38 minute read
Politics, projects and people | panel discussion
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
L–R: Terry Moran AC, Margaret Jackson AC, David Gonski AC and Brendan Lyon
Politics, projects and people
Chair: Panellists:
Brendan Lyon, Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia • David Gonski AC, Chairman, ANZ • Margaret Jackson AC, Independent Non-executive Chairman, Spotless • Terry Moran AC, Former Secretary of the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet
Key points:
• Better infrastructure relies on consensus between public and private sectors about best long-term market and regulatory structures. • Public sector should set clear expectations about what they want from infrastructure projects – and political government must honour contracts. • Infrastructure is largely controlled by states, so the new Senate should have marginal impacts on infrastructure projects.
Brendan Lyon (BL): With governments serving three- or four-year terms, and private sector companies reporting on a quarterly basis, have we got the right ingredients for reform, or has Australia become too short term?
David Gonski (DG): Well, the answer’s yes. I would say three things. Firstly, it’s not just the government; I think our whole way of doing business, whether that be in the private sector or the government sector, is short term. When I look at quarterly reporting, I look at how our investing shareholders have to compete in terms of what they do each quarter, and so on. The whole system is seen with a short-term approach.
You feel this most intensely if, as I’ve done, you sit on a board in Singapore or elsewhere in Asia. The main difference of those boards is that they are longer term in their thinking. I have to be honest, I’m tired of people coming to me and saying, ‘I’m from private equity. You should privatise this or that because it allows you a longer-term vision’. I think that big companies, and indeed government, have to think longer term.
The final point I’d make is that those of us who have been involved in big companies know how difficult it is to put the money up front to buy or to invest in infrastructure when the returns are at the backend. We also know what it’s like to write off legacy systems. As a whole, we have to look at a new approach and seek understanding that if there’s a clear articulation of what we’re doing in the long term, then if we perform to that, it is okay, rather than needing to make short-term gains all the time.
BL: Thank you. And Margaret, your views?
Margaret Jackson (MJ): In Australia at the moment, apart from the fact that we’ve got short terms of government, right now we’ve got a problem with a lack of mandate. It feels like, federally, we’re sitting, waiting for decisions and waiting for action. It was fantastic to hear from Tim Pallas earlier; definitely in the state of Victoria, you get a feeling that things are actually moving.
But look at the companies that are involved in very long-term decisions – mining companies, aviation and telecommunications companies: companies with pressure for results. You have to make decisions that are based on what the right thing is for 25 or 30 years, and the infrastructure to support these investments, knowing that often the length of time that you’re going to make returns in is 30 to 40 years. In aviation, when you’re buying aircraft, you’re making a decision as to which aircraft you’re going to operate for 25 years.
So, whatever it costs in the short term – and it is very short term – you have to make the decision, the correct decision, to get a fabulous benefit over a very
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
long term. A lot of the government decisions see the cost now, and the pain now, but you’re going to get a more economically efficient system over the next 20 or 30 years.
BL: Terry, you’ve been around public administration and business for all of your career. What are your observations?
Terry Moran (TM): I agree that we are stuck in a period of short-term planning, but not for the reason that’s the premise of the question. Victoria’s had four four-year parliaments for about 15 years, and that doesn’t seem to have changed much. What commenced in Victoria’s case in the 1980s, when we abandoned any credible attempt at long-term landuse planning and strategic planning of infrastructure, occurred with the dissolution of what was then called the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.
However, we’re now heading into a period where planning in the long term is becoming fashionable again, both in New South Wales and in Victoria. In part, that’s because of the huge ramp-up, year on year, in population growth, which Treasurer Tim Pallas referred to in his presentation. For some time now, Victoria has been getting higher percentage increases in population growth than New South Wales, and we’re in danger unless we get serious about planning for the future.
Melbourne will probably grow by about two million people over the next 30 years, and happily, at least as far as infrastructure planning is concerned, Infrastructure Victoria has been asked to work on a long-term 30-year plan as to how it’s all going to roll out. That plan is expected to be released in the next few months [Editor’s note: a draft plan was released in October], and I’m sure that, given the quality of the people involved, it will be a good plan.
My final point is that we still haven’t figured out how to combine land-use planning and strategic planning of infrastructure so that there are more employment opportunities available close to where people live.
