47 minute read
Public Sector Reform Panel
Funding infrastructure will inevitably mean cutting waste in the public sector to ensure states are living within their means. The Public Sector Reform Panel looks at some of the opportunities to drive greater efficiency in the delivery of public services.
Chair:
Brendan Lyon, Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia Dr Kerry Schott, Head of the NSW Commission of Audit; former Managing Director of Sydney Water Terry Moran AC, Chairman, Barangaroo Delivery Authority; National President, Institute of Public Administration Australia Graeme Samuel AC, Managing Director and Head of Melbourne, Greenhill Caliburn; former Chairman of ACCC
Public Sector Reform Panel
Brendan Lyon: What is it that Australia needs to do if we’re going to surmount our productivity and infrastructure challenges?
Kerry Schott: In New South Wales, what is really needed is a lift in management of the public sector to enable the budget to be run with a surplus of around $500–$900 million per year, which could be used to fund social infrastructure, in particular.
And you would’ve seen with the most recent New South Wales Budget that it is designed to do just that by the end of the four-year term, and I’m optimistic that they will get there earlier.
Terry Moran: The big issue is financing. I’ve argued quite strongly that although some major pieces of infrastructure can be adequately done through PPP mechanisms, particularly if there are some different assumptions made about how risk is shared between the government and the private sector, there are still a lot of projects that won’t be suitable for a PPP approach.
In order to get those done, governments need to wrestle the issue of debt to the ground. I think there’s a credible argument to be put to the community that parcels of debt can be raised for large infrastructure projects, if assurances are given, namely: • that the delivery of those projects is not through normal departmental or agency-based arrangements, but is actually put out into a Special
Purpose Vehicle with private sector boards and
CEOs to make things happen • that there is a plan to repay the debt over time • that the projects chosen for this treatment have come through an exacting period of analysis and that the projects to be funded are the most important on the basis of some credible approach to analysis.
The public is wary of debt, particularly when government raises large amounts of debt and it’s not clear to the public what the debt is being devoted to.
To break through that wariness, you not only need some political figures to decide to have the conversation with the community, but you also need a different approach to what debt is, how it’s used and who’s responsible for making things happen.
All of this has to lead to large pieces of infrastructure that members of the public can see, feel and use when they are completed.
Graeme Samuel: There is leadership needed at the political level to explain to the public exactly what is involved in infrastructure funding.
Firstly, state governments need to recognise that there are a lot of assets tying up a lot of cash that can be used for infrastructure funding, and those assets ought to be sold. They don’t need to be owned by government.
Secondly, the funding of a lot of infrastructure can be done on a user-pays basis, but who in government is ever prepared to say that they are going to work towards the development of a toll road, or of network pricing or road pricing?
They are politically unacceptable, because we won’t take the leadership position. Users should be able to pay and should be required to pay for everything other than social infrastructure.
I’m a big advocate for PPPs, but, equally, I think there are some greenfield infrastructure investments that will never be put out on an economically or commercially viable basis as a PPP, because the risks are just too great, particularly post-GFC.
Therefore, it requires careful analysis by government, and it requires the government taking that risk on its own books, but not necessarily on the budget.
Equally, it requires explaining that there is a point in time at which infrastructure development will be able to be sold or privatised, and the debt repaid. There’s an awful lot of explanation involved in those things.
One other thing in respect to PPPs: if they are properly structured and there’s a proper allocation of risk, they should inevitably work.
There will always be failures, like there are failures in corporate Australia from time to time.
I’m bemused by the fact that whenever a PPP fails, it’s seen to be a failure by government, rather than a failure by the private sector that has either determined that it’s going to be the provider of the infrastructure under the contract with government, or by the lenders.
BL: What is it that will create the burning platform for changes to happen?
TM: I suspect it will be individual projects that the public is led to understand well and accept.
Politicians will have to get back to explaining the problem and what might be done about it. We are in a situation where politicians are pushed in the direction of being risk-averse because of the criticisms they face if anything goes wrong, even if they’re not responsible.
Public Sector Reform Panel
They are wary of being speculative about possibilities in public debates because they find that they are held accountable – in a very precise way – for something they were trying to build support for in the first place. It’s the nature of the political debate and, frankly, business is not always as constructive nor comprehending of the realities of democracy in this field as it might be, and nor are the media for that matter.
BL: Graeme, looking at market-wide reforms, you’ve had a lot of experience at the National Competition Council, and later at the ACCC; how is it that those sorts of reforms might be implemented, and do you think they ever will be implemented?
GS: Yes they will, but it will require leadership.
In Victoria, when Jeff Kennett became Premier, he introduced reforms that no previous leader would have even contemplated, in terms of competition policy, and in terms of dealings with local government, the amalgamation of councils and the development of infrastructure, although the balance sheet of the state was not looking good at the time.
I’m still bemused that some states refuse to contemplate the sale of electricity assets. It just bewilders me that leadership can’t be taken. That was the Kennett process.
Paul Keating took an extraordinary leadership role in undertaking the National Competition Policy. He got the Hilmer Report, got the Industry Commission – as it was at that time – to then report on the benefits to Australia, and the productivity benefits were measured in thousands of dollars – I think $5500 per individual in terms of productivity growth.
Ultimately, he said, ‘Look, here are the sorts of things that work.’
It went from big infrastructure issues – electricity, water, gas, things of that nature – through to some of the smallest things.
It was the leadership shown by Keating and by Kennett – of saying ‘this needs to be done’, and showing the political leadership to explain it.
