The SA Politics Thread

[Waewick]

I think the point is that a new ministry was created for him.

Which is a cost the public should be aware of.

[stumpjumper]

I reckon the cost of MHS' ministry/ies is a red herring. The government owns or rents the space anyway. As for his staff, most of whom MHS has bought with him, they are already on the government payroll. Minor stuff. The point is, will Hamilton-Smith join in singing the Internationale with the others before every Cabinet meeting?

[Dog]

I think the point is that a new ministry was created for him.

Which is a cost the public should be aware of.

Yes Waewick it's certainly not going unnoticed if the Advertiser has anything to do with it, they must have devoted a page a day to it over the last week and anyway, just in the public interest have they asked, was Marshell just off to NZ for a holiday or did the tax payer pick up the tab for unused flights and accommodation? I also notice the Advertiser has not used as much zeal to cost the Liberals $m demand for a new by-election or called it a waste of money or equate it to the number of lost teachers or nurses.

Again our trusty Newspaper is trying to sell the Liberal's internal disaster as some sort of Labor mismanagement.

Apparently according to the Advertiser, MHS's $2m a year Ministry is equivalent to 35 teachers or nurses.

It appears their view of teachers and nurses is different when it comes to the federal Liberal's $6bn cuts to SA (which equates to loss of 27,000 teachers or nurses), some how nothing to do with the Liberals but Labor's Tom Koutsantonis fault, overreacting for being an L plate treasurer.

Our local rag and Liberals can try all they like to blame Labor and vilify MHS for the SA Liberal's deep seated mess, but by deluding themselves it may give the rusted on Liberal supporters someone else to blame but does nothing to change the political mess they are in.

[Vee]

Adelaide CBD proposed car park tax or Transport Development Levy?

Adelaide car park spaces 'tax' will be blocked in Parliament, SA Opposition vows

The Opposition says it is keen to block the South Australian Government's planned charge on city car park spaces.
The annual tax of $750, indexed to CPI, will be confirmed in this month's state budget.

Liberal leader Steven Marshall says his party does not have a history of blocking monetary bills in the Parliament but South Australians do not want more taxes.

"This Government has made a complete mess of our budget over an extended period of time and they're again trying to put their hand in the pockets of taxpayers in South Australia," he said.

"We're saying 'no, sorry get your own house in order and don't keep increasing the cost on small business and households here in South Australia'."

Mr Marshall says if the Government introduces its levy as separate legislation from the budget bills, the Liberals will vote against it.

He says the planned measure has faced widespread criticism from groups including the Property Council, Business SA, the City Council and the Rundle Mall Management Authority.

Includes details of the Transport Development Levy.

ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-04/c ... et/5498722

I favour improved public transport services, bus lanes in the city, safer bikeways and other initiatives to decrease traffic congestion and pollution in the city. The balance needs to shift away more from cars, many with single occupants, towards more efficient means of commuting.

The car park tax does not appear to be a huge impost on commercial car parks for many motorists who can afford to park in city car parks. Early bird rates are still quite reasonable for workers. Compare Adelaide's much cheaper car park costs with other cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth all have higher car park levies and Brisbane has a ban on new car parks).

The short term parking rates for shoppers etc need to be kept cheaper (subsidized). And some discount for hospital car parks' medical staff who work different shifts?

Spotted this Tweet via @SALibMedia

The State Liberals will block Weatherill's car park tax - it will drive up cost of living, damage vibrancy. #saparli http://t.co/xffD7SgtF4

Damage vibrancy???

[monotonehell]

Such a tax would add 50 to 70 cents a day for a 5 day a week city park depending on how the cost accounting was performed. The Liberals usually favour user pays schemes.

[[Shuz]]

I'm not in favour of this particular 'car park' tax. It' is what it is - a tax. It is not a user-pays system. And I am fervently in favour of a system that is strictly user-pays. I agree we need improved public transport services, safer cycling and walking routes, and most importantly of all, less car parks in the CBD - I just do not believe that this particular means of 'taxing' car park spaces is the best solution to addressing alternative transport issues.

Having said that - my understanding of the car park tax is that it is a blanket $750 levy on every car space in the CBD, with the money payable to the State Government by businesses and council once every financial year for each car park space they own or manage. Can someone please confirm if this is correct?

If it is correct - it is a terribly inefficient means of taxation. Businesses do not need another tax. We are already burdened with a staggering number of taxes, and high rate taxes, at that. A user-pays system is more efficient as it places the onus directly on the user (the motorist, not the business (as is currently proposed) in this instance). And that is exactly who the State Government should be targeting - the motorist - not the business and encouraging these motorists / people to take alternative forms of transport.