The Prime Minister has drawn attention to the problem with his ‘30-minute cities’; and recently, the Chair of the Greater Sydney Commission, Lucy Turnbull, also drew attention to it when she said that, within a reasonable period of time, 60 per cent of Sydney’s population will be in the west, alongside a high proportion of jobs.
Unless something is done to create jobs where people live, Sydney will have massive congestion problems and too many people trying to get into the centre of the city for jobs that, in many cases, could be available elsewhere.
BL: Working out what we need to do is one part of the puzzle. The other one that we have struggled with for a long time is how to pay for it, and one of the things that’s changed over the last little while has been the focus on asset transactions. The question that I want to ask is about the decision to reject two overseas bidders on Ausgrid, which took a lot of people by surprise. Do you think Australia put its best foot forward on this? Do you think that there are lessons we need to take for the discussion, David?
DG: I’ve been around a long time and have seen a lot of these decisions. The major thing, if you had asked me what was wrong with that decision, is not the decision itself. In my opinion, governments are entitled to decide whether they want to do it or not because that’s what the Act says. The mistake, in my opinion, is that there should be a clear statement right at the beginning as to what the procedure for considering approval of the project will be and, indeed, what the likelihood of success is. If I had spent money, I would’ve been pretty upset to find at the end of it that basically it was a ‘no’. It’s perfectly fair at the beginning to say x, y, z will not get approval. You need to set up at the beginning, knowing the rules.
BL: And do you think that this has done damage to our long-term relationships with Chinese investment and international investment, or do you think it’s a blip?
DG: Well, the first thing I would say is that I’m not the expert; indeed, just looking around the room, there are many here who’d know more than me. My own view after seeing a lot of these decisions over time is that it will be a blip.
L–R: Margaret Jackson AC and David Gonski AC
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
TM: There are really two questions. One was the decision to make the sale, and that’s perfectly fine. I agree with David that right at the beginning you usually know through the Expression of Interest process who the bidders are. It’s perfectly reasonable to say to government at the beginning, you should have your criteria set and actually go through a filter process at the beginning, and say these are the things that we’re going to knock out a candidate on. Do it at the beginning, not at the end, because it’s like pulling the rope at the end when they’ve spent all the money.
MJ: At Spotless, we do quite a number of contracts with people in the defence industry.
We probably would never approach a Chinese company to be a joint venture partner with us to provide something for the Department of Defence, even if they hadn’t told us what the criteria was, because you would think from a national interest point of view that it might not be the most sensible decision at the moment. I think it’s a blip. There have been periods in the past where for whatever reason we’ve rejected bidders from all over the world, but the world’s a big place, and we recover from these things. So, I think it will be okay, but I agree that it’s got to be worked out at the beginning.
BL: Terry, you used to run these processes. What can you share with us?
TM: I think Ausgrid was handled badly. I don’t think the decision should have been announced so late in the piece, and there was a difference between the two bidders. The Hong Kong–based corporation has been a long-term successful investor in various energy assets. To my knowledge, there’s never been a problem. There’s been a long debate in government about state-owned enterprises and their ability to invest in major strategic assets. I had thought that it’d been resolved in favour of not allowing stateowned enterprises to do that, so I don’t know what happened to that decision. But if the state-owned enterprise was allowed into the game, and if there was going to be a security problem, then they should’ve been told about that at the beginning so they could either find a structural way around it, or get out of the bidding process.
I think this has been mishandled by the Federal Government. I don’t think anybody will be too fussed when other transactions go through in a satisfactory way, but I’d stress that in policy terms, we need to know whether Chinese state-owned enterprises that are closely tied to the Communist Party should be able to invest in sensitive strategic assets in Australia, and my view is that they shouldn’t be.
BL: If I can just follow on from that Terry, we’ve also seen some uncertainty around the approach to greenfield hygiene down here, particularly a light rail project that’s the subject of a fairly bitter political debate in the Australian Capital Territory. I’m just looking for views across the panel, perhaps starting with you, Terry, on whether this is part of the new normal, or whether this is something that we can see past.
TM: When I talk with businesspeople, I often find that they are now more innocent than what used to be the case about the requirements of democracy. If you want to do something that’s going to be a bit controversial, you’ve either got to take the community with you or find a way of neutralising what happens on the ground. In the case of the East West Link, I think that several things went wrong. Firstly, the Labor Party was saying before there was the signing of any contracts that if it were elected into power, it did not want to go ahead with the project.