BL: A lot of discussion has been about the triple-A rating and the degree of headroom on the budget from different jurisdictions as the major constraint in getting a deeper, wider program of infrastructure projects funded and delivered. Do you think there’s scope for a National Competition Policy-style approach to public sector service delivery?
Public Sector Reform Panel
KS: The current budget position in the states is the burning platform, and I do think that each of the state governments has to get moving to be able to even fund their operating expenses.
We are starting in a position where in New South Wales – at least for the last five years – the increasing debt has been used to cover operating expenses; it hasn’t been used to cover capital.
The other important thing is the need to be efficient in our service delivery, and one of the examples that the NSW Commission of Audit came across was the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle, which was a successful PPP.
But it could have been a lot better had more services been included in the outsourcing arrangements.
We need to be much more flexible with those things. It doesn’t look like much over a one-year period, but over a 20-year contract, it’s a lot of money.
TM: When the Productivity Commission evaluated the economic impact of NCP, they concluded that it had contributed around 1.5 to two per cent of GDP growth.
Five years ago, when the Productivity Commission did modelling and an analysis of what was then called the National Reform Agenda, they concluded that over a 25-year period, if it was fully implemented, the National Reform Agenda would add between nine and 12 per cent to GDP at the end, recurring every year. That’s what stimulated both sides of politics to have a go.
There is now a massive microeconomic reform program underway in the Australian hospitals sector to help deliver both greater efficiency and the aspirations behind the National Reform Agenda.
Service delivery can always yield efficiencies, particularly if you deploy more public servants to the front line and diminish the size of many head offices in the big systems. All the action should be at the point where services are delivered, through hospitals, schools or TAFEs.
That’s happening in New South Wales, it’s happened in Victoria, it’s sort of happening in Queensland and it’s certainly underway in Western Australia.
But those reforms are not going to put a lot of money on the table for infrastructure investment, unless you see some share of the GDP growth that will eventually come as a result of those reforms.
The infrastructure investment challenge is more immediate, and it has to have a different sort of debate in order to take the public in the right direction. The best way to do that is around particular projects that are highly rated, that people will find some sense in, and that people want to support.
BL: While health service delivery is not infrastructure, the various Commissions of Audit have shown that health operating expenses are a major constraint on the ability to fund infrastructure – or, in fact, anything else – and we are facing a situation in which every state will have the cost of its healthcare delivery eclipse its revenues by about 2042. What sorts of things do you think governments will need to start to front up to in order to bring operating expenses down and start to repair their financial positions?
GS: This is a really sensitive political issue. Back in the early 2000s, three or four of us got together to have a look at the funding of operating expenditure on health.
There’s one thing that’s really interesting about health: it’s seen as being something that’s different.
Health is ripe for being subjected to the disciplines of competition, but everyone who’s involved in health will tell you that it’s not appropriate and that competition should not apply.
There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t introduce competitive disciplines into health. It basically says to everyone, there’s a Medicare base that’s a safety net for everyone, but beyond that you are entitled to actually choose the place from which you acquire your healthcare, with funding from government through some form of a voucher system.
It doesn’t matter whether you go to the Alfred Public Hospital or the Epworth Private Hospital – either way, you’re funded for your healthcare.
Then what happens, of course, is you impose some real competitive disciplines between the Epworth Private and Alfred Public hospitals, and it starts to get really interesting.
But the moment you mention that, it becomes subject to all sorts of manipulations of the truth; that’s why it’s fundamental to remember that there is a foundation there – a protective foundation, which is the Medicare scheme.
A colleague of mine – Simon Blair, who’s now Group Executive, International Financial Services at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) – went over to see the World Bank on this issue. He found that this concept of introducing market-based
Public Sector Reform Panel
competition for healthcare was readily acceptable in third-world countries and worked a dream. But it was not acceptable in any more developed countries, and you’ve got to ask yourself why.
TM: Activity-based funding, which is really the working through of management accounting into bundled services delivered by public hospitals, has been successful in Victoria for 15 years, and it’s the reason why delivery of hospital services in Victoria is, on several measures, much more efficient than in other states.
Activity-based funding, together with the sort of radical devolution of responsibility out to the local hospitals that New South Wales and other states are implementing, will pull back the inefficiencies within the hospitals over time and provide the basis for then going to a much more competitive environment.
You can’t go there without the intermediate step, because in some states, people don’t know what it costs to deliver certain services in certain hospitals. Until you do that, you don’t have the basis for competition.
For some time now in Victoria, because of this benchmarking, many public patients are being put into private hospitals quite satisfactorily.
The other point is that Victoria has had more successes than failures in PPPs for hospitals. The Royal Children’s was a PPP success, along with the Comprehensive Cancer Centre, which is now underway.
Early on, there were some smaller hospitals that failed, and I think it was a question of scale and, frankly, a bit too much risk. But the bigger PPPs have worked, and they have produced terrific buildings and terrific operations.
You could even have more PPPs in education. New South Wales has done it with schools, and Victoria, I think, has done it with groups of schools, rather than individual schools.
BL: Kerry, any views on health?
KS: The activity-based funding model being introduced to New South Wales is driving a lot of change, including such novel things that a hospital should actually know, like how much running a ward costs.
I’m relatively relaxed about the operating costs in health, and the role that the Commonwealth is playing in picking up a lot of the growth funding after 2014. There is a lot of pressure on budgets before that date.
