Australia has an infrastructure backlog that grew to about $35 billion last year.
WHEN Kevin McCann, the chairman of Macquarie Group and Origin Energy, called for renewed micro-economic reform in the energy sector, he should have included other sectors of the economy.
With the gap between the mining sector and the rest of the industry widening, and inflation on the rise, the need for productivity improvements is reaching a critical point. The best way to do that is by selling government assets, investing the money in critical infrastructure and restarting competition reforms.
It is a position that hasn't gone unnoticed by Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens, who said recently: "It is now just about impossible to avoid the conclusion that productivity growth performance has been quite poor since at least the mid-2000s."
It also explains why Australia ranked No. 34 in a World Economic Forum report on infrastructure quality in 2010-11, which is two spots behind Slovenia and one spot ahead of Jordan. The brutal reality is Australia is suffering from an infrastructure backlog that grew to about $35 billion last year, and requires more than $700 billion to be spent in the next decade to return the quality of infrastructure to a point that will sustain national prosperity.
Speaking at an annual gathering of infrastructure executives for Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, McCann made the point that it was almost 25 years since Australia's strong period of national competition policy reform.
For most of that period the country had strong productivity gains, but the statistics show that outside of mining, productivity has been stuck in the mud for the past five years.
The country is now at a critical point in the infrastructure debate, with worsening congestion, bottlenecks and electricity outages. The question is what to do. As Brendan Lyon, CEO of IPA argues, getting competition and efficiency into government operating expenses will be important to close the gap between the infrastructure that Australia needs and what it can afford.
But that won't be easy. Max Moore-Wilton, chairman of Sydney Airport, made the salient point during the debate that the infrastructure challenge is not just about new infrastructure but also about the existing infrastructure, which is old. "Replacement is a challenge, particularly in regional Australia, where there are huge infrastructure problems looming," he said.
A COAG advisory group has estimated that privatisation and associated regulatory reform in energy would increase Australia's real GDP by about $400 million a year, and would reduce retail prices by 2 per cent.
McCann gave a compelling argument for reform, comparing energy prices in the competitive fully privatised Victorian electricity sector with that in New South Wales. Between 1980 and 1995 electricity prices in NSW and Victoria rose 35 per cent and 34 per cent, respectively. From 1995 to 2010, prices in Victoria rose by 35 per cent, which is about the same pace as the increase over the preceding 15-year period, while NSW prices rose a whopping 70 per cent.
The point is Australia is in desperate need of a new round of reforms to stimulate productivity. But the sorts of reforms the Gillard government is embarking on, which include introducing a carbon tax and then compensating certain sectors of the population, distort price signals.
In the words of Transfield Services chairman Tony Shepherd: "It is voodoo economics. People don't value things they don't pay for. We don't have a magic pudding."
Part of the answer lies in providing a constant pipeline of projects for global financial markets to consider, as well as finding ways for the superannuation industry to tap into brownfields infrastructure projects.
Project financing has recovered rapidly from global financial crisis-induced lows last year, and is set to boom in the next few years, driven by infrastructure, mining and energy.
In the case of public-private partnerships, which will fund part of the growing list of infrastructure projects, as the infrastructure project catastrophes of recent months show, if Australia is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the next few years on projects that are going to be given the green light based on inaccurate costings whether privately financed, publicly financed or a combination of both there needs to be a radical overhaul of the way project costs are calculated.
The sad reality is some PPPs, including the Leighton Holdings Victorian desalination plant and the collapsed RiverCity Motorways, are part of a growing list of public private partnerships that have torched billions of dollars of private sector money in the past decade due to cost overruns and poor risk management.
It is not hard to see why: certain big projects get up because there are a lot of people with vested interests. To make the project look viable these people underestimate costs, overestimate revenue, undervalue environmental effects and overvalue regional development effects.
Right now the average super fund allocates 5 per cent to infrastructure projects, and most of these are brownfields investments, where the infrastructure project is already complete, with most of the risks stripped out of them.
The last word should go to Max Moore-Wilton: "We have a significant pool of superannuation funds, we have a framework that encourages savings but there needs to be a change in the model. You can't have a model where the first round of investors in a toll road project take a haircut. Things have to change."
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What is Australia’s infrastructure backlog and how much needs to be spent to fix it?
The article says Australia’s infrastructure backlog grew to about $35 billion last year and that experts estimate the country needs to spend more than $700 billion over the next decade to restore infrastructure quality and sustain national prosperity.
Why are industry leaders calling for micro‑economic reform and privatization in energy and other sectors?
Speakers such as Macquarie Group and Origin Energy chairman Kevin McCann argue selling government assets, investing the proceeds in critical infrastructure and restarting competition reforms would boost productivity. The piece also quotes a COAG advisory estimate that privatisation and regulatory reform in energy could raise real GDP by about $400 million a year and reduce retail prices by roughly 2%.
How have electricity price outcomes differed between Victoria and New South Wales, and why does that matter to investors?
The article cites McCann’s comparison: between 1980–1995 NSW and Victoria prices rose about 35% and 34% respectively; from 1995–2010 Victoria rose another ~35% while NSW rose about 70%. That contrast is used to illustrate how different regulatory and competition settings can materially affect price trajectories — a key factor for investors watching utility returns and regulatory risk.
What risks in public‑private partnerships (PPPs) should everyday investors be aware of?
The article highlights common PPP risks: cost overruns, inaccurate costings, poor risk management and optimistic revenue forecasts. It points to high‑profile failures such as the Leighton Holdings Victorian desalination plant and the collapsed RiverCity Motorways as examples where private investors suffered large losses.
What is the outlook for project financing and infrastructure investment?
According to the article, project financing bounced back strongly from the global financial crisis lows and is set to boom in coming years, driven by demand in infrastructure, mining and energy. That recovery suggests more funding will be available for large projects, provided project risks and cost estimates are managed better.
How much do superannuation funds currently allocate to infrastructure and what are the concerns?
The article states the average super fund allocates about 5% to infrastructure, and most of that is in brownfields investments where many risks have been removed. Commentators in the piece argue the super industry should find ways to invest more effectively in infrastructure without leaving early investors to take disproportionate losses.
What reforms or changes are suggested to improve Australia’s infrastructure and productivity?
Suggested actions in the article include selling government assets and channeling proceeds into critical projects, reintroducing competition reforms, improving efficiency in government operating expenses, and creating a steady pipeline of bankable projects for global investors. The piece also calls for a radical overhaul of how project costs are estimated to avoid repeating costly mistakes.
What should everyday investors monitor if they’re watching Australian infrastructure as an investment theme?
The article suggests investors watch government reform and privatisation plans, the quality of project costings and risk allocation in PPPs, shifts in superannuation fund allocations, and the pipeline of infrastructure projects for potential private‑finance participation. Policy changes (for example energy or carbon policy) and improvements in competition and regulatory frameworks are also important signals that can affect returns and risks.