My take on the ACT Budget

Grail said :

dungfungus said :

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?

There are requirements for at least 1 car space per apartment. I’m not sure of the number but it’s probably 1.2 spaces per apartment to allow for visitor parking. Those requirements are already there, it’s just rezoning and development approval that has to happen now. The idea is that people will buy apartments on Northbourne because they are close to the tram, which means an easy commute into the city.

Of course what is more likely to happen is people who work in Woden buying in Northbourne because it’s close to the night life they want to be involved in, and commuting by car because catching the tram to Civic and then bus to Woden is too much hassle.

Your final point (and the same could be said of people who work in Tuggeranong, and other places highly unlikely to get tram services) is well made, and illustrates the practical limitations on any benefits from the Northbourne Avenue and other such densification strategies. The benefits suggested by the hype depend upon people’s day to day lives being lived in a very tight radius – highly unlikely unless the Commonwealth concentrates all of its activities in the Parliamentary Triangle.

It’s also difficult to see how the tramline and a Northbourne Avenue densification strategy will contribute in a worthwhile (i.e. truly justifying the very large costs) way to an economically sustainable diversification of the ACT economy – particularly regarding private sector services exports (which has been talked-up, of late).

Grail said :

dungfungus said :

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?

There are requirements for at least 1 car space per apartment. I’m not sure of the number but it’s probably 1.2 spaces per apartment to allow for visitor parking. Those requirements are already there, it’s just rezoning and development approval that has to happen now. The idea is that people will buy apartments on Northbourne because they are close to the tram, which means an easy commute into the city.

Of course what is more likely to happen is people who work in Woden buying in Northbourne because it’s close to the night life they want to be involved in, and commuting by car because catching the tram to Civic and then bus to Woden is too much hassle.

Corbell will need his failed “super call-in power bill” to be passed before “tram-centric” zoning laws can be passed.

dungfungus said :

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?

There are requirements for at least 1 car space per apartment. I’m not sure of the number but it’s probably 1.2 spaces per apartment to allow for visitor parking. Those requirements are already there, it’s just rezoning and development approval that has to happen now. The idea is that people will buy apartments on Northbourne because they are close to the tram, which means an easy commute into the city.

Of course what is more likely to happen is people who work in Woden buying in Northbourne because it’s close to the night life they want to be involved in, and commuting by car because catching the tram to Civic and then bus to Woden is too much hassle.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Fair enough. IIRC it was policy to not have sufficient parking in commercial buildings in Civic about 10 years ago to encourage people to use public transport.

Developers put more parking in than required because you could get tenants and more rent with a greater level of parking than required. Human nature will overcome government policy every time.

We disagree on many other issues but the accord we have on this one should have the Government worried.
Over to you Mr Corbell and Mr Barr.

Indeed, us agreeing is an alarming development.

Toughen up, wus.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Fair enough. IIRC it was policy to not have sufficient parking in commercial buildings in Civic about 10 years ago to encourage people to use public transport.

Developers put more parking in than required because you could get tenants and more rent with a greater level of parking than required. Human nature will overcome government policy every time.

We disagree on many other issues but the accord we have on this one should have the Government worried.
Over to you Mr Corbell and Mr Barr.

Indeed, us agreeing is an alarming development.

rosscoact said :

Fair enough. IIRC it was policy to not have sufficient parking in commercial buildings in Civic about 10 years ago to encourage people to use public transport.

Developers put more parking in than required because you could get tenants and more rent with a greater level of parking than required. Human nature will overcome government policy every time.

We disagree on many other issues but the accord we have on this one should have the Government worried.
Over to you Mr Corbell and Mr Barr.

Fair enough. IIRC it was policy to not have sufficient parking in commercial buildings in Civic about 10 years ago to encourage people to use public transport.

Developers put more parking in than required because you could get tenants and more rent with a greater level of parking than required. Human nature will overcome government policy every time.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?

yada yada

Time to come clean on this one Mr. Barr.

Wouldn’t it be Corbell as planning Minister who signs off on planning policy?

Good point and you are correct.
I said Barr because he has been talking up the economic advantages of the proposed densification of the Northbourne Avenue to justify the massive borrowings he has planned and that’s why I nominated him.
The outcome will be the same.

dungfungus said :

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?

yada yada

Time to come clean on this one Mr. Barr.