With school PPPs, it’s really important when a successful PPP is being done that the community gets involved in what has happened and what the outcomes have been. We are not very good at telling people what’s been done, and how the teachers like it better or what’s working well. We really need to put a bit more effort into that.
BL: I’d like to touch on the NBN. What are your thoughts on its model and ultimately the market structure it’s going to create?
GS: The process that’s been established for the investment in that network is the only one that could’ve been done. It’s well-known that several of us at the ACCC had argued for the structural separation of Telstra in order to enhance competition in the future.
Public Sector Reform Panel
Competition in telecommunications is moving to a whole new paradigm as a result of the building of the NBN.
What is now being built is the only sensible, commercial and economic decision that could’ve been made.
There’s been glib political talk that we’ve got a monopoly NBN; well, of course we’ve got a monopoly.
There are many people who would argue that you can’t afford one NBN, let alone two or three or four of them.
We are developing infrastructure for this century, or at least for the next 50 years, that, in terms of providing a high-speed broadband network, is fundamentally sound and, with the role of the ACCC in dealing with pricing structures by the NBN, will work out very well indeed.
There’s an issue about cost-benefit analysis. The cost has two business plans; the cost has been established and there will always be a minor increment in their costs as things go along. But the cost has been established. The financial returns have also been established according to two business plans, and they have been examined. They show an internal rate of return of 7.1 per cent.
The real issue about benefits is twofold. There’s a social benefit associated with the development of the NBN, which relates to about 25 per cent of the geography of Australia. That’s the 25 per cent that’s rural and regional Australia, and we have a social contract with them that says they will have services that are as good as possible on an equitable basis to what we have in the more densely populated parts of Australia. It’s difficult to assess that.
It’s a political and social decision that has been made for decades in this country in respect of dams, roads and trains, and everything else in infrastructure.
The other element is this: when you look at highspeed broadband, some look at it in a very short-term perspective. What is, I think, virtually impossible for the best economists and the best visionaries, is to establish what true high-speed broadband will offer, not five years down the track, but 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 years out, because that’s the nature of the lifetime of this particular infrastructure.
We need to recognise that there’s a social investment, and it’s going to inevitably lower the rate of return down to that 7.1 per cent.
And we need to recognise that what we are building is that multi-lane highway for broadband that will take us out for 30 or 40 or 50 years, that will replace that 100-year-old copper infrastructure, which is now badly degraded and needs to be replaced. And finally, just think in the more visionary sense about the sorts of benefits we can get. Think about it in terms of health and the other things you could do, and think of the benefits that flow from it.
TM: At the time this was done, there was a debate about whether or not you could subject the NBN to a cost-benefit analysis. I strongly supported the argument that if you tried to do a cost-benefit analysis that embraces things in addition to the economic considerations, you would have had pie in the sky stuff that would’ve invariably been wrong.
The only way to be sensible was to subject it to a full, rigorous commercial analysis to generate
Public Sector Reform Panel
evidence that there would be a commercial return, which is the seven per cent internal rate of return already mentioned.
If you did that, you would be confident that in time, you could sell off the network. And you’d only have a question of whether, in the hands of the new owners, you would have a utility rate of return where you would deregulate what they could earn.
My preference would have been a regulated utility rate of return on the network once it was built.
So I’ve always found all the comments coming from business about the need for a cost-benefit analysis on the NBN to be curious.
Would a retailer prefer this analysis to an internal rate of return when planning investments in supermarkets? Using a cost-benefit analysis technique would have just made it even easier to justify the project and the spend, rather than the more rigorous approach that was taken, which was a proper assessment of the internal rate of return.
When the first business plan was done, again people in government insisted that it not be analysed by colleagues in government because they didn’t necessarily have the commercial skills.
BL: It’s an exceptionally good point. Almost all the discussion about getting projects done in the immediate term has focused on privatising assets that already exist. How important is it that you avoid experiences like the Yoy Lang move by the Cain Government in the 1980s? When they ran out of money to complete the power station, they privatised a small part of it with no market context, and in fact that part of the generator ended up being ring-fenced out of the National Electricity Market for years to come. Is there a risk we might see governments not have a clear idea of the structures of things like water markets, start to privatise parts of water utilities and ultimately retard a longer-term competitive market in whichever sector they are moving in?
KS: I think that in electricity, the sooner we get into privatising everything and moving to NEMtype structures properly, the better. The appropriate structure for water is less clear, and different jurisdictions are going in different directions.
Queensland seems to be reversing what it had first done, so appropriate structures in water need a bit of attention. But we should keep an eye on what has happened in both the United Kingdom and the longterm franchising that the French do, and whether or not that’s more efficient. It is really important.
TM: We have fallen out of the habit of remembering what happened in Victoria when Alan Stockdale was Treasurer.
We have also forgotten that the nature of the industry structure he was responsible for, in respect of the energy sector, was very innovative in the world at the time. In fact, I would argue it’s still serving Victoria very well.
Alan Stockdale, the other ministers in the government, and the officials they worked with, actually did Australia a service, because they didn’t just sell the whole system off, which is what happened later with Telstra.
Instead, they broke it up and went for the maximum level of competition.
Similarly, the franchising of public transport systems is still a good model, and more of that could be done around the country, because of the sheer difficulty of selling lots of those types of assets.
We are at a point where there’s huge scope for creativity on how to do things, and the only caution I’d enter is the Anna Bligh (former Queensland Premier) caution. She lost office for a number of reasons. But the thing that traumatised other politicians most about her experience is that she came back from an election and proceeded to privatise the assets, without going to the people beforehand to say she was going to do it.
