4 June 2015

ACT budget 2015-16 highlights

| Amy M
Join the conversation
64
act budget 2015-16

ACT residents will pay higher rates, spend more money on vehicle registration and see pay parking extended after hours in many of Civic’s car parks under the 2015-16 ACT budget handed down this afternoon.

In good news, the ACT Government has allocated more money for health and education than ever before. It also plans to increase the payroll tax threshold and eliminate taxes on general and life insurance by July 2016.

Here are some of the budget highlights:

Economy

  • The Territory’s operating balance will see a deficit of $597 million in 2014-15, and a predicted deficit of $407 million in 2015-16. This is largely due to the Mr Fluffy legacy, cuts to the ACT’s share of the GST and reductions in Commonwealth health funding.
  • The ACT budget is expected to return to a modest surplus of $50 million by 2018-19.
  • The ACT Treasury projects economic growth of 1 1/2 per cent in 2015-16, with year on year employment expected to grow by 3/4 per cent.

Fees and charges

  • General rates will increase by nine per cent on average for both commercial and residential properties.
  • 2015-16 will be the last year that duty will apply on general and life insurance policies, with the tax on insurance being fully abolished on 1 July 2016.
  • Payroll tax threshold will be increased to $2 million by 2016-17.
  • The ambulance levy will increase by $6.24 to $131.56 for individuals and $12.48 to $263.12 for families.
  • The fire and emergency services levy will increase from $130 to $196 for residential and rural properties.

Health

  • The ACT’s overall health budget is $1.5 billion – the biggest it has ever been and nearly one-third of the total ACT Budget.
  • Canberra’s hospitals will receive $161 million in new health funding over four years, including $40.6 million in extra funding for more beds and services, plus $14.8 million over two years to provide an extra 500 elective surgeries.
  • 16 extra acute care beds across Canberra and Calvary Hospitals.
  • Canberra Hospital will receive a new sterilising facility at a cost of $17.3 million.
  • $5.6 million to Calvary Hospital to refurbish and purchase new equipment for its operating theatre, plus an additional $3.7 million for new imaging services.
  • $800,000 in funding to go to drug treatment and support services in response to Canberra’s ice scourge.
  • $31.9 million over four years to boost mental health services.

Education

  • The 2015-16 education budget is $1.1 billion, the biggest in the ACT’s history.
  • $10.7 million to build a new CIT campus in Tuggeranong, plus $2.6 million to upgrade existing CIT campuses at Reid and Bruce.
  • Belconnen High School will receive $18.4 million to refurbish and upgrade existing facilities.
  • $30.3 million for the North Gungahlin Primary School, scheduled to open in January 2019.
  • $37.8 million to replace and upgrade computers and expand wireless capability across ACT primary schools.
  • $1 million to conduct feasibility studies for a Year 7-10 school in North Gungahlin and a primary to Year 10 school in Molonglo.
  • $615,000 for the training of teachers and support staff about domestic violence, and the development of an online resource centre to connect families to support services.

Capital works

  • $700 million has been allocated to capital works in the 2015-16 budget, $200 million of which is new spending.
  • $10.1 million over four years to begin the transformation and renewal of West Basin, with the construction of a new park and intersections on Commonwealth Avenue.
  • $159.2 million over two years to replace 352 public housing properties along the Northbourne Avenue corridor, as well as at Allawah Court and the Red Hill Housing Precinct.
  • The budget explains that the ACT Government will pay for Capital Metro by making a capital contribution of $375 million after construction is complete.
  • $20 million in ongoing Northbourne Avenue corridor work to prepare infrastructure for Capital Metro.
  • $14.2 million over three years to progress the redevelopment of the ACT Supreme and Magistrates courts.

Roads

  • $24.6 million over three years to duplicate Ashley Drive from Erindale Drive to Ellerston Avenue.
  • $62.3 million for road upgrades in Gungahlin, including $31.2 million to duplicate Gundaroo Drive between Gungahlin Drive and Mirrabei Drive.
  • Traffic lights at the intersections of Belconnen Way and Springvale Drive, and where Hindmarsh Drive intersects with Launceston Street and Eggleston Crescent.
  • $700,000 to undertake strengthening works on bridges along the Monaro Highway from Pialligo Avenue to Isabella Drive.

Transport

  • $2.3 million to progress the Government’s transport reform agenda and adapt to future transport challenges.
  • Introduction of after hours paid parking in Civic from 1 September 2015 is expected to generate $5 million in additional revenue over four years.
  • Car, truck, motorbike and trailer registrations will increase by five per cent.
  • Cost of drivers’ licences to rise by three per cent (a five-year full licence issue or renewal will now cost $171.60, up from $167.10).
  • Car registration administration fees reduced from $15 per transaction to $10 per transaction.
  • Six per cent increase in paid parking. The hit equates to about $230 extra for full-time workers in Canberra this year.
  • $1.3 million over four years to increase the operation of Canberra’s mobile speed cameras.

Suburban renewal

  • $8 million over four years for more frequent mowing, weed control, maintenance of trees, shrubs, lakes and ponds, plus and graffiti methods.
  • $200,000 for playground safety upgrades.
  • $1.7 million to revamp the Erindale and Weston Group Centres.
  • $250,000for feasibility studies to improve walking and cycling access around Tuggeranong and Kingston.
  • $1.5 million over two years for lighting and footpath improvements in Haig Park, and Mort and Lonsdale Streets in Braddon.

Home buyers

  • First home owners grant to be reduced from $12,500 to $10,000 from 1 January 2016, and to $7000 from 1 January 2017.
  • Stamp duty cuts of up to one third to target middle and lower end of the market.

Sport

  • Funding for Melrose High School oval upgrade, including a FIFA accredited synthetic soccer field.
  • $4.6 million over two years to upgrade Phillip Oval.
  • $871,000 in extra funding to maintain the quality of neighbourhood ovals.

Justice and social inclusion

  • Funding for a fifth ACT Supreme Court judge at a cost of $3.1 million over three years.
  • $2.1 million over four years to allow adult offenders to participate in restorative justice.
  • $156 million for ACT Policing, up $1 million on the previous budget.
  • An additional $867,000 in funding for Canberra’s Legal Aid Commission.
  • $107 million in recurrent funding for disability and therapy services, plus $83.4 million for child and youth protection services and $160 million for housing and homelessness support.

Join the conversation

64
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

justin heywood said :

Yes, but to be fair they always said that it was to be a ‘phased’ reduction which could take 20 years (surely the ultimate political get-out clause).

It would be interesting to graph the reduced income from stamp duty against the increases in rates.

No need to graph it. It is in the ACT Gov’t 2015-16 budget papers. Revenue from Stamp Duty is up considerably. Revenue from Annual Rates is up massively.

Now the ACT Gov’t says that the phase out of all stamp duties will be over 20 years (which was always the case for stamp duties on house purchases, but other stamp duties were supposed to have been removed within 5 years, with a proportional minor decrease in the % of rise in Annual Rates). So, they lied about that.

When the ACT govt said that the increase in Annual Rates & Reduction in stamp duty would be “revenue neutral” – they lied. They even went so far as to refuse to publish the costings to prove their claims of revenue neutrality.

Also this morning, the repayment schedule for the ACT Gov’t to repay the loan from the Federal Gov’t for Mr Fluffy (u may recall that it was a loan at concessional rates – not a gift/co-cotribution) has been in the news. Repayments are per annum. The final payment is due to the Feds in 9 years – that final years repayment figure is m$550 ! And yet, projects like Light Rail, expansion in the number of MLAs, road works (even in Gunners, despite the Light Rail), etc, roll on on the back of an almost record Territory budget deficite.

