A report released by the Grattan Institute today shows the true cost of governments allocating infrastructure funding to marginal (and often regional) electorates.
Australia faces a serious infrastructure challenge: government funding for infrastructure has gone down significantly since 2013 and governments must grapple with the real problem of whether to fund major new projects by debt or user charges. Every dollar wasted on a road to nowhere or a dubious rail project means a dollar less for much-needed infrastructure projects in our cities and major regional centres, where population growth is placing strain on existing networks, especially transport networks. Any government where the National Party exerts its influence is likely to be grossly misallocating precious infrastructure funding.
A fully transparent system for all infrastructure investments would go some way to fixing this problem — so that it is clear when governments are wasting money on boondoggles and pork-barrelling ahead of valuable projects. Ultimately, though, that might not be sufficient, as the scornful rejection of this report by regional MPs demonstrates.
A genuinely independent allocation process for major infrastructure projects may be the only way to prevent politicians from putting political and sectional self-interest ahead of the national interest. An independent, Reserve Bank-style body that controls the majority of Commonwealth infrastructure funding and allocates it based on transparent cost-benefit analyses would address the serious economic damage that results from political pork-barrelling.
Yet another instance of proposing to solve a problem of government administration by the establishment of a Reserve Bank-style body that can make such decisions independent of politics, meaning independent of democratic accountability. Just look at the varied proposals for such bodies and ask yourself, if they were all implemented, what would be the purpose of elected government? Not much. What we’ll end up with is technocratic fascism, a la the EU.
There’s a far better infrastructure solution: make more resources available, through a government investment bank, which can fund a separate capital budget through long-term credit, not short-term tax revenues. Then it will be possible to meet every need.
It has been obvious for a long time that pork barrelling does great damage to the community but then, no government of any prescription would agree to an independent body to control that particular evil. Our only hope is the rare occasion of a PM who has actually gained the electorate’s respect for his/hers patent integrity. Such a leader might then actually tell the community that the only election promise he/she can make that things will be tough for a while, but if everybody – the rich more so than the poor – will pull together, we can come out in front.
So what about starting with an independent analysis of infrastructure spending in and around the electorate of New England over (say) the last 10 years. All the numbers should be easily available. It would be possible to measure the difference between having an independent (with a big hoof in the door of the then-current government) and a National Party Deputy PM (with a big hoof in the door of the current government). Rest assured, the electorate of New England is squatting over the future of the Turnbull government. We’ll hold our noses while you hang out the washing.
AS outrageous as national socialist agrarian pork barrelling is, I dislike intensely the assumption that funding must, ipso facto, be allocated to the megacities to enable them to grow even more impossibly disfunctional.
Whitlam’s (among other visionaries) decentralisation plans (Bathurst/Orange, Albury/Wondonga, Armidale/Tamworth etc) demonstrated, subsidies & tax concessions will be rorted to the last cent.
The Great Wens blighting our east & south coasts have become cancerous growths precisely because they have been subsidised to the nth degree for over a century.
Few cities even in overcrowded Europe have populations of 4-5M (except some capitals and not even all of those) and they’ve been the result of many centuries stupidty and lack of choice.
We have the choice to settle over an area beyond euroids wildest dreams.
Why would anyone do so when they can fester in SydMelb with the real cost of their food, transport, water supply, sewage disposal etc is subsidised up the wazoo?
I’m looking forward to the first sub to roll off the production line set up to save Pyne’s and other Limited News Party luminaries seats?
[“HMAS Pork Barrel – under the command of Capt. Goodvibes*”?]
(*no relation to Malcolm)