In Victoria, if the government came out now and said, ‘we are going to privatise water,’ I think they’d have an Anna Bligh experience. I think any government would.
GS: If you look at the National Competition Policy reforms and at what the Kennett/Stockdale Government did in Victoria, there are some really interesting disciplines.
The first one was to say, ‘Competition must apply to every sector of the economy and to every business operation, whether it’s government-owned or not, unless there’s a good, independently assessed public interest reason why it’s not.’
The second was: ‘Does government really need to build this, and does government really need to own it?’
BL: What is the one thing you’d say to governments about what they need to be doing over the next couple of years to get these things moving?
GS: Reintroduce National Competition Policy as a major reform issue as part of the COAG Reform Council. We should adopt the same
Public Sector Reform Panel
process that was adopted there, which is to say that if you comply with the reforms, if you undertake the reforms, you get part of the benefit in terms of payments by the Commonwealth. If you don’t comply, you don’t get the benefits.
TM: One of the reasons we are in a mess with infrastructure in Australia is that some decades ago, we gave up trying to plan the big cities strategically. For land-use planning and for infrastructure planning, the time horizon is 20 or more years, so it’s not short-term.
If you do that planning, you can cheaply reserve the land that you’ll later need and start to have a real grasp of what the priority projects are.
Land-use planning also includes where you put residential developments, and where you put commercial developments.
The tragedy of Melbourne is that the western suburbs have broken the pattern that has been here since World War II. That is, you are now seeing huge residential tracts without places where people can get a job.
People have therefore needed to get across the Yarra to the CBD or to the eastern suburbs for a job, and that’s what is killing a lot of the infrastructure through congestion.
Sydney and Brisbane have similar problems. Unless you do plan strategically, you end up with the problems we’ve got at the moment, and you end up with much greater costs when you try to create remedies for the absence of strategic planning in the first place.
All of that planning is a precondition of being smarter and more creative about how you fund particular pieces of infrastructure.
KS: The most important thing to do is just get on and do it. There’s a general consensus about many things in the infrastructure space, and there doesn’t seem to be a sufficient sense of urgency to actually get bulldozers out.
Public Sector Reform Panel
DR KERRY SCHOTT Head of the NSW Commission of Audit; former Managing Director of Sydney Water
Dr Kerry Schott has had an extensive career within the infrastructure and investment sectors, and is currently a member of the Infrastructure Australia Board. Previously, Kerry was Managing Director of Sydney Water. Kerry was a non-Executive Director of the Sydney Water Board from 1997 to 2001. She recently led the Commission of Audit for the New South Wales Government.
She previously spent 15 years as an investment banker, including as Managing Director of Deutsche Bank and Executive Vice President of Bankers Trust Australia. She has been Deputy Secretary, NSW Treasury, an economic policy adviser with the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Government and an academic at University College London and at Oxford University.
Kerry has been Chairman of the Water Services Association of Australia, NSW Environment Protection Authority and the NSW Film and Television Office. She has also been a director of Australian Airlines Limited and the Film Finance Corporation Limited. She was a member of the Corporations and Securities Panel, and a Trade Practices Commissioner.
MR TERRY MORAN AC Chairman, Barangaroo Delivery Authority National President, Institute of Public Administration Australia
Mr Moran has had a varied public service career, working with successive Australian federal and state governments in public policy and public sector management. Mr Moran’s early career as a CEO focused on building Australia’s education and technical skills capacity. In 2000, he was appointed Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Victoria, where he played a leading role in developing an ambitious national reform agenda, subsequently agreed to by all states and the Commonwealth Government, and many initiatives to improve planning and service delivery in the state. Mr Moran was Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from March 2008 to September 2011, overseeing further development and implementation of this national reform agenda, particularly through social policy. Mr Moran was also responsible for overseeing work on national security and international policy, environment, industry and economic policy, and coordination of government administration, including Cabinet support. Mr Moran also played a lead role in driving reforms to the Australian Public Service.
GRAEME SAMUEL AC Managing Director and Head of Melbourne, Greenhill Caliburn
Graeme was Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission until July 2011. He took up this position in July 2003. He was also an Associate Member of the Australian Communications and Media Authority until July 2011.
Graeme has pursued a professional career in law and investment banking, from which he retired to assume a number of roles in public service and company directorships. He was a Partner of the law firm Phillips Fox & Masel from 1972 to 1980, Executive Director of Hill Samuel Australia Limited and subsequently Macquarie Bank Limited from 1981 to 1986, and co-founder of Grant Samuel & Associates in 1988.
Through his professional career, Graeme has specialised in mergers, acquisitions and defence, competition law, and interaction with governments, both federal and state. He has played a leading role in many well-recorded takeover defences, including BHP (takeover bids by Robert Holmes a Court), Nicholas Kiwi, and many others. During his eightyear term as Chairman of the ACCC, he was involved in assessing over 2000 merger proposals submitted for review by the Commission. This included analysing the transactional stages of many of the submitted mergers, and in every case a detailed analysis of the relevant markets, covering most industries in the Australian economy.
Graeme’s public service roles, across a range of activities, but prominently as President of the National Competition Council (1997–2003) and then as Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003–2011), have involved extensive interaction with business, and federal and state governments.