I can not wait to see what the expenditure on Tuggeranong will be in the pre election 2016-17 ACT budget, despite the above. I doubt that will save ACT Labor from losing a seat or two in Tuggeranong.

Why do they do this ? Because ACT voters and Ratepayers didn’t send the ACT Labor/Greens a strong enough message at the ballot box in 2014 and basically seem to retain much of that apathy – though there probably has been a quantum shift in voter/ratepayer views – mostly on the back of Light Rail & the rapidly rising Annual Rates.

Mysteryman said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

You did. Apparently, it will take “decades”. Even though rates have already increased roughly 30-40% from their pre-2012 levels. But don’t worry, it’s for a good reason: so that Andrew Barr can say we have the lowest stamp duty in the country! Really helpful.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-chief-minister-andrew-barr-pushes-abolition-of-stamp-duty-out-decades-20150615-gho1p4.html

And no plans to delay the rates hoiking. They clearly know they are doomed at the next election and are trying desperately to claw back some economics bases ready for three elections hence, the earliest they could conceivably be back in after their wicked behaviour.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

That has always been ACT Labour’s stated policy – it’s over 20 years.

In my case, after paying the ACT Gov’t $23K stamp duty on purchase of a house in the ACT less than 4 years ago (before that policy was announced by Labour at the 2013 election) and being unable to move because of finances – I’m stuffed. There is no way in such situations, that the decrease in stamp duty on everything else will make up for the 10% avg. increase per annum over 20 years + in Annual Rates.

If I had known that was going to happen, I certainly would have purchased a place across the border.

Fair ? Rubbish.

It’s legalised theft and has turned me – and others i know – away from ACT Labour for life.

HiddenDragon5:49 pm 15 Jun 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

“or more” would be new, I believe, but 20 years has been part of the official line for some time.

Whatever wording is being used today (as compared to last week/month/year) has little real meaning – however it’s dressed up, this is essentially a bait and switch revenue gouge which has been imposed with out-of-touch arrogance.

justin heywood5:28 pm 15 Jun 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

Yes, but to be fair they always said that it was to be a ‘phased’ reduction which could take 20 years (surely the ultimate political get-out clause).

It would be interesting to graph the reduced income from stamp duty against the increases in rates.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back4:17 pm 15 Jun 15

Mysteryman said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

You did. Apparently, it will take “decades”. Even though rates have already increased roughly 30-40% from their pre-2012 levels. But don’t worry, it’s for a good reason: so that Andrew Barr can say we have the lowest stamp duty in the country! Really helpful.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-chief-minister-andrew-barr-pushes-abolition-of-stamp-duty-out-decades-20150615-gho1p4.html

Kicking goals and making progress.

Sheesh…

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

You did. Apparently, it will take “decades”. Even though rates have already increased roughly 30-40% from their pre-2012 levels. But don’t worry, it’s for a good reason: so that Andrew Barr can say we have the lowest stamp duty in the country! Really helpful.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-chief-minister-andrew-barr-pushes-abolition-of-stamp-duty-out-decades-20150615-gho1p4.html

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:53 pm 15 Jun 15

Did I hear correctly on the ABC news at 2pm that our local Labor leaders have decided to phase stamp duty out over a period of 20 years or more?

vintage123 said :

$31.2 million to duplicate Gundaroo Drive between Gungahlin Drive and Mirrabei Drive.

Wow, that’s a lot for only a couple of hundred meters of road, well maybe 500m. Maybe it includes another bridge along Mirrabei. Does anyone have any more info on this.

token piece of road to make it look like the gov is listening to Gungahlin residents.

I can’t really see how this one small section will alleviate congestion on Gundaroo Dr as they will have to add traffic lights at Narri and Ginn st and the Mirrabei Dr intersection .

The bottle neck will still be there, just spread out a bit further. You can be guaranteed you will have to stop at each new set of lights.

JC said :

In my case I brought a house and land package in 1999, land was $50k and I paid about $1000 in stamp duty as it was a split contract. So should I now not have to contribute to running the city because I have paid my stamp duty 16 years ago? Hmm

If u pay Annual Rates, car Rego, fines, etc, and purchase stuff (generating GST revenue), then you are already paying for the upkeep of the City. Stamp duty just goes into general revenue as a one off revenue injection. Annual rates & GST

I paid about $23K in stamp duty. So, I recall that legal loophole by splitting contracts to avoid paying the amount of stamp duty that others had to pay. Yeah – then i wouldn’t think that the avg.10% increase in annual rates pa for the next 20 years was an issue for people who used that mechanism either !!!

bikhet said :

The fair thing to do with those who had already paid stamp duty on their properties would be to exempt them from that part of the rise in rates that results from the lowering of stamp duty. This is feasible as the government knows, or at least should know, which properties have had stamp duty paid on them, and it should also know what portion of the increase in rates is resulting from the removal of stamp duties.

Agree – but that wont achieve the real objective of raising more revenue. ACT Labor stated that the increase in Annual Rates of 10% on avg. pa for 20 years to compensate for the gradual removal of Stamp Duties would be revenue neutral. A look at the revenue projections in the 2015-16 ACT budget papers shows that they lied.

watto23 said :

I have no idea what direction the ACT liberals are going in. Yes I defend their right to announce policies at the next election, but given they were light on last election under his leadership, I suspect I’ll be voting for independents or minor parties again.

I also struggle with not voting Labor locally, but given what they have done with Light Rail and Annual Rates, to name just a few things, I will probably go Liberal this time depending on their policies closer to the election. Can always vote Liberal out again in 2020. The risk in voting independent i suppose is that they won’t hold the balance of power, given Greens situation (personally, I think that a vote for the Greens locally is a vote for Labor anyway – at least while Rattenbury is a member of the ACT Government).

watto23 said :

The Liberal campaign was based on a slogan minus key details. Labor argued they won’t triple in the short term. Liberal argued the rates will still triple. Both arguments are correct.
Only an idiot would think that rates will never ever triple. Just like wages will triple given enough time.

Obviously Annual Rates will triple – eventually. Under the ACT Labor/Greens new Rates/Stamp duty regime, that will happen much, much faster. For example, in another 17 years, my Annual Rates in Tuggers will be $8,500+ pa. That’s based on an average 9% pa increase (not the avg. 10% pa for 20 years that the ACT Gov’t has said). Thats a hell of a lot faster than would otherwise be expected and will put many self funded retirement plans – and the plans of those already retired – into some disaray.

To me, thats a kick in the guts to middle class homeowners and retirees. Most un Labor like.

bikhet said :

JC said :

…Common sense says the best way is rates, but that of course brings up the question about what to do with those who have already paid stamp duty on their properties?

Though frankly I reckon the way the government is lowering stamp duty slowly, and rising rates slowly goes someway to negating this issue and is the best way going forward. Now if the Liebrals would put forward an alternative rather than scaremonger would be happy to listen.

The fair thing to do with those who had already paid stamp duty on their properties would be to exempt them from that part of the rise in rates that results from the lowering of stamp duty. This is feasible as the government knows, or at least should know, which properties have had stamp duty paid on them, and it should also know what portion of the increase in rates is resulting from the removal of stamp duties.

The current approach has two benefits for the government that are disadvantages for the voters:

1 – it allows the government to tax existing property owners twice, and so make the books like better; and

2 – it accustoms the voters to the raise in rates on the boiling frog principle.

Exempt for how long?

In my case I brought a house and land package in 1999, land was $50k and I paid about $1000 in stamp duty as it was a split contract. So should I now not have to contribute to running the city because I have paid my stamp duty 16 years ago? Hmm

dungfungus said :

Labor did a lot of research and allocated a lot of resources to find ” the best and fairest way to tax” and came up with the current system. People voted for that and clearly they, like you, didn’t read the full details of the Liberals “triple your rates” claim. There is no way the information conveyed claimed this was going to happen in the current term of government so your “scare campaign” claim may be convenient but not credible.
Too bad about us not getting a rebate for the rates we have already paid.

