Email

'Tough, clear-eyed' nation-building rules on way

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

Posted October 7, 2008 10:02:00
Updated October 7, 2008 11:04:00

Kevin Rudd ... 'It's time to roll up our sleeves and get on with the job of nation-building' (AAP: Stefan Postles)

Infrastructure projects will be assessed for funding under new criteria on their ability to compete globally, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve quality of life and expand the country's productivity capacity.

The new rules, announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today, will be used by Infrastructure Australia to decide how to allocate funds to new works and which projects should be given priority.

Capital, operating and maintenance costs of proposals will also be assessed as well as their for viability over 30 years.

In his speech to the Australian Davos Connection Infrastructure 21 Summit in Brisbane, Mr Rudd said the new guidelines will ensure a "tough, clear-eyed assessment" of each project's value.

"As a nation we can no longer afford to waste time, we must get our infrastructure decisions right," he said.

The new guidelines would also aim to make sure benefits could not be exaggerated and costs underestimated, Mr Rudd said.

"It is critically important that our infrastructure decisions are based on objective analysis of projects and needs.

"Policy integrity is critical to good decision making. This is the analytical rigour needed for modern nation-building."

Infrastructure Australia will use the criteria to compare projects and make recommendations to the Government about which projects should be funded first.

Mr Rudd said the Government is committed to implementing what he describes as the country's biggest infrastructure program in its history and says infrastructure constraints are holding back the economy.

"The cost to the economy of inadequate infrastructure will rise if we do not act now," he said.

He has also urged state governments and the private sector to get on board with the Government's agenda.

"It's time for the Commonwealth, states, territories and infrastructure companies to roll up our sleeves and get on with the job of nation-building," he said.

At last week's COAG meeting, state and territory leaders agreed with Mr Rudd to fast track infrastructure spending in the wake of the worsening global economic crisis.

The Government has allocated $20 billion to its Building Australia fund, which has been labelled by the Opposition as a slush fund.

Infrastructure Australia, which was formed earlier this year, will also develop detailed guidelines for public and private partnerships which will be discussed at the next COAG meeting in November.

An audit of existing infrastructure is also under way and will be completed by the end of the year.

Tags: building-and-construction, federal-government, australia

Comments (67)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Wake up Australia:

  07 Oct 2008 8:40:59am

  In reality the proposal is simply to create a Labour party slush fund with any resultant projects/spending to be targetted at marginal Labour electorates.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Smaug:

    07 Oct 2008 9:23:32am

    Oh, so they outline some strict rules of governance in relation to targeting the funds at specific projects and you think it's a slush fund.
    
    Certainly the Labor party would have to work long and hard to even come close to the coalition when it comes to using tax payers money for cynical electoral benefit. I, like most Australians (sorry Turnbull hasn't changed the view of Australians 57% still prefer Labor), are thankful that finally we have a degree of governance when it comes to spending tax payers money.
    
    It's easy to tell the Liberals in these forums, they always go on about slush funds, probably because they expect that kind of behavour from their own party so think it must be standard practice. Unfortunately history indicates that's exactly how the Liberals with their Billion dollar party political advertising costs acted (and lets not even mention the Nationals and regional grants).

    Agree (3) Alert moderator

• L:

  07 Oct 2008 8:41:07am

  So it's in the interests of politicians to remove politics from the process?......and why are we meant to believe that?
  
  The idea is good in theory, but I'd like to see how the environmental and social impact are going to affect the calculation of the discount rate for the cost-benefit analysis.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • spin sick:

    07 Oct 2008 8:59:59am

    I think we pay them to make decisions (which is why if we paid the current lot on productivity they would starve). That said, the solution is simple - table the decision making process and reasons in the partliament so that they do not fall under cabinet in confidence.
    
    the pollies make the decision, but it has to be well argued and robust. I personally would add a "statement of political neutrality" in the decision where the electoral implications where overtly considered and assessed.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • L:

      07 Oct 2008 9:31:31am

      I like the sound of your "statement of political neutrality" idea, and the potential transparency of tabling the whole process. It could also be argued that if we have to go to extreme lengths to ensure the decision making process is not corrupted by politics, then the politicians should be removed from the process.
      