Network Integrity Network Integrity SERVICE DELIVERY SERVICE DELIVERY
The Network Integrity (NI) area of Telstra delivers customer solutions for asset relocations and commercial works. We work with our stakeholders to minimise damage, including working closely with the The Network Integrity (NI) area of Telstra delivers customer solutions for Asset ‘Dial Before You Dig’ (1100) service. We survey the Inter Exchange Relocations and Commercial Works. We work with our stakeholders to minimise Network (IEN) cable routes, which link all major capital cities in Australia to identify potential risks to Telstra assets. We also provision HFC (Foxtel/BigPond) network to new and existing multi-dwelling unit developments, commercial and corporate services. damage including working closely with the “Dial Before You Dig” (1100) service. We survey the Inter Exchange Network (IEN) cable routes which link all major capital cities in Australia to identify potential risks to Telstra Assets. We also provision HFC (Foxtel/BigPond) network to new and existing Multi Dwelling Unit developments, Commercial and Corporate services. In the Network Integrity area, we encourage developers and builders to contact us to ensure network assets and infrastructure are not affected by or included in the proposed “building envelope”. An example of this is when Telstra pits or manholes end up in customers’ proposed driveways! This can lead to serious Health and Safety risks for Telstra staff, the general public and the property owner, as well as potential liability for breach of Health and Safety legislation. Such a development may also prevent Telstra from exercising its rights to access its assets and infrastructure granted under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). Telstra recently modified its PID or “Pit In Driveway” policy in an effort to avoid incidents of non standard work practices relating to Telstra pits and manholes. Because every development is unique, Telstra NI actively encourages all developers, contractors, builders or members of the public to contact Telstra as early as possible in the development process to discuss and register their PID inquiry. Damage to the Telstra network continues to be an area of concern. In the past four financial years Telstra has had an average of 20,000 incidents of network damage nationally. That’s nearly 55 damages per day! In Network Integrity we ensure compliance with the strategies put in place to avoid damage and to protect Telstra’s valuable assets. NI works to avoid the risks of: • Injury or death to workers or the general public • Damage to Telstra’s assets • The significant costs of repairing damage faced by Telstra and those parties responsible • Disruption to services and inconvenience to Telstra customers. Under no circumstances should anyone try to move or alter Telstra’s network infrastructure without authorisation. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) only persons authorised by Telstra can undertake work on Telstra’s assets or enter a facility owned or operated by Telstra. Interfering (including unauthorised entry or tampering) with the infrastructure is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Developers can avoid expensive rework and costs by contacting NI before beginning work. Recently the developer of a site in NSW interfered with Telstra’s assets by raising footpath levels without first consulting Telstra in relation to its proposed works. The works significantly reduced access to the public telephone booth and encroached on a Telstra pillar. In another example, a pole with Telstra telephone lines was not relocated prior to land being subdivided by a Developer. This oversight resulted in the pole remaining
in the customer’s back yard. The Builder advised the customer they would arrange for the pole to be relocated upon completion of the house, but unfortunately this didn’t happen and the customer was left with the relocation cost.Network Integrity Network Integrity The Network Integrity (NI) area of Telstra delivers customer solutions for Asset Relocations and Commercial Works. We work with our stakeholders to minimise damage including working closely with the “Dial Before You Dig” (1100) service. We survey the Inter Exchange Network (IEN) cable routes which link all major SERVICE DELIVERY SERVICE DELIVERY capital cities in Australia to identify potential risks to Telstra Assets. We also provision HFC (Foxtel/BigPond) network to new and existing Multi Dwelling Unit developments, Commercial and Corporate services. In the Network Integrity area, we encourage developers and builders to contact us to ensure network assets and infrastructure are not affected by or included in the proposed “building envelope”. An example of this is when Telstra pits or manholes end up in customers’ proposed driveways! This can lead to serious Health and Safety risks for Telstra staff, the general public and the property owner, as well as potential liability for breach of Health and Safety legislation. Such a development may also prevent Telstra from exercising its rights to access its assets and infrastructure granted under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). Telstra recently modified its PID or “Pit In Driveway” policy in an effort to avoid incidents of non standard work practices relating to Telstra pits and manholes. Because every development is unique, Telstra NI actively encourages all developers, Conscientious developers always check where the existing Telstra assets are prior contractors, builders or members of the public to contact Telstra as early as possible to commencing development. A developer recently purchased land in Victoria in the development process to discuss and register their PID inquiry. and developed it into a residential estate. The site was surveyed, drainage, roads and paths were installed, and new utilities (gas, electricity, water) were provided. Damage to the Telstra network continues to be an area of concern. In the past Unfortunately the developer did not consult with Telstra about existing Telstra four financial years Telstra has had an average of 20,000 incidents of network assets. As a result, customers who bought blocks found Telstra network (pipe/ damage nationally. That’s nearly 55 damages per day! In Network Integrity we cable and manholes) in their front yards. Subdivision permits usually state the ensure compliance with the strategies put in place to avoid damage and to developer must at their cost provide “clear title” to prospective property owners. protect Telstra’s valuable assets. NI works to avoid the risks of: This would include relocating all utilities that need to be relocated - including • Injury or death to workers or the general public Telstra assets – prior to sale of the developed land. Developers can easily obtain • Damage to Telstra’s assets access to this information about our assets by obtaining Telstra “Dial Before • The significant costs of repairing damage faced by Telstra and those You Dig” plans. But in this case, the new property owners now face the cost of parties responsible relocating Telstra’s assets. • Disruption to services and inconvenience to Telstra customers. Network Integrity proactively promotes damage minimisation strategies, Under no circumstances should anyone try to move or alter Telstra’s network together with the “Dial Before You Dig” service, to raise what we call “cable infrastructure without authorisation. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 awareness” in Australia. We frequently conduct cable awareness presentations (Cth) only persons authorised by Telstra can undertake work on Telstra’s assets or to Councils, Developers and Utility Companies. This year alone NI have enter a facility owned or operated by Telstra. Interfering (including unauthorised presented more than fifty Cable Awareness presentations to the industry - entry or tampering) with the infrastructure is a criminal offence under the including the new NBN Company. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Developers can avoid expensive rework and costs by contacting NI before beginning work. Recently the developer of a site in NSW interfered with Telstra’s assets by raising footpath levels without first consulting Telstra in relation to its proposed works. The works significantly reduced access to the public telephone booth and encroached on a Telstra pillar. In another example, a pole with Telstra telephone lines was not relocated prior to land being subdivided by a Developer. This oversight resulted in the pole remaining These are just some examples of how developers and builders can avoid the costs of rework and repairs by consulting Telstra Network Integrity about their proposed plans prior to commencement of works. NI looks forward to working with the building industry to achieve the best outcome for our customers.
in the customer’s back yard. The Builder advised the customer they would arrange for the pole to be relocated upon completion of the house, but unfortunately this didn’t happen and the customer was left with the relocation cost. Conscientious developers always check where the existing Telstra assets are prior to commencing development. A developer recently purchased land in Victoria and developed it into a residential estate. The site was surveyed, drainage, roads and paths were installed, and new utilities (gas, electricity, water) were provided. Unfortunately the developer did not consult with Telstra about existing Telstra assets. As a result, customers who bought blocks found Telstra network (pipe/ cable and manholes) in their front yards. Subdivision permits usually state the developer must at their cost provide “clear title” to prospective property owners. This would include relocating all utilities that need to be relocated - including Telstra assets – prior to sale of the developed land. Developers can easily obtain access to this information about our assets by obtaining Telstra “Dial Before You Dig” plans. But in this case, the new property owners now face the cost of relocating Telstra’s assets. Network Integrity proactively promotes damage minimisation strategies, together with the “Dial Before You Dig” service, to raise what we call “cable awareness” in Australia. We frequently conduct cable awareness presentations to Councils, Developers and Utility Companies. This year alone NI have presented more than fifty Cable Awareness presentations to the industry - including the new NBN Company. These are just some examples of how developers and builders can avoid the costs of rework and repairs by consulting Telstra Network Integrity about their proposed plans prior to commencement of works. NI looks forward to working with the building industry to achieve the best outcome for our customers.
In the network integrity area, we encourage developers and builders to contact us to ensure network assets and infrastructure are not affected by, or included in, the proposed ‘building envelope’. An example of this is when Telstra pits or manholes end up in customers’ proposed driveways. This can lead to serious health and safety risks for Telstra staff, the general public and the property owner, as well as potential liability for breach of Health and Safety legislation. Such a development may also prevent Telstra from exercising its rights to access its assets and infrastructure granted under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). Telstra recently modified its PID or ‘Pit In Driveway’ policy in an effort to avoid incidents of non-standard work practices relating to Telstra pits and manholes. Because every development is unique, Telstra NI actively encourages all developers, contractors, builders or members of the public to contact Telstra as early as possible in the development process to discuss and register their PID inquiry. Damage to the Telstra network continues to be an area of concern. In the past four financial years, Telstra has had an average of 20,000 incidents of network damage nationally. That’s nearly 55 damages per day! In Network Integrity, we ensure compliance with the strategies put in place to avoid damage and to protect Telstra’s valuable assets. NI works to avoid the risks of: • injury or death to workers or the general public • damage to Telstra’s assets • the significant costs of repairing damage faced by Telstra and those parties responsible • disruption to services and inconvenience to Telstra customers. Under no circumstances should anyone try to move or alter Telstra’s network infrastructure without authorisation. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth), only persons authorised by Telstra can undertake work on Telstra’s assets or enter a facility owned or operated by Telstra. Interfering (including unauthorised entry or tampering) with the infrastructure is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Developers can avoid expensive rework and costs by contacting NI before beginning work. Recently, the developer of a site in New South Wales interfered with Telstra’s assets by raising footpath levels without first consulting Telstra in relation to its proposed works. The works significantly reduced access to the public telephone booth and encroached on a Telstra pillar. In another example, a pole with Telstra telephone lines was not relocated prior to land being subdivided by a developer. This oversight resulted in the pole remaining in the customer’s backyard. The builder advised the customer they would arrange for the pole to be relocated upon completion of the house, but unfortunately this didn’t happen, and the customer was left with the relocation cost.
