The SA Politics Thread

[Llessur2002]

So, who wants to discuss all the new infrastructure projects for SA that were announced in the federal budget?

Here's a list:

Don't forget the

[rev]

Well, for anyone who thought the local Lib circus was a chance of getting in at next years state election, I hope any money you put down is refundable.
The fed Libs have just handed the 2018 state election to Labor on a golden platter(or should that be a used plastic plate).
Labor will milk the lack of anything significant for SA in the federal budget until the cows run dry.

This is how pathetic the likes of Pyne are as politicians representing this state.
Our state government complains that there's no new infrastructure spending(ie roads, trains, trams) in the federal budget.
Pyne steps up to the mic and says "but but we are spending money on submarines in SA". And the money they are currently spending on that in this budget, something like $300 million, is going overseas not to SA.
But never mind that the state government isn't complaining about defence spending, but about transport infrastructure spending.

Even the industry bodies are complaining and saying wtf.

But Pyne wants to shift focus to defence projects, with the exception of the two patrol boats that will be built here, wont actually start being built until the 2030's(the subs and frigates).
Good one dick head.

[Ben]

It works both ways though, as some people might think to get funding for projects here we need the same government which is in power federally...the Liberal government.

[rhino]

It works both ways though, as some people might think to get funding for projects here we need the same government which is in power federally...the Liberal government.

Groan. Yeah let's shoot ourselves in the foot and hope we get some federal funding.

Ever noticed how every Liberal Party policy looks like increasing the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots? It seems to be happening with infrastructure spending too. Tasmania and South Australia got bugger all.

[Nathan]

What I struggle to understand is that clearly there are issues with growth in Sydney and Melbourne. Would it not be beneficial for everyone for the federal government to try and shift some of that growth to other cities that can better absorb it (and benefit from it)? If infrastructure spend is disproportionately focussed only on the biggest cities, then that'll further focus growth there as well.

[ghs]

As a state we need to become more mature and professional about receiving funding from the federal
government. We need to realise that if we stuff things up left, right and centre then we're not going to
get support federally. For Malcolm Turnbull it's important to keep people happy in the bigger
cities because that's where the majority of the voters are and where the population growth is.

If Malcolm Turnbull had a business and he had one area which was going well and another area which is struggling then
surely he is going to focus on the area that is going well.

Currently, we have the highest unemployment rate, the most unreliable electricity supply in the country and
NRah still hasn't opened nearly 12 months after it should have. And then we have the nerve to complain when we don't get support from the federal government.

We need to stop acting like children.

[Ben]

If Malcolm Turnbull had a business and he had one area which was going well and another area which is struggling then surely he is going to focus on the area that is going well.

You obviously are not a business owner.

[Aidan]

It does make sense for businesses to focus on what's most profitable, but governments are not businesses. If they abandoned the idiotic "debt and deficit disaster" rhetoric and looked at the real economic effects, they'd notice that spending here has less inflationary impact than in the eastern states and would bring a greater reduction in unemployment.

[rev]

As a state we need to become more mature and professional about receiving funding from the federal
government. We need to realise that if we stuff things up left, right and centre then we're not going to
get support federally. For Malcolm Turnbull it's important to keep people happy in the bigger
cities because that's where the majority of the voters are and where the population growth is.

If Malcolm Turnbull had a business and he had one area which was going well and another area which is struggling then
surely he is going to focus on the area that is going well.

Currently, we have the highest unemployment rate, the most unreliable electricity supply in the country and
NRah still hasn't opened nearly 12 months after it should have. And then we have the nerve to complain when we don't get support from the federal government. Not only was it under budget, it was extended in scope as a result.

We need to stop acting like children.

You say why would they provide funding to SA when the NRAH is overdue and over budget.
Can you tell how many projects that are under budget, on time, or ahead of time? because they do exist. There's one specifically that's very, very relevant in the funding debate at the moment.

Can you tell us, how many projects interstate are over budget and overdue? Because they do exist beyond South Australia.

Why did Victoria get extra funding after they cancelled a major infrastructure project that was preferred by the feds, and ended up costing them a billion dollars anyway just to compensate contractors who had signed contracts for work?

Why is WA getting extra funding, despite their new childrens hospital being overbudget and overdue?

Why does NSW continue to get truck loads of funding every budget, despite all the corruption and waste that occurs in the halls of power in Sydney?


You're argument that SA is stuffed therefore doesn't deserve any funding but others aren't stuffed so do deserve it, is flawed.