So for the record so based JUST on the newspaper and TV ads what was the time frame they alleged this would happen over?

PS. I know looking at the detail it was over 10 years, but don’t ever recall that being part of print, newspaper or radio ads. So no credibility what so ever, scare campaign pure and simple, simply for having no context around the claim.

watto23 said :

JC said :

And Dungfungus before you accuse me of being a rusted on Laborite, I have said openly before I have voted Liebral in the past, when I lived in Sydney in 1995. Though it was the year that Labor kicked the Liebrals out and the reason I voted that way because I didn’t think Labor presented themselves as an alternative worthy of voting in.

The problem I have with the conservative voters in this country, is they think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a rusted on left winger. The facts are the current federal Liberals are far too extreme right for my liking, Labor are as close to centre that you can get right now, given the Greens sit Left of them. I vote based on policies but many right wing conservatives don’t get that. The extreme right wing faction in the Liberals think they are right, but in reality what wins elections are who has the most palatable policies and extreme right polices will get you voted out just like what happened to Howard after he passed some laws when they controlled both houses. If they put up some more palatable policies closer to centre right, they’d be doing better in the polls.

As for local politics, Jeremy Hanson has never liked anything, or it feels like that. I have no idea what direction the ACT liberals are going in. Yes I defend their right to announce policies at the next election, but given they were light on last election under his leadership, I suspect I’ll be voting for independents or minor parties again.

I have to agree. I like the Libs traditional philosophy about personal freedoms but the Feds are a mob of bumbling nitwits. Probably the worst government ever this country has ever seen. Worse that Billy McMahon if that is even possible.

Labor is not bringing me any joy as an alternative government though.

Locally, what the hell? Jeremy who?

justin heywood5:48 pm 09 Jun 15

watto23 said :

The problem I have with the conservative voters in this country, is they think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a rusted on left winger.

Rubbish.
The conservatives are far more ‘broad church’ than Labor; consider, for example, the difference between Abbott and Turnbull. In fact consider the varied background of Liberal pollies generally.
Labor’s representatives overwhelmingly come from the political class and or unions, and they don’t tolerate anyone who deviates from the songbook at all. An ex-pollie on this site recently threatened to ‘do slowly’ a Labor ‘rat’.

I am old. I have been a Young National, attended Labor Party meetings at the Gearin Hotel and handed out pamphlets for a hopelessly token Green candidate (before the Greens lost the plot).
I can tell you what a Labor supporter’s views will be on anything from nuclear energy to border protection. I can tell you what a Green had for lunch, so one-eyed are they. I can’t easily do the same for an average conservative voter.

The problem I have is with people who convince themselves that their voting choices are entirely rational, but somehow their ‘rational’ choice always leads them to vote the same way they always do.

At least Dungers in unapologetically out there with his flag to the mast.

watto23 said :

JC said :

And Dungfungus before you accuse me of being a rusted on Laborite, I have said openly before I have voted Liebral in the past, when I lived in Sydney in 1995. Though it was the year that Labor kicked the Liebrals out and the reason I voted that way because I didn’t think Labor presented themselves as an alternative worthy of voting in.

The problem I have with the conservative voters in this country, is they think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a rusted on left winger. The facts are the current federal Liberals are far too extreme right for my liking, Labor are as close to centre that you can get right now, given the Greens sit Left of them. I vote based on policies but many right wing conservatives don’t get that. The extreme right wing faction in the Liberals think they are right, but in reality what wins elections are who has the most palatable policies and extreme right polices will get you voted out just like what happened to Howard after he passed some laws when they controlled both houses. If they put up some more palatable policies closer to centre right, they’d be doing better in the polls.

As for local politics, Jeremy Hanson has never liked anything, or it feels like that. I have no idea what direction the ACT liberals are going in. Yes I defend their right to announce policies at the next election, but given they were light on last election under his leadership, I suspect I’ll be voting for independents or minor parties again.

Well, your facts are obviously stronger than my beliefs so everything will be OK.
cc to JC.

JC said :

And Dungfungus before you accuse me of being a rusted on Laborite, I have said openly before I have voted Liebral in the past, when I lived in Sydney in 1995. Though it was the year that Labor kicked the Liebrals out and the reason I voted that way because I didn’t think Labor presented themselves as an alternative worthy of voting in.

The problem I have with the conservative voters in this country, is they think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a rusted on left winger. The facts are the current federal Liberals are far too extreme right for my liking, Labor are as close to centre that you can get right now, given the Greens sit Left of them. I vote based on policies but many right wing conservatives don’t get that. The extreme right wing faction in the Liberals think they are right, but in reality what wins elections are who has the most palatable policies and extreme right polices will get you voted out just like what happened to Howard after he passed some laws when they controlled both houses. If they put up some more palatable policies closer to centre right, they’d be doing better in the polls.

As for local politics, Jeremy Hanson has never liked anything, or it feels like that. I have no idea what direction the ACT liberals are going in. Yes I defend their right to announce policies at the next election, but given they were light on last election under his leadership, I suspect I’ll be voting for independents or minor parties again.

dungfungus said :

But Labor was adamant before the last election that rates would’t triple.
You are now conceding that they will; but you will still vote Labor, won’t you.

My home price tripled also in the past 15 years of owning it.
The Liberal campaign was based on a slogan minus key details. Labor argued they won’t triple in the short term. Liberal argued the rates will still triple. Both arguments are correct.
Only an idiot would think that rates will never ever triple. Just like wages will triple given enough time.

JC said :

…Common sense says the best way is rates, but that of course brings up the question about what to do with those who have already paid stamp duty on their properties?

Though frankly I reckon the way the government is lowering stamp duty slowly, and rising rates slowly goes someway to negating this issue and is the best way going forward. Now if the Liebrals would put forward an alternative rather than scaremonger would be happy to listen.

The fair thing to do with those who had already paid stamp duty on their properties would be to exempt them from that part of the rise in rates that results from the lowering of stamp duty. This is feasible as the government knows, or at least should know, which properties have had stamp duty paid on them, and it should also know what portion of the increase in rates is resulting from the removal of stamp duties.

The current approach has two benefits for the government that are disadvantages for the voters:

1 – it allows the government to tax existing property owners twice, and so make the books like better; and

2 – it accustoms the voters to the raise in rates on the boiling frog principle.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

But Labor was adamant before the last election that rates would’t triple.
You are now conceding that they will; but you will still vote Labor, won’t you.

That whole scare campaign was totally pointless, except as a scare campaign as it had no context what so ever. The way it was portrayed one could be excused for thinking they were saying rates would triple in the next term of government, but they were cleaver enough to not put any context around the time frame so not lying (for once). So without any time frame it is true rates would triple under a Labor government, but by the same token they would tripled under a Liebral government too. The real question is over how many years and what is the alternative, so as I said the whole campaign was pointless, so too any debate about the campaign.

The real issue and real discussion should be around what is the best and fairest way of getting money to run this town? By punishing and charging only those who buy and move house, or charge everyone through rates? Common sense says the best way is rates, but that of course brings up the question about what to do with those who have already paid stamp duty on their properties?

Though frankly I reckon the way the government is lowering stamp duty slowly, and rising rates slowly goes someway to negating this issue and is the best way going forward. Now if the Liebrals would put forward an alternative rather than scaremonger would be happy to listen.

And Dungfungus before you accuse me of being a rusted on Laborite, I have said openly before I have voted Liebral in the past, when I lived in Sydney in 1995. Though it was the year that Labor kicked the Liebrals out and the reason I voted that way because I didn’t think Labor presented themselves as an alternative worthy of voting in.