The Network Integrity (NI) area of Telstra delivers customer solutions for Asset Relocations and Commercial Works. We work with our stakeholders to minimise damage including working closely with the “Dial Before You Dig” (1100) service. We survey the Inter Exchange Network (IEN) cable routes which link all major capital cities in Australia to identify potential risks to Telstra Assets. We also provision HFC (Foxtel/BigPond) network to new and existing Multi Dwelling Unit developments, Commercial and Corporate services. In the Network Integrity area, we encourage developers and builders to contact us to ensure network assets and infrastructure are not affected by or included in the Conscientious developers always check where the existing Telstra assets are prior to commencing development. A developer recently proposed “building envelope”. An example of this is when Telstra pits or manholes end up in customers’ proposed driveways! This can lead to serious Health and purchased land in Victoria and developed it into a residential estate. Safety risks for Telstra staff, the general public and the property owner, as well as The site was surveyed, drainage, roads and paths were installed, potential liability for breach of Health and Safety legislation. Such a development and new utilities (gas, electricity, and water) were provided. may also prevent Telstra from exercising its rights to access its assets and Unfortunately, the developer did not consult with Telstra about infrastructure granted under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). existing Telstra assets. As a result, customers who bought blocks found Telstra network (pipe/ cable and manholes) in their front yards. Subdivision permits usually state the developer must at their own cost provide ‘clear title’ to prospective property owners. This would include relocating all utilities that need to be relocated – including Telstra assets – prior to sale of the developed land. Developers can easily obtain access to this information about our assets by obtaining Telstra recently modified its PID or “Pit In Driveway” policy in an effort to avoid incidents of non standard work practices relating to Telstra pits and manholes. Because every development is unique, Telstra NI actively encourages all developers, contractors, builders or members of the public to contact Telstra as early as possible in the development process to discuss and register their PID inquiry. Damage to the Telstra network continues to be an area of concern. In the past Telstra ‘Dial Before You Dig’ plans. But in this case, the new property four financial years Telstra has had an average of 20,000 incidents of network owners now face the cost of relocating Telstra’s assets. damage nationally. That’s nearly 55 damages per day! In Network Integrity we ensure compliance with the strategies put in place to avoid damage and to Network Integrity proactively promotes damage minimisation protect Telstra’s valuable assets. NI works to avoid the risks of: strategies, together with the ‘Dial Before You Dig’ service, to raise • Injury or death to workers or the general public what we call ‘cable awareness’ in Australia. We frequently conduct • Damage to Telstra’s assets cable awareness presentations to councils, developers and utility • The significant costs of repairing damage faced by Telstra and those companies. This year alone, NI have presented more than 50 cable parties responsible awareness presentations to the industry – including the new NBN • Disruption to services and inconvenience to Telstra customers. Company. These are just some examples of how developers and builders can avoid the costs of rework and repairs by consulting Telstra Network Integrity about their proposed plans prior to the commencement Under no circumstances should anyone try to move or alter Telstra’s network infrastructure without authorisation. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) only persons authorised by Telstra can undertake work on Telstra’s assets or enter a facility owned or operated by Telstra. Interfering (including unauthorised entry or tampering) with the infrastructure is a criminal offence under the of works. NI looks forward to working with the building industry to Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). achieve the best outcome for our customers. Developers can avoid expensive rework and costs by contacting NI before beginning work. Recently the developer of a site in NSW interfered with Telstra’s assets by raising footpath levels without first consulting Telstra in relation to its proposed works. The works significantly reduced access to the public telephone booth and encroached on a Telstra pillar. In another example, a pole with Telstra telephone lines was not relocated prior to land being subdivided by a Developer. This oversight resulted in the pole remaining
The Network Integrity (NI) area of Telstra delivers customer solutions for Asset Relocations and Commercial Works. We work with our stakeholders to minimise damage including working closely with the “Dial Before You Dig” (1100) service. in the customer’s back yard. The Builder advised the customer they would arrange for the pole to be relocated upon completion of the house, but unfortunately this didn’t happen and the customer was left with the relocation cost. We survey the Inter Exchange Network (IEN) cable routes which link all major capital cities in Australia to identify potential risks to Telstra Assets. We also provision HFC (Foxtel/BigPond) network to new and existing Multi Dwelling Unit developments, Commercial and Corporate services. In the Network Integrity area, we encourage developers and builders to contact us to ensure network assets and infrastructure are not affected by or included in the proposed “building envelope”. An example of this is when Telstra pits or manholes end up in customers’ proposed driveways! This can lead to serious Health and Safety risks for Telstra staff, the general public and the property owner, as well as potential liability for breach of Health and Safety legislation. Such a development may also prevent Telstra from exercising its rights to access its assets and infrastructure granted under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). Telstra recently modified its PID or “Pit In Driveway” policy in an effort to avoid incidents of non standard work practices relating to Telstra pits and manholes. Because every development is unique, Telstra NI actively encourages all developers, contractors, builders or members of the public to contact Telstra as early as possible in the development process to discuss and register their PID inquiry. Conscientious developers always check where the existing Telstra assets are prior to commencing development. A developer recently purchased land in Victoria and developed it into a residential estate. The site was surveyed, drainage, roads and paths were installed, and new utilities (gas, electricity, water) were provided. Damage to the Telstra network continues to be an area of concern. In the past four financial years Telstra has had an average of 20,000 incidents of network damage nationally. That’s nearly 55 damages per day! In Network Integrity we ensure compliance with the strategies put in place to avoid damage and to protect Telstra’s valuable assets. NI works to avoid the risks of: • Injury or death to workers or the general public • Damage to Telstra’s assets • The significant costs of repairing damage faced by Telstra and those parties responsible Unfortunately the developer did not consult with Telstra about existing Telstra assets. As a result, customers who bought blocks found Telstra network (pipe/ cable and manholes) in their front yards. Subdivision permits usually state the developer must at their cost provide “clear title” to prospective property owners. This would include relocating all utilities that need to be relocated - including Telstra assets – prior to sale of the developed land. Developers can easily obtain access to this information about our assets by obtaining Telstra “Dial Before You Dig” plans. But in this case, the new property owners now face the cost of relocating Telstra’s assets. • Disruption to services and inconvenience to Telstra customers. Network Integrity proactively promotes damage minimisation strategies, Under no circumstances should anyone try to move or alter Telstra’s network infrastructure without authorisation. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) only persons authorised by Telstra can undertake work on Telstra’s assets or enter a facility owned or operated by Telstra. Interfering (including unauthorised entry or tampering) with the infrastructure is a criminal offence under the together with the “Dial Before You Dig” service, to raise what we call “cable awareness” in Australia. We frequently conduct cable awareness presentations to Councils, Developers and Utility Companies. This year alone NI have presented more than fifty Cable Awareness presentations to the industry - including the new NBN Company. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Developers can avoid expensive rework and costs by contacting NI before beginning work. Recently the developer of a site in NSW interfered with Telstra’s assets by raising footpath levels without first consulting Telstra in relation to its proposed works. The works significantly reduced access to the public telephone booth and encroached on a Telstra pillar. In another example, a pole with Telstra telephone lines was not relocated prior to land being subdivided by a Developer. This oversight resulted in the pole remaining These are just some examples of how developers and builders can avoid the costs of rework and repairs by consulting Telstra Network Integrity about their proposed plans prior to commencement of works. NI looks forward to working with the building industry to achieve the best outcome for our customers.
