Skip to content

A Wish List on Roads

August 31, 2011

Interest groups and advocacy organisations should have learned by now you cannot hit a government with a wish list of proposals totalling $44 billion and expect to be taken seriously.

The NRMA has made a submission to the O’Farrell government for next Tuesday’s budget doing precisely that – running up a total, in fact, of $44 billion. All the roads they can think of; just find $44 billion.

Interest groups need to do two things: first, prioritise. That is, say “In an ideal world we would like the following…” but quickly add that in the next four years our priority is… one or two items from the list.

Second, they need to answer questions about cost. The most potent submissions governments get are those which include a funding source.

The NRMA’s submission would be serious if it argued for a levy or a new tax source to fund absolutely necessary road proposals.

This advice applies to any group seeking extra resources off government. It would apply to the disability organisation as much as to an infrastructure lobby. Prioritise and address funding.

One Comment
  1. Phil Jeffery permalink
    August 31, 2011 8:36 pm

    I am a member of NRMA and I often am concerned by the positions NRMA takes on policy matters on behalf of it’s membership. This is another great example. Perhaps I’m like many others who only have NRMA membership because they’re worried their car might break down. Maybe I’m in the minority! Beyond helping me getmy car working when it’s broken down, I’m not looking for NRMA to represent me as a car user. In fact I find most of the tripe they publish in the Open Road magazine so offensive that I throw it straight into the recycling bin. NRMA seems to assume that because I own a car that I therefore think that building more roads is the correct answer to solving the state’s transport woes. God forbid we consider sustainable public transport as an alternative. Think what $44 billion could do to our public transport infrastructure! It is interesting that they chose not to clarify how it might be funded, I’m sure they felt they could leave that part to the “pollies” while they took pot shots from the sidelines. At least we can take heart that perhaps without the funding part, that no one will take them seriously.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: