Additional considerations must be oil running out and coal causing climate problems. Hence it follows we may need more rail permitting high speeds and smooth interconnects. Conversely fewer six lane highways and no more coal loading terminals. Electrical transmission capacity may need to be beefed up to handle remote forms of power generation.

It would be nice to see some sort of Federal policy statement that acknowledges these transitional issues. Instead we are told we need more of the same that created the problems in the first place.

Great article, why wasn't this a election issue?

Somewhat clichéd but, the issues raised in this article exemplify the difference between a Howard/Costello *traditional* conservatism and a Rudd *progressive* conservatism.

Economic rationalists report the current government’s fiscal and monetary policies have squandered the opportunities left by the Hawke/Keating era.

This is no more evident than when the RBA as recently as yesterday says we are now very likely to have further increases in interest rates and inflation is set to increase well into 2009, whichever political party wins the election in 10 days time.

It does not make sense to ‘shower’ the electorate with money like confetti when it will be lost or clawed back within 6 months due to the inflationary pressure these very bribes will create.

Unfortunately, many people see these carrots with a twinkle in their eye and don’t look at the big picture – a dollar in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Howard/Costello are entrenched in the past with traditional conservatism; we will see tomorrow what Rudd has to say about the future with his progressive approach – it will be a fine juggling act to win over the ‘old’ way of thinking

Costello has a seriously flawed appreciation of the economics of infrastructure. He looks at only one side of the infrastructure equation - the cost side - and neglects the benefit side.

Good economic management requires more than just adjusting the economic levers every year against short term goals and fitting economic policy to the electoral cycle. Responsible capital investment over the last eleven years would have given us higher productivity and better control over interest rates than we have at present. We must stop neglecting the future as said through this article.

And;

POLICY UNDERSTANDING AND BETTER COMMUNICATION IS NUMBER ONE.

Water and Climate Change, Transport, Education, Safe and Affordable Childcare, Housing Civic Wellbeing Education through Health and Crime Prevention. New Skills-Share micro-enterprise employment, and as this is just to start;

We have a huge infrastructure backlog. "A twenty-year $250 billion to $300 billion federal borrow-and-build program involving extra expenditure of $10 billion to $15 billion per annum, will be necessary to deal with this and bring the country into a fully competitive position by 2027. Debt would peak at below 30 per cent of GDP (a modest and responsible figure by international standards). There will be no need to repay this debt as it will be self funding from the tax dividend"

http://www.borrowandbuild.com.au/

I am open to looking at eveything provided it takes inflation into account.

If we went this way... "borrow + build" it is essential to build a authentic platform based on social cohesion as the 'razor gang' is something needing to be magified as "ACCOUNTABLITY" is essental for real savings on day to day material costs. (Planning by Design with tranparent effective staff.)

ie: In social human sevices I note the following; (See the Altmann link half way down this page.)

http://esaconf.un.org/WB/default.asp?action=9&boardid=39&read=2427&fid=424

http://www.miacat.com
.

What a great article but how sad that Rudd was not willing to take the risk to try to educate the voters about the choices they are really making. Instead they are left to enjoy the confetti while it lasts and continue to battle with the infrastructure mayhem we face each day. Basic economics should be part of our educational system.

Congratulations Ian on a timely and well-argued piece.

Let's hope others are reading...

UTTER HOGWASH. THAT "ALL AUSTRALIAN'S HAVE ACCESS TO EDUCATION".

From Cooktown - Cape York I have spent hundreds (by phone) on trying to do a PHD "Economic and Social, Political Cultural Development in Cape York".

I travelled to Canberra ANU - to interview my potential DEAN and Supervisors. I was excited. I was accepted at ANU, but could not afford the costs: fee's, travel, living in two places and the study itself - has its own travel and recording research costs.

I felt as a potential up and coming Local Government Councillor, it would be strategic for a role in public life. This premise itself is based on my local perception through research.

Every policy public officer in Cape York comes in from outside Cape York.

You would think it would be better to encourage locals to study, especially if they intended to live within the area.

I attempted to find a sponsorship. (COSTLY). I then tried for a scholarship, but the problem generally, given the competition, was a lack of consultation concerning the process.

Local Centerlink, JobNet and CHR outlets were not interested in giving assistant, as the task for them is outside the square.

I have also attempted to do many other UNI's/Cert courses at other outlets, but the problems were the same.

I have emailed - wrote applications, but things fall through when there is no concern in the follow-up for rural people. Trust breaksdown.

We need a real "no wrong door".

I have too, given my expertise, attempted to assisted others to move toward education. The issues are the same.

CANDOO (NGO) has attempted to enter the micro-skills devlopment market prior to this and found the government policies itself locked CANDOO (NGO) out.

Every government worker I interviewed concerning the problem was outside their depth. It is a Rural Cultural problem within the government services. The possible is made impossible where there is a lack of innovation and a will to solve problems.

Where there is a lack of WILL to ACT.

http://www.miacat.com
.

Ian

I am interested to know the total value (replacement or inflation adjusted)of Australian infrastrucure, possibly including human infrastructure.

I have looked for an answer to this question, but it does not seem to be available from any government department.

I would have thought that this information would be essential for government planning.

For example in planning for an increased population or to quantify the benefits of a larger population.

Your thoughts on this would be of great interest.

Ye Gods Ian;
It is dead easy to make broad brush statements like the
Commonwealth government sat aside and did nothing for infrastructure
and then turn around and say that infrastructure responsibility should
be transfered to the commonwealth.
The responsibility is the states and I am sure if you took the road
transport, rail, ports, water, electricity portfolios away from the
states there would an almighty row.

In fact you are right, all infrastructure should be taken away from
the states.
While you are at it take away what remains and close the state
parliaments. I am in favour of that being done asap.

All road funding should stop. The funds should be diverted to rail
duplication and electrification.
Note France has announced that there will be no more motorways or
new airports.
What has to be done in just the railway field must be done by the
commonwealth as soon as possible so that we do not waste our limited
diesel on interstate trucks.

In a few years we will have a major traffic jam with freight on
interstate and intrastate rail. It will be difficult to get passenger
rail services through especially the Newcastle Sydney corridor.

Can you believe that the NSW state government could handle the
upheaval that will be necessary ?
If we leave it to the states they will expand their own gauges instead
of standard gauge.

There needs to be a crash program to try and get solar thermal power
stations going. It has promise because existing power stations can
be equipped with it.