What I would favour - is to have a levy on the "act of parking" in a car space, as opposed a levy to the actual car park space itself. The rationale being that, the car parks which are in high demand and have a high turnover rate, would rake in more money. There would be once-off capital cost of implementing and retrofitting existing car park pay stations so that it collects the 'levy' at the point of sale, and therefore not included in the business cost. So, hypothetically speaking - if the levy was say, 5% of the hourly rate of the car park - but leave it to the car park operators to determine for themselves what the hourly rate should be. In the example of the Gawler Place U-Park, owned by the Adelaide City Council - hours of operation 7am - 7:30pm - their current rates are;

0-0.5 hour $3.00
0.5-1 hour $5.00
1–2 hours $11.00
2–3 hours $16.00
3–4 hours $21.00
4–5 hours $26.00
5+ hours $28.00

But with a 5% levy on the hourly rate - that would bring the figures to (roughly);

0-0.5 hour $3.15
0.5-1 hour $5.25
1–2 hours $11.55
2–3 hours $16.80
3–4 hours $22.05
4–5 hours $27.30
5+ hours $29.40

Now there's so many variables with this - but let's just say that one high demand car space attracts a turnover rate of 2 cars every hour - thats 15c every half hour. The Gawler U-Park is open 86 hours of the week on 363 days of the year. 30c in the hour by 86 hours a week is $25.80 times 52 weeks is $1,341.60 a year. That's an extra $591.60 to the State Government coffers for a direct user-pays system than a blanket tax on businesses. Now I know this isn't going to be the same situation with every single car space, but with a % levy, it wouldn't matter how many hours a person parked for, each car space should raise a similar (probably lower, by about one or two hundred dollars) figure - let's go with $1,000. I can't recall the exact figure - but I think we have something like 70,000 car spaces in the CBD.

70,000 spaces x $750 p.a tax on businesses = $52,500,000 p.a.
70,000 spaces x $1,000 p.a user-pays system on motorists = $70,000,000 p.a.

I know what system I'd use to raise money.

Furthermore, we need to have road tolls, for the use of our metropolitan freeways - the Port River Expressway, Northern Expressway, South Road Superway and the Southern Expressway to fund the completion of the rest of the North-South Motorway. I find it ludicrous that the State Government insists on providing the use of these freeways for... well, free. They are high-speed, free flowing corridors, which have alternative routes adjacent them and it only makes sense to toll these higher quality and quicker routes for motorists. I'm against a toll on the South Eastern Freeway, as it is literally the only safe route for motorists from the City to the Hills.

[Dog]

Instead of collecting this $26m annual levy, the State government could simply adopt the same model the Abbott Liberal government is using on the states: - just cut $26m of State funding to the Adelaide City council and let them work it out. Lol, but seriously there must be a better way of collecting state taxes than car park levy's!

[monotonehell]

Shuz, a tax applied directly to each parking spot is a much more efficient way to achieve roughly the same as what you're proposing, without applying a further complex accounting cost to the businesses you are trying to protect from further taxation. Besides all costs to businesses are passed on to the end user, so the user pays in the long run anyway.

Where's the point of difference?

[jk1237]

Bring on the car-parking tax, should have been implemented years ago. If lazy car drivers have to drive their big cars into the city by themselves, they still can, just need to pay a premium. Far higher car parking costs in the other cities hasn't damaged their vibrancy - quite the opposite.

Its just really isn't even debatable - introduce it now

[Waewick]

Bring on the car-parking tax, should have been implemented years ago. If lazy car drivers have to drive their big cars into the city by themselves, they still can, just need to pay a premium. Far higher car parking costs in the other cities hasn't damaged their vibrancy - quite the opposite.

Its just really isn't even debatable - introduce it now

Why should I be taxed more for doing my job?

I need to drive my car for work.

I'm not lazy. I have to drive my car to do my job

Again not lazy. I have to drive my car to do my job.

Do I need to repeat it again for you?

[Nathan]

Then it's a cost of doing business.

[Waewick]

Then it's a cost of doing business.

I'm an employee FFS.

Maybe they should up the cost of PT. You know so people actually pay more towards their service?

You know people paying for something rather than expecting others to pick up the tab.

[Nathan]

If you're just an employee, but your work absolutely requires you to drive, then I would think they would be supplying you with a park, or at the very least subsidising one. If not, then that's pretty stingy.

[jk1237]

Then it's a cost of doing business.

I'm an employee FFS.

Maybe they should up the cost of PT. You know so people actually pay more towards their service?

You know people paying for something rather than expecting others to pick up the tab.

yawwwwwn. What do you think we are, a little country town where you get to park your pick up truck right outside your destination in the CBD and pay hardly anything. We have the most ridiculous oversupply of CBD car parks making car parking so cheap, so either look for alternative transport methods or rightfully pay a tiny premium. The whole idea is to upgrade and shift people on to public transport when going to the CBD, you know, like what happens in virtually every other western city in the world

[Dog]

Ian Evans announces his retirement from Sate politics within the next 12 months.
full story
http://ab.co/1i7wGOV