to work on? Um, sometimes we're gifted with a request for advice from the treasurer, uh, which is great. Um, and as often we end up working on things we might not have expected to. But also the breadth of what infrastructure touches means that we have to be very disciplined about being sure that it is a question that is amenable to value being added by us as an, as a small independent agency that is not duplicating work that, that others have done. And you know, we take a lot of soundings from our board or other stakeholders on that.

Speaker A: M. Um, so brings us to the, I guess the forward work agenda you've got. The draft 30 year strategy is, is out for consultation. We're recording this before the final comes out in a few weeks time, but we will be releasing it after the final comes out. So um, you can of course therefore be entirely free with telling us what

Speaker B: the, oh, Adrian's looking at. Spoilers. Here we go.

Speaker A: Yeah, we won't leak them. I prom. Um, well first you tell us this would be third evolution of the strategy.

Speaker B: Yes, just talk through the history of

Speaker A: the Strat, where we are now.

Speaker B: Yeah, so yeah, we've done uh, the initial strategy was in 2016. That was a pretty fast and furious experience because we did it in about a year just as we established the organization as well. And first time anyone had done a tailwide infrastructure strategy. Um, and that had um. I think it's about 196 recommendations from memory, covering lots of things.

Speaker A: Manageable number, isn't it? 196.

Speaker B: And then in 2021 we updated it and that was interesting to do and it was sort of through um, Covid amongst other things. And that was 96 recommendations. And then this time uh, we're updating it and we're going to have 45 recommendations and then some future options. So one of the things for those of you as numerous as Adrian is you might notice that their numbers getting smaller and that's deliberate. So we have found from experience and feedback that having a lesser number of recommendations that are very tightly focused on well defined and evidence problems or opportunities with very clear actions that government should take and things that the government should take, say over the next five years is really helpful as opposed to when you tell a government do a thing in 15 years time, they're quite inclined to say yeah, no worries, see you then.

Speaker A: Yeah, nebulous. My wife sometimes says to me, oh it did like jokingly just do better. Which is like that's not uh, it's hard to respond to that. And there are a lot of recommendations in these types of reports, some of which I've been responsible for authoring, are little more than to just do better. And I think if I my reading of your work uh, over time and other similar organizations, they're much more implementable recommendations now than they were back when the problems were more immature. Uh, as we've got better, you have to have more complex or more sophisticated solutions to more mature problems.

Speaker B: That's right. And also I think there's a real opportunity to avoid just saying the obvious or to avoid telling um, government to do stuff that is business as usual. And real strategy is not just about what you say to do, it's about the things you don't deal with. You've got to be focused, you've got to decide what are the issues that really matter and evidence them, describe them well, work through your options about how you're going to address those and then give good implementable options. And with government you want to give um, a bit of room about how they're implemented, but not so much room that it's unclear what on earth you

Speaker C: mean and whether you're on track or not as well. Yeah, I mean I think with the draft it starts with certainly I haven't read the final, but the draft sort of starts with the, you know, these two really stark targets of like 800,000 homes by 2034, 95% renewables by 2035. So you've, you know, you're going to. Victoria will have a very busy decade getting to those two targets. Um, do you think coming out of the strategy there'll be some very notable switching of gears in particular areas?

Speaker B: Yeah, in both of those examples. Right. Their areas with um, housing, uh, choice and housing target and shape of city that the Victorian government has already started to make a move on. Um, so that's an example where we're not re prosecuting things in the strategy that the government's already said they're going to do. Um, what we're actually in many instances doing is giving advice about well, what else could you do? Yeah, because achieving those targets is going to be challenging but also the opportunities in transport investment that are going to need to be made not just to get good transport network outcomes but to get good housing and jobs outcomes as well. So that's why you, so that's why you see, you know, very um, specific recommendations about extension of electrification of.

Speaker C: Why would you roll that?

