Here's a hypothetical for you.
You've been with your partner a while. It's not exclusive, not even close, but to be fair to them, they've been loyal. They've been there when you needed them, dropped nights out with friends to keep you company when you felt lonely, and while not perfect, they've never really stuffed up. They're a 5/10, probably about the same as you.
Then, out of nowhere, an 8/10 starts looking your way. They've just split from some supermodel, and while you're fully aware you're catching them on the rebound, the thought of having an 8/10 on your arm does appeal. So, do you ditch ole' faithful, the loyal, steady but unspectacular option, in favour of something you know is temporary? Or do you reward the loyalty that's been shown?
The analogy to the scenario below has as many holes in it as Victoria's regional roads, but I wonder how the state's Council Infrastructure Managers would answer it?
Victoria has led the way on infrastructure spending in recent years through the government's "Big Build" initiative. But a number of those flagship projects are now completing (the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel, Footscray Hospital), and that's compounded by the natural tail-off in state infrastructure spending after such a long phase of elevated investment. Government Infrastructure Investment peaked at $24.2 billion in 2023-24 and is forecast to fall to $15.3 billion by 2029-30 (Source: Victorian Budget 2026/27,
budget.vic.gov.au). Combined, these two forces paint a dire picture for the civils sector in Victoria. It's the project equivalent of coming off chasing heroin to a daily dose of methadone.
With fewer large projects to go around, the bigger players start rebidding for mid-sized work, which pushes the mid-sized players to fish in smaller-scale projects, which in turn ramps up competition for the small local players who target the local government sector. Regional councils, usually starved of tender responses beyond the usual suspects, suddenly find themselves courted by fancy CBD consultants in their posh suits, relying heavily on the satnavs in their Go-Get cars to help them locate the very places their tenders claim a deep affinity for.
Don't get me wrong: unlike the scenario above, there's no hint of a moral or ethical dilemma here. This is very much a business relationship. Smaller consultancies and contractors have been paid for the work they've done (handsomely over the last couple of years). Usually this is the typical push/pull of infrastructure cycles: in boom times, consultants and contractors charge more; in leaner times, councils push back on pricing and stretch project scope.
This time, though, it feels different, with smaller firms being required to trade on their relationships and loyalty for their survival.
You could put it down to a simple economic cycle. Less money in the pot, competition forcing a kind of economic evolution, with less adaptive companies closing and new, innovative ones popping up in their place. But while that plays out, the loss of a local small player with intimate knowledge of how a council actually works will be felt long after the big firms have inevitably moved back to greener, more lucrative pastures once the market swings back.
Which brings us back to where we started. When the supermodel has moved on from roughing it, what do you do if your original partner is no longer available?
