In fielding questions from delegates at the recent National Local Roads Congress, Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, said that, in managing our extensive roads network it is vital to get things right in regard to asset management. He said this will generate savings because if further investment in our roads is delayed too long, then ultimately, the taxpayer will face an even larger bill. Asset management and lifecycle costs are not a new concept to Australian Local Government engineers. They are fully aware that short term bandaid approaches may help to balance the current or next year’s budget, or perhaps enable a new facility to be built. However, delaying necessary maintenance or an upgrade of existing infrastructure has the potential to deliver a much more expensive outcome, possibly the early, full replacement of a particular asset.
In the mid 1990s, it was widely held, particularly by Local Government engineers in the USA, that Australia was at the leading edge of asset management practices and lifecycle cost analysis. An asset management manual, developed by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, is widely used in the UK, USA, Canada and NZ. It has gained international acclaim as a leading standard for infrastructure management. Known as the International Infrastructure Management Manual, it contains numerous case studies and ‘how to’ examples.
Hillsborough County in Florida USA has been recognised by its Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) for leadership in using advanced asset management systems. Hillsborough’s Public Works Department has an annual budget of $AUD500 million. Its Director, Bernardo Garcia, endorses the IPWEA Manual with the following, ‘No other resource is as valuable for anyone that initiates and desires to improve on their Asset Management System…you Aussies are the ‘World Pacesetters’ on Asset Management and we commend you for that!’
It is clear that Local Governments in Australia have the professional expertise and tools to be at the cutting edge in infrastructure management, but the question must be asked: Is all this good knowledge being translated into practice within all Councils? The recent National Local Roads Congress highlighted the fact that across Local Government there is still a lack of consistency in data collection and analysis, a vital component of good asset management practice.
This is not only a concern at the micro or individual Council level but across the sector as a whole, particularly in regard to presenting a solid case to the other spheres of government in regard to acquiring the funding for ongoing infrastructure maintenance or renewal. The political reality of short electoral cycles with elected representatives always mindful of the looming return to the ballot box, together with short term budgetary processes, does little to promote the long term financial planning necessary to optimise the lifecycle of our built assets. High profile new projects may well be a vote catcher but the lifetime costs of running and maintaining a new facility need to be funded in future annual budgets. The tendency for maintenance budgets to be one of the first areas to be pruned is a further recipe for disaster.
Engineers are very aware of these realities, but there needs to be corporate buy in and commitment at the elected level. The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, wholly funded through its professional membership, appears to be an untapped resource of professional practitioners able to make a serious contribution to the future direction of asset management in Australia. The recent signing of a partnership agreement involving the Australian Local Government Association, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia and AustRoads holds great promise for capitalising on this potential and delivering a national and consistent approach for Councils in their vital stewardship of our built assets.