      $20B doesn't go that far when you're talking about major infrastructure projects and it would be sad to see it get chewed up in beauracracy.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Doh:

  07 Oct 2008 8:47:57am

  Where is this $20B coming from? Is this the much vaunted surplus about to be spent in its totality?
  
  For this process to have any credibility, the advice on which the government makes decisions must be made public.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Al:

    07 Oct 2008 9:08:53am

    No it is not the surplus. I believe it is one of the future's funds which the Govt allocated as part of the budget process.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Saintharves:

      07 Oct 2008 9:58:21am

      Absolutely, and please let's not forget where these funds come from. Us, the tax payers.
      
      The previous government created a number of them. This governmewnt has followed suite. Damned good idea if you ask me.
      
      Can,t remember its name (somebody will remind us), but if you recall the proceeds of the Telstra sale went into a huge fund for future infrastructure funding (some $30 billion plus i believe), only difference i think is that the capital wasn't to be used for funding infrastructure projects, only the interest, still, a great start.
      
      Plus lets also not forget, these funds can only be put away because the government doesn't have an approximate $8 billion interst bill any more, they are out of debt - thankfully, or these funds would be able to be created in the first place.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • JC:

        07 Oct 2008 10:30:10am

        Its called the "Future Fund." Purpose is to pay off the unfunded liability for public servant superannuation benefits.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Pen Pal:

        07 Oct 2008 11:17:14am

        That's correct JC, but the Fund (or the interest from it) can also be used for other purposes - it is also designed that further funds can be allocated during the budget process, provided the Government of the day runs its business at surpluses.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Noel:

        07 Oct 2008 12:26:46pm

        'Future fund' invested in the US banking system because the Liberal party decided that US banks were better than Aussie banks.
        Sums up how dumb the Libs are. We'll be lucky if we ever see it again.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ourcognitivesurplus:

    07 Oct 2008 11:04:06am

    If we have $10bn to blow, why don't we use it to make peoples' lives easier as we approach an economic and environmental crunch time?
    
    People need a way to cope with rising energy costs while dealing with falling stock values. People don't need new community centers.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • NT boy:

      07 Oct 2008 12:20:44pm

      But they do need infrastructure which is what this is about and community centres are not considered high up on the infrastructure list compaired to power stations, solar powered street lighting etc.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Katie:

      07 Oct 2008 1:05:50pm

      10b to blow... Seems to me that thier not blowing money at all.... its nice to see that the goverment is actually looking into prioirties, assessing needs appropaitely etc, as opposed to going off half-winged and uneducated and spending a heap of money in areas that are not a prioity of society...
      
      Isnt this centre going to put into action plans and infrastructure that will make peoples lives easier in our unstable econimc climate, 10b divided towards the energy use of every person in the country will do jack... another example of kev trying to pave the future for this country instead of sitting on the fence and sucking up to bush
      
      stocks rise and fall, housing costs rise and fall, its the way the world works, and sure times might get hard for a couple of years and we might need to go without a new sofa to match the new walls, or we might need to turn the lights off in a room when we leave it to cut down energy prices... were a society that lives beyond its means... maybe this economic climate might teach us how to live within them

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Andreu:

      07 Oct 2008 1:09:09pm

      I personally like the idea that the gov is spending $$ on infrastructure at this difficult times. this will create jobs and at the same time upgrade our long overdue infrastructure.
      when all these flows through, it will make people's life better. let's be realistic, there are tough economic times ahead. i feel the Gov is trying their best to 'cushion' the impact from the current US blowup. thank god they're spending $$ on our own country, who knows what a Libs gov will do, contribute $$ to the $700b bailout?
      I'm not saying I'm all out supporting our Gov's spending but I really hope to see some $$ invested in our own country cuz these 'returns' will help us when we get out of this current crisis.
      
