Don't skyjack the taxpayer

Memo to Mr Clifford: China and Australia are very different markets and not comparable at all in terms of passenger traffic, government processes and regulatory framework. Also in the context of airlines, Qantas unlike the Motherland's airlines is an end-of-the-line carrier.

Clifford spoke fondly of Badgerys Creek, but never mentioned how deep into Qantas' pocket or for that matter, the pockets of his partners in Emirates' and One World's he will go to pay for that. Perhaps he just assumed that the mug taxpayers would be forced to carry the can.

Clearly the Chairman of Qantas could do with another airport. So what's stopping him presenting a plan after cobbling together a consortium to build and operate such a facility?

In response, Mr Moore-Wilton argued that politics was stopping the Millionaires Hanger from handling more planes and better utilising its runways. What he meant was that his employer and airport owner Macquarie Bank is hamstrung with curfews and directives that restrict its ability to crank up profits. Imagine that? Even scant restrictions on a monopoly are unacceptable to some. Hmmm.

The trouble for Clifford and Moore-Wilton is that massive public sector capital expenditure, involved in say constructing an airport, is both politically and financially, a tricky thing. As are Public Private Partnerships, as are privatisations.

To date there has been a great deal of noise about another Sydney airport, but no real debate.

And what has been missing from the noise is far more interesting than what has been made public. The list of unasked questions is mindboggling, as are the sums involved. The list of questions include:

1. In whose direct interest is it to have another airport?

2. Can that interest be measured? For instance, say the project will create 1,000 jobs but will cost (for argument's sake) $70m of taxpayers' funds. This begs the question: is it in the taxpayers' interest to spend $70,000 to create each job?

3. Is it a lay down misere that any airport built will be built using taxpayers' funds?

4. Are Public Private Partnerships being considered, where the private operator will construct, operate and maintain the project and in turn receive a certain amount of revenue in return, sufficient to cover operating costs, cost of capital, and a "reasonable" (wink, wink) return to incentivize reliable performance to "agreed" standards?

5. On the matter of PPPs, let's not forget that advocates– if they find a willing ear – will argue the merits of such cooperation: these include risk allocation that unlocks value in innovative ways, adds efficiencies, and lifts the quality of service. In this way, the risk for projects is (in theory at lest) shared between the public and private sectors.