Labor did a lot of research and allocated a lot of resources to find ” the best and fairest way to tax” and came up with the current system. People voted for that and clearly they, like you, didn’t read the full details of the Liberals “triple your rates” claim. There is no way the information conveyed claimed this was going to happen in the current term of government so your “scare campaign” claim may be convenient but not credible.
Too bad about us not getting a rebate for the rates we have already paid.
Re your voting choices, you were right in 1995. I am a conservative voter generally although I did vote for Bob Hawke in 1983 as I couldn’t bear the thought of Malcolm Fraser doing nothing for another 3 years.
I will vote for Labor in the ACT next year as I want them to be accountable for the financial disaster they have created.

dungfungus said :

But Labor was adamant before the last election that rates would’t triple.
You are now conceding that they will; but you will still vote Labor, won’t you.

That whole scare campaign was totally pointless, except as a scare campaign as it had no context what so ever. The way it was portrayed one could be excused for thinking they were saying rates would triple in the next term of government, but they were cleaver enough to not put any context around the time frame so not lying (for once). So without any time frame it is true rates would triple under a Labor government, but by the same token they would tripled under a Liebral government too. The real question is over how many years and what is the alternative, so as I said the whole campaign was pointless, so too any debate about the campaign.

The real issue and real discussion should be around what is the best and fairest way of getting money to run this town? By punishing and charging only those who buy and move house, or charge everyone through rates? Common sense says the best way is rates, but that of course brings up the question about what to do with those who have already paid stamp duty on their properties?

Though frankly I reckon the way the government is lowering stamp duty slowly, and rising rates slowly goes someway to negating this issue and is the best way going forward. Now if the Liebrals would put forward an alternative rather than scaremonger would be happy to listen.

And Dungfungus before you accuse me of being a rusted on Laborite, I have said openly before I have voted Liebral in the past, when I lived in Sydney in 1995. Though it was the year that Labor kicked the Liebrals out and the reason I voted that way because I didn’t think Labor presented themselves as an alternative worthy of voting in.

HiddenDragon6:58 pm 06 Jun 15

rommeldog56 said :

HiddenDragon said :

I do understand all those sentiments, but the current trajectories for ACT Government spending and taxation are simply not sustainable – and the attempted fancy footwork on rates and conveyancing duties will not hide that for too much longer.

Will also be interesting to see if the next ACT election is brought forward to before the 2016-17 Annual Rates Assessments are issued. As I recall, payment to the Light rail PPP itself will not commence for a year or so after then, but the amount of that annual payment should be known.

You only have to look at the front page of the Canberra Times (was it Friday ? maybe Thursday ?) where 3 or 4 suburbs are listed as having up to 46% rises in Annual Rates over 4 years. Regardless of anyone’s perception of the “wealth” of individuals in those suburbs, thats gotta hurt them (especially those not so well off, retired, etc) and will no doubt, along with Luight Rail, influence how they vote in 2016.

Rises in Annual Rates of that magnitude over the next 20 years or so (or even the avg. 10% pa), are simply not sustainable – for any ACT Ratepayer.

Not sure if there is any scope, at all, to vary the election date, but it’s difficult not to see political motivations behind the Government’s belated re-discovery of its municipal responsibilites, and of spending decisions for Tuggeranong.

I’ve certainly noticed that people who airily dismissed the Liberals’ “scare campaign” about rates in the lead up to the 2012 election have now gone rather quiet when the subject comes up in conversation – so if that’s anything to go by, there may be some interesting changes to traditional voting patterns by late next year.

HiddenDragon said :

I do understand all those sentiments, but the current trajectories for ACT Government spending and taxation are simply not sustainable – and the attempted fancy footwork on rates and conveyancing duties will not hide that for too much longer.

Will also be interesting to see if the next ACT election is brought forward to before the 2016-17 Annual Rates Assessments are issued. As I recall, payment to the Light rail PPP itself will not commence for a year or so after then, but the amount of that annual payment should be known.

You only have to look at the front page of the Canberra Times (was it Friday ? maybe Thursday ?) where 3 or 4 suburbs are listed as having up to 46% rises in Annual Rates over 4 years. Regardless of anyone’s perception of the “wealth” of individuals in those suburbs, thats gotta hurt them (especially those not so well off, retired, etc) and will no doubt, along with Luight Rail, influence how they vote in 2016.

Rises in Annual Rates of that magnitude over the next 20 years or so (or even the avg. 10% pa), are simply not sustainable – for any ACT Ratepayer.

HiddenDragon6:14 pm 05 Jun 15

watto23 said :

HiddenDragon said :

watto23 said :

I did note that when Jeremy Hansen has been asked to suggest how the Libs would raise funds to pay for their ides, he just said there would be a better balance……
Rates will always double or triple. Its just how fast it will happen. You a naive to think that under a liberal government you’ll be that much better off. What tends to happen is yes they won’t raise the rates as much, but then we’ll get less roads built, less spent on Health and education. That said it may be time we got a liberal government in to balance the books a bit. I’m just not expecting miracles like some of the conservatives on here. I accept the fact I have to pay my share of tax for the community to flourish and have decent services, even if I don’t use them all.

I noted that, too, but in the interview I saw, he said something about the Liberals making their position clear before the next Territory election – which is probably fair enough, given that there will be one more Territory and Federal Budget before then. But yes, the Liberals will need to have a plausible position.

I would be happy enough if the Liberals said something along the lines of we can’t afford to wind things back to where they were when this process started, but we won’t continue with it – we’ll just revert to the old system of indexing the total rates revenue to wages growth (or whatever particular index was used – but certainly not 9% or 10% per year). That would, of course, infuriate the theorists who credulously believe that elimination of conveyancing duties will produce economic miracles for the ACT, and will also disappoint those equally credulous enough to think that stamp duty is the only thing which stands between them and the home of their dreams. On the other hand, it might mean that fewer people (and not just “conservatives”) will be worrying about how much longer they can afford to remain resident in the ACT.

I would also like to see an approach to budget management for the Territory which more openly and honestly (i.e. not just behind closed doors in the upper echelons of government) looks at both sides of the ledger rather than – as typically seems to be the case – responding to incessant demands for more and better services, with the apparent assumption that the money will always be there to pay for everything which is demanded.

I’m hoping the next election that the Liberals do have some legitimate policies rather than a scare campaign. The money has to come from somewhere. People take a far too simplistic and personal view of budgets and think, we don’t need that so cut that and it saves us money.

Canberra needs a better public transport strategy. There are parts of the Labor one that makes a lot of sense, like a high density transit corridor.

Under Liberal rates will rise, maybe not as much, maybe they will take 15 years to triple instead of 10 years, but then maybe our hospital system or education systems will get less funding. Its getting the balance right between a capitalistic and socialist society to ensure the best for as many citizens as possible.

I do understand all those sentiments, but the current trajectories for ACT Government spending and taxation are simply not sustainable – and the attempted fancy footwork on rates and conveyancing duties will not hide that for too much longer.

The ACT government could save some money by not installing traffic lights on Hindmarsh Dr near Chifley and Lyons and making those two intersections left turn only. Great way to stuff up traffic flow by installing lights.

watto23 said :

HiddenDragon said :

watto23 said :

I did note that when Jeremy Hansen has been asked to suggest how the Libs would raise funds to pay for their ides, he just said there would be a better balance……
Rates will always double or triple. Its just how fast it will happen. You a naive to think that under a liberal government you’ll be that much better off. What tends to happen is yes they won’t raise the rates as much, but then we’ll get less roads built, less spent on Health and education. That said it may be time we got a liberal government in to balance the books a bit. I’m just not expecting miracles like some of the conservatives on here. I accept the fact I have to pay my share of tax for the community to flourish and have decent services, even if I don’t use them all.