Speaker B: Outline other markets in Melbourne's west where there's already a catch up, but also further growth to be done. Similarly in Melbourne's north where we're describing um, opportunities to expand the tram network in the established suburbs of Melbourne and some precincts partly for transport purposes, but actually because they unlock thousands and thousands and thousands of homes. It's why we're identifying the opportunity to deliver bus rapid transit networks in Victoria which has not been done before. And every instance of that we uh, have done detailed modeling, uh, transport modelling but also economic modeling and housing modelling and BCRs. So that, that's out there for government and other stakeholders to see the benefit of that. We've done a similar thing this time around with cycling networks as well. So for the first time purely self interest. Well of course actually you know, a lot of them are not in places I actually the privilege of living somewhere where I've already got safe separated cycling lanes to get to work for one time expressway. Um, we have actually joked about that previously but didn't um, make the cut in terms of the prioritisation but being able to demonstrate um, through demand modeling and economic assessment and some hard nose costings as well that if we finish um, the strategic cycling network and expand it in Melbourne um, um, that gives a lot of people a lot of other transport choices but it's also really helpful for dealing with congestion and so forth as well. And so that's an example where we're helping to push pragmatically and build the evidence base for why all these investments are helpful and helpful for often for multiple reasons to hit multiple objectives and can we talk?

Speaker C: So that sounds like a really comprehensive pipeline of the next things government needs to think about and the challenges of that in the current environment where we're still in that post Covid fiscal repair sort of realm like and there's a point in the draft where it sort of says you know we don't expect that government can deliver all of these straight away but there are you know if it, the more it can do the greater your avoided costs or bigger problems downstream. Well how do you expect or how do you advise government in that uh, respect that it should prioritise the funding of these sorts of projects?

Speaker B: So the Victorian government has got in its budget papers a uh, forward spend uh, that it's intending to make on capital uh for infrastructure over coming years. And so it's going to go from bit over $20 billion in recent years to around $15 billion. And what we've looked at is well what is available publicly in terms of government's committed spending and made sure that the recommendations that we are making fit within that forward budget profile. So our ah, Recommendations in the 30 year strategy are affordable and they are really value adding as well. So they are very complementary to the big build that's been going on over the last decade in transport uh, but also social housing and health and the growing build in energy. And we've calculated that the benefits of delivering these recommendations would be over $168 billion. Delivering our uh, strategy would cost between 60 and 70 billion dollars over the next decade. That is eminently doable in terms of the budget profile of what Victorian government's got. And interestingly it's only a small number of the recommendations that are actually big capital spend. Those are things like a continued pipeline of investment in social housing, a couple of the big transport projects, um, continuing to deliver the schools and kindergartens that the government um, is going to need as the population grows and some hospital upgrades, a lot of the rest of our recommendations are actually policy change, new technology implementation, things like that that drive a lot of value out of the existing infrastructure we've got.

Speaker C: Does that mean that, that in front of Bitgov is a choice about let's, let's stay with our fiscal strategy and potentially replace, reprioritize some of the spend to these or actually we could potentially lift and actually do some productivity enhancement on top of the additional allocations because there's that 15 billion M. I assume it's mostly already allocated to Ecostein priority.

Speaker B: Uh, not all of it is. So in the, in the earlier years, you know, uh, government's got commitments that are in its budget papers, but in the, in the out years it doesn't. And that's part of what we're seeking to do with the strategy is give, you know, good advice with excellent evidence about what should be in the forward pipeline, but also some things like schools and kindergartens government's going to have to build anyway. What we're giving is giving advice about how to do them in a way that is the most cost effective but also delivers good outcomes for the community.

Speaker A: What's the biggest difference between the draft and the final?

