Voters are more sceptical than ever that taxpayer funds are being spent wisely on infrastructure projects, according to a pre-election survey.
Over two-thirds of respondents to the ANU’s Australian Perspectives on Infrastructure study said politicians had too much influence over how projects are selected.
A further 59 per cent said they believed projects were approved for political reasons.
Study director Professor Sara Bice said the study reflected frustration about local communities being bypassed for engagement on infrastructure projects.
“Community members in some of Australia’s most intensive infrastructure environments told us they felt less able to influence the process and less trusting inxjmtzyw infrastructure proponents as the impacts on them and their communities rise,” she said.
The ANU study is the first national report on how communities think about infrastructure and comes off the back of the federal government’s massive $17.9bn budget commitment to projects ahead of the election.
While 71 per cent of Australians agree that investment could be the key to rebuilding the economy, Professor Brice said the perceived politicisation of project selection damaged trust in development.
“Community members recognise infrastructure as highly politicised in Australia and this is undermining their trust in government to select the projects they most need,” she said.
“As a result, we see people relying on independent regulators and their fellow community members, not representative government, to ensure infrastructure developers do the right thing.”
Just 15 per cent of the projects announced in the government’s latest cash splash have been ticked off as priorities by Infrastructure Australia.
The Grattan Institute’s Danielle Wood said many of the projects also “do not yet have a business case” and the likelihood of cost overruns was “heightened”.
“The pipeline of road and rail projects around the country is already huge,” she said.
“State governments managing these projects have highlighted the challenges of shortages of raw materials, machinery and labour, even indicating that some projects may need to be delayed as a consequence.
“Adding more non-urgent projects to this pipeline makes very little sense.”