Nonetheless, a consortium and the government of the day built into the project penalty clauses, which frankly were improper in my view.
Secondly, the consortium, having signed the contracts, had no regard for the communities affected in inner Melbourne. The project had amazing benefits that could have been presented if only they’d thought to try. The first thing to appear was a prominent ad in one of the newspapers, calling for a consultant to handle the recruitment of people from overseas to work on the project, which is hardly a way of saying, ‘We’re here to create jobs for Australians in Australia’s second-largest city’.
It was ham-fisted on all fronts. The contract was defective in the way that it brought forward penalties that would have to be borne if there was a change of government, which occurred, and I don’t think that it necessarily says anything about sovereign risk applying to big projects in Victoria, nor, for that matter, in Australia.
BL: Going back to the immediacy of the East West Link, and more about the principle and the flow-on around other projects, is it a concern?
TM: Successful consortia ought to think more about how they explain and justify to the community what they’ve been asked to do. So many people would’ve noticed that we’re starting to get commentary cropping up in the media about CityLink, its profitability and whether some of the contractual
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
terms are justified. If you ignore those things and don’t deal with them, then there’s a danger that, over time, they’ll grow in significance and become a real obstacle to further work. If business realised that a bit of loving persuasion to the community is occasionally a good idea, it might soften some of the rough edges.
BL: Margaret, how much loving persuasion do you think is necessary?
MJ: Well, I agree. I think that the government has to explain what it’s doing, and that participants in these projects need to assist government in explaining to the community what they’re doing.
BL: Does this growing trend around political governments making commitments to walk away from worry you?
TM: I think that was a very specific, unusual set of circumstances, with the government in power determined to go ahead with the project, and an opposition that then came into power after saying that if they did, they would not go ahead with the project. So, the consortium took on a risk at the time by signing, which is probably why they had clauses in there, but I think that there was a bit of a noise around sovereign risk at the time. I think all of that’s now quietened down; projects have been accepted and they’ve moved on, so I think we’ll recover.
DG: I have a slightly different view. I understand what you said, but as I travel around, particularly in Asia, there are a lot of questions about sovereign risk, and I think that we’ve got to make it very clear. If a deal is done, it’s done. If there is – and I accept Terry’s point – some indication at the beginning that it will be undone, then that’s obviously part of the facts and maybe a deal actually wasn’t done. But when Terry talks about how they didn’t do such a good job of selling the thing once they had the deal, I am not sure they had to sell anything at that point – they had the deal. If, however, you have breached the terms of it, then that’s another thing. But if you haven’t breached, I’m not entirely sure you need to sell yourself into it again. I want to make it clear that corporations and those coming in to do business do have obligations to society, and should always do the right thing – of course they should. But for our sovereignty, it comes back to your question about FIRB.
Everything is fine, provided there is a consistency in terms of sovereignty. I believe that if you have the deal and there isn’t some precursor that somebody has outlined, then you must be allowed to have it. It is a different question to take it away from them because of their conduct afterwards. It depends on what the contractual terms are.
BL: There appears to be a lot of breakthrough in infrastructure, as the community starts to engage on the real issues that underpin it. We saw that through the 1990s, and we will hear from Fred Hilmer shortly on the need for more long-term planning, more transparency and so on. What does that actually mean? What do we need to change? What do we need to do? How do we make these things explicit?
TM: There has to be a link to land-use planning: in other words, where economic activity will occur and where residential areas will be located – that and long-term planning of infrastructure. It’s not just transport infrastructure that’s affected by land-use planning, it’s also social infrastructure, including hospitals and schools. I don’t think Victoria has been doing that all that well. If you compare Melbourne and Sydney, Sydney is further advanced than Melbourne in terms of major hubs in the suburbs, in Chatswood and Parramatta; hubs that will be growing providers of jobs to people. In Melbourne, people might have to come from the western suburbs or the northern suburbs into the centre of the CBD to get a job in the services sector.
BL: You’ve seen promising signs in Sydney around how that’s coming together.
