John Quiggin, who attributes much of the scale of the New South Wales Labor election disaster to electricity privatisation, has an excellent suggestion in today’s Financial Review about how the Queensland ALP could turn its own privatisation woes around.
Quiggin argues that once the flood effect has worn off, the Queensland government will find itself haunted by the legacy of the QR privatisation.
Noting that the Queensland Motorway Corporation remained in public ownership by being sold to the Queensland Investment Corporation, he suggests that the QIC buy all Campbell Newman’s teetering transport infrastructure – for instance the Clem7 tunnel and the almost always empty Go Between bridge (which actually makes bottlenecks worse).
This would enable, Quiggin argues, a rational approach to transport pricing, and would have the rather delightful political bonus of drawing attention to the failures and financial disasters associated with “Can Do” Campbell, as he becomes the unelected Alternative Premier.
I like it a lot!
For a while I’ve been arguing/telling friends that either the council or the state government should do this – it would be a nice reversal to the usual PPP approach of privatising profits and socialising losses. But it’s far too sensible an idea, it will never happen.
With what money?
It flies in the face of the headlong flight from responsibility and instinct to scavenge, that is the distinguishing feature of Australian libertarianist inspired neoliberalism.
It goes agains the mindset. As Andrew Reynolds said the other day, “Leadership operates as a means for removing surplus (incompetent?)labor from the productive pool” (not verbatim ), he included ref. to the Peter Principle, which postulates that, “everyone rises or falls to their own level of incompetence”.
That’s why we have people like Campbell Newman, Graham Richardson, Andrew Macleay, Costa and Scott Morrison running things, while people like Quiggin are locked out of decision making.
If Quiggin, Bahnisch and co see it, probably others have and its interesting and suggestive that it hasn’t been taken up and to speculate on why.
Kim, congrats on yet another good thread starter.
They could easily be bought with borrowed money. Which is one reason why this will never happen.
Great idea, especially the “drawing attention to the failures and financial disasters associated with “Can Do” Campbell” IMHO Kim. Campbell has been a complete financial disaster (!)in so many ways for the city, and this really needs to be highlighted, at every turn.
I disagree, while I think buying the bridge and tunnel for a song is a good idea politically it could be a disaster. Rightly or wrongly more people have concerns about the state’s financial situation than the council’s – at this moment discussing finance and debt reminds Queenslanders of Labor’s debt issues. More than that, Labour shouldn’t get distracted and pick at every LNP flaw – Labor/Bligh’s strength is stability and character and they should consistently sell that while the LNP implode. Only if the council’s financial problems become (relatively) naturally apparent should Labor take advantage.
“This would enable, Quiggin argues, a rational approach to transport pricing”
Which will never happen — the government will simply buy assets back and fail to implement any reasonable transport solutions like congestion taxing. Thus the real losers will be those that don’t happen to use this infrastructure.
Newman got elected on the promise of reducing congestion. congestion has got worse despite the tunnel and bridge. The bridge and tunnel are not working because most people are not willing to pay the charge. (Why use a toll bridge when there is a free bridge a few hundred metres away?)
The tunnel and bridge do nothing more than provide un-congested travel for the affluent.
I am all in favour of the purchase as long as both tunnel and bridge become toll free.
Its a great idea – the state govt should buy them and make them toll-free.
That’d be the end of Newman. Finished.
Back when the Coalition were last in gummint in Qld they bought the Sunshine Coast Motorway for $200M and got rid of the tolls. There was a lot of outrage at the time IIRC about this. Dunno if this current situation is any different, but how much $$$ would be needed to buy the Clem7 tunnel and Go-Between bridge?
One possible benefit of buying the Go-Between bridge could be adding the missing ‘s’ to the name
Paul Walters @ 3,
But surely, according to the Peter principle, Quiggin has also risen to the level of incompetence. So perhaps we should distrust his AFR commentary.
I & U, JQ is a Federation Fellow. As far as I’m aware, that means the Government thinks he’s so valuable they are paying him extra to prevent his brain draining out somewhere like the US. I’m not sure how that translates to “incompetence”. What an abusive and mean comment.
I’m not familiar with the Brisbane tunnels, but from the Quiggin piece I understand that these have been funded by private capital, which has lost a bundle of money in the process.
What an excellent outcome for the taxpayer! Newman must be a genius.
To now buy the private owners out at distressed prices, as Quiggin suggests, would be the icing on the cake. It is an opportunity that the NSW government also had (eg on the Sydney airport line) but passed up.
“Privatise the losses and socialise the profits” indeed.
the state govt should buy them and make them toll-free
Great idea. The Queensland governmment is so awash with cash, with nothing to spend it on, like non-repairing the non-flood non-damage, that it can afford to throw away the toll money.
Not to mention that making the roads free will encourage more driving and create more congestion and more greenhouse gases.
Doh!
Helen @12,
Sorry, you have misinterpreted my comment. I was not intending to be abusive or mean. I have great respect for John Quiggin.
I was just pointing out the limitations of the “Peter Principle”.
Sorry, I & U, I had my irony meter off.
Ooh, devious and clever, I like that idea too.
Sam objected to the idea of state acquisition of the failing tollways Clem7 and the “go between” bridge and eliminating the tolls.
I would go halfway. I’d acquire them if they could be had at firesale prices, but I wouldn’t remove the tolls. Rather, I’d design them to meet likely recurrent costs and debt service on the funds tied up in the acquisition.
As a general principle, I’m in favour of distance based road usage charges rather than generalised fixed costs for road usage.
12, It’s also the reason this poster is on db.
What lengths they wont go to, to keep their national treasures inside the country..
Anyway, if all this infrastructure is “distressed”, why has no one attended on it, consoled it, given it a couple of Bex and encouraged it to lie down for a bit?
Fran: To my mind it is completely unfair to charge people to use a particular bridge/tunnel/road while those using other bridges/tunnels/roads pay nothing. In addition, it doesn’t make sense to have this infrastructure under-utilized because of the strange way they were financed.
We pay fuel taxes and rates to pay for roads and bridges. These should be increased if this is what is required. After all Fran you are the one who keeps telling me about the merits of polluter pays.
John D said:
It doesn’t sound unfair to me. Perhaps there were special circumstances. It is enough that it costs money to maintain it, and people are causing maintenance costs by using it. That said, as you know, I’d favour a ubiquitous system along these lines.
So let’s drop these fuel taxes and rates then. They also apply to those using farm and mining equipment and trains than never go onto public roads. Let each person pay for all of his or her externalities.
In the interim though, what I have proposed would be a step in the right direction.
“In the interim though, what I have proposed would be a step in the right direction.”
I think not buying them back is good insurance against tolls being removed for political reasons. I wouldn’t say that if the government could introduce a reasonable congestion scheme which would target congestion much more accurately, but that is not going to happen (I mean, it doesn’t happen in Sydney where traffic jams appear from 6am in the morning — obviously people don’t value their time very highly).
Conrad said:
Buying them back/acquiring them is needed so as to be shielded from MAE claims consequent upon the reconfiguration of transport infrastructure.
Ummm just a point, but why is every bridge in Brisbane a “state” concern and not a local concern? If the road’s aren’t directly part of the “state” road network, you cant expect the rest of Queensland to pay for them? Can you?
Those outside of Brisbane pay rates for local roads, bridges etc but those in Brisbane pay rates for different reasons?
Oh thats right you forgot that the rest of the State exists. /sigh