Excellent analysis, Karl Fitzgerald! The Brisbane to Gold Coast light rail was said to have increased local land values by up to $100,000, so land value capture makes eminent sense for self-funding this sort of infrastructure. Yes, why not grab back a bit of this increase in land values? That's the way we once funded our dams bridges and roads, but it's not fashionable in these days of sell-offs and PPPs. We can only assume capturing back some of the increased land values doesn't suit those who promote PPPs and selling off our public assets because selfish interests seem to continually trump the interests of the broader community. We need to wake up to the tactics of the rip-off merchants!

Good critical thinking Karl!
However, we do need to change some investment models, so that our trillion plus super is invested here, rather than overseas, where we lose out every which way!
We not only lose the infrastructure this money could build, but the tax receipts created by the accelerated non mining economy!
Simply put, returns from Australian self terminating thirty year bonds should be tax free!
The return as interest payment/capital returns, could be federally guaranteed; meaning, the funds would be both safe, and know, what the guaranteed, thirty year returns would be!
The first infrastructure we need to build with this money is rapid rail, along the eastern corridor, and a few exceptionally busy commutes!
Resumed rural land can also be eventually rezoned alongside as urban, by the rail authority, in a large enough scale to virtually pay for most of this!?
Leaving the rail authority, with considerable profits to plow back in other essential projects/corridors?
If we leave rapid rail for a decade, the cost to us will double, ditto and again, if we leave it for another decade after that.
The better managed airlines will both adapt and survive, by helping to develop regional Australia.
Once we have completed this initial roll out, we should begin to build an inland shipping canal.
This will, just for starters, allow most Australian in/outbound shipping, to avoid the reef and occasional cyclones!
With the canal completed, we should crack on with a fleet of roll on roll off ferries, which ideally, would be both nuclear powered and submersible.
After that, literally dozens of new inland cities, made economically possible by this same new reliable water!
In other words, we have some very big visionary projects that our huge and growing super funds, could underwrite!
And serve us very profitably, well into the next century!
And with that investment, quite massively grow the economy, our sustainable size and positive economic prospects as far into the foreseeable future, as it is possible to envisage!
Rhrosty.

‘morning Karl,

Whilst you seem to have some support already for this article, and clearly from those with superior understanding to mine, I have to admit being utterly confused by it. So perhaps you or those on OLO who seem to understand it better than me might help answer my queries.

The article by Steve Bracks doesn’t seem to correlate at all with your landowner tax proposal, in fact as I see it, industry super funds would both compete and be a threat to investment by them. It is just an “advertorial” for Cbus super where he is Chairman. So what exactly are we to draw from this reference?

Whilst your “wealth redistribution levy” of a new tax on landowners might not be original, I still don’t understand the mechanism.

Is this “levy” collected by those who value land, i.e. local councils, is this just another rate hike? What is meant by the term “landowner”? Does this include leaseholders? What will the tax collection burden be and to whom? Who decides the investment priorities from this money? Does this money go into general revenue? Would Local, State or Federal collections be prioritized for “home” projects? What would be the financial impact on land valuations and resale values? What National legislation needs to be enacted across all states and territories.

There are so many financial and economic questions that need to be answered however, it is just possible that the Green left just don’t bother thinking anything through, especially when your proposals are to spend other peoples’ money.

Perhaps some kind OLO’ers might clarify

I find it pretty hard to argue against Karl's logic here. What a novel suggestion, that those who will benefit, financially, & in comfort, from an infrastructure development should pay for it. Hell he even has examples to prove his logic.

This makes much more sense to me than the coal miners paying for Gold Coast/Brisbane roads, or the rate payers of Beenleigh paying for Gold Coast beach repairs.

With the rapidly increasing health, welfare & education costs, governments have little money left today for the infrastructure projects today. Could we actually finance a Snowy project today, even if we could get it passed the ratbag greenies?

I actually see nothing wrong in flogging off the existing gateway bridge, to fund it's duplication, or an old school with much reduced student numbers to build a new one in a place of need. Still, that will not cover all developmental costs, although with stopping immigration, it just might.

Meanwhile super is a government forced private investment, ploiticians who stick their fingers into it, will find a backlash they deserve

‘morning Hasbeen,

You seem to be defining infrastructure in the narrow context of roads and beaches. I agree that selling off many road projects is a good idea, most of which failed anyway due to State government incompetence and underestimation of real costs.

I’m much more interested in infrastructure in the broader context. Who benefits from ports, resource access, national transportation, passenger and freight rail, water catchments, hydro, airports, water and energy distribution, logistics management, urban and rural connectivity? The answer is all Australians and not just land owners!

The big issues of funding sources remain. Karl’s “land tax/levy” remains unexplained, unless you can tell us otherwise

Good analysis, Karl. Selling ports and now selling water supplies etc. are the failed politicians' method to get out of their debt. Their debt has arisen because of lack of land tax, and also because of waste and luxury. Plus the sellout of assets below cost is becoming more and more common, even here in Western Australia. In WA a $90 million block of land at Burswood, Perth suburb, was sold by the Liberal-National coalition for $60 million to, you guessed it, a billionaire.
Keep up the good work!