[claybro]

Rev...GHS has a point. The RAH was just part of a general observation being made. Much of what is being funded in this budget in WA is funds actually diverted from the Freight Link project, cancelled by the new state government. It has been announced as funding for new metro rail links, and road and freeway upgrades. Most is not new money. Some new money has been allocated for specific projects, but these are as a compensation for the anger here that WA only gets .38 cents in the dollar back from GST, despite apparently having the fastest deteriorating state economy since the end of the mining construction boom.
NSW and Vic receive more funding for projects, because their populations are expanding massively year on year. Plus, they have well planned, long term vision for public transprt, road and regional developments that SA just does not seem to have the capacity to think beyond and immediate local problem such as 1 congested road or intersection, without a plan for how it all fits together in re-activated locations.

Now lets look at SA. Thankfully the current state government is running a very tight set of books. It is generally responsible with expenditiure and somehow manages to push on with projects with very little spare cash. But there is no cohesive planning. Infrastructure Australia are continually frustrated with the lack of formal proposals let alone detailed plans for future infrastructure. The current plan for the North/South motorway is case in point. The route has almost happened by accident rather than a specific plan. there is still no defined plan for much of the remainder, let alone how this route will be accessed by other parts of the transport network ie linking the SE Freeway to it for large transport. Whilst a new hospital is admirable, was it necessary for the state to build the most expensive hospital in the world? A smaller scale still utilising the new medical research precinct would have worked just as well in a more de-centralised environment, and may have been up and running by now saving the appearance the state cannot handle large scale development.
There is a perception, some warranted that SA is just not professional enough in its approach to present a proper case for the funding on offer. SA, instead of blaming everyone else should just learn form the other states, and become more organised and aggressive in its approach with the Federal departments involved. Federation in its current form is f.cked, but is the system we have to learn to live with.

[ghs]

It does make sense for businesses to focus on what's most profitable, but governments are not businesses. If they abandoned the idiotic "debt and deficit disaster" rhetoric and looked at the real economic effects, they'd notice that spending here has less inflationary impact than in the eastern states and would bring a greater reduction in unemployment.

Governments aren't businesses but still the principles are pretty similar. The difference is that instead of maximising profit you have to get people to vote
for you.

How does Malcolm Turnbull get people to vote for him ?

By spending money in the cities where there's population and growth.

It's not the first time that we've been neglected by the federal government and it won't be the last.
If we want more support federally then we need to stop complaining and focus on creating more jobs which will
in turn lead to population growth.

[SouthAussie94]

Now lets look at SA. Thankfully the current state government is running a very tight set of books. It is generally responsible with expenditiure and somehow manages to push on with projects with very little spare cash. But there is no cohesive planning. Infrastructure Australia are continually frustrated with the lack of formal proposals let alone detailed plans for future infrastructure. The current plan for the North/South motorway is case in point. The route has almost happened by accident rather than a specific plan. there is still no defined plan for much of the remainder, let alone how this route will be accessed by other parts of the transport network ie linking the SE Freeway to it for large transport. Whilst a new hospital is admirable, was it necessary for the state to build the most expensive hospital in the world? A smaller scale still utilising the new medical research precinct would have worked just as well in a more de-centralised environment, and may have been up and running by now saving the appearance the state cannot handle large scale development.
There is a perception, some warranted that SA is just not professional enough in its approach to present a proper case for the funding on offer. SA, instead of blaming everyone else should just learn form the other states, and become more organised and aggressive in its approach with the Federal departments involved. Federation in its current form is f.cked, but is the system we have to learn to live with.

I'm not saying that there IS a plan, but who's to say that there ISN't one? Just because it hasn't been released publicly, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[claybro]

I'm not saying that there IS a plan, but who's to say that there ISN't one? Just because it hasn't been released publicly, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The evidence points to no plan. If there was a plan for the entire North/south corridor, they would not be allowing development along its remaining length.
Bearing in mind a plan is different to a concept, which is also different to a thought bubble, all of which are in play, both state and federally. Seems SA is evolving through a combination of political concepts and though bubbles rather than actual planning.

[[Shuz]]

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that between say about 200 odd of us who are regulars on this forum, despite our disagreements, but more or less, can come up with a better plan and idea of transport network integration than the whole of DPTI?

[Goodsy]

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that between say about 200 odd of us who are regulars on this forum, despite our disagreements, but more or less, can come up with a better plan and idea of transport network integration than the whole of DPTI?

we don't have property developers and self centered council members breathing down our necks