TM: I think that the New South Wales Government is right onto it. The Greater Sydney Commission is right onto it. I mentioned Lucy Turnbull’s recent speech, which touched on aspects of this. In Melbourne, there have been plans for probably 15 or 20 years for hubs in the suburbs, but they just haven’t received the support or the investment seen in New South Wales. That’s because governments on both sides of politics believe that there are many hundreds of hectares in the centre of the city, and have said ‘Well, we’ll just go ahead with the development of those areas and will build more transport infrastructure to bring more and more people into the centre of the city’. But there are limits as to how far you can go with that approach. Melbourne is approaching one million people per day travelling by all means for all purposes into the centre. With another two million people going into Melbourne over the next two or three decades, can we keep doing that? I don’t think so. We’ve got to follow Sydney’s example in that respect.
BL: Margaret?
MJ: I’d like to talk about the framework for where we’re going to grow, not only in the CBD, but
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
L–R: Terry Moran AC, Margaret Jackson AC, David Gonski AC and Brendan Lyon
also the state. We seem to be having an explosion in population, and we just keep spreading and spreading, so that places that were rural are now becoming commutes to Melbourne. That’s having significant impact on social infrastructure and economic infrastructure in those regions in Melbourne. I’m not sure we’ve actually got the framework right. If we have got the framework, I don’t know whether it’s understood well enough. Coming back to some of the points we were talking about regarding what the criteria is for evaluating projects and evaluating bidders, everyone on projects needs to know about what the grand plan is. If you want to be a participant, then you’ve got a certainty that at least you’re going to comply with whatever the requirements are.
BL: And may we go to Terry’s point around legitimacy of projects?
DG: I think it can also be in relation to funding; if you look at the consequential arrangements of what you’re doing, other forms of return are there and should be tapped. I don’t know whether it’s appropriate, but I know that infrastructure in New South Wales has been looking very carefully at this issue with WestConnex. Questions have been asked by them, like what has it done to some of the hubs, and who is benfiting from that? I remember listening to all of that and thinking, ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ I mean, that’s something that should be built into the costs and the revenues that are coming from that, right from the start.
BL: If we think about funding for a moment, one of the challenges that we have in the immediate to medium term is really about rebalancing fiscal settings for state governments in particular. The large part of that is going to be about getting into the recurrent, rather than the capital side of what government is doing.
Margaret, you chair a major outsourcing company, and you’ve worked across some of the more heavily regulated sectors, like aviation. Do you get a sense that we’re at the start of another period of reform, perhaps focusing this time on the government sector, or are you still seeing glaciers?
MJ: I think that over the last few years, there has been an interest in reform, and there’s an interest in changing the mix of who provides the infrastructure, and who provides the ongoing maintenance of these assets. But there’s something not happening between the decision to look at the alternatives and implementation, so what we’ve observed is – and it’s occurring in almost every state – that there will be a decision, say to go to a model for hospital bids. They’ll go through the testing process, they’ll have a preferred bidder and then they’ll pause and it’s not the right time electorally to make an announcement, so a year goes by and then they permanently defer. There seems to be a lot of process, then pause and then inactivity. Whereas when they actually do go ahead, the savings are really quite phenomenal. If you look at the costs of maintaining hospitals or schools, or other infrastructure, it’s really quite compelling when you outsource; but somehow or other there’s not a strong enough will, or governments become politically nervous. I don’t know if it is the unions
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
or not, or where it comes from, but it’s unusual that we’re seeing quite a number of these project delays.
BL: Terry, you’ve seen some of these in Victoria and in Canberra.
TM: It’s possible to not have pauses in projects. Sometimes, though, those pauses are due to the constipated regulatory overload of the planning systems, particularly in New South Wales and, to an extent, in Victoria. It’s okay to do what the Treasurer has said about standardised contracts and standardised documentation for getting Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) moving, and he’s absolutely right, but there’s also got to be something done about better planning systems both in Melbourne and in New South Wales, with fewer steps, fewer gates to get through, and less nonsense from statutory planners about what’s permitted and what’s not permitted.