      I noticed there's a lot of Libs supporter who're crying out loud they've lost the election but i believe most people are sick of Howard/Costello's arrogance. not their ability to gov. we have another 3 years to go so lets see what this current gov will/can do for us.. For the first time in many years...
      
      God save us all... :)

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• llanfair:

  07 Oct 2008 8:56:37am

  While $20billion sounds impressive, per capita (let alone per square kilometre) it is not very much. It is also insignificant when compared to total annual Federal and State outlays.
  
  I therefore hope that the Rudd Government is putting in place a rigorous process FOR THE FIRST TIME to ensure that there is value for money when it comes to ALL taxpayers dollars being spent.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • watcha:

    07 Oct 2008 9:50:54am

    the best way to start spending the $20 billion is to build houses, lots of them.
    
    People are screaming out for housing right across the country.
    
    The return/profit from the houses will keep the economy ticking over for the next decade and the can be used for the big ticket items.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Brad:

      07 Oct 2008 10:08:53am

      The federal government has no role in building houses, except for defence families. Even if they did it would artificially distort the housing market and cause inflation.
      
      The best way to spend $20 billion is on infrastructure such as water, rail, ports, communications and power (but not roads which are unsustainable). This is not inflationary.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • watcha:

        07 Oct 2008 10:26:21am

        All the rules regarding finance have gone out the window.
        
        Where is the funding for housing going to come from for the next 10 years if the federal government doesnt get involved in some way? Water, rail, ports, communications and power is not going to keep all the building construction workers and associated industries in the country working for the next 10 years minimum.
        
        Big ticket items must come second to keeping people in their jobs or we are all up the proverbial creek.
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Guy:

        07 Oct 2008 11:52:41am

        But big ticket items create jobs both directly and indirectly.
        
        The Govt has no role in building houses. In any case I doubt the average home owner would support their value being eroded.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • watcha:

        07 Oct 2008 2:11:09pm

        The housing bubble in this country is about to burst which will bring prices down anyway.
        
        Meanwhile Australia's banks are unable to get cash due to the global financial crisis (because the banks are not lending to each other) while there is a huge shortfall in housing right across this country.
        
        The turmoil in the money markets is going to take a decade to abate (the numbers are twice as bad as the great depression) the minimum the government could do is inject more cash into the housing market as they did last week.
        
        As Mr Rudd is big on PPP's (see above) if the worldwide recession turns to depression then nation building will require the government to form a partnership with builders and banks to keep people in their jobs otherwise the roads will be full of swagmen again.
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Geo:

        07 Oct 2008 2:25:25pm

        The recession that unwinds the credit bubble will do that. Take housing back to it's long term average going back back close to 80 years of 3-4 times average earnings rather than the 7-8 times average earnings it is now. For those who think it will be different here in Oz because of China, immigration, economic growth, etc - well it hasn't been the case anywhere else in the world.
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• cvuong:

  07 Oct 2008 9:03:51am

  If the Coalition was in Government and they had such a fund, the same potential for it to turn into a 'slush' fund would still occur. In the end, politics rules here.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Bob:

    07 Oct 2008 12:15:06pm

    ... The coalition wouldn't have a 'slush' fund so why are you trying to make a completely irrelevant comparison??
    Politics does rule.. people dont look at the economic impact policies the government implements enact, they just complain about how it effects them badly, and much of the time policies only have a negative effect on individuals in the short term such as the coalitions industrial relations reforms, these boosted efficiency and made Australia more effective, if they had been given a chance, yet these reforms were used by labor to take power. If people paid more attention to the whole economy, less attention to how they would be affected in the short term, If the way their family voted was not taken into consideration Australia would be much better off.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • incredible:

      07 Oct 2008 12:35:41pm

      That's a funny post my friend. The former Liberal government were synonymous with short- term thinking and here you are suggesting they had a long term view to the world? Funny stuff.
      
