ACT Budget 2016-17 at a glance

Sorry – repost. Hard to do the quotes here if your eyesight ain’t the best any more :

bennygrocott said :

Then again, we don’t know yet how the trams will be painted.

Hopefully, not with graffiti and tags.

They will want to use the tram sides for advertising I would think.

HiddenDragon said :

Is there any mention of Arts in the budget? I can’t find any… or is the Gungahlin Tram enough to satisfy our creative urges for the next 5 years?

There is a mention of the arts, yes. We ran a story on the only major new commitment before the budget:
http://the-riotact.com/460k-spend-on-canberra-theatre-centre-security-major-show/177423

There are also continuing capital works projects involving Kingston Arts Precinct, public art programs, Ainslie Music Hub, Belconnen Arts Centre and the Gorman Arts Centre (see http://apps.treasury.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/870933/Budget-Paper-3-complete.pdf for details) in addition to the usual funding for the Cultural Facilities Corporation and ArtsACT to operate their facilities and programs.
http://www.arts.act.gov.au/arts-in-the-act
http://www.culturalfacilities.act.gov.au

Budget papers related to the latter are here if you want to find specific numbers: http://apps.treasury.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/869977/B-CMTEDD-Budget-Statements.pdf

HiddenDragon said :

Is there any mention of Arts in the budget? I can’t find any… or is the Gungahlin Tram enough to satisfy our creative urges for the next 5 years?

After Skywhale was called “art”, I am not disappointed that arts wasn’t mentioned in the budget.
Then again, we don’t know yet how the trams will be painted. The CM will probably go neutral and just use all the colours of the rainbow I guess.

Is there any mention of Arts in the budget? I can’t find any… or is the Gungahlin Tram enough to satisfy our creative urges for the next 5 years?

joingler said :

Mysteryman said :

Brad Harris said :

What tram debt? The government is NOT the one (directly) carrying the cost of the light rail and hence debt, it is the PPP partner. The cost to government and hence the budget, which is your concern…….

You know what wildturkeycanoe is talking about – its the payments each year for the next 20 years to the tram consortia for the tram & 12 Ks of track. Saying that those payments to the tram consortia are not a “debt”, is just obfuscation of the the issue.

It’s a liability – which is to be met by the ACT Gov’t/Ratepayers under the contract and will be shown as such in the ACT Govt’s Annual Financial Statement. So, a debt by another name. But same thing.

Yeah, but the debt is not carried by the budget. It makes all the difference. What looks like a massive headline figure of almost $1b, looks reasonable when presented on the budget papers, which is the way it is paid for is it not?

As a percentage of the total budget the $64m averaged repayments represent about 1% of all expenditure. And of course as the years go as a percentage of budget that figure will improve..

…and the contingent liabilities will blow out.

Mysteryman said :

Brad Harris said :

What tram debt? The government is NOT the one (directly) carrying the cost of the light rail and hence debt, it is the PPP partner. The cost to government and hence the budget, which is your concern…….

You know what wildturkeycanoe is talking about – its the payments each year for the next 20 years to the tram consortia for the tram & 12 Ks of track. Saying that those payments to the tram consortia are not a “debt”, is just obfuscation of the the issue.

It’s a liability – which is to be met by the ACT Gov’t/Ratepayers under the contract and will be shown as such in the ACT Govt’s Annual Financial Statement. So, a debt by another name. But same thing.

Yeah, but the debt is not carried by the budget. It makes all the difference. What looks like a massive headline figure of almost $1b, looks reasonable when presented on the budget papers, which is the way it is paid for is it not?

As a percentage of the total budget the $64m averaged repayments represent about 1% of all expenditure. And of course as the years go as a percentage of budget that figure will improve..

Brad Harris said :

What tram debt? The government is NOT the one (directly) carrying the cost of the light rail and hence debt, it is the PPP partner. The cost to government and hence the budget, which is your concern…….

You know what wildturkeycanoe is talking about – its the payments each year for the next 20 years to the tram consortia for the tram & 12 Ks of track. Saying that those payments to the tram consortia are not a “debt”, is just obfuscation of the the issue.

It’s a liability – which is to be met by the ACT Gov’t/Ratepayers under the contract and will be shown as such in the ACT Govt’s Annual Financial Statement. So, a debt by another name. But same thing.

rommeldog56 said :

But the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t WILL be voted back later this year. So it’s not of concern to the majority of ACT Ratepayers/Voters – apparently.

The increase of rates and/or introduction of new levies is obviously important to people in the ACT… Thankfully most people aren’t single-issue voters, and won’t do a protest vote based on rates/levies alone. I don’t think anyone can deny that the current government is doing an awful job, but the potential of damage that a liberal-led state government could do is massive. You need not look further than NSW, WA and VIC to realise how much damage they could do in a single term.

PS: The liberals don’t cut spending at a state-level. They transfer as many public assets into private pockets (at a pittance) as they can get their hands on, and then use the profits to make the books look viable. You have to be an economic illiterate to vote liberal at a state level.

MonarchRepublic said :

dungfungus said :

A quote from an ACT Treasury Dept. report:
The defined benefit superannuation liability is estimated to grow to approximately
$6.147 billion by 30 June 2017.”
No mention of this in the budget papers?

Hi @dungfungus, this is what our guest economist Cherelle Murphy wrote about that in her main piece (http://the-riotact.com/economy-prudent-management-boost-act-budget/178433) yesterday:

In 2016-17, the deficit projection of $181 million represents a $59.3 million deterioration compared to the last Budget estimate because the government has pre-empted an upcoming $87.7 million hit from lower interest rates (when government bond yields fall, as they are now, the Government’s superannuation liability rises). Without this provision, the headline net operating deficit would have been a much better $94.4 million. It also conveniently allows the Government to avoid that liability showing up, for the first time, in the pre-election fiscal outlook document: never a good look during an election campaign. Broadly balanced budgets are expected for 2017-18 and 2018-19 and a $66 million surplus is projected in 2019-20.

Thanks for that Charlotte – I missed it entirely, probably because I was looking for the billions rather than the millions.

gooterz said :

“A forecast return to balanced budgets in 2017-18 and 2018-19 with surpluses from 2019-20 onwards”
Where are they getting the dollars to pay off the tram debt? I don’t think these rates and levies are going to cover it.
I guess the $150 per year rate increase will go part of the way, unless people start moving out because of the high cost of living in Canberra.

What tram debt? The government is NOT the one (directly) carrying the cost of the light rail and hence debt, it is the PPP partner. The cost to government and hence the budget, which is your concern is the one off payment on completion of the line and the $48m p/a, which when indexed and then averaged over 20 years is closer to $64m in 2016 terms.