In Australia, it is the role of government to facilitate an environment where business can prosper and the people share in the common wealth that business generates. It is not the role of government to what amounts to handing buckets of taxpayers money to business. The risk associated with infrastructure ventures is shared, therefore the benefits are shared.

In the depressions of the 1890's and 1930's, Australia learnt the hard way that critical infrastructure needs to be centrally owned and run, preferably by not-for-profit government controlled organisations, or where profit is returned to the people via consolidated revenue. Given enough profits from such government owned enterprises, taxes could virtually be eliminated.

Already we are seeing the effects of privatising essential infrastructure. Telstra's broadband capacity compared to Europe and America being a case in point.

With public funding and ownership of all infrastructure comes cross subsidisation, rural people may find their taxes funding a city road, but city people are funding phones in the bush.

I agree that PPPs stink. However, I would be loathe to think that politicians would be dipping their fingers in my prospective retirement income.

If the NIFC is a good investment for a portion of super funds then the funds would make that investment decision. I think you might find a sudden explosion in personal pension plans to avoid being caught having to invest in the NIFC.

I thought the Future Fund was really the defacto pension fund for public servants ? In which case same rules apply.

Governments in Australia have extraordinarily low levels of debt when compared globally. Even $150 billion would still leave us at the low end of borrowings.

Maybe we could get Peter Costello to borrow some money , or even stop giving us inflationary tax cuts and invest the surpluses in ports, roads, schools etc.

Why are we all being so polite?

PPPs are a sham and a scandal.

They do nothing more than facilitate the removal of money from our pockets into the pockets of "prominent businessmen", while providing as little as possible in return.

While it is difficult to prove, it is also difficult to imagine that such schemes would receive government imprimatur without some greasing of the wheel along the way, they are so preposterously against the public interest.

Unfortunately the days of the honest politician, even if they ever existed, are well and truly gone.

The Cross City Tunnel is heading into receivership. Not all PPPs turn lead into gold. The only real winner has been the NSW Govt that extracted more than $100 million in charges from the tunnel operators.

Perhaps the real reason we have PPPs is that governments see infrastructure spending as a way of buying votes. Their decisions are not necessarily in the best interests of the community. For example, maybe the new hospital gets built in a swing electorate rather than in a safe seat where it is needed most.

PPP are certainly inefficent, requiring a much larger rate of return, but at least they get the job done.

This article states the obvious about PPP's - scandalous vehicles of economic rent established primarily to achieve political, not public service outcomes.

Unfortunately the depth and scope of much public discourse has deteriorated to the point that it seems the most intensive analysis the typical voter is prepared to consider is whether some character on Neighbours will or will not get married. Its no wonder political parties get away with such rubbish. Then, there is a saying to the effect that 'people get the government they deserve'.

I am not yet convinced of the alternative vehicles proposed, however I applaud the thinking behind them and commend their authors for the insight and effort to develop and promote them. And even if imperfect, they would be preferable to recent practices, which must be discontinued.

What we really need is a bevy of finance ministers who are prepared to act in the public interest rather than toward their political status. Although I have traditionally been a more conservative voter, I must say that characters of the ilk of Peter Walsh, probably our best modern finance minister in this field, would never willingly tolerate the abuse that PPPs have inflicted on the public purse.