Wouldn’t it be Corbell as planning Minister who signs off on planning policy?

dungfungus said :

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?
This is a factor in most European cities but most of the high density constructions there were built last century when the motor car was not widely used so residents/workers have nowhere to park vehicles anyway.
Then we have a modern city like Canberra which was designed for cars so their owners could commute with them.
So, if ACT required parking guidelines are not changed we will end up with thousands more cars in the proposed development area which will paralyze traffic for most of the day and given the choice of using a car or light rail most people are going to use light rail, especially if it is a family situation.
It appears the planners for the Newcastle (NSW) light rail are going to eliminate car parking all together along the Hunter street route so that important public buildings can only be accessed by the light rail.
Time to come clean on this one Mr. Barr.

I meant t to say “most people are going to use a car” (not light rail)

Grail said :

The Canberra Metro (which is actually a tramway, nothing like the Metro of Paris) is entirely reliant on rezoning the residential blocks either side of Northbourne Avenue to high-density housing and having the population in that corridor triple in the next ten year or so. This was in one of the earlier documents about the tramline, and the work on getting that population increase has started with the construction of many multi-storey/high-rise apartment blocks.

Although increasing the population is great for the Metro, it’s bad for Canberra in the long run since our water supply and sewage works aren’t able to cope. The sewage works (“Lower Molongolo Water Quality Control Centre” LOL) was originally intended to be 1/3 of a much larger plant, each section catering to another 200k people. In the interim, various Governments Federal and Local have decided that duplication of the plant is too costly, so we resort to storing peak sewage in a pond and waiting for the plant to catch up.

There’s nothing in the budget about expanding the sewage plant. This is the most troubling omission, to my mind. The Canberra Metro project should be put on hold until the infrastructure is able to cope with the expected increase in population.

Other than the obvious omission of taking the piss from increased population, borrowing money to build the tram line is a great idea. It’s a fund raising project and will pay its own way: the money for repaying the loan won’t have to come from taxes.

Sewage is about the only the only product we export. We vertically integrate it first.

Re the government’s plan to densify the Northbourne Avenue strip with high rise apartments and office blocks to enhance utilisation of the light rail.
Are special conditions going to be applied regarding vehicle parking when approving these developments such as no parking spaces at all to force residents and workers to use the light rail?
This is a factor in most European cities but most of the high density constructions there were built last century when the motor car was not widely used so residents/workers have nowhere to park vehicles anyway.
Then we have a modern city like Canberra which was designed for cars so their owners could commute with them.
So, if ACT required parking guidelines are not changed we will end up with thousands more cars in the proposed development area which will paralyze traffic for most of the day and given the choice of using a car or light rail most people are going to use light rail, especially if it is a family situation.
It appears the planners for the Newcastle (NSW) light rail are going to eliminate car parking all together along the Hunter street route so that important public buildings can only be accessed by the light rail.
Time to come clean on this one Mr. Barr.

It’s completely wrong to assume older people want to downsize – see http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/downsizing/5487436
Older people like space for their hobbies, the same as anyone else.

The Canberra Metro (which is actually a tramway, nothing like the Metro of Paris) is entirely reliant on rezoning the residential blocks either side of Northbourne Avenue to high-density housing and having the population in that corridor triple in the next ten year or so. This was in one of the earlier documents about the tramline, and the work on getting that population increase has started with the construction of many multi-storey/high-rise apartment blocks.

Although increasing the population is great for the Metro, it’s bad for Canberra in the long run since our water supply and sewage works aren’t able to cope. The sewage works (“Lower Molongolo Water Quality Control Centre” LOL) was originally intended to be 1/3 of a much larger plant, each section catering to another 200k people. In the interim, various Governments Federal and Local have decided that duplication of the plant is too costly, so we resort to storing peak sewage in a pond and waiting for the plant to catch up.

There’s nothing in the budget about expanding the sewage plant. This is the most troubling omission, to my mind. The Canberra Metro project should be put on hold until the infrastructure is able to cope with the expected increase in population.