I noted that, too, but in the interview I saw, he said something about the Liberals making their position clear before the next Territory election – which is probably fair enough, given that there will be one more Territory and Federal Budget before then. But yes, the Liberals will need to have a plausible position.

I would be happy enough if the Liberals said something along the lines of we can’t afford to wind things back to where they were when this process started, but we won’t continue with it – we’ll just revert to the old system of indexing the total rates revenue to wages growth (or whatever particular index was used – but certainly not 9% or 10% per year). That would, of course, infuriate the theorists who credulously believe that elimination of conveyancing duties will produce economic miracles for the ACT, and will also disappoint those equally credulous enough to think that stamp duty is the only thing which stands between them and the home of their dreams. On the other hand, it might mean that fewer people (and not just “conservatives”) will be worrying about how much longer they can afford to remain resident in the ACT.

I would also like to see an approach to budget management for the Territory which more openly and honestly (i.e. not just behind closed doors in the upper echelons of government) looks at both sides of the ledger rather than – as typically seems to be the case – responding to incessant demands for more and better services, with the apparent assumption that the money will always be there to pay for everything which is demanded.

I’m hoping the next election that the Liberals do have some legitimate policies rather than a scare campaign. The money has to come from somewhere. People take a far too simplistic and personal view of budgets and think, we don’t need that so cut that and it saves us money.

Canberra needs a better public transport strategy. There are parts of the Labor one that makes a lot of sense, like a high density transit corridor.

Under Liberal rates will rise, maybe not as much, maybe they will take 15 years to triple instead of 10 years, but then maybe our hospital system or education systems will get less funding. Its getting the balance right between a capitalistic and socialist society to ensure the best for as many citizens as possible.

But Labor was adamant before the last election that rates would’t triple.
You are now conceding that they will; but you will still vote Labor, won’t you.

HiddenDragon said :

watto23 said :

I did note that when Jeremy Hansen has been asked to suggest how the Libs would raise funds to pay for their ides, he just said there would be a better balance……
Rates will always double or triple. Its just how fast it will happen. You a naive to think that under a liberal government you’ll be that much better off. What tends to happen is yes they won’t raise the rates as much, but then we’ll get less roads built, less spent on Health and education. That said it may be time we got a liberal government in to balance the books a bit. I’m just not expecting miracles like some of the conservatives on here. I accept the fact I have to pay my share of tax for the community to flourish and have decent services, even if I don’t use them all.

I noted that, too, but in the interview I saw, he said something about the Liberals making their position clear before the next Territory election – which is probably fair enough, given that there will be one more Territory and Federal Budget before then. But yes, the Liberals will need to have a plausible position.

I would be happy enough if the Liberals said something along the lines of we can’t afford to wind things back to where they were when this process started, but we won’t continue with it – we’ll just revert to the old system of indexing the total rates revenue to wages growth (or whatever particular index was used – but certainly not 9% or 10% per year). That would, of course, infuriate the theorists who credulously believe that elimination of conveyancing duties will produce economic miracles for the ACT, and will also disappoint those equally credulous enough to think that stamp duty is the only thing which stands between them and the home of their dreams. On the other hand, it might mean that fewer people (and not just “conservatives”) will be worrying about how much longer they can afford to remain resident in the ACT.

I would also like to see an approach to budget management for the Territory which more openly and honestly (i.e. not just behind closed doors in the upper echelons of government) looks at both sides of the ledger rather than – as typically seems to be the case – responding to incessant demands for more and better services, with the apparent assumption that the money will always be there to pay for everything which is demanded.

I’m hoping the next election that the Liberals do have some legitimate policies rather than a scare campaign. The money has to come from somewhere. People take a far too simplistic and personal view of budgets and think, we don’t need that so cut that and it saves us money.

Canberra needs a better public transport strategy. There are parts of the Labor one that makes a lot of sense, like a high density transit corridor.

Under Liberal rates will rise, maybe not as much, maybe they will take 15 years to triple instead of 10 years, but then maybe our hospital system or education systems will get less funding. Its getting the balance right between a capitalistic and socialist society to ensure the best for as many citizens as possible.

mcs said :

rommeldog56 said :

A quote from this linked article:
“On top of the capital contribution, the government will make an annual payment to the consortium that runs the tram line. It has not put a figure on this “availability payment”, but one economist has suggested it will be $80 million to $100 million a year.”

So on top of the capital injection from the ACT Gov’t (and ts not clear to me from the article if thats m$60 or M$400), the cost to Ratepayers is again estimated to be m$80-m$100pa. A similar figure to what I’ve heard preciously. Although we will have to wait untill the successful tenderer & the final costs are known, this is just for 12Ks of track.

In a jurisdiction with such a narrow and small revenue raising base as the ACT has, sounds like good economic management and sensible fiscal priority setting to me !

Roll on the next ACT election……….

That article is a bit misleading on the size of the availability payment, as that $80 – $100 million was based upon the whole project being paid for through the PPP – it has been bandied around for a while http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/gungahlin-light-rail-line-is-a-mistake-says-former-treasury-heavyhitter-david-hughes-20141014-115um5.html

The capital upfront payment will reduce the amount to be recovered through the 20 year PPP stage. Think of it like a loan. Instead of borrowing $800 million over 20 years and paying it back, it’ll now be $425 million borrowed over 20 years.

All things else staying the same, the availability payment should come down in some reasoned proportion from the $80-$100 million to a lower number (but still a huge figure in the grand scheme of things). But that is assuming the Government is able to do appropriate negotiations to ensure it gets the best price – something I don’t think anyone has confidence in actually happening. And even if it the availability payment is half that – say $40-50 million, I still find it incredibly hard to be convinced that its a good deal at all.

The Capital injection is $375 million – which I assume is made up of about $300ish million from asset sales, plus the $60 million or so in ARI incentive payment from the Commonwealth.

It’s not about being “a good deal”, it’s about the ideology.

rommeldog56 said :

A quote from this linked article:
“On top of the capital contribution, the government will make an annual payment to the consortium that runs the tram line. It has not put a figure on this “availability payment”, but one economist has suggested it will be $80 million to $100 million a year.”

So on top of the capital injection from the ACT Gov’t (and ts not clear to me from the article if thats m$60 or M$400), the cost to Ratepayers is again estimated to be m$80-m$100pa. A similar figure to what I’ve heard preciously. Although we will have to wait untill the successful tenderer & the final costs are known, this is just for 12Ks of track.

In a jurisdiction with such a narrow and small revenue raising base as the ACT has, sounds like good economic management and sensible fiscal priority setting to me !

Roll on the next ACT election……….

That article is a bit misleading on the size of the availability payment, as that $80 – $100 million was based upon the whole project being paid for through the PPP – it has been bandied around for a while http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/gungahlin-light-rail-line-is-a-mistake-says-former-treasury-heavyhitter-david-hughes-20141014-115um5.html

The capital upfront payment will reduce the amount to be recovered through the 20 year PPP stage. Think of it like a loan. Instead of borrowing $800 million over 20 years and paying it back, it’ll now be $425 million borrowed over 20 years.

All things else staying the same, the availability payment should come down in some reasoned proportion from the $80-$100 million to a lower number (but still a huge figure in the grand scheme of things). But that is assuming the Government is able to do appropriate negotiations to ensure it gets the best price – something I don’t think anyone has confidence in actually happening. And even if it the availability payment is half that – say $40-50 million, I still find it incredibly hard to be convinced that its a good deal at all.

The Capital injection is $375 million – which I assume is made up of about $300ish million from asset sales, plus the $60 million or so in ARI incentive payment from the Commonwealth.

