UrbanLabyrinth posted:

The Guardian has a fun tool to let you put together your own budget cuts/allocations: http://www.theguardian.com/australi...rms-interactive

Amethyst posted:

Speaking of creative policy solutions:

https://medium.com/@mrtruffle/solving-sydney-s-lock-out-law-problem-the-licence-to-party-dcb1fbd0a976

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

Gorbash posted:

14/01/2017 -this House expires on 11 November, then 10 days top issue writs, 27 days for nominations, and 31 days until polling Saturday, but it won't be that late.

quote:

Infrastructure Australia report: Scrap vehicle registration fees and fuel excise in exchange for charging for road use

Vehicle registration fees and fuel excise charges could be abolished to make way for a user-pays road system if the Federal Government adopts the recommendations of a landmark infrastructure report.

The Infrastructure Australia report recommended charging drivers for using roads as a way of reducing congestion and helping fund major projects.

The report included nearly 80 recommendations which could boost the economy by an estimated $40 billion and leave the average household about $3,000 a year better off.

The report recommended a public inquiry, possibly led by the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure Australia, into the existing funding system for roads and the development of a user-pays model for motorists.

Introducing such a model "will require the removal of familiar taxes and charges such as excise on fuel and registration fees", the report said.

"The existing approach to charging for road use is not well understood by users," it said.

"Many users see roads as free, or at least free at the point of use.

"Fuel excise is charged at the fuel pump, but is not disaggregated from the per-litre cost, nor displayed on the fuel docket in the same way as the GST.

"Together, these factors further the misconception that roads are free and create public perceptions that reform is about new taxes rather than fixing the current flawed charging system."

Report calls for revival of Melbourne's dumped East West Link

Infrastructure Australia identified 93 priority projects across the country, including new metro rail systems in major cities, but it warned current spending levels were insufficient to meet those needs.

One of the priority projects was Melbourne's dumped East West Link road project.

The report found the east-west corridor to the north of Melbourne's CBD is one of the city's major congestion challenges.

"The audit found that this corridor had the highest 2011 road congestion delay cost in Melbourne, with a delay cost of $73 million," it said.

"This is expected to worsen by 2031, with delay cost increasing to $144 million."

The Andrews Government scrapped the East West Link after it was elected in 2014 at a cost of more than $1 billion.

Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas said the State Government would "build the infrastructure Victorians voted for".

"Now that IA has identified a large list of projects that Victorians did in fact vote for, that are supported by business cases, we'll be proceeding with those and not the dud East West Link," he said.

"The business case produced by the previous government makes it clear that the East West road failed to deliver the traffic solutions to that east-west congestion."

But the Victorian Opposition's treasury spokesman Michael O'Brien said the report showed the Andrews Government was making a mistake.

"Infrastructure Australia is clearly saying the East West Link is a top priority," he said.


"It's needed now, and Mr Andrews should swallow his pride, apologise to Victorians for the money he's wasted, and put East West Link back on the table."

Other high priority initiatives include the WestConnex project from Sydney's M4 to M5, stage 2 of the Gold Coast light rail project and the Forrestfield Airport Rail Link in Perth.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Not that specific report (I'm skimming through now), but replacing fuel excise with congestion pricing is a pretty standard suggestion. The general idea isn't to put tolls everywhere but in areas like city CBDs where you want to reduce traffic. It also has the benefit of accounting for hybrid or petrol-free cars.

E: There's a recommendation to start tracking heavy vehicles (via satellite etc) and charging them based on road usage, with the argument being that lots of these trucks are already tracked, that one truck causes more road damage than a thousand cars, and that successful similar schemes have been implemented elsewhere.

MonoAus posted:

My partner works maintaining street trees for a city council in Perth. He' s always said that there's regulations about vegetation not blocking line of sight and is often called to remove trees that residents complain about because of that.

What's worse is planting trees under powerlines only to have to heavily prune them when they inevitably encroach.

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Question for the thread based on an anecdote.

We were talking about negative gearing at lunch and while one of my co-workers think Labor's position is to unceremoniously drop it (and that Liberal will phase it out except for new buildings, which is the Labor position) and that it would effect me, a person with a single home, by the market dropping as all the investors dropout. Hence if my house value drops by 50 grand the bank will then charge me that.

Is this in any way true? I honestly don't care if my house value drops as long as my daughter will eventually be able to own a home or apartment rather than rent forever.

Also it's a bad investment if you rely on tax breaks to make your investment work.