I read that to Candide- it's not the first time the NSW State Labor Party have tried to confiscate land to sell off to developers- back in 2002-2004 they have tried to do it to public schools on waterfront estates.
The corruption of this party is absolutely horrifying.

I have only one question to the drooling brainless vegetables and drop-outs that keep voting for these pricks:
How could ANY party- Liberal or otherwise, POSSIBLY be worse?

Hi Ruth1, no implied racism on may part nor trolling. I do attack members of the Unsustainable Pops sometimes as they make some outlandish statements which play in to the hands of racists. The anti-pop movement would do better without them.

Manorina is the first anti-popper who can laid down some form of programmatic policy implementation. I disagree with it as both the baby bonus and paid maternity leave are important wins for women but whether one thinks women should have children and how many is another debate.

King Hazza it may seem no party could be worse but I sincerely doubt it. The only possible exception being the party i once stood for in the early seventies or late sixties: The happy Birthday party - we didnt get many votes but a good time was had by all.

Hehe- nice BAYGON.

Still- I'll be putting even the shooters party a higher spot this next election.

Even if they try that trick by blotting out which parties the candidates are representing (took me off guard- thought I could memorize the parties instead of the names alone)- they'll all get a special place higher up.

VK3AUU

That’s a red herring.

At issue is the article’s inference that we need to increase infrastructure spending by 12.5% of GDP to raise output growth by 1%.

Since 1959 Australia’s annual public investment as a percentage of GDP has averaged 6.6% a year, while real output growth has averaged 3.6% a year. So the claim is clearly wrong.

Whether we “should” be spending more or less is another matter

Rhian: "Since 1959 Australia’s annual public investment as a percentage of GDP ..."

Nowhere does the article say that the investment is solely from the public sector. Obviously if it did say that it would be wrong, because the public sector doesn't spend 25% in total. And because it is so blatantly obvious, it is also blatantly obvious it doesn't mean just public spending.

I am not sure how they came the figure. One way would be to divide the total value of the assets of the country (public and private) by the number of people who live here. That will give you a rough means of the amount of investment it requires per person to sustain our standard of living. The 12.5% figure means there is an investment of 12.5 man years of investment supporting every man, woman and child.

That is not just government investment. It includes shopping centres, private hospitals, education costs, planes, housing - everything. 12.5 man years equates to around $500,000. Considering a house costs around that amount and we average less than 2.5 people per house, we get a fair part of the way there just putting a roof over their heads.

I don't know whether the 12.5% figure is right. But since a house already takes up a fair chunk of that figure, it is in the ball park - definitely within +/- 50%.