Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 301

Why Budget infrastructure spending matters

In the Federal Budget delivered last week, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg outlined $100 billion in infrastructure spending over the next decade, mostly on road and rail projects.

Two days later Opposition leader Bill Shorten said a Labor Government would spend more than $100 billion on the roads and rail network.

They were big numbers and there was spending for all states and territories, but is it enough for Australia to fulfil its long-term economic potential?

Invest in infrastructure, invest in economic prosperity

At a macro level, investment in infrastructure is an investment in the economic future of a country. It provides a major stimulus for economic activity and throughout history has has been a fillip for many poorly-performing economies.

The most famous modern-day example was the New Deal in the United States, announced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 in the midst of the Great Depression. The New Deal was a broad package of reforms, including government spending on highways, bridges, schools and parks.

The New Deal established the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electricity (and jobs) to seven of the most impoverished states in the south of the country. To this day, it remains one of the nation’s largest public power providers.

The New Deal also created the Works Progress Administration to employ mostly unskilled labour. It built more than 4,000 school buildings, 130 new hospitals, laid 9,000 miles of drains and sanitary sewer lines, planted 24 million trees, constructed 29,000 bridges and paved or repaired 280,000 miles of road.

But while President Roosevelt was overseeing a depressed economy needing substantial fiscal stimulus, Australia is a long way from that. Nevertheless, what the New Deal taught the world was that broad spending across major public projects can have profound effects for decades to come.

The New Deal spending transformed the economy and US society. It was the birth of the US road system that is still in place today, opening up cities and markets across the country.

Whoever is in government in Australia in the years to come has the same opportunity.

Spending on projects such as the so-called ‘high speed’ rail link between Melbourne and Geelong, with its intended 150 km/hr speed, will allow Geelong residents to quickly commute to jobs in Melbourne. The Government has promised $2 billion to the project, and the ripple effects are expected to be substantial, from stimulating regional growth through to putting both upward and downward pressure on house prices and taking cars off the road in urban areas. This can be genuinely game-changing for the city of Geelong.

Its success (or otherwise) will be closely watched, and it could become the model for many more hub-and-spoke rail projects around major cities across the country.

But despite the merits of this and the other projects announced, the promised spending on infrastructure from both the Coalition and Labor is still below the long-term average of infrastructure spend as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, and is focussed on big-ticket spending on roads and rail.

More than roads and rail needed

In Australia, with our vast distances and relatively sparse population, it makes sense for government and the private sector to work together to provide a modern infrastructure network that goes beyond just our transportation needs.

In the US and Europe, there is enormous investment going into power generation, from natural gas power plants in the Ohio Valley through to wind farms across Scandinavia. Water utilities and waste processing plants are being developed attracting billions of dollars in investment.

Power and water, just like in the 1930s, remain central to infrastructure programmes that benefit society but the modern model now sees them funded by a mix of public and private spending. Other infrastructure projects include data centres and telecommunications towers and small cells for the roll-out of the 5G network.

When compared to roads and rail, there was relatively little spending on these types of infrastructure projects in both the Government’s announcement and the Opposition’s response. An exception was the Snowy Hydro 2.0 expansion which will receive $4 billion, most of which had already been announced.

Each state received funding for “roads of strategic importance”. New South Wales received $3.5 billion for the Western Sydney rail line and $1.6 billion for the M1 Pacific Motorway. In Victoria there was $1.1 billion promised for suburban roads upgrades, alongside the Melbourne to Geelong rail link. South Australia was promised $1.5 billion to build a north-south road corridor.

There was also funding for a national road safety package and to develop business cases for a future fast rail line running down the east coast of the country. The Urban Congestion Fund increased from $1 billion to $4 billion, to fund projects aimed at removing congestion from urban areas.

The opening of investment opportunities

From a private sector investor’s point of view, many public infrastructure projects will eventually be privatised. This has already occurred at airports, ports and utilities across Australia and is expected to occur with other infrastructure assets.

And while the increased funding provides a pathway to the delivery of much-needed infrastructure, questions will linger about whether it is broad-based enough, and large enough for Australia to fulfil its long-term economic potential.

 

John Julian is Fund Manager of the Core Infrastructure Fund at AMP Capital, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. 

For more articles and papers from AMP Capital, please click here.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

$17.7 billion aged care plan welcome but many will miss out

Noel's share winners and loser plus budget reality check

Where Australia is an energy outlier

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.