If you don't recognise it, he's the secretary of the Department of Transport and Planning.
In other words he is, on paper, our top transport bureaucrat. His roles include inheriting the duties of the old Director of Public Transport from a previous structure.
Ministers and departments
Not knowing the secretary's name is forgivable as Victoria's ministers mostly have much higher profiles than their mandarins. Except for a couple of cases where they are more evenly matched, such as police (where the commissioner is very public) and health (recently due to COVID).
It's ministers, not bureaucrats, who are on the TV each night. They accept the limelight and take the blame if something goes wrong. Or at least that's the lore according to an oft-stated (but debated) Westminster convention of ministerial responsibility.
Departments can advise and recommend but it is the minister who decides on many matters. Unless it's something that needs budget funding or it's so big that cabinet and/or the premier's backing is decisive.
A particular strength of front-line departments is that they have practical experience of what works and what doesn't. This could give them an edge over the gaggle of other voices (including infrastructure advisory bodies, academics, private consultants and vested interests) pushing various schemes. Public servants sometimes get a bad rap but only they have specialist knowledge on the hows of service delivery. After all it's their departments who get stuck with implementation.
The Australian public service of the 1960s was widely described as "anonymous, neutral and a career service". However the first epithet never applied to department secretaries. And it doesn't apply to transport leaders elsewhere or at one time here. Especially when those leaders had titles like 'commissioner' leading semi-autonomous outfits like the Melbourne Metropolitan Tramways Board or Victorian Railways.
For a while it seemed we were returning part way back to this with the formation of Public Transport Victoria under the last Coalition government. I thought it was a good structure with significant results in areas like bus reform.
However it proved short-lived, with PTV remaining as a network brand and its functions being folded back into an enlarged Department of Transport under more direct ministerial control (something the vanquished Liberals wished they exercised more of when they were in government - see page 49 of their post-mortem).
Department functions
As well as providing policy advice, government departments also get their profile from being service providers, ie doers. However transport is weaker here than other major departments like education and health.
For a start they don't actually run much as metropolitan trains, trams and buses are franchised or contracted out. V/Line had returned to government operation but, as a state owned enterprise, was viewed as a law unto itself that once had its own board. Though possibly less so now with governance changes that lessened its autonomy in 2021 following a maelstrom of issues including poor operational performance, corruption scandals and IBAC investigations.
DTP is more a franchise and contract manager than a direct operator. Performance on this has varied. Metropolitan trains and trams have mostly met operational performance targets. However weaknesses including the 2017 Transdev fleet management crisis, the more recent failure to get V/Line to meet service targets and sloppiness on maintenance planning (as reported by VAGO).
Planning is another department function (with it now even in its name). However DTP's advice is merely one source that a government can draw on. Its ability to give effect to its work is weakened with the department not yet having a big, high profile and funded program it can call its own (unlike the orbital SmartBuses and minimum bus service standards of the 2007 Jim Betts era DoT). Infrastructure Victoria inhabits some of this space with its higher level and longer term strategies. And our biggest transport project of the lot, the Suburban Rail Loop, was hatched in the premier's office. So DTP does transport planning but is by no means the only government body to do so.
DTP has network operational support roles. It keeps the system ticking over with duties like administering ticketing and passenger information. It also has carriage of smaller projects, albeit lower profile and underfunded eg bus service reform. It's not unfair to say that DTP's project delivery capacity is like a small cottage industry incompatible with what a growing city demands with even modest changes like adding a small bus route taking longer than (say) a level crossing removal.
Hence if the government wants something big done they will often look elsewhere. Large signature projects tend to be entrusted to dedicated authorities. For example the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority (which incorporates the former LXRA, RPV and others) and the Suburban Rail Loop Authority. The LXRP, in particular, has a good reputation for on-time delivery of projects on a mass scale, with its CEO recently being promoted even higher.
Relative position of DTP
Government departments and agencies wax and wane in their relative standing as priorities and political fashions change.
Despite the money flowing into transport the DoT (now DTP) sometimes appears more like a bit player than its encompassing name suggests. Whereas the major project authorities hold centre stage as infrastructure became the 'thing'. Contracting out of service delivery has possibly also limited DTP's direct influence relative to other departments that do more in-house.
If DTP had funding for carriage of large 'Big Service', 'Big Bike' and 'Big Accessibility' agendas, then its profile would undoubtedly be much higher. Even departmental leaders touring the northern suburbs and articulating the necessity of the current bus reform program would help, rather than leaving commentary on this to IV (and this blog).
What about the post-election merging with the DoT gaining planning (to become DTP)? The integration of transport and land use planning is somewhat of a holy grail for those in the urban planning field. The previous split wasn't conducive to that. Bringing the two together raises hopes that transport and planning will at least talk to one another and create scope for more coordination (in theory).
On the other hand 'super departments' can be unwieldy and cause focus to be lost. An example was when PTV was rolled into DoT and interest in bus reform fell. This may be why big projects have their own single purpose construction body to get the job done and retain focus.
If I was a graduate looking to build a career in a major transport initiative then the latter would appear to have more to offer than the department. Unless you were a bus reform nut then by all means you'd aim for DTP hoping that resourcing for mass implementation comes soon!
Individual leaders' profiles
We've discussed the department. What about individuals and transport operators?
The very top tier of transport leaders, like Andy Byford, have global recognition. They also presented a strong public face of the network that helped unify people under them (although relations with the unions were not always good). Prominent Melbourne examples from last century include VR's Sir Harold Clapp and MMTB's Sir Robert Risson. Ministers ignored these larger-than-life personalities at their peril.
VR's Harold Clapp was a leader not afraid to say no to parochial interests, MPs and even ministers.
While not as big names as Clapp and Risson, more recent leaders, including Jim Betts, Ian Dobbs, John Merritt, Hubert Guyot and Andrew Lezala, also had significant profiles in their time. All, with few exceptions, spent decades in transport. Many also possess operational backgrounds, earning legitimacy and respect from others (ie they're not just a business school blow-in or a dime-a-dozen engineer).
Today's DTP management style is to lie low and leave the public stuff to the premier and ministers (of which the department currently has 4).
For example the current DTP secretary rarely appears on TV nor writes op-eds in the papers about the role, challenges and opportunities facing transport. On LinkedIn he has 2000 followers versus 7000 followers for his NSW counterpart. He sometimes appears at professional industry & stakeholder forums but recordings are scarce with a YouTube search finding nothing (unlike MTIA's Corey Hannett who fronts his own organisation's videos).
The anonymous thing can apply at lower levels too. If quizzed by the media DTP comment may be unattributed rather than named . Whereas if you go back 10, 15 or 20 years the Department of Infrastructure, Department of Transport, Metlink or PTV spokesperson was often named, a practice which attaches a needed degree of accountability.
Neither DTP nor PTV have a publicly given email address, though the former may seek comment on specific matters and the latter has a website feedback form and call centre.
Hence if you want to find how senior DTP people think you'll need to delve deeper. More on that later.
Leaders like Vicroads' John Merritt often publicly discussed the challenges facing their network
Transport operator leadership
What about the bosses of franchised and contracted operators? We seem to hear from them less too.
Part of this may be because transport (especially operational aspects) is less in the headlines than it was say 15 years ago. Our trains then were full and disruptions plagued the network. Reliability improved thanks to more frequent and robust timetables so news coverage fell. Plus we look at our own social media more than newspapers, with mX, the free afternoon commuter paper that most covered rail disruptions, ceasing publication.
More recently peak commuting has dropped with the pandemic. We still have many train disruptions (more often now due to planned 'Big Build' works occupations) but the number of politically influential middle-class peak commuters affected has fallen with many having work from home options.
Contractual arrangements is another factor. Rail Franchising Mark 1 was based on franchisee operators operating as businesses to boost patronage and reduce public subsidy. Separate marketing, branding and ticketing was attempted but this (rightly) was considered to be fragmenting the network so it got centralised to Metlink and later PTV.
The first version of train and tram franchising was based on an unstable mixture of governments wanting too much for too little and market share grabbing foreign operators promising too much for too little. It didn't last with National Express, the biggest operator, handing the keys back after two years.
Franchises were renegotiated with higher public subsidy. Each successor contract shifted a bit more commercial risk (and requirement for initiative) from the operator to the government. That could work if you had an active transport agency like PTV with network planning and reform capability, funding for service improvements, patronage growth targets. However the incorporation of PTV into a larger less agile DoT smothered its 'network voice' and stymied marketing.
"Articulating the network" is a key duty of transport leaders. In 2008 Yarra Trams added modern touches to the classic 1960s 'Citizen Tram' film to draw attention to the benefits of trams and giving priority to their movement.
Operators could advocate for improvements. This can be difficult to do publicly since they have contracts with image-conscious governments and it would not do to bite the hand that feeds you.
They can sometimes get around this by encouraging research with academics and channelling advocacy through professional or industry organisations. These have also ebbed and flowed over the years. UITP had a local chapter but part split off to become PTAANZ which runs industry events and interviews.
Bus operators here have BusVic. They actively advocated for more metropolitan services about 15-20 years ago with significant success. But except on matters directly affecting industry (such as contract negotiations) they don't seem quite as prominent now with membership increasingly skewed to smaller, regional and family operators. However they may have had input in to the comprehensive bus upgrade plan that the Coalition took to the 2022 state election.