Speaker B: Well, um, we've got a couple of big changes in a couple of additional recommendations. Every single one of our recommendations has had some change made to it because we've had um, thousands and thousands of individual bits of feedback and hundreds of submissions we've had from stakeholders for which, if any of you are listening here, um, thank you very much, we've really appreciated it. So every recommendation has changed a bit. We've got two new recommendations. So one is to um, improve the rail, um, connectivity in the northern part of Inner Melbourne up towards upfield, which is a long desired, um, um improvement. We've had a close look at that and had some good submissions on that as well. We'd already identified in the longer run an option for government to improve the northern corridor, but we're recommending in the shorter run a first um, priority should be that improvement in rail connectivity up to upfield. The other is in a completely different field, is in um, recycling and resource recovery infrastructure. We have had lots of feedback and have observed ourselves that the um, uncertainty about the future rate of the waste levy, um, serves as an inhibitor to private investment in lots of forms of recycling infrastructure, but especially wasted energy. And so we are recommending that the forward Sindulov's um, waste levy rates be published over the next five years or so because that gives the market much clearer signals about the relative competitiveness of landfill versus other ways of dealing with um, recycling and resource recovery. So they're two new recommendations. We've also um, got these future options in the strategy and this is a new addition to the way we're doing the strategy this time around where we are signaling things that we think the government needs to have on its radar. It's not stuff that they necessarily need to deliver in the next five years but they really should be planning for out into the next decade. Um and so um, some of those will be familiar. So there's some of the, the big sort of major projects everyone has on their um, minds. So you know, Melbourne Metro 2 or out of metropolitan ring road or another desalination plant, things like that. We're saying well government should continue to plan for those. We don't think that is a priority, um to do that in the next five years but keep planning for those. It's things like the whole suite of road user charging options that governments have got, got on the table. It's things like stamp duty reform, moving from residential stamp duty to a um, uh a land tax. Um, we're also as a new recommend, a new option I should say in the final version of a strategy pointing out the importance of planning for the future of our gas networks, particularly the residential uh, gas distribution networks. Um, uh, those are networks that depending upon the pace of electrification and other changes um could well become challenging for networks to continue to operate on a financially viable basis. And we think it's important that the government start to plan for that now in a way that is fair for industry but also fair for consumers. Particularly of course the, those consumers who are the most vulnerable, less well off consumers because they're the ones that risk being left behind.

Speaker C: Involve a lot of retrofitting of existing households.

Speaker B: Well there's already um, a change happening of course in terms of um, much more efficient often heat pump appliances for uh, hot water heating and space heating. Um, there's Victorian government policies heading in that direction and in any case many householders uh, and consumers are likely to ah, move that way anyway. Um, so what we don't know is the pace of that and of course gas has a really important role to play and consumers are going to make some choices though along with government policies in coming years. And what we're identifying is that of course gas is important for um, stability in the energy system and that many industrial uses that are going to continue to need gas but we know that many households are going to come off gas and the risk is that that happens in a disorderly way and it would be much better for it to happen in an orderly way.

Speaker A: Yeah. You get the shared costs of the network being shared across an ever declining base of customers and then that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy for a cost.

Speaker B: It's a well known problem. Um, we think that there's opportunity for governments, including the Victorian government to um, turn its mind to how would we deal with that scenario, uh, in a way that's fair for everyone.

Speaker A: One of the issue du jour at the moment is productivity.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: And a lot of the stuff we've spoken about in your work is about um, doing the right things. But the other side of productivity is doing things right.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Doing them efficiently. Is that an area you've opined on?

Speaker B: Sure is. Yeah, yeah, yes it is now. So we're not a uh, project, um, delivery agency. Um, we very. And it goes back to that earlier discussion about what our purpose is and our focus is. But we certainly focus on productivity, um, of infrastructure and the role that productivity of infrastructure has in the broader economy and many of the projects we refer to and reforms related to that. But we are also interested in how it should be done. And so we've got a few recommendations in the strategy that are directly relevant to that. So one is definitely around the greater deployment of digital technology in infrastructure to drive more productivity um, in design, construction and operation of infrastructure. And our observation, um, having done some work with lots of stakeholders and um, some work with ARUP as well, we've published a report on this is, you know, there are existing digital technologies out there that we're just not using.

Speaker A: So why is the adoption rate like.

