Everald Compton has a personal website called, "Everald Compton", where his latest contribution can also be read. In his previous attempt to enlighten us, he aggressively promoted a book he has written; he slips in a mention of it in this piece as well. Everald seems very keen on development kicked off by tax payers money, and, perhaps the reason is to found in his bio, which reveals that he is the chairman of a construction company called Tenement to Terminal Ltd., and is also a consultant to ATEC Rail. More advertising of his wares?

"Everald seems very keen on development kicked off by tax payers money."

Sounds like a case of socialism for business and capitalism for the taxpayers to me.

Why not discuss what is being suggested in the article instead of attacking the author?

Good call JF.

As to Australian politicians backing smart development with taxpayer funds?

All the visionary Pragmatists, like Lee Kwun Yu, are elsewhere and started with far less!

Singapore went from a tiny dirt poor economic basket case in the fifties to a tiger economy today. And just by backing future vision, their own folks and their better ideas, with uncommon courage and resolve!

We used to own a highly profitable telco, a bank, a couple of airlines, insurance companies, and just about all power generation and distribution. Bought and paid for via the sacrifices of previous generations.

The combined profits from which could have paid a vastly more generous aged pension?

The rivers of gold that flowed from the mining booms could have set us up for a vastly more prosperous future, but were wasted by ideologues buying votes?

One recalls how Lance Hancock went cap in hand round nearly very parliament in the land looking for development funds for veritable mountains of the world's finest iron ore. Only to run into brick walls all mindlessly parroting,"the government has no business in business".

Eventually he gave up and allowed foreign investors with little more than a worthless letter of credit to start the Pilbra's iron ore industry, which has earned the developers tens of billions per! And totaling hundreds of Billions that could have been quite massively swelling government coffers now but for trembling timidity?

And this fundamentally flawed mindset. I believe, is still at the helm making the same puerile claims that simply fly in the face of international examples and experience.

Were I you , I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for pragmatism to emerge triumphant from any of our parliaments any time soon; or even the national interest trumping self service or patent partisan party politics!?
Alan B.

JF,

This country is up to its ears in debt. That's why Compton's brain storm is not worth discussing. The man is a windbag, and probably a rent-seeker wanting to get his mitts into public money, given his business connections. When it comes to big ideas, I'm all for private enterprise spending its own money and making as much profit as they legally can. But, it is not the role of governments to be payrolling private enterprise with with taxpayers' money. If the Comptons of this world want to risk their OWN money in the hope of good returns, good luck to them, but it is not any government's place to be speculating with citizens' money. They have proved over and over that they are incompetent money managers, most of their numbers not having had a proper job in their lives. Besides, Australia has no need whatever to develop - or ruin - the north.

There is a simple solution. Divide Australia into north and south and offer the North up for auction. I am sure the Israilies or the Chinese could make it profitable and our politicians can have more junkets overseas and line their pockets.

ttbn,

Taming the north does not have to involve blatant destruction. The north has already been destroyed compared to it's natural state. With fish stocks devastated even crocodiles in the region are starving.

Australia is up to it's ears in debt because no newly productive infrastructure has been developed to offset loss of the wool industry for example. Investment in pink batts produces nothing for local consumption or export. Neither do roads these days, although safer roads are needed and so are hospitals and schools. But what about newly productive export industry to return cash to repay the debt?

A role of government is supposed to be to assist development of major business and employment generating infrastructure, including that which can later be sold to private enterprise. For example the PMG come Telstra and other communication companies of today.

All that Australia is not much. We are however a food producing nation with significant potential to expand to feed well over 7 billion humans daily. There is also need to feed animals and fertilize crops in order to sustain ongoing food supply. And the absolute essential our nation and farmers need for the task is water.

The water harvesting and aqueduct system I suggest will not develop or ruin the north. In fact it's quite the opposite. Water harvested in high country will reduce erosion, albeit natural erosion but nevertheless it's erosion. Bulk water otherwise wasted into the Gulf of Carpentaria will help water inland wetlands including the Coorong, while also providing water for farmers producing local and export food and fibre.

The Compton article here is at least providing a platform for discussion. What is the alternative, watch t.v or read the ongoing never ending political defamation in media?

Sometimes big ideas are needed because we live in a big country. From my point of view some ideas have to be big because the oceans and the planet are big.

I think it's best to challenge feasibility of big ideas instead of knocking the authors

JF,

All very well if you believe in big government,which I do not. Apart from defence and regulation, governments do not have expertise in very many things at all,particularly finance and business. And, as you mention it, we have no reason to be feeding 7 billion people. In our huge, climate challenged country, we should be feeding ourselves and exporting surpluses only. Australians are already paying too much for food so that countries like China can buy our exports cheaper than we can. They days of big spending like the Snowy Mountain scheme and wide-eyed projects which only 'might' provide returns are over in Australia. There have been better opportunities in the past,which have all been passed up by governments for very good reasons. Now, we don't have sufficient infrastructure to deal with every day life for our burgeoning population of unecessary people. There is no place for grand designs. We must accept reality.

If we are to accept the view that there is a role for govt to invest in private sector projects what might the criteria for proejct selection be?

Might selection be based on party affiliation, the size of campaign donations?

Once cherry picking of private sector partnerships or projects to invest public money in starts, it will never stop. What then will stop the corruption train from growing here, like it has in the US?

Paul Craig Roberts, United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan, said in an interview recently, that the US congress and senators who voted for the Trans Pacific Partnership were all paid $136 million each, into their campaign coffers of course. (he also said the same will happen in the other countries that vote for it too.)

I for one people, do not believe Australians can afford the risk of that kind of corruption taking off here. Keep the gate firmly shut I reckon.

Ref,

Surely we can learn from those political and corruption situations and have a way to avoid repeat. Say a transparent referendum decision process. You should understand potential of that.

ttbn,

I believe in good leadership and teamwork being essential, including teamwork between business and government, at least initially with big projects.

It's well and good for some people to think small time however sometimes big projects are needed.

Maybe there is need to get the blinkers off about the climate challenged country you mention.
Look at all possible causes and solutions.

How exactly are CO2 emissions causing the so called El Nino.
What exactly is causing El Nino ‘phenomena’?
The name El Nino is applied generally by science. Science should explain what exactly is causing the ‘El Nino’ and the ‘La Nino’. Science should be nominating solutions.

Isn’t the El Nino a grand problem causing grand impact that likely requires grand solutions?

Northern water harvesting and steel aqueduct infrastructure I suggest could should be expected to help provide employment and business and profit for our burgeoning population, as well as helping land and ocean ecosystems.

The deep water Gulf port Compton suggests is really essential.
There is need for pathways and roadways to supermarkets.
Asia is a super market for Australian food and fibre produce, especially to generate export revenue.

Or do you ttbn, think it best to increase taxes to provide revenue?