Other than the obvious omission of taking the piss from increased population, borrowing money to build the tram line is a great idea. It’s a fund raising project and will pay its own way: the money for repaying the loan won’t have to come from taxes.

rommeldog56 said :

Now, if the same idiots are making decisions about infrastructure investments, increasing debt Gov’t debt levels, Light Rail, tripling Annual Rates, etc, is there any hope for ACT Ratepayers and residents – really ??? Groan…….

You misspelt the last word, it’s actually ‘Green’…

rommeldog56 said :

” The Government will reduce the administration fee for motor vehicle registration, from $25 to $15 per transaction, for those motorists who choose to pay their motor vehicle registration quarterly or half yearly.

Under this new structure, on average, motorists who choose to pay their motor vehicle registration quarterly will be better off in real terms by around 5.5 per cent, and those who pay half yearly will be better by around 1 per cent.

Motorists who pay their motor vehicle registration annually will be rewarded through a 2 per cent annual discount.

To offset these reforms, motor vehicle registration will increase by 6 per cent in 2014-15.”

Well done HiddenDragon for spotting this one !! If this is a direct quote, it would have to be the most stupid, arrogant, incompetent bits of spin ever to come out of the ACT Government – and that’s saying something. Who in the blazes in the ACT Government reads the words to be printed – its unbelievable !!

OMG – we are just so well served by the current crop of ACT politicians arn’t we !

Now, if the same idiots are making decisions about infrastructure investments, increasing debt Gov’t debt levels, Light Rail, tripling Annual Rates, etc, is there any hope for ACT Ratepayers and residents – really ??? Groan…….

That quote’s nearly as good as Geoge W Bush stating that “the French don’t even have a word for entrepreneur”.

Walker said :

“What do you think?”

I think simcity is a hilarious analogy.

Sometimes it feels a bit like that, like someone is all giddy playing with a real scale game without a more mature overview on enough of the relevant factors. You don’t need to be impaled by a civic sculpture to realise that.

(I’m all for artwork but there comes a point where the density and flow is ridiculously jammed up, you can’t just call something culturally enhancing by turning it up to ten, or eleven… that’s one more than ten, innit?… there’s a little more to it than that).

Canberra is the place where SimCity meets Thomas the Tank Engine.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Self-appointed actually.

😀 And a super job you are doing too.

Go for it dunfungus – you are usually spot on with your analysis. While u are at it – give yourself a pay rise !

” The Government will reduce the administration fee for motor vehicle registration, from $25 to $15 per transaction, for those motorists who choose to pay their motor vehicle registration quarterly or half yearly.

Under this new structure, on average, motorists who choose to pay their motor vehicle registration quarterly will be better off in real terms by around 5.5 per cent, and those who pay half yearly will be better by around 1 per cent.

Motorists who pay their motor vehicle registration annually will be rewarded through a 2 per cent annual discount.

To offset these reforms, motor vehicle registration will increase by 6 per cent in 2014-15.”

Well done HiddenDragon for spotting this one !! If this is a direct quote, it would have to be the most stupid, arrogant, incompetent bits of spin ever to come out of the ACT Government – and that’s saying something. Who in the blazes in the ACT Government reads the words to be printed – its unbelievable !! OMG – we are just so well served by the current crop of ACT politicians arn’t we ! Now, if the same idiots are making decisions about infrastructure investments, increasing debt Gov’t debt levels, Light Rail, tripling Annual Rates, etc, is there any hope for ACT Ratepayers and residents – really ??? Groan…….

“What do you think?”

I think simcity is a hilarious analogy.

Sometimes it feels a bit like that, like someone is all giddy playing with a real scale game without a more mature overview on enough of the relevant factors. You don’t need to be impaled by a civic sculpture to realise that.

(I’m all for artwork but there comes a point where the density and flow is ridiculously jammed up, you can’t just call something culturally enhancing by turning it up to ten, or eleven… that’s one more than ten, innit?… there’s a little more to it than that).

dungfungus said :

Self-appointed actually.

😀 And a super job you are doing too.

rommeldog56 said :

pajs said :

Mysteryman said :

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

The idea here is to encourage the elderly to downsize by selling their existing home (not taking out home loans) and using that money to buy a smaller or different home. The stamp duty exemption saves them money on the purchase of the downsized property, encouraging them to sell their original place. Seems like a sensible idea to me, which should encourage some more turnover in the market.