in the customer’s back yard. The Builder advised the customer they would arrange for the pole to be relocated upon completion of the house, but unfortunately this didn’t happen and the customer was left with the relocation cost. Conscientious developers always check where the existing Telstra assets are prior to commencing development. A developer recently purchased land in Victoria and developed it into a residential estate. The site was surveyed, drainage, roads and paths were installed, and new utilities (gas, electricity, water) were provided. Unfortunately the developer did not consult with Telstra about existing Telstra assets. As a result, customers who bought blocks found Telstra network (pipe/ cable and manholes) in their front yards. Subdivision permits usually state the developer must at their cost provide “clear title” to prospective property owners. This would include relocating all utilities that need to be relocated - including Telstra assets – prior to sale of the developed land. Developers can easily obtain access to this information about our assets by obtaining Telstra “Dial Before You Dig” plans. But in this case, the new property owners now face the cost of relocating Telstra’s assets. Network Integrity proactively promotes damage minimisation strategies, together with the “Dial Before You Dig” service, to raise what we call “cable awareness” in Australia. We frequently conduct cable awareness presentations to Councils, Developers and Utility Companies. This year alone NI have presented more than fifty Cable Awareness presentations to the industry - including the new NBN Company. These are just some examples of how developers and builders can avoid the costs of rework and repairs by consulting Telstra Network Integrity about their proposed plans prior to commencement of works. NI looks forward to working with the building industry to achieve the best outcome for our customers.
Network Integrity is contactable on 1800 810 443Network Integrity is contactable on 1800 810 443 or or email email F1102490@team.telstra.comF1102490@team.telstra.com
Network Integrity is contactable on 1800 810 443 or email F1102490@team.telstra.com
FROM INDUSTRY PIONEER TO MARKET LEADER
Founded by Dick Bridges in 1955, and specialising in sheet metal fabrication, including electrical enclosures for domestic metering applications, B&R has grown to be the largest manufacturer of industrial enclosures, cabinets, racks and switchboards in Australia. Under the direction of the founder’s son Ken and daughter Chris, B&R Enclosures remains an Australianowned and operated business, which encompasses four divisions: B&R Industrial, B&R Data Systems, and B&R Domestic Commercial trading through Hager B&R and B&R Ex Systems Pty Ltd. Each division has a focus on the unique needs of their different market segments. Together, these divisions share the strengths, resources and experience of the founding company to provide attentive customer service, innovative design and superior-quality products.
In 1994, B&R Enclosures started a successful partnership with Hager, a European electrical solutions manufacturer, to offer the Australian domestic and commercial markets a full range of high-quality enclosures and switchgear. B&R Data Systems was established in 2006 to cater to the specific needs of the data and ICT market. These divisions are backed by the manufacturing, sales and distribution network of B&R Enclosures, with the addition of an experienced, dedicated sales and product development team with a detailed understanding of this specialised market.
B&R’s offer was further increased with the establishment of B&R Ex Systems Pty Ltd in 2009, specialising in the supply of hazardous area electrical equipment into chemical, oil, gas and dust-filled applications. B&R Ex Systems’ highly qualified staff have over 100 years’ industry experience, and operate out of a dedicated TÜV-certified facility in Riverwood, Sydney.
World-class manufacturing facilities
B&R Enclosures manufactures a range of products for a variety of industries and applications, with manufacturing plants in Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney and China. B&R utilises state-of-the-art technology to produce their renowned, high-quality products. B&R’s offerings to the market include electrical enclosures for residential and commercial buildings, new infrastructure developments, industrial controls, mine processing, the oil and gas industry and data centres. B&R’s drive for excellence is reflected by its constant investment in the latest design and manufacturing technologies. A professionally qualified team of engineers and designers use the latest 3-D computer design systems to develop and improve a wide range of enclosure solutions, and to ensure maximum product usability.
A commitment to quality
B&R is committed to building quality into each stage of design, manufacture and distribution. B&R has demonstrated a commitment to quality, recognised internationally on the Lloyd’s register, and has achieved and maintained the standard of ISO9001:2008.
The B&R experience
B&R Enclosures’ commitment to being a service-based business has never changed. Close customer relationships are the cornerstone of their business. B&R listen carefully, because their innovative product ideas are driven from deep market insight. One of B&R’s philosophies is to offer products at a competitive price. Our understanding of applications, rules and regulations is reflected in products that can be counted on to perform strongly and safely across every state in Australia. B&R stays at the forefront of new technologies in order to exceed their customers’ expectations.