Masquara said :

I drive past Old Parliament House daily – and there are currently about eight cars parking with impunity all over the Tent Embassy – they used to park discreetly but they are more and more encroaching into the Axis view. If there’s no risk of a fine, I think I will start parking there myself!

It’s hard to reconcile your claim.

mcs said :

This has been updated to make it a bit clearer after yesterday’s Budget: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/simon-corbell-says-60-million-in-federal-tram-funding-depends-on-act-lump-sum-20150520-gh5uxm.html

I’m not for the light rail project itself, but expecting a public transport solution to be profitable in most circumstances is being pretty hopeful – especially in a city like Canberra, which isn’t suited at all to public transport.

A quote from this linked article:
“On top of the capital contribution, the government will make an annual payment to the consortium that runs the tram line. It has not put a figure on this “availability payment”, but one economist has suggested it will be $80 million to $100 million a year.”

So on top of the capital injection from the ACT Gov’t (and ts not clear to me from the article if thats m$60 or M$400), the cost to Ratepayers is again estimated to be m$80-m$100pa. A similar figure to what I’ve heard preciously. Although we will have to wait untill the successful tenderer & the final costs are known, this is just for 12Ks of track.

In a jurisdiction with such a narrow and small revenue raising base as the ACT has, sounds like good economic management and sensible fiscal priority setting to me !

Roll on the next ACT election……….

I drive past Old Parliament House daily – and there are currently about eight cars parking with impunity all over the Tent Embassy – they used to park discreetly but they are more and more encroaching into the Axis view. If there’s no risk of a fine, I think I will start parking there myself!

HiddenDragon5:43 pm 04 Jun 15

watto23 said :

I did note that when Jeremy Hansen has been asked to suggest how the Libs would raise funds to pay for their ides, he just said there would be a better balance……
Rates will always double or triple. Its just how fast it will happen. You a naive to think that under a liberal government you’ll be that much better off. What tends to happen is yes they won’t raise the rates as much, but then we’ll get less roads built, less spent on Health and education. That said it may be time we got a liberal government in to balance the books a bit. I’m just not expecting miracles like some of the conservatives on here. I accept the fact I have to pay my share of tax for the community to flourish and have decent services, even if I don’t use them all.

I noted that, too, but in the interview I saw, he said something about the Liberals making their position clear before the next Territory election – which is probably fair enough, given that there will be one more Territory and Federal Budget before then. But yes, the Liberals will need to have a plausible position.

I would be happy enough if the Liberals said something along the lines of we can’t afford to wind things back to where they were when this process started, but we won’t continue with it – we’ll just revert to the old system of indexing the total rates revenue to wages growth (or whatever particular index was used – but certainly not 9% or 10% per year). That would, of course, infuriate the theorists who credulously believe that elimination of conveyancing duties will produce economic miracles for the ACT, and will also disappoint those equally credulous enough to think that stamp duty is the only thing which stands between them and the home of their dreams. On the other hand, it might mean that fewer people (and not just “conservatives”) will be worrying about how much longer they can afford to remain resident in the ACT.

I would also like to see an approach to budget management for the Territory which more openly and honestly (i.e. not just behind closed doors in the upper echelons of government) looks at both sides of the ledger rather than – as typically seems to be the case – responding to incessant demands for more and better services, with the apparent assumption that the money will always be there to pay for everything which is demanded.

I did note that when Jeremy Hansen has been asked to suggest how the Libs would raise funds to pay for their ides, he just said there would be a better balance……
Rates will always double or triple. Its just how fast it will happen. You a naive to think that under a liberal government you’ll be that much better off. What tends to happen is yes they won’t raise the rates as much, but then we’ll get less roads built, less spent on Health and education. That said it may be time we got a liberal government in to balance the books a bit. I’m just not expecting miracles like some of the conservatives on here. I accept the fact I have to pay my share of tax for the community to flourish and have decent services, even if I don’t use them all.

mcs said :

I’m not for the light rail project itself, but expecting a public transport solution to be profitable in most circumstances is being pretty hopeful – especially in a city like Canberra, which isn’t suited at all to public transport.

It will be when they charge you to park anywhere.

rommeldog56 said :

mcs said :

Or alternatively, there is probably got a far more straightforward explanation:

http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/006-2015/

The money the government gets from flogging off stuff under the ARI program has been committed to be spent on Capital Metro.

Rather than seeking to spend it across the 20 years of the PPP, they have made a decision to make a major down payment at what I’d guess is construction completion in 2019 – thus reducing the annual availability payments……..

Funny what you can find when you actually have a look, rather than just going off on an ideological rant…

I dont know if the ACT Govt will be making the per annum payments to the PPP provider out of the amount raised from the Asset Sales, or will be using it for associated infrastructure reqiorements (which is not in the m$780+ estimated for the train) ?

In any event, Assets have/will be sold to provide a one off injection to the cost of the loss making Light Rail. Makes perfect & logical economic and fiscal sense ! After all, what the point of using that sale revenue to help broaden the employment base by attracting companies to set up in the ACT and so lessen reliance on cut backs by the Federal Gov’t affecting the Territory’s economic development?

ALSO, if anyone really believes that Light rail will spread across Canberra – what “Assets” will the ACT Gov’t sell of to help reduce the cost of that ?

This has been updated to make it a bit clearer after yesterday’s Budget: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/simon-corbell-says-60-million-in-federal-tram-funding-depends-on-act-lump-sum-20150520-gh5uxm.html

I’m not for the light rail project itself, but expecting a public transport solution to be profitable in most circumstances is being pretty hopeful – especially in a city like Canberra, which isn’t suited at all to public transport.

justin heywood said :

mcs said :

…..The money the government gets from flogging off stuff under the ARI program has been committed to be spent on Capital Metro.

This concept has always intrigued me. The government is in debt. When they ‘flog off’ assets, they haven’t suddenly found extra money they can use on whimsical projects; the money should be spent with the same attention to priorities as all other government money.

More accurate to say ‘the government considers that it is more important to spend this money on light rail than on 100 more hospital beds, more teachers, better roads/cycle paths’ etc.

That would be more accurate and honest, but less appealing to the light rail salesmen.

It makes no sense at all to me either.

But you can draw it all back to what has led to the asset sales – the ARI program of the Commonwealth. The ARI setup means that to be eligible for the Commonwealth top up, both the money raised from asset sales and the incentive payments from the Commonwealth have to be spent on particular nominated infrastructure projects. And when you only put up one option – in this case Capital Metro, then low and behold, that’s where the money goes.

I can think of a lot better things that money can be spent on, but that’s a discussion for another day.

justin heywood said :

mcs said :

…Funny what you can find when you actually have a look, rather than just going off on an ideological rant…

Oh plenty of,people have ‘had a look’ at the figures, and even with all the ‘proposed’ numbers, ‘proposed’ population densities, ‘expected’ costs, many believe that that the project makes no sense and is simply a steaming boondoggle.

It’s a bit rich to accuse critics of an ‘ideological rant’ when ideology drives the whole idea in the first place.

I wasn’t referring to a rant about the CM project itself – as I said in an earlier post, I think it has plenty of holes in it as a project and I wouldn’t do it if I was in government in a million year.

I was referring to this particular issue about the $375 million capital contribution – where a little bit of investigation makes it pretty clear that for once, it does appear to be what it says on the box – a capital contribution to the project – not some sort of hidden subsidy as suggested.

justin heywood7:59 pm 03 Jun 15

mcs said :

…Funny what you can find when you actually have a look, rather than just going off on an ideological rant…

Oh plenty of,people have ‘had a look’ at the figures, and even with all the ‘proposed’ numbers, ‘proposed’ population densities, ‘expected’ costs, many believe that that the project makes no sense and is simply a steaming boondoggle.

