Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Infrastructure funding needs more thought

By Graham Young - posted Tuesday, 7 July 2015

How do you finance new state infrastructure when you have taken the pledge not to use debt or increased taxes?

There is no doubt that Queensland needs new infrastructure with population growth amongst the highest in the developed world, but the cost of that infrastructure is in the billions.

For example, the cross river rail link, comes with a price tag starting at $2.5 bn.


The new state government promises to be innovative in finding a solution, but from the flotilla of kites that flew Tuesday, and immediately nose-dived and crashed, promises and performance are still wide apart.

First up was a suggestion of levies or betterment taxes, almost immediately disowned and replaced with the idea of unlocking extra value from government assets, like the GoPrint land at Woolloongabba, as a result of new infrastructure.

Flogging off government land to pay for infrastructure is not a new concept. (It also looks and smells like privatisation).

In 1882 the Queensland government financed railways by granting government land to the builder paying a rate of 100 acres per one mile of track.

Without the line the land had little value and it was the government’s land to grant. So the uplift in the value of the land caused by the railway paid for the railway.

But these situations are rare, and probably confined to a rapidly developing and largely empty country, where aboriginal rights counted for little.


The cross river tunnel does not fit these criteria.

In the first place, the benefit, is likely to be general to the population as a whole, not to a specific area.

There may be a couple of extra train stations, and possibly the one in town will attract some pedestrian traffic that wouldn’t have otherwise existed, but the uplift in value from the shopping this might generate is unlikely to meet more than a fraction of the cost of the construction.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

An edited version of this was published in The Courier Mail.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy