SpaceX doesn't receive government support. It used to, but that was long ago and the money was given to help them achieve things the US government wanted.

And it most certainly doesn't receive Australian government support.

I am not claiming Australia directly subsidises SpaceX. I am saying Australian taxpayers are funding an expanding commercial space ecosystem, some of whose activities use SpaceX’s commercial launch services. That is a legitimate expenditure-of-public-resources question!

My objection is not to space exploration; It is to the government’s allocation of additional discretionary public resources when Australia is experiencing a recognised housing shortage, a substantial social-housing waiting list and homelessness pressures.

Every dollar of public expenditure has an opportunity cost. The question I am entitled to ask as a taxpayer is whether expanding Australia’s participation in commercial space activities should take priority over addressing immediate and demonstrable deficiencies in housing and homelessness infrastructure.

That is not an argument against technological progress. It is an argument for proportionality and priorities!

Landline this weekend carried a story about Australia hoping to launch, via one of the various launch vehicles, satellites to monitor fires and to remotely try to use new technology to measure the flammability of forests throughout the country and therefore predict how ferocious fires might be. They also hope to use the satellite data to direct early responses to any fires. Finally they are hopeful that if they can get it working then they'll be able to sell the technology overseas.

Is that an appropriate use of federal funds?

lawful expenditure is not necessarily optimal expenditure.
The question is this, whether the allocation of taxpayer dollars in space technology et al represents a defensible priority.

With Government investing taxpayer funds into Social housing;

The government investment in social housing produces a tangible asset — land, buildings and associated infrastructure — that can remain useful for decades.

The returns aren’t confined to the eventual sale value of the property. They can include:

* long-term accommodation for multiple households over the asset’s life;
* rental income;
* preservation or appreciation of the underlying asset;
* reduced pressure on emergency accommodation and homelessness services;
* greater housing stability, potentially improving employment and health outcomes;
* an enduring public asset rather than a one-off consumption expenditure.

And importantly, the government can actually identify and measure much of the asset and its continuing use.

Whereas with;

Space investment

The government’s prospective return is different. It may include:

* technological spillovers;
* commercialisation;
* skilled employment;
* private investment;
* strategic capability;
* scientific discoveries;
* future tax revenue.

BUT many of these returns are forecast rather than guaranteed, and some may take decades to materialise. Some benefits may accrue primarily to private companies and investors.

So the legitimate question becomes:

Why should government prefer an investment whose principal returns are prospective and uncertain over an investment that creates a tangible, long-lived public asset while simultaneously addressing an immediate social deficiency?

So no investment as to how to better fight fires until all homeless are homed. Got it!

Well mhaze, do you want to play with the toddlers building strawmen or engage with the real adult world?

That’s not my argument at all.

You’ve replaced “government should compare competing claims on scarce taxpayer funds” with “government must do nothing else until every homeless person is housed.”

Those are entirely different propositions.

Of course governments must invest in firefighting, defence, infrastructure, research and many other areas simultaneously. The question is how much should be allocated to each, and on what evidence.

My argument is about the government’s obligation to justify discretionary investment by considering:

• the certainty and timing of the expected return;
• who actually receives the benefits;
• the risks borne by taxpayers;
• whether the investment creates a lasting public asset;
• and the opportunity cost of choosing one investment over another.

Social housing illustrates the point because public expenditure can create a tangible, long-lived asset while addressing an immediate social need.

That doesn’t mean “no space investment until homelessness is eliminated.” It means that “investment in the future” isn’t a sufficient justification by itself.

If you disagree, address the actual argument: what is the expected public return from the expenditure, how was that return assessed, what risks are being carried by taxpayers, and why was that allocation considered preferable to competing uses of the money.