It’s a bit rich to accuse critics of an ‘ideological rant’ when ideology drives the whole idea in the first place.

justin heywood7:44 pm 03 Jun 15

mcs said :

…..The money the government gets from flogging off stuff under the ARI program has been committed to be spent on Capital Metro.

This concept has always intrigued me. The government is in debt. When they ‘flog off’ assets, they haven’t suddenly found extra money they can use on whimsical projects; the money should be spent with the same attention to priorities as all other government money.

More accurate to say ‘the government considers that it is more important to spend this money on light rail than on 100 more hospital beds, more teachers, better roads/cycle paths’ etc.

That would be more accurate and honest, but less appealing to the light rail salesmen.

mcs said :

Or alternatively, there is probably got a far more straightforward explanation:

http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/006-2015/

The money the government gets from flogging off stuff under the ARI program has been committed to be spent on Capital Metro.

Rather than seeking to spend it across the 20 years of the PPP, they have made a decision to make a major down payment at what I’d guess is construction completion in 2019 – thus reducing the annual availability payments……..

Funny what you can find when you actually have a look, rather than just going off on an ideological rant…

I dont know if the ACT Govt will be making the per annum payments to the PPP provider out of the amount raised from the Asset Sales, or will be using it for associated infrastructure reqiorements (which is not in the m$780+ estimated for the train) ?

In any event, Assets have/will be sold to provide a one off injection to the cost of the loss making Light Rail. Makes perfect & logical economic and fiscal sense ! After all, what the point of using that sale revenue to help broaden the employment base by attracting companies to set up in the ACT and so lessen reliance on cut backs by the Federal Gov’t affecting the Territory’s economic development?

ALSO, if anyone really believes that Light rail will spread across Canberra – what “Assets” will the ACT Gov’t sell of to help reduce the cost of that ?

HiddenDragon said :

According to the 2013/14 ACT Budget Papers (Table 3.1.3) the estimated revenue from general rates for 2012/13 was $291.974m – the estimate for 2015/16 in the Budget handed down yesterday (Table 6.1.2) is $419.759m – and the estimate for 2018/19 is $553.743m.

There has, of course, been a phased reduction in duties on general and life insurance policies, which was estimated to raise $47.067m in 2012/13, falling to $13.837m for 2015/16 and disappearing next financial year.

For all the huffing and puffing about the evils, inefficiencies and inequities of conveyancing duties, revenue from that source has actually seen a slight rise – from an estimated $225.653m in 2012/13 to an estimated $229.057m in 2015/16 – and projected to rise further to $258.833m in 2018/19.

Over the six years 2012/13 to 2018/19, total ACT Government revenue from general rates, land tax and conveyancing duties is estimated to rise from $587.176m to $928.688m – that’s 58%, by the way, in a period when total CPI inflation is likely to be 10% – 15%. Apparently that’s what the ACT Government calls a “revenue neutral” change to the tax system.

Yeah – a great help if you happen to be a self funded retiree and get about CPI or less, as an indexed pension. Thanks heaps ACT Government !

The ACT Gov’t said repeatedly that the increase in Annual Rates and the reduction in all stamp duties would be “revenue neutral”. They also refused to release the detailed costings to support that claim. The budget papers show why. They lied.

Barr has said that the increase in Annual Annual Rates will slow !

So, Chief Minister, how much will the increase be next year, the year after, etc. You must surely know. So, the average 10% becomes an average 9.9% does it ? Thats “less”, isn’t it !

It’s just spin & lies. Hardly surprisingly, clearly the ACT Labor Government and their Greens overlord can not be trusted by ACT voter/ratepayers unless they are a rusted on Labour/Greens supporters – or apathetic/don’t care.

HiddenDragon5:10 pm 03 Jun 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

“Introduction of after hours paid parking in Civic from 1 September 2015 is expected to generate $5 million in additional revenue over four years.”

So for the sake of a measly 5 million dollars they will further discourage people from visiting Civic. Didn’t we just have a thread about how Civic is quiet and not vibrant enough? If they were going to make some decent coin I’d understand, but for the sake of less than one percent of the deficit they will discourage late night shopping and after hours access.

Be interesting to see how much they raise rates in the years to come, too.

According to the 2013/14 ACT Budget Papers (Table 3.1.3) the estimated revenue from general rates for 2012/13 was $291.974m – the estimate for 2015/16 in the Budget handed down yesterday (Table 6.1.2) is $419.759m – and the estimate for 2018/19 is $553.743m.

There has, of course, been a phased reduction in duties on general and life insurance policies, which was estimated to raise $47.067m in 2012/13, falling to $13.837m for 2015/16 and disappearing next financial year.

For all the huffing and puffing about the evils, inefficiencies and inequities of conveyancing duties, revenue from that source has actually seen a slight rise – from an estimated $225.653m in 2012/13 to an estimated $229.057m in 2015/16 – and projected to rise further to $258.833m in 2018/19.

Over the six years 2012/13 to 2018/19, total ACT Government revenue from general rates, land tax and conveyancing duties is estimated to rise from $587.176m to $928.688m – that’s 58%, by the way, in a period when total CPI inflation is likely to be 10% – 15%. Apparently that’s what the ACT Government calls a “revenue neutral” change to the tax system.

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

“The budget explains that the ACT Government will pay for Capital Metro by making a capital contribution of $375 million after construction is complete.”

That is a lot of money in one hit.
What happened to the PPP? It wasn’t going to cost us anything to build, remember?
Is the money to subsidise operating costs?
I don’t really understand what is going on.

As it says on the box its a capital contribution, that will pay for part of the construction costs/capital costs in a lump sum – which will then flow through to lower availability payments to the PPP operator over the period (as the Government will be only paying off Total Cost – $375 million, not the total cost).

I’m not convinced at all about the project, but surely paying for more of it upfront is a better thing than getting rorted by the private operator for the whole 20 years on the whole capital amount. Should save some money over the longer term, but without any detail being available about availability payments, no one has any idea what that saving per year over the 20 year term may be.

So, after creating a consortium short list to build/operate the light rail the government changes the rules?
I think that there has been so much negative comment from the industry that it is now obvious that to be anything like a proposition for a PPP the aggregate amount of around $750 million is twice the amount of risk anyone would be prepared to carry, even with a huge rebate for operating costs.
The government may call this $375 million “a capital contribution” but in fact it is a subsidy to condition the deal in order to make it acceptively attractive (or less ugly).
The project has little scope for increasing passenger numbers in the short or medium term either.
Just how bad has it got to be for this government to use the bail-out clauses and walk away from it?

Or alternatively, there is probably got a far more straightforward explanation:

http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/006-2015/

The money the government gets from flogging off stuff under the ARI program has been committed to be spent on Capital Metro.

Rather than seeking to spend it across the 20 years of the PPP, they have made a decision to make a major down payment at what I’d guess is construction completion in 2019 – thus reducing the annual availability payments……..

Funny what you can find when you actually have a look, rather than just going off on an ideological rant…

vintage123 said :

$31.2 million to duplicate Gundaroo Drive between Gungahlin Drive and Mirrabei Drive.

Wow, that’s a lot for only a couple of hundred meters of road, well maybe 500m. Maybe it includes another bridge along Mirrabei. Does anyone have any more info on this.

Hi all, can someone please help explain how they costed this, I have been out there all morning with a civil engineering colleague of mine looking at this section of road, and we both left shaking our heads in disbelief. Is there something we have missed for it to cost so much.

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

“The budget explains that the ACT Government will pay for Capital Metro by making a capital contribution of $375 million after construction is complete.”

That is a lot of money in one hit.
What happened to the PPP? It wasn’t going to cost us anything to build, remember?
Is the money to subsidise operating costs?
I don’t really understand what is going on.