Speaker B: There's a range of reasons. So in the first instance from the perspective of government, um, often we don't even realize the opportunities and the cost savings that are there. So one of the things we've done in our work is just identify the often tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of cost savings that you can avoid by deploying some of these technologies. And there's a wide range of things that um, building information modeling is the classic one that many people will be aware of. Um, but there's also ways in which we can design infrastructure so that you don't have as many clashes and costs that happen during the course of it. Um, the other thing we point out in the strategy is the opportunity to deploy digital um, traffic management technology on our artillery roads and our highways, which gives us really great benefits. The BCRs on those are really good. Um, so it's things like that. It's also um, the issue of maintenance and asset management, um, a notoriously unsexy but important subject and we've done a bunch of work on this that really identifies that there's in Victoria at least an opportunity to improve the maturity of our asset management systems. That is you can't really know if you're maintaining the right things or spending the right amount of money unless you've got really good quality information about the state of your infrastructure and where it is and when and how it needs to be uh, maintained. So we've got a uh, um, recommendation to invest in the asset management systems that underpin the billions of dollars worth of um, infrastructure we've got. So we know we're spending the right money on the right things.

Speaker A: Um, you mentioned that it's the 10 year anniversary, so if you um, if you look forward to 10 years from now at your 20 year anniversary, I should note Infrastructure Partnerships Australia is 20 this year as well.

Speaker B: So happy birthday IPA.

Speaker A: Um, so when you're as old as we are today, what will you look back on in the preceding 10 years to say to determine whether or not they were a success in the same way? The first 10.

Speaker B: Yeah, some of it is probably keeping the fundamentals of why we're established in the first place and the institutional nature that I've been able to have. So 10 years ago we were an idea, um, in a ah, small dark office in one treasury place in Melbourne.

Speaker A: It does the dark have the right connotations?

Speaker B: There wasn't a lot of natural light. Right. Um, today uh, we are ah, an acknowledged institution that is independent, rigorous evidence based, gives good quality pragmatic advice and is open and transparent, can actually talk to government and be constructive with government, um, but also be open and transparent with lots of other stakeholders. And so I would really want that to continue. I would want to see um, us continuing to give advice to government on the issues that really matter, part of which is how to fix them, but part of which is the diagnosis of what are the problems because those always change. So if I look back 10 years, the energy transition wasn't such a big deal. Um, we've done a lot of work in recent years on adaptation of infrastructure to climate change work that is being used internationally and we're continuing to do more work on that. So I would anticipate that looking back then in 10 years time, I would hope that the work we've done and continue to do on um, adaptation of infrastructure is starting to pick up its implementation because that's an example of an issue that people are only really now starting to take seriously and grappling with. How do you do it without it being everything everywhere all at once?

Speaker C: Can I ask about that? I think it's a really important question because when you were describing better asset management, it's really sort of small amounts of expenditures that maintain the performance of a system. Um, but when, like recently you, you said, and I wrote this down because I thought it was really a powerful thing to say, which was Victoria's infrastructure is not built for more frequent and severe weather events. Like, very simple. All jurisdictions will basically be thinking the same thing. But it has huge implications for expenditure across the state, across existing networks, where actually you could spend a lot of money just to maintain the existing function of your network. You know what I mean? So, like, where there were fires and you lose a thousand homes, you're rebuilding those homes doesn't deliver you a new net house, new dwelling. So, so it's expending a lot of energy and a lot of resources to, to not get net improvements necessarily in your infrastructure. And, and how do you place that against all the other things that infrastructure has to do? That infrastructure in Victoria is advising government to invest in, um, where do you think they should be starting?

