______
PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION
INQUIRY INTO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
MR P. HARRIS, Presiding Commissioner
DR W. MUNDY, Commissioner
MR P. LINDWALL, Associate Commissioner
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 14 APRIL 2014, AT 9.00 AM
Continued from 11/4/14 in Brisbane
Public 252
pu140413.doc
INDEX
Page
RICS OCEANIA:
ROGER HOGG 255-262
COLLIN JENNINGS 404-404
NICTA:
HUGH DURRAN-WHYTE
ROB FITZPATRICK
LIZ JAKUBOWSKI 263-273
AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION:
LINDSAY LE COMPTE 274-287
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS:
SEAN GREGORY
MARTIN LOCKE
ROSS ROLFE 288-299
INFRASTRUCTURE AUSTRALIA:
RORY BRENNAN
PAUL ROE
STEPHEN ALCHIN 300-313
JOHN GOLDBERG: 314-320
FINANCIAL ARCHITECTS ASIA:
IAN BELL
LEO ECONOMIDES 321-329
BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA:
JENNIFER WESTACOTT
MATT GARBUTT 330-345
HEAVY VEHICLE CHARGING AND INVESTMENT REFORM:
MICHAEL LAMBERT
MEENA NAIDU 346-358
CERTAIN PLANNING:
ROB SENIOR
JOHN HOPMAN 359-364
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY:
GERARD DE VALENCE 365-374
CONSULT AUSTRALIA:
MEGAN MOTTO
JONATHAN CARTLEDGE 375-380
PHILIP LAIRD: 381-386
BUILDINGSMART AUSTRALIA:
JOHN MITCHELL
WAYNE EASTLEY 387-396
JOHN MORANDINI: 397-403
ROGER WOODWARD: 405-407
14/4/14 Public 254
MR HARRIS: We might start. We have to get through a whole bunch of hearings today, I think the largest single number of presenters at the hearings ever in the Productivity Commission's history, so we have to go pretty much flat out until 6o'clock tonight, so let's get started.
I'm Peter Harris. I'm the Presiding Commissioner of this inquiry. We have Warren Mundy and Paul Lindwall as Assistant Commissioners. The purpose of this round of hearings is to facilitate public scrutiny of the Commission's work and to get comment and feedback on the draft report. Following this hearing today we will be finished our public hearing process.
Participants in this inquiry will automatically receive a copy of the final report once released by the government, but I should advise you that the government has up to 25 parliamentary sitting days to consider our report and so when you get your final copy could be some time after we actually finish. We are planning to finish around the end of May.
We like to conduct all hearings in a reasonably informal manner, but I remind participants a full transcript is being taken and for these reasons comments from the floor will not be taken today, but at the end of proceedings at 6 pm, for anyone who really wants to hang around to make comment, we will provide opportunities for anyone who wishes to make a brief presentation who is not on the list here today. Otherwise I would say to you we will take comments by email and so you can provide us with further advice after this hearing. The transcript will be made available to all participants. It will be available on the Commission's web site following the hearings and submissions are up on the web site, as I'm sure most of you know.
To comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth occupational health and safety legislation, you're advised that in the unlikely event of an emergency requiring the evacuation of this building, follow the green exit signs and the instructions of staff at this venue. I think that will probably do for the opening remarks. I believe we have the first presentation from RICS Oceania. Could you identify yourself please for the purpose of the record.
MR HOGG (RICS): Certainly. My name is Roger Hogg. I am building cost information service manager for RICS Oceania.
MR HARRIS: Okay. For those who don't know, it's the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors?
MR HOGG (RICS): It's the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It's the largest property membership organisation in the world. From probably later on this year, actually, we will have more overseas members than UK members. It was originally established in the UK; many, many surveyors in Australia and New Zealand, throughout Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries - a very large presence. The office in Sydney was established in I believe the year 2000 or thereabouts and has been growing and sustaining membership in Australia since that time.
Building cost information service is an adjunct service to that and, as was noted in the comments that are produced for the Commission, is currently under contract to DEEWR, or Department of Education as it is now, to produce a building cost information service for Australia as a follow-on from the BER report. The final report of the BER was some two or three years ago. The object of the exercise was originally to set out to capture the BER data, to have that in a permanent managed database and then also to look at projects going forward - business as usual, as it were - and to create facilities where projects could be captured, analysed, maintained, managed and sustained in a permanent environment.
That's just building projects. There are various schemas within that scenario and we believe that infrastructure could be a schema that could fit into that scenario very, very comfortably. One of the big advantages of having situations where you have building and engineering costs in the same place is that suddenly you see the whole of the construction market across Australia and we believe that that would be a very strong place to be.
MR HARRIS: Right. That was I think the primary question, for me anyway, that came out of your submission, so what was an education review arrangement, and therefore focusing very much on data that was captured in the course of one particular infrastructure exercise. Are you saying that I guess the register or the arrangement that you're putting together will capture this across the full range of infrastructure projects?
MR HOGG (RICS): At the moment the concentration is on building projects but in essence there is no difficulty of expanding and extending it to heavy engineering projects. It depends on your definition of infrastructure, of course, but currently we have New South Wales Health Infrastructure, for example, signed up to provide analyses. We provide a little bit of service to them, they provide information through their consultants who provide information in the structures that we require for maintenance of these projects within the database.