As it says on the box its a capital contribution, that will pay for part of the construction costs/capital costs in a lump sum – which will then flow through to lower availability payments to the PPP operator over the period (as the Government will be only paying off Total Cost – $375 million, not the total cost).

I’m not convinced at all about the project, but surely paying for more of it upfront is a better thing than getting rorted by the private operator for the whole 20 years on the whole capital amount. Should save some money over the longer term, but without any detail being available about availability payments, no one has any idea what that saving per year over the 20 year term may be.

So, after creating a consortium short list to build/operate the light rail the government changes the rules?
I think that there has been so much negative comment from the industry that it is now obvious that to be anything like a proposition for a PPP the aggregate amount of around $750 million is twice the amount of risk anyone would be prepared to carry, even with a huge rebate for operating costs.
The government may call this $375 million “a capital contribution” but in fact it is a subsidy to condition the deal in order to make it acceptively attractive (or less ugly).
The project has little scope for increasing passenger numbers in the short or medium term either.
Just how bad has it got to be for this government to use the bail-out clauses and walk away from it?

dungfungus said :

“The budget explains that the ACT Government will pay for Capital Metro by making a capital contribution of $375 million after construction is complete.”

That is a lot of money in one hit.
What happened to the PPP? It wasn’t going to cost us anything to build, remember?
Is the money to subsidise operating costs?
I don’t really understand what is going on.

As it says on the box its a capital contribution, that will pay for part of the construction costs/capital costs in a lump sum – which will then flow through to lower availability payments to the PPP operator over the period (as the Government will be only paying off Total Cost – $375 million, not the total cost).

I’m not convinced at all about the project, but surely paying for more of it upfront is a better thing than getting rorted by the private operator for the whole 20 years on the whole capital amount. Should save some money over the longer term, but without any detail being available about availability payments, no one has any idea what that saving per year over the 20 year term may be.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

“Introduction of after hours paid parking in Civic from 1 September 2015 is expected to generate $5 million in additional revenue over four years.”

So for the sake of a measly 5 million dollars they will further discourage people from visiting Civic. Didn’t we just have a thread about how Civic is quiet and not vibrant enough? If they were going to make some decent coin I’d understand, but for the sake of less than one percent of the deficit they will discourage late night shopping and after hours access.

Be interesting to see how much they raise rates in the years to come, too.

Hmm I wonder how much of the people using those parks because they aren’t being charged atm, will move to the underground parks which I think will end up being cheaper now. The underground CC ones are $2 untimed? at the times the Gov ones are extending to.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

“Introduction of after hours paid parking in Civic from 1 September 2015 is expected to generate $5 million in additional revenue over four years.”

So for the sake of a measly 5 million dollars they will further discourage people from visiting Civic. Didn’t we just have a thread about how Civic is quiet and not vibrant enough? If they were going to make some decent coin I’d understand, but for the sake of less than one percent of the deficit they will discourage late night shopping and after hours access.

Be interesting to see how much they raise rates in the years to come, too.

Exactly. And longer paid parking hours also means – you guessed it – lots more parking fines! Hooray for easy revenue! People should pay for the luxury of leaving the house. You want to save money? Stay at home!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back6:42 pm 02 Jun 15

“Introduction of after hours paid parking in Civic from 1 September 2015 is expected to generate $5 million in additional revenue over four years.”

So for the sake of a measly 5 million dollars they will further discourage people from visiting Civic. Didn’t we just have a thread about how Civic is quiet and not vibrant enough? If they were going to make some decent coin I’d understand, but for the sake of less than one percent of the deficit they will discourage late night shopping and after hours access.

Be interesting to see how much they raise rates in the years to come, too.

Rollersk8r said :

Two things:

1. Every year they attempt to justify increased parking and motoring costs on environmental/public transport grounds – and the fact it’s still cheap to park here compared to Sydney. Wow, really? Why not just be upfront: cranking up the prices won’t do a thing to change behaviour – but we need the money!

2. They admit dependence on the Federal Public Service, while increasing the prices of everything. Those same public servants – all of them – are now entering their second financial year without a payrise. While it’s out of the ACT Government’s control, it doesn’t change the fact that it means people have less and less money to spend.

This is how the government is going to end up wedging its self.
They need us motorists to soak and subsidise all the crazy schemes they think up; the tram being the biggest so far.
The Canberra public servants had to forgo their wage rise to pay for Katy Gallagher’s relocation.
Get your priorities in order please.
Someone mentioned in a CT Letter to The Editor today that the government were planning to build and operate a luxury hotel adjacent to Manuka oval.
It will be called “The Rhodium Mirage”.

“The budget explains that the ACT Government will pay for Capital Metro by making a capital contribution of $375 million after construction is complete.”

That is a lot of money in one hit.
What happened to the PPP? It wasn’t going to cost us anything to build, remember?
Is the money to subsidise operating costs?
I don’t really understand what is going on.

Andrew Barr was at my local shopping centre a couple of years ago denying to all and sundry that rates were going to triple …

Reading between the lines, you can’t half tell the ACT Government is fully aware that light rail is utterly on the nose with ACT voters! Not to be mentioned by name, it appears … so why are they still proceeding with something none of us want other than a handful of Snow Job types?

Two things:

1. Every year they attempt to justify increased parking and motoring costs on environmental/public transport grounds – and the fact it’s still cheap to park here compared to Sydney. Wow, really? Why not just be upfront: cranking up the prices won’t do a thing to change behaviour – but we need the money!

2. They admit dependence on the Federal Public Service, while increasing the prices of everything. Those same public servants – all of them – are now entering their second financial year without a payrise. While it’s out of the ACT Government’s control, it doesn’t change the fact that it means people have less and less money to spend.

Great! More increases to rates – they’re on target to triple just like the Libs predicted. Also, extending paid parking to 10:30pm in the city, and making people pay on weekends. Increased costs to car/motorcycle rego. First home buyers grants being cut…What wonderful news.

Thanks, Andrew Barr!

Also, I think it’s pretty laughable that he’s forecast a return decreasing deficits over the next 3 years and a return to surplus. What a joke!

Amy Birchall4:33 pm 02 Jun 15

vintage123 said :

I thought there may be some cash for a hospital to the north?

Hey vintage123, there are plans for a public hospital at UC, though the amount to be spent is proving difficult to find in this year’s budget papers. An additional 400 new car parks at the UC hospital are definitely being funded, but not sure about how they’re funding the hospital itself. I’ll let you know if I can find the answer.

HiddenDragon4:31 pm 02 Jun 15

A further increase in general rates of nine percent on average, and five percent increases in vehicle registration costs (continuing at least until 2018-19), will doubtless be very well received by all those Canberra households and businesses whose incomes are stagnating, if not declining.

There is the thrilling news of the phasing out of duties on insurance policies, and, of course, not the slightest possible chance…… that any of the reduced levies will be creamed off through premiums which increase by more than would otherwise have been the case.

This will do absolute wonders for all those businesses and jobs which rely on Canberrans spending the money left after the tax man takes his slice.

I’m pleased to see that something is finally going to be done about the Launceston St/Hindmarsh Dr intersection. There seem to be accidents there far too frequently.

$31.2 million to duplicate Gundaroo Drive between Gungahlin Drive and Mirrabei Drive.

Wow, that’s a lot for only a couple of hundred meters of road, well maybe 500m. Maybe it includes another bridge along Mirrabei. Does anyone have any more info on this.

I thought there may be some cash for a hospital to the north?

“$24.6 million over three years to duplicate Ashley Drive from Erindale Drive to Ellerston Avenue.”

Surely duplicating the entire length to Johnson Dr at the same time would be petty cash compared to the cost of getting someone to come back and do the last ~100m as a separate project a later date. Has the ACT Government really learned nothing from past mistakes (eg. Cotter Rd or the Gunghastly Driveway Extension)?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.