NSW state mini-budget - Nov 08
I want to publish this for two reasons: firstly to demonstrate that I'm not politically biased, and secondly because I have just witnessed the most mind-numbingly stupid performance by a Minister of the Crown [even if a State Govt minister] that I have ever witnessed.
The reference point for this, is that the [Labor] State Government of NSW has just issued a mini-budget, but it was the interview with Eric Roozendaal, the NSW Treasurer on ABC TV ['Stateline' Friday November 14th] that prompted this post.
By way of context [& because it was written so well] I'm going to cut-and-paste from the Sydney Morning Herald from November 13, 2008:
"THE fundamental flaw in this week's state mini-budget is that it will dampen spending at precisely the time the Federal Government is increasing it. Yesterday, Ken Henry, Secretary to the Federal Treasury, said the NSW budget was so harsh it may slow the national economy and require Canberra to spend even more than the $10.4 billion already announced to kick-start the economy. The incompetent mini-budget is one of the most potentially damaging attacks on the public good we have ever seen from an Australian government. It seems almost unfair to single out one aspect for special criticism, but we are drawn to transport because of the quantum of idiocy, and even malice, involved.
The introduction this week of congestion charges for the Harbour Bridge and the Harbour Tunnel, which will mainly affect voters in safe Liberal seats, is both unfair and (because the extra charge is too low to influence many people's behaviour) ineffective. But it should not blind us to the fact that congestion charging is in principle a good idea for Sydney, as it has proved to be for London, which has experienced a fall in congestion, and an increase in average vehicle speeds, while the money collected has been put into expanding public transport. We need more of it, not less, but it has to be applied intelligently.
In June, the Herald reported on congestion charge modelling from Sydney University's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Its director, David Hensher, calculated that a charge averaging 10 cents a kilometre would decrease Sydney's congestion by 8 per cent during peak periods. The price paid by drivers could be varied according to the level of congestion on the road, the time of day and the environmental impact of the vehicle used. In theory, such a system would encourage people to move to public transport - although, given the city's many missing railways, that would remain a theoretical proposition for many Sydneysiders for some time.
The then roads minister, Eric Roozendaal, described the institute's proposal as "armchair advice from academics in ivory towers". This week we saw what he regards as superior public policy.
Given the sheer incompetence of the mini-budget, many people will be wondering if anything can be done to cut short the State Government's term. Those asking this question might well include the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who will go to the polls by late 2010 with the country's largest state still run by this lame-dog crew, perhaps still in a recession deepened by their failings.
Under the four-year fixed term introduced in 1995, Nathan Rees or an ALP replacement will be premier until elections on March 26, 2011, unless the Labor caucus in the Legislative Assembly splits and some members vote with the Opposition in a no-confidence vote. But, barring an unsuspected burst of altruism above self- and state party-interest, why would they?
Some have placed blame for our predicament on the four-year fixed term, which blocks the capacity for premiers to call a snap election to capitalise on good news or get in ahead of bad. But the previous system, with a non-fixed three-year term, would have made no difference (assuming Mr Rees postponed an election for as long as possible), apart from reducing our misery by one year. The real problem is the absence of workable recall mechanisms, such as exist in the constitutions of 18 American states. In California, the required 12 per cent of voters signed a petition in 2003 for a recall of the Democrat state governor, Gray Davis, over disarray in state finances and electricity blackouts. Gray was duly voted out and replaced by the Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. It would not be too hard to get to 12 per cent of our voters - about 473,000 - to sign a recall petition right now. Alas, no Terminator looms for this dysfunctional government.
If, after this week, Mr Rudd is still brave enough to try to bail out NSW with new infrastructure spending, he should insist on federal administrators riding shotgun on how the funds are used.
As the state's governance acquires the air of a Monty Python film, we must not despair. We need to remind ourselves of this: many of Sydney's problems do have solutions, even if they remain ungrasped by the practitioners of Roozenomics."
Couldn't have said it better myself - which is obviously why I quoted their piece... I guess the only point is that in the interview, instead of coming up with any sensible justification for what was such a seemingly stupid piece of policy in the Stateline interview, this dip-shit Roozendaal confirmed all the worst assumptions. Worse still, he kept quoting phrases of spin such as 'this is a tough budget for tough times' - and ended the interview with a self-satisfied smirk, as if he had passed the TV interview 'spin test'. But the reality is that it is the voters of NSW will have to live with the consequences of the amazingly inept pronouncements from this inanely stupid individual.
This Labor State Government is just so appallingly bad, it's unbelievable!
-A
The reference point for this, is that the [Labor] State Government of NSW has just issued a mini-budget, but it was the interview with Eric Roozendaal, the NSW Treasurer on ABC TV ['Stateline' Friday November 14th] that prompted this post.