Speaker B: Yeah, that was the question we sought to, uh, answer in our work that's called Weathering the Storm that were released last year. And so, um, I encourage everyone who's interested in this to check it out on our website because it not only does it deal with this, it gives a methodology about how to do it. Yes, because to your point, Jonas, there's um, billions of dollars of infrastructure out there in every one of our jurisdictions and certainly across Victoria. And you can't sort of harden it up or adapt it all at once. And it's impractical to do so. Um, so where do you start? Right, and so that was what we did with this work. And so we developed a methodology where we looked across, using the, the climate and asset information that was available to look at. Well, what are the biggest risks? What are the places where there's going to be the greatest exposure and what are the interconnections also between different types of infrastructure? If a road goes down, what's the kick on effect to other forms of infrastructure and where is it most exposed? And so we're able to sort of take that big, if you like, this big funnel of risks to infrastructure and narrow it down to the highest risk ones. And what we found in a Victorian context was that, um, Roads are one of our most exposed and critical forms of infrastructure. And the two climate change related risks there are flooding, uh, um, and also exposure to bushfires. Although in the case of bushfires, not so much the fire that's the problem as the erosion that comes afterwards. The other one was high wind events that affect electricity distribution networks. So those local networks. So having kind of narrowed those down, what we did is develop a cost benefit analysis methodology and a new methodology for prioritizing, um, options to then mitigate those risks. And so we found that actually in many instances it's relatively inexpensive stuff like maintaining your drains, uh, preemptively maintaining, um, or, um, hardening up some of your, uh, electricity distribution networks. They were more effective than, you know, big builder bridges. So I never get flooded. Um, instead you can do, um, the asphalt services that are resilient to, uh, flooding, um, so things like that. Now, what we're currently doing is a bit more work. We're trying to dig deeper and identify the highest priority individual assets in Victoria to sort of further inform that prioritisation on the part of the Victorian government. But this is work that's got attention all around the world because just about every jurisdiction, um, is facing this issue. Um, so, you know, to Adrian's question earlier, I reckon you look 10 years ahead. That's going to be a big issue for us to all deal with.

Speaker A: Now we're coming to the end of the time available and as an avid listener, you know, we ask everybody a certain set of questions at the end. Um, so, um, Dr. John L. Spear, Cats or dogs?

Speaker B: Cats. You prefer cats. Cats. Shout out to Suki. World's best rag doll.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: Is it, Is it a dislike of dogs or is it.

Speaker B: No, I don't actually. The other. The other socks I could have worn over into my dachshund socks. I quite like a dash. And I mean, they're fish.

Speaker A: Dog.

Speaker B: Yeah. So. And, and it's just a family tradition. Um, but, um, um, my colleagues at Ivy will know that I want to perhaps cause some unnecessary and unproductive confrontation within the office about cats versus dogs. I'm definitely a cat guy. And actually it's my team as well.

Speaker A: Sorry, have you. Despite, uh, your calls for diversity of discipline, have you deliberately hired a team that's pro cats? No.

Speaker B: No, I'm in my football tank.

Speaker A: Oh, okay.

Speaker B: Oh, the cats.

Speaker A: I've got you. Right.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: Ah.

Speaker B: Although now you mention it, I reckon we could probably have a sort of early screening for cats versus dogs in our recruitment.

Speaker A: Heard you a lot about people I'm a cat person.

Speaker B: Yeah, well, I knew there's a reason I liked you. Look at you, Janice. Cats or dogs?

Speaker C: I've always been a cat person.

Speaker B: Oh, see?

Speaker C: Recently converted.

Speaker B: Um.

Speaker A: Oh, you got a dog, didn't you?

Speaker C: We have a poodle now.

Speaker B: Uh, well, we all have our lapses

Speaker A: even really very happy.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, it's um. Yeah, I think it's sort of quasi dog.

Speaker C: I think you could

Speaker A: actually. The real final question we ask people is, uh, what's your favorite sort of infrastructure and why?

Speaker B: Well, you'll be pleased to know that in those thousands of hours that I spent riding around the place, I've given this a lot of thought. Um, and so in exchange for listening to every episode of Inside Infrastructure, what I'm giving myself is a double answer. So I'm going to give you a professional answer and a personal answer. So professionally, um, I think my favorite form of infrastructure is social housing. And that is because without a roof over your head, your life's a mess. Or perhaps, you know, in a more professional sort of way of saying that is, you know, housing is a fundamental human right. And we know that the kick on effects of people not having good housing are profound, both for them, but also for the rest of us in society and actually the demand that it has on a whole lot of other, our other infrastructure and services as well. And that's why recommendation number one in Victoria's infrastructure strategy is to continue an investment in a program of social housing over the next 15 years or so in Victoria. And it's a, and that's a challenge of course, that other jurisdictions have as well across Australia.

