The federal government has indicated they are looking at spending up to twenty billion dollars, currently sitting in a bucket labelled “The Building Australia Fund”, to assist in combating the looming economic downturn. The notion of pump priming the economy for this purpose is reasonable enough in theory. However, there are plenty of reasons to justify some scepticism about whether such money will be sensibly and efficiently spent.
Already the state governments are knocking each other out of the way as they thrust their begging bowls forward. The fact that most of these governments are struggling in the polls just adds to the chances that the projects they seek money for are as likely to be based on vote winning potential as they are on long-term need. These comments from Tesltra are a reminder that the corporate sector will be joining in the special pleading too.
A piece in Brisbane’s Sunday Mail (not online) lists the Queensland Government’s top 10 infrastructure projects “which alone could clean out the $20 billion federal Building Australia Fund.” The fact the Queensland government is already planning to spend billions of dollars on the unnecessary and destructive Traveston Dam is a reminder that not all infrastructure spending is good. Five of the ten projects on the list are for highways and roads, with the others being harbour and rail projects.
At a time when governments at all levels are trying to convince the public they are serious about climate change, it is ludicrous that they are spending tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure projects which will encourage continuing high energy consumption.
Leaving aside the greenhouse issue, in all the suggestions I have seen of what the Building Australia Fund, I haven’t seen a single mention of any of it being spent on infrastructure for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities. As with greenhouse, there are lots of statements of late from a range of governents about how serous they are to tackle inequality and disadvantage faced by Indignenous Australians, but it isn’t always being matched with action. Of course, the first year of the Northern Territory intervention is a reminder that a lot of money can be spent in highly inefficient ways, so it is not just about spending money. It has got to be well spent.
But if the money is going to spent on roads or communications infrastructure, then improving and sealing roads or upgrading communications to Indigenous and other communities in rural and remote locations would go a long way to improving the economic opportunities in those regions.
As an alternative, a few billion from the Building Australia Fund would go a fair part of the way to addressing serious overcrowding in Indigenous communities.
If the purpose of bringing forward the spending on infrastructure spending is to pump prime the Australian economy and insulate us all from the worst impacts of the economic downturn, it should not matter what the geograpical location of the infrastructure is.
But of course spending billions in areas where the population is small has far less political benefit than spending it in the big cities where most of the voters live. Meanwhile, Australians living in remote Aboriginal communities continue to live in third world conditions. So much for ‘Building Australia’.
5 Comments
Spot on. Govt never won an election by adequately funding dirt poor Aboriginal communties. Expect much of the same from Labor. Just as bad as Howard in real terms, but give off the appearance of being more receptive. Snakes.
I have couple of issues with this Andrew. I would expect that some of the $20bil. could and would be spent in genuine areas of need. What about 0.003% of the total…sounds too little?? That would be enough to give every indigenous australian a million dollars cash one-off payment. (Let’s make it tax free too!) Maybe then we would get past this eternal issue and move on. What do you think? Would it create problems? If it would fix things I would vote for it. On a specific non-indigenous note on the roads as raised in your article. Do you really think improving traffic flow with better (smarter) road development is a bad thing for the environment? Surely not. I crawl in traffic for two hours every weekday with thousands of others. The roads and traffic systems are way behind the need. None of us there are enjoying it or being indulgent. We are not having fun and it is costing more in fuel already! If there was another practical, affordable and time efficient way to get to work or if I could afford to live closer I would take the option. But there isn’t and I can’t. Spend the last 99.997% on rapid clean cheap transit and I will be on it!
Hang on Andrew!… I got my sums wrong! can I retract? I need a new calculator that works with the old british billions. Apologies for a stupid error.. my misguided sentiment was that if money could fix the aboriginal issues then maybe we should put a figure on it and spend it.
Healthcare not included… every person should have a chance at a long and happy life and you cannot put a figure on that.
Why can’t I edit my post?
Thanks for your input Beevoe – it’s the way of most blogs that people can’t edit their comments are they’re posted (except on their own blog). I can correct it though – I think the general point you are making is clear enough anyway.
I’m not saying all road improvements are a bad thing, but I am saying that a lot of major pieces of road infrastructure – such as the tunnel-fest happening in Brisbane at the moment – encourage more car usage, which continues the congestion it was meant to fix.
If we’re looking at quality of life improvements – one of the criteria which Mr Rudd has said will be used – then there’s not much dispute that many Indigenous Australians have far worse living conditions than other Australians. Housing conditions is a major part of this, and needs a concerted and sizeable spending injection to remedy it – which seems to be tailor made for this infrastructure fund. They don’t all have to be in remore communities, and can be built in an eco-efficient manner.
Thanks, I am sure I will get a few flames over that but act in haste repent at leisure eh?
The tyranny of distance makes even the most modest housing project (shed) into a money pit. I am quite sure I personally could not afford to afford live in such desolate places, even if I could keep my job while doing so (which I couldn’t) There must be a huge knock-on effect with all day-to-day living costs. The closer communities will obviously get better bang fo the buck. Still, as you say the funding may not be going that way.