Possibly – but its a slight of hand isnt it.

Those over 60s sellers/downsizers will STILL be notionally paying for stamp duty because its being phased out and rolled into annual Rates increases. This decision is about window dressing, nothing else.

The over 60s deal will be a nice windfall for people who were planning on moving anyway – provided, of course, the move they are planning is within the ACT. It will also help to appease some of the anger from people whose rates are likely to be going up more than the “only 10%” average, and it’s a classic example of the “we know what’s best for you” nudge politics which is a hallmark of this government, but beyond all of that, yes, it’s another part of the rather artful window dressing which has been deployed to disguise a desperate strategy of converting unsustainable, boom-time property transaction revenues into a permanent and ever-growing income stream for a government which can always find new reasons to spend other people’s money.

If we do ever see an ACT Budget truly in surplus, that will essentially be a clerical error, which won’t be allowed to stand for too long.

On the broader theme of “reform”, which, in practice, basically means picking one pocket, and putting some of the proceeds in another, I enjoyed this – most particularly the final sentence (from Budget Paper No. 3, page 253):

“Motor Vehicle Registration

The Government will reduce the administration fee for motor vehicle registration, from $25 to $15 per transaction, for those motorists who choose to pay their motor vehicle registration quarterly or half yearly.

Under this new structure, on average, motorists who choose to pay their motor vehicle registration quarterly will be better off in real terms by around 5.5 per cent, and those who pay half yearly will be better by around 1 per cent.

Motorists who pay their motor vehicle registration annually will be rewarded through a 2 per cent annual discount.

To offset these reforms, motor vehicle registration will increase by 6 per cent in 2014-15.”

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

pajs said :

Mysteryman said :

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

The idea here is to encourage the elderly to downsize by selling their existing home (not taking out home loans) and using that money to buy a smaller or different home. The stamp duty exemption saves them money on the purchase of the downsized property, encouraging them to sell their original place. Seems like a sensible idea to me, which should encourage some more turnover in the market.

Why is it that everyone except the elderly think this is a good idea?
I am happy spending my retirement in the family home with garden and space, accessing aged homecare services when I need it. I don’t want to move to an apartment or a retirement home situation. When my friends and relatives come to Canberra I want them to stay with me. None of us can afford to stay in hotels. Moving to a smaller home means moving to a shoebox in an outer suburb where babyboomers are despised. Next time ask the people involved what they want Mr Barr.

Good to see you’ve been taken on the role of speaking for all the elderly people in the ACT. Was there a vote or is it an honourary position?

Self-appointed actually.

dungfungus said :

pajs said :

Mysteryman said :

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

The idea here is to encourage the elderly to downsize by selling their existing home (not taking out home loans) and using that money to buy a smaller or different home. The stamp duty exemption saves them money on the purchase of the downsized property, encouraging them to sell their original place. Seems like a sensible idea to me, which should encourage some more turnover in the market.

Why is it that everyone except the elderly think this is a good idea?
I am happy spending my retirement in the family home with garden and space, accessing aged homecare services when I need it. I don’t want to move to an apartment or a retirement home situation. When my friends and relatives come to Canberra I want them to stay with me. None of us can afford to stay in hotels. Moving to a smaller home means moving to a shoebox in an outer suburb where babyboomers are despised. Next time ask the people involved what they want Mr Barr.

Good to see you’ve been taken on the role of speaking for all the elderly people in the ACT. Was there a vote or is it an honourary position?

bikhet said :

dungfungus said :

Why is it that everyone except the elderly think this is a good idea?

Spot on. The following ABC programme is relevant:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/downsizing/5487436

I hope Andrew Barr listens to this because the presenter has gone to the trouble of gathering facts through surveys and forums that totally contradict the notions that yuppies like Barr have about what is good for the elderly.
Time to upgrade the home security.

pajs said :

Mysteryman said :

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

The idea here is to encourage the elderly to downsize by selling their existing home (not taking out home loans) and using that money to buy a smaller or different home. The stamp duty exemption saves them money on the purchase of the downsized property, encouraging them to sell their original place. Seems like a sensible idea to me, which should encourage some more turnover in the market.