Secondly, it would be best if government standardised its rules about how infrastructure projects are treated on the balance sheet. In fact, in some cases, they’re not treated on the balance sheet at all; the Commonwealth treats them as part of operational expenses. Happily, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said that he would like to see Commonwealth investments in infrastructure treated as equity injections into projects. This means that the Commonwealth’s balance sheet, which is still very healthy, can be used to budget, and I think that’s a huge breakthrough in the second form of obfuscation that’s been blocking infrastructure investment in this country, which is treasury economists trying to be accounting experts. Often, they’re not very good at it – not in all jurisdictions, so they’re not bad here in Victoria, and they’re pretty good in New South Wales, but they’re hopeless at the Commonwealth level and in some of the other states. I think that there are problems that can be fixed, and I think on the use of the Commonwealth balance sheet, the Prime Minister’s got it right. I’m just hoping for good speed on that reform, and all the states should come into line where they haven’t already done so.
BL: David, have you got a different view to that?
DG: No, actually. I’m wildly enthusiastic about what Terry has said.
TM: Oh that’s great, David. It’s probably the first time we’ve agreed.
DG: Can I just say, I read with enormous interest a wonderful op-ed that Frank Lowy wrote, suggesting along the lines of what you’re talking about. But one of the obfuscations would definitely be if we became ‘accounting heroes’ and spent the money now, which was his instinct, and basically didn’t take it as an expense and therefore found a way of dealing with it. To me, when you look at the interest rates and where they are at the moment, and when you look at the amount of infrastructure that is required and the multiplier that comes from infrastructure, we have to find a way of doing it. I loved what Terry said, that perhaps we’ve got to stop being obsessed with thinking that we are experts in accounting and basically that we’ve just got to do it, and find a way to do it. I strongly support what was said by Lowy in that regard. I’m not seeking to get more business for my bank – I’m talking as someone who believes that we should stop this, spend the money and not believe that this money that’s being spent is recurrent money. It is much more about spending it well so that we are producing great benefits for the future from infrastructure.
BL: Margaret, are you worried about equity risk in dollars?
MJ: No, but what I was going to say was that if you go back in time and you look at all the infrastructure that we have around Australia, and the gains that then come to the economy as a consequence... if you go back to the time when they were all approved or started, not everybody saw the benefit of them – the disruption of it was going to occur in the first couple of years while something was being constructed, and there was always a million reasons why it shouldn’t happen. At the very beginning, the risk is enormous because you’re talking about something over a very long period of time.
But if you don’t make an investment, you’re not going to get the return, you’re not going to have a more efficient economy, you’re not going to create the employment in that entity and in other entities – and if I look at the time when I was in aviation and telecommunications, there was never a good time to spend. But if you didn’t spend, you were never going to have a company. There’s no airline if you have no planes, and there’s no telecommunication system if you don’t invest in infrastructure. Governments need to be brave and adventurous, but also prudent, and invest in the infrastructure that we will all benefit from economically.
BL: We’re almost out of time, but just a final question to each of you. The Senate has been described by one commentator as a full-blown wildlife sanctuary. I wanted to get your observations on how you think the next couple of years are going to play out on the national political stage, and what we can expect from incentives and drivers.
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
DG: Firstly, if I may make a statement to allow the others to actually work out what the answer is. Everybody tells me that this is a different Senate; it’s terrible. In 1987, I had to deal with the Senate, and I was negotiating with it. And for those who were around, you’ll remember the anti-nuclear party, which actually had quite an able person in the Senate who was desperately trying to work out what nuclear had to do with what I was talking about. Not what they were in favour of, but whether, in fact, you could fit it into that. Anybody like myself who’s lived through that will know this is just Monday to Friday in the Senate. This is perfectly the same as what we’ve seen before, and so I would say rather than being obsessed with how many crossbenchers there are and what they may stand for and so on, I think that like in anything in management, the government must manage the situation. My instinct is that they will probably do it well, and obviously there will be ups and downs, but that’s the joy of democracy, and I think you accept it and move on.
MJ: If I think about infrastructure, the states have more to do with infrastructure than the Federal Government. The Senate’s going to be interesting, but the Senate is always interesting, and as David said, it’s been interesting for decades and probably will continue to always be interesting. In infrastructure, what we really want to look at is what’s happening in the states, and encourage the states to actually show. Yes, there are some issues with some of the upper houses in the states as well, but you’re always going to have vested interest parties, and you’re always going to have a process that you have to work within. For those of us in the private sector,
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
you can’t not understand how the government sector works; you can’t not understand that there is vested interest and you just have to spend time understanding it, trying to influence it as best you can, or at least trying to get it into a more neutral state. It’s part of the process.