      Also on what basis do you assert they wouldn't have a slush fund? They spent millions and millions on advertising Liberal policy in violation of the rules so I guess that means they didn't need a slush fun right?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • cvuong:

      07 Oct 2008 1:05:43pm

      Your right, the coalition probably wouldn't have such a fund. But look at Regional Partnerships under former PM Howard- the coalition do not need a fund for politics to rule anyway.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• JC:

  07 Oct 2008 9:06:37am

  "Roll Up, Roll Up get your State Bail Out Fee for your years of stupidity!"
  
  Ohh, the State Governments are going to love this "free kick." Excuse my cynicism, but please. Processes, mechanisms, procedures. Ha, ha, ha. Ohh stop my sides are hurting! Governments acting responsibly. Yep, and the banks are going to pay my mortgage off too!
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    07 Oct 2008 10:09:37am

    Look into it more carefully. The funds are not for paying off loans or for recurrent costs. They are for new infrastructure.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • JC:

      07 Oct 2008 10:18:35am

      Yes, projects that have been sitting on the backburner for years because money has been wasted on stupidity. State Govts have been party to record tax collections (stamp duty, land taxes, fines etc) along with Federal. So, a bail out for stupidity and inaction?
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Reddog:

  07 Oct 2008 9:10:14am

  20 billion dollars does not go very far in the current age. Peanuts really.
  
  The thing that is interesting is that he is now introducing even more layers of burocrocy and time wasters than what there currently is (and let me tell you it is a lot). Look up the VFM process ... it takes 3 years at federal level, plus the time taken to properly plan, cost and get approvals. So as a result I would be suprised if anything actually gets built in the next 5 years.
  
  But thank goodness there will be an election in there to bypass the process.
  
  Mr Rudd ... if you are serious about getting maximum bang for your buck in infrastructure then focus on delivery methods that are dollar wasteful .... like alliance contracting and design & constructs. Go back to competitive tenders and pay for the planning to be done up front. These thing alone will do the trick ... not more red tape.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • trotsky:

    07 Oct 2008 9:36:35am

    Yeah right, because competition on the free market has done so well to keep the world financial system afloat.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• PShaw:

  07 Oct 2008 9:37:15am

  All this without an enquiry?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tank:

    07 Oct 2008 9:56:20am

    Yes, but think of all the reports/committees/community consultations/briefing papers and questionaires that will have to be completed before one square cubic metre of concrete is laid on any Rudd `big idea' project!
    Also, the ALP will have to esnure that only electorates that vote Labor will benefit.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • wmc:

      07 Oct 2008 10:00:58am

      There'll need to be a website too ('Infrastructurewatch')

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • John:

        07 Oct 2008 12:38:25pm

        You beat me to it :-)
        
        Next will be monitoring of the citrus industry .. known as "NavelWatch".

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Noel:

        07 Oct 2008 1:06:01pm

        What a pity the previous government never thought anything through before they dived in.
        Iraq, a million lives and 5 billion Aussie dollars later -- if only there was an inquiry and some planning put into that little episode --
        
        Imagine the infrastructure that could have built...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• lean:

  07 Oct 2008 9:40:06am

  Just spend these $20 bil on public transport (train, light train or tram)? No new road. It certainly meets all rules. There is plenty public transport projects already proposed, reviewed several times by state Labor government who let them handing dry for many years.
  
  It might be an idea for the feb Labor to rescue to struggling Labor states in the up coming elections. By the time the projects get the go ahead it will be 2020 with the historical record well proven by labor government (ie: review, review , review, ). Let see KRudd government can put the rules and tender process up by end of the year.
  
  Tax payers want to the advice that goes from Infrastructure Australia on a web site. Its tax payers hard earn money and they want to see where it goes. KRudd always mention transparency, how about deliver it this time instead off talk about it?
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    07 Oct 2008 10:12:48am

    I agree that none of this money should be spent on roads. All governments need to stop this fetish with road building as the solution to all problems. It's pretty clear that building more roads only causes more congestion.
    
