Dear Edward,

If the baby has drowned it needs to be buried, not thrown out. Cliches are trite and meaningless.

As to your 4 point master plan :

1 -Who appoints the "independent boards"? Non independent governments. Go back to Yes Minister and give us a thesis after you've seen the whole series. What you suggest is a paper plan that fails as soon as politicians take over regardless of intent.

2 - External contractor? Get into the real world Edward. That doesn't happen. Even if they make it look external the reality is usually the opposite.

3 - Who sets up this emergency fund? The taxpayer who has paid for the existing roads, bridges and more and is now being taxed all over again for a tunnel on a road they own. If this is a simple rule surely this excludes the need for a PPP at all. The fund could be used to build the tunnels etc. and that fund of course consists of taxes paid by taxpayers.

4 - Part of a long term strategy? Do you understand how government works at all? One term is the longest planning and that is usually too much for our fabulous leaders.

PPP's are simply a way for politicians to sell public property to their mates, usually those mates hire the politician when they retire with all that superannuation. You call it a lease. The facts are the opposite. Wherever tolls have been introduced, they stay regardless of changes of ownership.

If we must have toll roads we don't need to employ people to collect cash for much longer. Heard of Etags?

Very little can go wrong? There was a movie called "West World" where that claim was made and the results are exactly what we get.

I don't know what your area of expertise is but it surely isn't the area you have written about. Were you paid to write it, and by whom please?

Australia Carnivale.... 1/- a go.

These are surely the basic ingredients of a road:

1. A ribbon of land.

2. Quantities of rock, gravel, tar macadam and concrete.

3. Big yellow machines operated by technicians, guided in their course by engineers and surveyors.

4. Loads of petrol and diesel.

5. A lick o' paint.

All else is superfluous.

* * *

Yet before a prospective road can support even a single tyre, it must first sustain a swarm of locusts, who stand at the head of the queue with very deep begging bowls indeed. It is a measure of how completely Australians have been "civilised" by the new economics, that they swallow this twaddle without question.

The first and most fundamental PPP is the one struck between every Australian and his/her government! Will someone please remind our politicians of that?

No doubt the crocodile line of middle-men are basically nice people. I'm sure they are kind to their kids and Spot the dog. I'll bet they stay up all night worrying about this and that. I don't begrudge their families a good feed and a reasonably "relaxed and comfortable" lifestyle either.

.... but isn't it time that we all had a good long look in the mirror? We are talking about a transport system, not a penny-a-ride carnival. Look at this sideshow; replete with cardsharps, barkers and get rich quick merchants. The fact that the good professor dresses them up as investors, merchant bankers and "risk takers", makes not the slightest bit of difference. If the straw hat fits - wear it.

C'mon people - time to shake some dust!

Critics of PPPs might like to stand back and smell the dollars.

There is no reason in principle why governments should not purchase services from private sector firms, just as private sector firms purchase services from other private sector firms. The question of best supplier should simply revolve around which entity has the best skills, financial base and risk management capability for the job.

Problems arise in several ways.

There are "rocket scientist" financial engineering deals: a State rail system leasing locomotives (the lessor enjoys depreciation benefits unavailable to government). While these rarely go wrong, the result is simply that some cost is shifted to federal government.

There are "nobody told us" deals: government hires a private firm to run immigration detention centres, claims commercial confidentiality about the contract and claims to know nothing about abuses that occur inside.

There are "ideological obsession" deals: to keep large capital expenditure out of the government cash account. Result: continuing "surplus" (although anyone with an ounce of nous knows that the State is worse off on an accrual accounting basis).

Then there are frankly commercially naive deals bordering on lunacy: bureaucratic triumph of hope over experience. Consider the disastrous federal government initiative to outsource information technology under Minister John Faye. Recent examples include the Sydney airport rail link and cross-city tunnel.

Anyone who thought that a travelling couple would pay more for unreliable train travel from Sydney airport to the city than it costs for a taxi needs daily checking to ensure that they are taking their medication.

Then there are carpetbagger deals: airport privatisation for example.

Hey, guys, huge tract of land, exempt from State planning regulations. We can do what we like... let's force out the aircraft and become property developers.

State governments have traditionally been competent at buying paper clips and hiring school cleaners. But managing acquision of PPP services is a new ballpark. Governments were simply not equipped at first with the skills to do it competently. They may develop them over time.

We hope.