TM: I’m not terribly fussed about the Senate, and I’m not all that fussed about a government with a one-seat majority in the House of Representatives. I think that the problem lies elsewhere.
Business in Australia has sort of bowed out in the last one or two decades from debates going in favour of the narrower interests of sectors and individual businesses, and not the business community as a whole.
The real problem is that for 45 years, we’ve had a debate about, and an acceptance of, where the country should be going. For 15 years, up until the early 80s, we had a debate about what became Australia’s move into a globalised economy: what was called the end of certainty. Reforms to the size of government and what it did, reduction of industry protection, deregulation of the labour market, pulling back on many of the welfare benefits that were available and these macro-micro economic reforms all occurred.
For 20 years, from the early 1980s, Australian governments worked assiduously on that project and made world-leading progress, but we’ve found that as in the United Kingdom and the United States, many people feel a bit left out by the result, and they’re grumpy. They’re not as grumpy here as they are in the United States, but they’re grumpy nonetheless, and politicians haven’t found a way to refresh the story and take the country in some new directions.
What we need in our community generally is a reignition of the debate that occurred in Australia up until the early 1980s, involving some parliamentarians and journalists, particularly those from The Australian Financial Review and The Australian. It involved academics, business people, unions and what is now called civil society.
We’ve had 25 wonderful years of growth, largely because of that. Where do we go from here? There are strands of how you would define the future directions that are available, but frankly, politicians are best when they’re acting upon an agreed position that we need to take. It’s up to different groups in our society to get into this debate and contribute to various statements of sectoral or business self-interest.
BL: Thank you. On your behalf, it’s a great pleasure to thank today’s panel. I really do want to thank David, Margaret and Terry, people well known to Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, and well known to all of us because they are distinguished leaders both in business and in public administration.
Brendan Lyon is the Chief Executive of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA), the peak infrastructure policy partnership between Australia’s Commonwealth and state governments, and the business sector.
Joining IPA on its formation a decade ago, Mr Lyon initially led the policy and research team, before being appointed CEO in early 2008.
Through strong, evidence-based public policy, good research and strong relationships across the business, media and government sectors, IPA has developed into a respected and trusted voice on economic and social infrastructure policy.
In his role, Mr Lyon also serves on a range of boards, committees and inquiries, currently serving on the Board of Transport for NSW and on the New South Wales Government’s Expert Advisory Panel on social housing reform. Mr Lyon has previously served on major national reviews, including COAG’s Infrastructure Finance Working Group and the Commonwealth Government’s study into high-speed rail.
Mr Lyon is a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and holds a Masters of Business Administration with Distinction. In 2013, he was appointed an Honorary Associate Professor at Sydney Business School.
With a strong interest in infrastructure and in economic policy, Mr Lyon has authored and contributed to a large number of research and policy papers considering different aspects of infrastructure market regulation.
Politics, projects and people – panel discussion
Margaret Jackson is Chairman of Spotless Group Holdings Limited and Ansett Aviation Training Limited. She is also a Director of the Prince’s Charities Australia, The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and a member of Monash University’s Industry Council of Advisors.
Ms Jackson has also served as Chairman of Qantas, FlexiGroup Ltd and the Victorian Transport Accident Commission, and as a Director of The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, The Australian and New Zealand Banking Corporation, Pacific Dunlop Limited, John Fairfax Holdings Limited, Billabong International Ltd and Telecom Australia. She is also a former partner of KPMG Advisory and BDO Nelson Parkhill.
Ms Jackson was awarded Companion of the Order of Australia in the General Division (AC) in June 2003 for service to business in diverse and leading Australian corporations, and to the community in the area of support for medical research, the arts and education. She was also awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001 for service to Australian society in business.
Ms Jackson holds an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from Monash University, and is also former Chairman of the Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory Advisory Board, the Playbox Theatre Company and Methodist Ladies’ College.
David Gonski AC, Chairman, ANZ
David Gonski is Chairman of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and Coca-Cola Amatil Limited. Mr Gonski is also Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, President of the Art Gallery of New South Wales Trust, and Chairman of the UNSW Foundation Ltd. He is also a member of the ASIC External Advisory Panel and the board of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, a Patron of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation and Raise Foundation, and a Founding Panel Member of Adara Partners.