    The $20b needs to go on a mix of infrastructure that will reduce greenhouse emissions, improve efficiency and improve productivity. This means a mix of improving rail freight, intercity passenger rail, urban commuter heavy and light rail, communications to assist telecommuting, renewable energy and water conservation.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Darren:

  07 Oct 2008 9:46:31am

  This 'slush fund' mantra from the Libs here is getting a bit tiresome.
  
  Would you prefer these infrastructure projects weren't built?
  
  If you don't like your state government, kick them out at the next election.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• ravensclaw:

  07 Oct 2008 9:48:42am

  I suspect that this $20 billion would be sucked dry by Environmental Impact Statements and court action by environmental munchkins and AGW Cultists.
  
  A major problem with any new investment in industry or infrastructure is environmental obstruction.
  
  If a new infrastructure or investment project can prove it is cleaner than a national average of its type, or an OPEC average if a national average is not suitable, it should be a allowed to be fast tracked on environmental issues.
  
  Too frequently the environment and environmental laws have been misused by socialist activists to sabotage development. It is time it was stopped. If it is not stopped then that $20 Billion will just be sucked dry dealing with obstruction.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Skewer:

    07 Oct 2008 12:58:38pm

    If "environmental obstruction" stops dodgy developers running riot across the countryside, like Qld in the Sir Joh years, I say let's have more of it.
    
    As if the "munchkins" have more power than the huge industry vested interests do! What we need is MORE environmental accountability, not less.
    
    Sounds like you prefer the money spent without any regard to the future impact of the development.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • ravensclaw:

      07 Oct 2008 2:20:48pm

      Skewer
      
      Put on some reading glasses and read this... clearly this time!!!!
      ---
      If a new infrastructure or investment project can prove it is cleaner than a national average of its type, or an OPEC average if a national average is not suitable, it should be a allowed to be fast tracked on environmental issues.
      
      Too frequently the environment and environmental laws have been misused by socialist activists to sabotage development. It is time it was stopped. If it is not stopped then that $20 Billion will just be sucked dry dealing with obstruction.
      ---
      
      As you can see I am talking about sustainable development, and the very distinct actions by munchkins to stop sustainable development.
      
      I hope you are not opposed to sustainable development skewer. You are guilty of trying to put words in my mouth!!!
      
      Cheers

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • NT boy:

      07 Oct 2008 2:25:55pm

      Just Look at Gunns in Tasmania. they rode roughshot over lib/lab governments and continue to do so. that type of infrastructure development we can do without.
      If the state government had this type of control none of the Tasmanian purse would have been used in advertising how good this environmental disaster would be for the state, because it wouldn't have reached parliment. unless they were a part of the 20 which would most likely happen anyway knowing Tasmanian politics as I do.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• millarman:

  07 Oct 2008 9:51:10am

  Based on the information in the above report much comment read here are halucinations of what people think is going on, is going to create, is going to benefit, is going to throw into catastrophe. If anyone can further add legitmate detail to what the infastructure spending rules will affect - it would be prefered to whinging or sceptical comments from twisted liberal supporters who would rather; nose, cut, off, spite & face. The money is already an allocation - and the rules promote government accountability without decision making influence.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John:

    07 Oct 2008 12:42:00pm

    The word you were looking for was cynical.
    
    Unfortunately it's a cynicism borne out of experience of less than 11 months of Labor government which has been big on symbolic gestures and reviews but achieved very little.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• MH:

  07 Oct 2008 10:13:56am

  The government should be applauded for introducing some proper and transparent funding guidelines.
  
  If they stick to it, it will be a welcome change from the practices of the Howard Government with their Regional Partnerships Programme where they ignored the recommendations of the Department of Transport and Regional Services in approving projects in marginal and National Party held electorates. This was all documented in the Auditor-General's report on the RPP.
  
  Let's hope the current government takes heed of the lessons from the report.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Brian:

  07 Oct 2008 10:18:24am

  The key line from the story is, "However, the projects will still have to go to Cabinet for the final approval which has some worried that politics may enter into the process and decisions will be made on the basis of where the biggest political advantage lies."
  Therein lies the politics of the whole process - key projects in marginal seats - same as it ever was.
  