Speaker A: I just, I think it's just are, uh, crucially important to characterize social housing as infrastructure. I think it's infrastructure partners in Australia, but probably just over a decade ago started talking about social housing as an infrastructure plaque, but it's still not, I don't think it's sufficiently thought of as infrastructure and quite distinct from broader housing. Social housing is infrastructure in a way that perhaps broader housing is not. Yeah, not the same, but yeah, I like that one.

Speaker B: Yeah. Uh, and we've always regarded from the very start social housing to be a form of infrastructure. And we don't mean affordable housing, we don't mean housing affordability or other. We mean, you know, social housing for the most disadvantaged members of our community is a key form of infrastructure. From a personal perspective, um, I love a safe, separated cycling lane. I really do. You know, I benefit from one multiple times a day. The socks tell the story. Um, but uh, you know, as someone who's been knocked off my bike a few times by car doors and things, um, uh, from a personal perspective, I am the beneficiary of safe separated cycling lanes every day. And I think more people should be and more people who aren't like me actually, you know, um, people who are of all ages and all abilities because there's an enormous untapped opportunity for more people to be cyclist as part of their everyday getting around.

Speaker A: Uh, I know that you're also a fan of uh, user charging. How would you feel about um, their modest toll on cycleways?

Speaker B: Worst policy ever.

Speaker A: Go on.

Speaker B: That's all there is to say.

Speaker C: What do you think about that?

Speaker A: I haven't really thought about it, but

Speaker B: I remember once we had um, a

Speaker A: uh, podcast guest, but also someone that did our annual duration, um, called Avery Bang who runs a, at the time ran a charity called Bridges to Prosperity that do um, bridges in principally sub Saharan Africa, foot bridges over uh, um, otherwise unpassable terrain. That dramatically high BCRs on these things. People that would otherwise have to face um, dangerous environments. But they, they did um, they had contemplated the idea of what they called micro tolling on footbridges to pay for more infrastructure. So very small tolls through digital payments that would then pay for. It was just an interesting concept to me. Is that just the. Actually you could do stuff with very small tolls or small user pay systems in that micro sense to expand networks. I want me.

Speaker B: Yeah. So all jokes as all jokes aside, so we've done a lot uh, of work at IV on transport network pricing on the way, the benefits of pricing, not just road pricing but differential pricing at uh, different times on public transport and different modes. Um, and listeners can check out the good move and fair move reports that we put out there. Um, all jokes aside in relation to cycling kind of to Your point, the BCRs we get from people cycling are really quite high. And so the externalities that we're getting, the beneficial externalities we're getting from more people cycling in terms of um, health benefits of reduced congestion and reduced crowding on uh, public transport and deferred or better use of the capital for those um, very expensive road and public transport assets mean that actually wouldn't make no sense at all to charge people to use um, cycling lanes for example, that go.

Speaker A: It goes to an interesting point though about um, like um, economic benefit versus fiscal capacity to pay for stuff because um, I can't pay for a coffee because you're healthy. They're two different things. And yet we do sometimes conflate those issues when we talk about people or the benefits of some of those. But yes, we can put stuff in a. We can convert it into a dollar finger. So we compare things, but it's not.

Speaker B: Yeah, cash is. Cash is not an economic benefit necessarily. But one of the things we observe with a lot of these smart policy and technology interventions, like, um, the various forms of transport network pricing, and also, um, you know, smart road management technology and so forth, is that you end up deferring very big capital expenditures, which is real money. Yeah.

Speaker A: Well, good note to finish on. We've covered a whole bunch of ground, and we finished on social housing and cycleways. Uh, Dr. Johnson, be a CEO, uh, of infrastructure. Victoria, thank you.

Speaker B: My pleasure. Thank you.

Speaker C: Thank you.