Possibly – but its a slight of hand isnt it.

Those over 60s sellers/downsizers will STILL be notionally paying for stamp duty because its being phased out and rolled into annual Rates increases. This decision is about window dressing, nothing else.

dungfungus said :

Why is it that everyone except the elderly think this is a good idea?

Spot on. The following ABC programme is relevant:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/downsizing/5487436

Sebastian Fernandez said :

dungfungus said :

Barr sounds just like Wayne Swan and his empty promises about a “modest” budget surplus somewhere in the future.
Does anyone know who is exempt from rates in the ACT? Does the Federal Govt pay rates on any properties they own (that they haven’t already sold off) and what about the embassies and high commissions?
Clubs? Churches? Military?

When do you believe we’ll be back in surplus ? Is there any real chance we can balance the budget within a few years ?

Answer to you questions in sequence:
Never
No
Now, how about answering the questions I asked?

pajs said :

Mysteryman said :

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

The idea here is to encourage the elderly to downsize by selling their existing home (not taking out home loans) and using that money to buy a smaller or different home. The stamp duty exemption saves them money on the purchase of the downsized property, encouraging them to sell their original place. Seems like a sensible idea to me, which should encourage some more turnover in the market.

Why is it that everyone except the elderly think this is a good idea?
I am happy spending my retirement in the family home with garden and space, accessing aged homecare services when I need it. I don’t want to move to an apartment or a retirement home situation. When my friends and relatives come to Canberra I want them to stay with me. None of us can afford to stay in hotels. Moving to a smaller home means moving to a shoebox in an outer suburb where babyboomers are despised. Next time ask the people involved what they want Mr Barr.

Mysteryman said :

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

The idea here is to encourage the elderly to downsize by selling their existing home (not taking out home loans) and using that money to buy a smaller or different home. The stamp duty exemption saves them money on the purchase of the downsized property, encouraging them to sell their original place. Seems like a sensible idea to me, which should encourage some more turnover in the market.

Let’s all enjoy our increased car rego and stamp duty. And be mindful of the extra parking inspectors that will be out and about to help make up for the budget shortfall. As well as the increased parking and traffic fine costs. Too bad these things won’t make a dent in the insanely large budget deficit.

Barr has put together a string of lousy budgets. This is just the latest. We shouldn’t be surprised.

I love how he points out that over 60s will be exempt from stamp duty. Over 60s can’t get loans to buy houses unless they’re already cashed up in the first place. Why should they be exempt? It’s a token gesture with no actual benefit to anyone.

JessP said :

Capital Metro = big mistake.

We face a down turn, we know that.
We know it may/will go on for a number of years.
So we decide to build a infrastructure project that 90% of canberra can’t use (hello Tuggeranong, hows Capital Metro working for you?) for a lazy $300+ million.

Idiots.

When you put it like that, it makes no sense at all.

dungfungus said :

Barr sounds just like Wayne Swan and his empty promises about a “modest” budget surplus somewhere in the future.
Does anyone know who is exempt from rates in the ACT? Does the Federal Govt pay rates on any properties they own (that they haven’t already sold off) and what about the embassies and high commissions?
Clubs? Churches? Military?

When do you believe we’ll be back in surplus ? Is there any real chance we can balance the budget within a few years ?

The moneys better spent digging for gold around Canberra. Its bound to make more profit than a trolley car.

These jokers know they almost lost the last election they know for sure they’re gone next time.
two budget losses then a even budget = Many losses in a row and a bad budget position for an incoming liberal government. Mirror of what happened federally the last few years.

If they had any sense they wouldn’t have sold so much of the free land at the north end of Canberra instead this would be useable farmland. (All of Canberra used to be a sheep station) Using the limited green land for housing is just a joke and is going to make Canberra a much hotter place.

There are many houses and many many units coming onto the market, but bugger all in between. The artificial housing prices make Canberra an expensive unproductive liability. If we build the capital metro Canberra will be a ghost town in 20 years.

If we ditched the light rail and spent the $600 million on a casino we’d literally be rolling in extra tourist money.