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • NT boy:

    07 Oct 2008 12:32:32pm

    I prefer our politicians to make the final decision rather than 20 people most likely drawn from the main 2 cities Sydney & melbourne who would have a personal bias for their state/city. whereas the pollies have got us all on their backs.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• ravensclaw:

  07 Oct 2008 10:33:44am

  Actually I have 2 good ideas for this $20 billion
  
  Dual Speed Rail (including freight) from the Sunshine Coast of QLD to Melbourne and Adelaide
  
  Autobahn our highways from the Sunshine Coast down to Melbourne and Across to Adelaide and Perth.
  
  This will dramatically improve an already good transport and distribution system, and turn our roads and rail (very important for national efficiency) into leading world class.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • spin sick:

    07 Oct 2008 10:59:23am

    as here is the rub... what about the ports that give us the revenue to pay for these things ... especially in central Qld or WA that don't need any transport to rust belt south east Australia states?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • ravensclaw:

      07 Oct 2008 11:35:42am

      Spin sick
      
      The ports aren't giving you the revenue to pay for these things. The companies that are paying for the minerals are.
      
      However I see no disservice in improving Australia's ports or even road or rail systems to those ports.
      
      WA and Queensland are doing well from Howard's Mineral Boom. Our Balance of Payments are even balancing out now or achieving surpluses.
      
      The problem is though, NSW especially and other eastern states are not enjoying these good times and are even at risk of recession thanks to Rudd's fiscal tightening, and almost unprecedented govt incompetence at state level.
      
      Without trying to be cynical of where the nation is doing well, help is required where people are struggling. An economic restructure of transport can help the eastern states build some economic activity to get out of their economic stresses. That can only be a good thing.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • brian:

        07 Oct 2008 12:18:15pm

        If you live in Queensland and rely on rail freight to get raw materials from the coal fields of the Bowen Basin and Dawson Valley to the Ports of Gladstone, Dalriymple Bay and Hay Point, you woulod already know that any upgrade to the ports is a waste of money until the rail system is unblocked.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • mark:

        07 Oct 2008 2:18:49pm

        Howard's Mineral Boom!
        Ha!
        Well i guess he did claim credit for it (and everything else good under the sun)

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Pen Pal:

  07 Oct 2008 11:13:25am

  I don't support this Government, but I do support the use of the Infrastructure Fund for nation building purposes.
  
  My only concern is that each "grant" must be completely transparent and each award published in the daily newspapers setting out:-
  1. How much was awarded
  2. To whom
  3. Period of grant
  4. The Federal electorate
  5. Its end community benefit
  
  In addition, there needs to be an audited recnciliation of the Australia Fund and this must also be transparent and the figures published annually.
  
  That should keep the "bastards" honest!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Mardy:

  07 Oct 2008 11:20:49am

  It might be better to reform Sydney's City Rail - overstaffed and underperforming. You cannot accuse City Rail of being underfunded when it cannot even organise a comprehensive ticketing scheme.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wmc:

    07 Oct 2008 11:25:19am

    Reform would mean taking on the unions and no Labor government would ever do that.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Hazwald:

    07 Oct 2008 12:05:29pm

    The same would be said of the Victorian public transport system - has been severely under-invested in by Labour for the last 9 years and the non-delivery of the ticketing system is a further rub. I don't want to see any of the infrastructure spending going towards incompetence and bailing out bad decisions.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Tom:

  07 Oct 2008 12:07:38pm

  It's time we got rid of the 'Slush fund' for private schools and return the funding back to the state education, for too long these cashed up schools have been installing wasteful infrastructure like sports clubhouses when allot of state schools are getting by on a boot string.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andreu:

    07 Oct 2008 1:17:35pm

    I totally AGREE. Why do schools have Olympic standard Pools where public schools can't even have the basic necessities, like Computers?...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Max:

      07 Oct 2008 2:12:45pm

      Since State Governments fund State Schools, and given the cash flows these Labor governments have enjoyed over the years, then since they haven't adequately funded these schools you should be voting them out of office, not complaining about the Federal funding of private schools, which is small biccies in comparison. I thought Mr Rudd was solving the problem by giving state schools their computers? Or was that just an election gimmick not properly thought through? Perhaps an omen for his infrastructure fund...