So the result is that - and this is ongoing level of education projects, level of health projects and I'm speaking to the independent education sector, for example, tomorrow in Melbourne and the intent is to get the public sector very much on board as well as the private sector too, so we have a nice rounded service which could then make comment - we make analysis and make comment on the functioning and the development of the markets, and the way the markets are moving. So it's not just a question of capturing projects themselves, but also analysing them in such a way as to understand how things are actually taking place within the market, how tendering is going, how projects relate to each other, how costs are moving and that's the background of it.
MR HARRIS: Has the thing reached a form where anybody has been able to use it as yet?
MR HOGG (RICS): Yes, it has. We have not launched it completely yet, but it is being made available to senior management in New South Wales Health Infrastructure. What's happening is really quite interesting. They've provided us with several projects thus far and there are more to come from them, ongoing projects. We haven't dealt back historically, although we will when they're comfortable that we have produced what they need us to produce. What we find interesting is that the projects themselves are coming from different consultants, so they're helping us with the analysis and we are rounding off some of the rough edges. What we finish up with is a situation where we have a database composed of projects which come from multiple consultants and the consultants are basically saying, "What do these other projects look like?"
So their interest in other's analyses or analyses of other's projects, that's a very positive sign for us because it seems to me that will assist everyone in benchmarking increased transparency and then reduce risk potentially at the other end of this process because people will know more about more, rather than simply the projects that they have in front of themselves in their own consultancy.
MR HARRIS: So that's the consultant's end who are - I guess are they working for both the provider of the project and the funder of the project? In other words, is this widely accessible to both sides of the transaction kind of institution arrangement?
MR HOGG (RICS): Yes, very much so. So a good example would be New South Wales Health Infrastructure. They can access the projects that consultants - those which are identified by them as to have access to the projects would be able to have access, but it will be driven by New South Wales Health Infrastructure as to who, other than their own consultant on that particular project, has access to other projects.
MR HARRIS: Yes, but as an example, could Western Australia Health get access to it?
MR HOGG (RICS): Well, that's a matter between really Western Australia Health and New South Wales Health Infrastructure. If they agree that is to be the case, then that's a tick-box exercise for us in terms of making that information available one to the other. There's no difficulty in doing that, it's a question of whether they choose to facilitate - to permit that to take place.
MR HARRIS: So you understand we're doing a national infrastructure project.
MR HOGG (RICS): Yes.
MR HARRIS: The entire thematic of the report is about removing barriers to exchange information. You mentioned at the start federal education was involved in this. So federal education was involved, by the sound of it, to say, "Let's vacuum up the data," rather than, "Let's develop this as a resource tool that's available to everybody"?
MR HOGG (RICS): Well, in principle I guess it's a question of vacuuming the data that's passed and that exists in the system. That's to be captured and is being captured, but it's also about moving forward and projects that are coming up, what we've termed business as usual, the essence being that as much is captured as is possible, but these are independent bodies that we're talking about so they have to come to the party as well or they have to choose to come to the party. We can't force them and nor can DEEWR. They can suggest - perhaps that's a step too far. Perhaps DEEWR can't force them, I don't know the answer to that. But the reality is, we talk to them individually and try to persuade that this is a good way to build.
MR HARRIS: Sure. No, I wasn't trying to put the burden on you. I'm trying to think of this and the people who are initiating it, whether they designed it for the purpose of making sure that it was widely and comprehensively available, because that's obviously a crucial issue. You can't really expect too much value-add to come out of a database that's only available to a limited number of parties.
MR HOGG (RICS): No, it's available right across the board. It will be accessible right across the board. It's Internet based, it's secured on the Internet by our software designer.
MR HARRIS: Yes, but our interest is - for example, in the report we cite rail infrastructure projects and vast variations between different jurisdictions on what appear in principle to be very similar projects. Even though having done some rail projects myself, I know they are all unique, nevertheless there are some basic benchmarks and they don't appear to be being gathered. That's why your proposition is actually quite an interesting one.
There appears to be no current home for these things to be made available widely across jurisdictions so that they know when they get initial estimates for a project or indeed when they construct their initial estimates to advise government what a project might cost. They're somewhat flying blind and it hasn't been done here before seems to be the rationale and therefore the variations are three, fourhundred percent sometimes from the initial estimates to the final estimates.
MR HOGG (RICS): Yes, I agree with that completely and that's exactly what we are focusing on and, yes, some of the infrastructure projects, the health and education infrastructure projects, if you like, were already capturing these; but, yes, that would be another step, another string to their bow, as it were, which would be very, very valid.
MR HARRIS: Yes, okay, sorry.
MR LINDWALL: The design of the database that you've got, the metadata, if you like, is that flexible so that if it were to be expanded to more generally outside of education, you could add different types of data collection, information?
MR HOGG (RICS): It's not constrained at all by the type of building in this respect. We already have health infrastructure projects there. Right across the board we have a structure which allows us to capture all building projects. That's one schema. Another schema would be to capture engineering projects, pure engineering projects. That's difficult as well but don't think that we haven't thought about that. What we need is a set of documentation which prescribes what the key criteria are for particular types of engineering projects and that will produce some of the benchmarks that Peter just mentioned; but these are a separate schema, we have a schema for building projects and other schemas for different types of projects.