By way of context [& because it was written so well] I'm going to cut-and-paste from the Sydney Morning Herald from November 13, 2008:
"THE fundamental flaw in this week's state mini-budget is that it will dampen spending at precisely the time the Federal Government is increasing it. Yesterday, Ken Henry, Secretary to the Federal Treasury, said the NSW budget was so harsh it may slow the national economy and require Canberra to spend even more than the $10.4 billion already announced to kick-start the economy. The incompetent mini-budget is one of the most potentially damaging attacks on the public good we have ever seen from an Australian government. It seems almost unfair to single out one aspect for special criticism, but we are drawn to transport because of the quantum of idiocy, and even malice, involved.
The introduction this week of congestion charges for the Harbour Bridge and the Harbour Tunnel, which will mainly affect voters in safe Liberal seats, is both unfair and (because the extra charge is too low to influence many people's behaviour) ineffective. But it should not blind us to the fact that congestion charging is in principle a good idea for Sydney, as it has proved to be for London, which has experienced a fall in congestion, and an increase in average vehicle speeds, while the money collected has been put into expanding public transport. We need more of it, not less, but it has to be applied intelligently.
In June, the Herald reported on congestion charge modelling from Sydney University's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Its director, David Hensher, calculated that a charge averaging 10 cents a kilometre would decrease Sydney's congestion by 8 per cent during peak periods. The price paid by drivers could be varied according to the level of congestion on the road, the time of day and the environmental impact of the vehicle used. In theory, such a system would encourage people to move to public transport - although, given the city's many missing railways, that would remain a theoretical proposition for many Sydneysiders for some time.
The then roads minister, Eric Roozendaal, described the institute's proposal as "armchair advice from academics in ivory towers". This week we saw what he regards as superior public policy.
Given the sheer incompetence of the mini-budget, many people will be wondering if anything can be done to cut short the State Government's term. Those asking this question might well include the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who will go to the polls by late 2010 with the country's largest state still run by this lame-dog crew, perhaps still in a recession deepened by their failings.
Under the four-year fixed term introduced in 1995, Nathan Rees or an ALP replacement will be premier until elections on March 26, 2011, unless the Labor caucus in the Legislative Assembly splits and some members vote with the Opposition in a no-confidence vote. But, barring an unsuspected burst of altruism above self- and state party-interest, why would they?
Some have placed blame for our predicament on the four-year fixed term, which blocks the capacity for premiers to call a snap election to capitalise on good news or get in ahead of bad. But the previous system, with a non-fixed three-year term, would have made no difference (assuming Mr Rees postponed an election for as long as possible), apart from reducing our misery by one year. The real problem is the absence of workable recall mechanisms, such as exist in the constitutions of 18 American states. In California, the required 12 per cent of voters signed a petition in 2003 for a recall of the Democrat state governor, Gray Davis, over disarray in state finances and electricity blackouts. Gray was duly voted out and replaced by the Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. It would not be too hard to get to 12 per cent of our voters - about 473,000 - to sign a recall petition right now. Alas, no Terminator looms for this dysfunctional government.
If, after this week, Mr Rudd is still brave enough to try to bail out NSW with new infrastructure spending, he should insist on federal administrators riding shotgun on how the funds are used.
As the state's governance acquires the air of a Monty Python film, we must not despair. We need to remind ourselves of this: many of Sydney's problems do have solutions, even if they remain ungrasped by the practitioners of Roozenomics."
Couldn't have said it better myself - which is obviously why I quoted their piece... I guess the only point is that in the interview, instead of coming up with any sensible justification for what was such a seemingly stupid piece of policy in the Stateline interview, this dip-shit Roozendaal confirmed all the worst assumptions. Worse still, he kept quoting phrases of spin such as 'this is a tough budget for tough times' - and ended the interview with a self-satisfied smirk, as if he had passed the TV interview 'spin test'. But the reality is that it is the voters of NSW will have to live with the consequences of the amazingly inept pronouncements from this inanely stupid individual.
This Labor State Government is just so appallingly bad, it's unbelievable!
-A
Labels: Australian politics, economics
posted by Crema-editor at 1:10 AM
2 Comments:
Traffic speeds in London have fallen since the introduction of the charge not increased as claimed.
Traffic levels are pretty much where they were before the charge and property rents/prices fell significanlty before and after the charge was introduced.
Many Many small businesses have gone bust through a lack of footfall and nearly all the tax taken from drivers has been wasted in the administration and operation of the charge - about £1bn.
Don't make the same mistake.
http://www.driversalliance.org.uk
thanks for the feedback Peter, although according to news reports that I have seen, the congestion tax in London has had an immediate, and lasting, effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home