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Granto:

  07 Oct 2008 12:18:35pm

  "Wake up Aust"you are very right on this one Rudd has canned the Syd, Metro as there is no votes in it for his party, bugger the people.!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • chook:

    07 Oct 2008 12:33:51pm

    The money should not be given to the states to waste - instead look at infrastucture as a National agenda item.
    It is a joke that all of the food is produced in rural areas, the majority is consumed in the cities and yet we rely on road transport to move it around the place.
    The rural areas of this country are dying, have conditions that city people would freak out about & yet the answer is more free/motor ways in the cities.
    Yes public transport is a problem & the urban road systems are not world class but at least you have them!
    All I can see happening is the states spending it on what will get them re-elected next time!
    What a wasted opportunity

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Uncle Norman:

  07 Oct 2008 12:27:30pm

  Judging from the comments here, figuratively speaking the average Aussie today is more interested in blowing the collective pension cheque at the pokies down at the RSL than improving the country's 3rd world rail network or upgrading port facilities on which our export income depends. Wake up, fools. That includes the idiots on the other side of parliament who want to hold up our future prosperity by playing politics, like HIH failure Turnbull.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Fred75:

  07 Oct 2008 12:37:06pm

  Economics 101....
  
  When the private economy goes down spend big on infrastructure and try to generate employment.
  
  By the time these projects come through to being actually constructed we mite need a bit more employment. Then again Australia could do with some forward thinking infrastructure projects. (ie like the snowy river project)
  
  IE... build a big dam in the north (where there will be more rain in the future) and pipe it to the south (where there will be less rain in the future)... IE drought proof the country.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Katie:

    07 Oct 2008 1:16:12pm

    Big dam.... how about they just put in place some common sense water catchment..... lots of rain water running down drains and straight into the ocean

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Carl:

  07 Oct 2008 1:16:33pm

  Don't forget most of the $20B has been set aside for the broadband promise. I think Labour said $6-$7B in election but the Industry came back and told them for what they need more like $20B+ so bye bye future fund. Of course won't provide anything for the Bush just Syd/Mel/Bris/Ade & maybe Perth as per normal.
  
  As for those claiming labour doesn't slush fund - hands up who remembers the old "Whiteboard" fiasco last time Labour was in Governement? Who doesn't think that it will happen again especially when the NSW election looms close with Labour about to be destroyed in NSW for 2-3 terms due to lack of spending on Infrastructure such as Rail, Power, et al. To be even handed both sides do it, just don't believe the "open and transparent" rubbish from Labour.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Sync:

  07 Oct 2008 1:52:02pm

  This level of funding gives us the opportunity to get some real infrastructure going. Unfortunately much of what was needed was run down by previous conservative governments and then further damaged by labor governments.
  
  Selling off the power industry in most states has effectively stopped the much needed updates to renewable systems. Private power won't invest unless they can return a good profit. They have a very short term view and will not invest for the longer tern - for example they no longer train apprentices.
  
  Selling off the railways and public transport - a similar thing occurred. Again, privatising Telstra's physical infrastructure was disastrous.
  
  Any new infrastructure developments must be wholly state owned - not a transference of debt to future generations via the PPP's (public/private (so-called) partnerships).
  
  As someone who works in an infrastructure development area, it's rather amusing to watch the bleatings of the privatisation people. As we can see from Connex et al. in Victoria, being privately run can often mean worse service in pursuit of profits.
  
  The best use that could be made of this money is to buy back infrastructure that has been sold off and to revitalise it for the benefit of the users and consumers. Then we might get somewhere.
  

  Agree (2) Alert moderator