One of the biggest issues with Canberra is that if all the government agencies leave the ACT budget shrinks and has to increase rent. Increase rent then decreases the number of staff that agencies can employ which makes Canberra shrink again.

The governments way of addressing this issue: build more top of the market properties. They literally want to run the lower end of town out of town.

Pandy said :

The Canberra Times says that $21 million will be spent on the Gungahlin tram line (heh heh). That is a lot of money just to spruik the benefits of monorails.

That money will only get it to “investment stage”. The implementation costs will then determined by the tender system and the tram industry is notorious for price fixing as I have referred to previously.
I wonder what the parameters are for the probity checking of the tenderers?

The government is gambling a lot with the path it has chosen.
If everything falls in a heap it would be the Federal government that would have to bail us out.
While those who would agree with the Chief Minister’s mantra that it is Tony Abbott’s cutbacks that are creating the debt decision for us could see that as deliciously poetic, what would be the consequences if the Feds. actually had to bail us out?
There have been plenty of cases where states have sacked local governments and then sent in an administrator to clean up the mess and I am wondering what would be the situation between the Feds. and the Territories if the same thing happened.
The administrator I am referring to is not the same type of administrator that occupies that position on Christmas Island in case you are thinking ahead.

JessP said :

Capital Metro = big mistake.

We face a down turn, we know that.
We know it may/will go on for a number of years.
So we decide to build a infrastructure project that 90% of canberra can’t use (hello Tuggeranong, hows Capital Metro working for you?) for a lazy $300+ million.

Idiots.

The train set will cost at least M$627 I believe – not M$300+. But, your point is 100% correct. With expected cost blowouts and ACT Governments history of those in their infrastructure projects, real cost will probably be at least M$800, I reckon. Also, it will never get across the Lake to Tuggers. Anyone who believes that spin is delusional.

“Idiots” ? Well said JessP !!!!

The Canberra Times says that $21 million will be spent on the Gungahlin tram line (heh heh). That is a lot of money just to spruik the benefits of monorails.

Barr sounds just like Wayne Swan and his empty promises about a “modest” budget surplus somewhere in the future.
Does anyone know who is exempt from rates in the ACT? Does the Federal Govt pay rates on any properties they own (that they haven’t already sold off) and what about the embassies and high commissions?
Clubs? Churches? Military?

Capital Metro = big mistake.

We face a down turn, we know that.
We know it may/will go on for a number of years.
So we decide to build a infrastructure project that 90% of canberra can’t use (hello Tuggeranong, hows Capital Metro working for you?) for a lazy $300+ million.

Idiots.

If spending twice as much on a prison as on hospitals seems like good value for money, I just don’t know how to respond to this. Who is more entitled?
Even more ridiculous, spending $55.8 million on public housing and then selling off public housing…WTF [Wild Turkey Frowns]? Have the government totally lost the plot?

“Andrew Barr conceded in the press conference today that he’s gambling on a much more Canberra friendly federal budget next time around.”

If that’s what he said, he gets points for honesty, but it makes the borrowing of large sums for infrastructure (some of it of debateable value) all the more worrying, particularly noting:

“The ACT has a number of revenue raising disadvantages in comparison with other jurisdictions, as a significant proportion of the Territory’s economic activity is generated by Commonwealth Government expenditure within the Territory. Commonwealth employment, which drives much of the Territory’s expenditure, is exempt from payroll tax.

The Territory has a moderate private employment base in the education and small scale manufacturing sectors, and wholesale trade. Employment in agricultural and mining industries, important contributors to the diversity and growth in other jurisdictions’ payroll tax bases, is small in the ACT.

While the ACT is compensated for these limitations through the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s assessment, it nevertheless has comparatively less capacity and flexibility to raise own source revenue than other jurisdictions.” [ACT 2014-15 Budget Paper No. 3 – page 224]

The “comparatively less capacity and flexibility to raise own source revenue than other jurisdictions” is going to become a very serious problem if, rather than more Canberra-friendly federal budgets we see, for instance, more jobs disappearing from Canberra due to the federalism review. It would not be difficult to imagine State Governments responding to the “$80bn cuts to federal health and education funding” by demanding much less accountability to Canberra for their activities in those (and quite possibly, other) areas – which would mean somewhat fewer officials in the relevant federal departments.