Bus companies vary in their attitude to network reform. Attitudes can cover the whole range from full cooperation to internal resistance to (rarely) public opposition. There remain views in the industry regarding 'ownership' of routes (sometimes literally 'grandfather rights') even though they would not run today without government subsidy. The government on its part might contend that maximising community utility and value for money requires an ability for it to reform networks and even potentially retender services.
The most recent case where a bus operator has been critical of departmental network reform plans was McKenzies of Healesville whose concerns appeared in local media. Overall though the vast majority of bus operators leave public commentary on bus services to the department and government except for routine disruption information matters.
Past DoT engagement
As mentioned before the current DTP secretary comes across as the model anonymous public servant who leaves media to government operatives and commentary to academics and others like Infrastructure Victoria. He has no big projects to back and advocate, unlike the heads of major construction bodies. Service initiatives DTP does get funding for are hardly marketed. The 'simple connected journeys' network vision gets wheeled out when DTP executives meet stakeholders but lacks publicly visible championing from the top nor evidence of much 'meat'.
The subdued (or lack of) discussion from leaders is quite different to about 15 years ago. Followers then would not have failed to notice the spats between the government and academic Dr Paul Mees who acerbically criticised the competence of the DoT Public Transport Division led by Jim Betts. Mees was particularly critical of rail franchising (with which Betts was closely associated) but also opposed major infrastructure projects, arguing that we could get better value by planning centrally, not building freeways and working existing public transport assets harder.
Outsiders then rarely grasped the extraordinary loyalty that Betts earned from staff, largely because he trusted them. This was during a time when soaring myki ticketing cost blow-outs and plunging rail reliability competed for bad headlines in the newspapers. Regardless of this 'noise' Betts maintained morale in the department, defending it and its people from outside barbs. However if taken to excess such solidarity can become a groupthink that retards progress if it causes good ideas to be dismissed due to the pugnacious personality of their then most prominent advocate.
During this era some staff (and Betts himself) also engaged with (mostly transport enthusiasts) online. This activity helped press the department's view on matters raised by Mees and backers in organisations such as the PTUA. Also such interactions also gave those involved (and lurkers) valuable insight into how the Department thought.
That happens much less now. Not only have the personalities changed but so have the forums. What we now call social media went from a geeks' plaything to a more formal and corporatised tool in the communications adviser arsenal.
This, along with a trend to that function's centralisation, restricted the range and depth of matters discussed as few communications professionals possess substantial transport technical or operational expertise. And, because so many flit from job to job and transport departments have dumped their libraries, corporate knowledge and historical context may be lacking (especially if Trove dies). Similar comments could also apply to the mainstream media where there are fewer newspapers and specialist journalists to test some of the assertions made.
Getting information
With these changes, how can interested outsiders get a grasp of current thinking inside the portfolio if its leader is publicly heard from less than might be desired?
One way is to see if executives under them are saying anything. LinkedIn is like a strutting zoo for careerist peacocks who share their likes and may write articles. So you'll find lots of executives active there along with the department itself.
It helps if you know their names. You can get the deputy secretaries names from the organisation chart. Then you can find them on LinkedIn with links from others lower down the tree.
Professional and industry associations is another avenue. They sometimes have conferences, publications, interviews and podcasts.
One such example is Public Transport Association Australia New Zealand. Women who Move Nations is a long interview podcast series with senior women in transport. Some of its guests are current or former DoT/DTP heads or executives.
Examples relevant for Victoria include:
One should also sit up and take notice of those within the transport portfolio even if outside the department. Especially, in the current climate, those responsible for projects closely associated with the government's agenda. For example Frankie Carroll, the SRLA head, wrote an item advocating his agency's project last year. His authority also has generous funding for community outreach (eg staffing at 2022's Monash Maker Faire) and local promotions. Major projects may have stakeholder liaison groups via which additional information can filter on local social media.
Infrastructure Victoria has profile with its reports frequently getting media coverage on topics like bus reform and fares. They also get radio interviews and seeks public submissions for its strategies. The range of topics may however be limited as IV is an advisory body that normally does not comment on already committed to projects.
The state government is free to take or leave IV's advice as it sees fit. So what IV has in media profile it may lack in influence. Which is not always a bad thing given IV's proposals are of varying merit. For instance it commendably advocates bus service reform but its batty modal fare obsession is a force for harmful network disintegration inconsistent with the pro-integration talk from (then) DoT's Natalie Reiter.
Summary
I've presented ways where you might get a grasp of current thinking within the transport portfolio even one whose leaders emphasise internal relationships and communication.
If you're wanting to find out stuff for research purposes you'll also want to read my Researcher Sources Revealed for more tips.
No comments:
Post a Comment