Well said Mr Stevens

Labour and OHS etc are one thing.

How a govt acquires land and where it is and what it is worth is another.

Then you have population.

Then red tape and things like environment studies.

I am ignorant as to how the other countries carry on or address these things. I also do not have a break down of each and every one of these projects, so cannot even discuss further on a hypothetical level.

Govt has not committed to any new rail, our rail has been left to rot in many places in NSW and probably elsewhere, I think the problem for rail would be the number of users.

 

In a nut shell - Yes they should.

 

Do you references for this? I'm very interested as to why but have no background on what the $200b refers to for our rail(there have been so many proposals that have all failed to get traction) or what any of the other countries you reference are planning.

Also as noted before, the demand for such a rail line when we have flights from a hundred bucks is pretty minimal. It would be amazing for the regional areas but there has to be financial viability to get a project like this off the ground.

The Asian countries have an advantage over developed countries because they just do things with far less bureaucracy. Which for me is a huge advantage but can from time to time lead to the final result being less than ideal. Cheaper, yes, but properly considered and effective...hmmm...

Reminds me of a bridge in Laos that we drove over. It got rebuilt 4 times in 100 years and then the Aussies built them one properly and it's still standing.... The locals love us for it

At the same time, we waste a ludicrous amount of money through bureaucracy.

IMO irrigation for inland areas is by far a better idea. We need to wake up to the fact that we have the land, know how and reputation to supply a S%^T load of food to Asia in the coming century but that without government investment it simply won't happen. Why do you think the Chinese et all are buying up our prime farming land...

 

It's all on wikipedia or google if you want to look it up for the various different projects.

I tend to agree that realistically there are probably better investments that could be made, it was simply an example of how our country does things compared to the rest of the world and why I, as a Gen Yer who will be the people paying it back, doesn't want this current government to be taking on any debt whatsoever because they're useless.

Let's be honest, the current government and it's Labor predecessor are why we are where we're at, I don't think that letting them loose with a big fat credit card is a responsible plan because I don't think they have the country's, the people's or the future's best interest anywhere near at heart.

 

Wiki is hardly a reliable source but ok, will take a look if I find the time.

I can't disagree that we are in mess but what we are discussing is what could be done by the government to get us out of the mess. As I and Euro have stated setting up a fund such as the future fund (which IMO has been run very successfully) with a strict mandate on how funds are to be used is one such solution. And it could be done with very cheap funds.

Scott Morrison is trying to stop NSW from leasing our power poles so that we can invest in infrastructure. Now I don't completely agree that more toll road are the best use of the funds but it is generating jobs, making outer ring suburbs more accessible (questionable, but hopefully..) and generally moving in the right direction as opposed to the previous Labour gov who spent nothing on anything for far too long. I feel like I need to mention that the buyers that Scott Morrison has labeled as a threat to national security already operate similar infrastructure in SA and VIC.

But anyway, borrowing money at 2% to fund such projects that will spur growth and provide jobs is not a far fetched crazy idea. Easily 2% pa of the funds spent will end up back in the government pockets...

 

Don't disagree at all with the fundamental idea just pointing out the opposite side of the equation.

The current level of ineptitude and waste, imo, is the perfect environment for when spending should be reigned in as much as possible, if there was some system where this could be overcome which perhaps the fund idea is a valid option, then that would be good.

Turnbull is a pathetic coward though who has basically only undertaken things to line his own pockets at this point and I don't trust him. He had his chance with the NBN and he literally bent Australia's future over on that one. He doesn't seem to have any interest in making Australia better long term, just making sure his source of wealth is protected and expanded.

Again, I love the idea of using cheap debt to build valuable infrastructure that is well thought out and well executed. Every example we've had in the past 10 years pretty much fails both the well thought out and the well executed parts at alarming levels.

We've managed to rack up alarming debt levels and have nothing to show for it already, do we really want to encourage these imbeciles to go harder?

 

Reminds me of the series "Utopia" and the Nation Building Authority...

 

I have read a bit about this NBN failure here.
I can't say I understand what all the fuss is about.

My understand was that fibre is being run across the country. But not hooked up to every single household. Why is that such a big issue? The idea of having high speed internet is so that everyone has access to it. They will, just have to hook it from the street. Why should tax payers pay for every single home in the country to have fibre run to their premises?

If business needs it, it's there.
If hospitals and other public services need it, it's there
If you want to stream video at home, it's there. (I already stream video at home on ADSL2 so not sure what the fuss is??)

As far as the old technology debate, Fibre optic cable was invented in the 70's or 80's, hardly cutting edge. Surely wireless is the way of the future?

Anyway I have not followed the debate closely, so please feel free to point out if any of my assumptions are wrong.

 

It's pretty crappy.
And they're the ones voting for changes to "welfare".