He was previously a member of the Takeovers Panel, Director of Singapore Airlines Limited, the Westfield Group and Singapore Telecommunications Limited, and Chairman of the Australian Securities Exchange Ltd, the Guardians of the Future Fund, the Australia Council for the Arts, the Board of Trustees of Sydney Grammar School and Investec Bank (Australia) Ltd.
Terry Moran AC, Former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
Terence Francis Moran AC was, as Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australia’s most senior public servant from 2008 to 2011. His current roles include: • Chair, Barangaroo Delivery Authority in New South Wales • Senior Adviser, Boston Consulting Group • CEDA Governor • Chair, Cranlana Program • Chair, Melbourne Theatre Company • Chair, Centre for Policy Development.
Mr Moran spent his early career as a public servant in the Australian (Commonwealth) and Victorian Public Services. Moran’s first position as a public sector CEO was as Chief Executive of the Office of the State Training Board in Victoria from late 1987 until May 1993. In May 1993, he was appointed as the first Chief Executive Officer of the Australian National Training Authority in Brisbane. In August 1998, he became Queensland’s Director-General of Education.
Mr Moran was appointed Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet for the state of Victoria in July 2000, and held this position until his appointment as Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
On 26 January 2012, Mr Moran was named a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) for ‘eminent service to the community through public sector leadership, as a significant contributor to policy development, programme delivery and effective governance, and to the implementation of contemporary government administration’.
Its infrastructure group is an exemplar of female leadership and development.
Sandra Dodds is passionate about the potential of women in infrastructure. As the leader of Broadspectrum’s infrastructure team, Sandra is helping to drive a genderdiversity program that benefits the company, its customers and the community.
She says the infrastructure sector needs to both attract more women and better support those with leadership aspirations. This will help the sector to access a larger talent pool, benefit from a more diverse range of decision-makers and, ultimately, better serve its clients.
‘In my experience, women tend to think more about the social impact of infrastructure,’ says Sandra. ‘Different perspectives are needed in big projects; having greater gender diversity in infrastructure leadership teams enhances decision-making quality.’
Sandra says women often show a capacity to understand ‘shades of grey’ in infrastructure. ‘Decisions in infrastructure are often black or white. They’re either right or wrong. Women intuitively think about a range of possibilities, find a consensus and work towards the best decision.’
Sandra has seen many challenges for women in infrastructure during a distinguished career in contract engineering services.
‘I remember, early in my career, being the only woman in a room of male engineers and [being] expected to pour the tea. I never did, of course. I was brought up in a family where girls could be anything. I quickly got used to being the only woman in my immediate peer group and learnt to become very resilient and authentic at work.’
Sandra’s accounting background was another complication. ‘Here was a female accountant leading a bunch of male engineers who probably thought I knew nothing about the projects. But I was able to build a bridge between finance, operations and customers – and implement a stronger
Sandra Dodds, Chief Executive, Urban Infrastructure, Broadspectrum
Large main laying
culture of leadership and staff development in companies or divisions I ran.’
Today, Sandra is one of Australia’s most influential leaders in infrastructure and a champion of change for women in business. She was appointed Chief Executive of Infrastructure, Australia and New Zealand, at Broadspectrum in May 2014, just as the company embarked on a change program that would put it at the forefront of diversity initiatives across gender and culture.
Led by Managing Director and CEO Graeme Hunt, and supported by its board, Broadspectrum launched a Diversity and Inclusion framework in 2015. This included setting diversity targets, pursuing pay equity, fostering workplace inclusiveness and promoting a high-performance culture.
The framework has ambitious targets, including for global female participation at Broadspectrum to increase from 24 per cent in 2015 to 30 per cent in 2016, and for females in management roles to increase by 50 people by the end of 2016.
The framework addresses pay gaps between women and men, and seeks to eliminate gender pay bias altogether. Broadspectrum is also increasing flexible work options, and is extending diversity and inclusion training programs across the organisation.
Significant investment backed this initiative. Broadspectrum participates in the Chief Executive Women Leaders Program to support high-potential women in the organisation, and a Global Inclusion Network was established as a forum for feedback on diversity initiatives.
Broadspectrum tasked senior staff members with leading this initiative. It developed baseline metrics and reporting systems to communicate the diversity program’s outcomes to management and staff.
A 50/50 shortlist policy, where roles up to four levels below the managing director must have equal representation of women and men, was implemented.
The company’s drive to become a gender diversity leader is not a surprise. Its former chairman, Diane Smith-Gander, is one of Australia’s most prominent female
directors and president of Chief Executive Women. Diane is an important voice in Australia’s gender diversity debate.
CEO Graeme Hunt is another strong advocate for diversity. He signed a CEO Statement of Support for the United Nations Women’s Empowerment Principles program and has driven Broadspectrum’s diversity efforts from the front.
Sandra has seen early results from the company’s diversity agenda. ‘There has been a really visible change. We’re seeing more females in management positions and perhaps the start of a slightly different communication style; one with more empathy and respect for the benefits that come from true workplace diversity, where differences are valued.’
The diversity program is not just about women, says Sandra. ‘Some men in my team have taken up the workplace flexibility option and commented on what a difference it has made. They, too, benefit – professionally and personally – from greater flexilbity in their roles.’
Sandra believes that these initiatives will help Broadspectrum to attract more young women and develop the next generation of outstanding infrastructure leaders.
‘We need to get the message to schoolgirls that infrastructure is a fabulous career. There’s so many interesting roles in a sector that has good growth prospects and affects every Australian. It should be a sector where women can achieve fantastic leadership roles by merit, and still take time out to start a family, and combine work and family life.’
She says more women in infrastructure will help to solve increasingly complex problems. ‘When you look at what’s ahead, from driverless cars to climate change, it’s obvious the sector needs broader perspectives and thinking. And, dare I say, more emotional intelligence that comes with a higher percentage of female leaders.’
But gender change in infrastructure is still too slow, says Sandra. ‘When I go to industry functions, I don’t see enough women, and the industry is poorer for it. It’s something that Broadspectrum is determined to change.’
To learn more about Broadspectrum, visit www.broadspectrum.com.
DON’T BREAK THE BANK – NHP HAS A RETROFITTING SOLUTION FOR YOU!
Air Circuit Breakers (ACBs) are commonly used in low voltage (LV) switchboards and due to their typically passive operation, are often forgotten about until there is a trip or circuit breaker failure leading to a power supply disruption.
This is a real issue as many ACBs that were originally installed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s are still in use today, operating well beyond their intended service life. If poorly maintained, this can result in catastrophic failure, placing personnel and assets at severe risk.
The consequence of ACB failure can be financially costly and potentially dangerous to personnel. To help address this issue, NHP provide retrofit solutions that allow end users to modernise their ACBs with minimal downtime. Retrofitting of ACBs offers increased cost savings compared with the replacement of an entire switchboard because the key components of the system can be quickly replaced, leaving the existing copper and steel work intact.
Top five reasons to retrofit: 1. Improve safety and functionality 2. Optimise existing plant 3. Guaranteed spares availability 4. Modernise the protection system 5. Reduce arc flash hazard
As well as improved safety and functionality, modern ACBs also clear short-circuits much faster than older models. This means that the incident arc energy is correspondingly lower, which in turn, reduces arc flash hazard. On top of this, retrofitting is typically 80% cheaper than switchboard replacement with minimum downtime. Advantages of using retrofit kit solutions: • Proven method of installation • Reduced likelihood of an unanticipated problem occurring • Easier to determine costs and shutdown time • No need to shut down for prior measurements • Work is carried out only from the front of the switchboard • Reduced requirement of switchboard shut down during conversions • Alterations to busbar work (which may affect the fault rating/clearances of the busbar system) are not needed
NHP’s ACB retrofit solutions are specifically designed to allow the existing switchboard to remain fundamentally unchanged, with only the obsolete ACB being replaced. Existing busbars and cables remain unaltered, thereby simplifying the installation process and reducing downtime.
The NHP retrofit solution has been designed according to relevant Australian standards and recognised industrial practices, ensuring the controlled removal of obsolete and potentially dangerous ACBs. With retrofit and upgrade options available for most brands and models of ACB, NHP can work within your existing switchboard environment to provide a cost–effective solution.
For more information on how NHP can help you modernise your protection system with retrofitting services, please contact your local sales representative on 1300 NHP NHP.
