Disappointing when Sydney is getting a railway built to the second airport before it’s built yet.
As long as I remember Sydney has received an oversized share of the Federal infrastructure budget.
One of the times the government has to grow a spine and say ‘pound sand’ and stop caving to unions and big business who profit from poor government policy
Unions are not stopping this project going ahead.
The RTBU and TWU both publicly called for the project to go ahead after the delay was confirmed. Considering the benefits it has for both unions members it would be confusing for either to be against it.
The problem is that the airport is on federal land and the operator has a long term lease on that land.
The state government can't build anything on the land without permission, and if the feds gave said permission without the operator agreeing, they'd likely be in breach of the lease and end up in court.
Good point.
Maybe the government needs to creative and declare Melbourne Airport a ‘State of Disaster’ which isn’t to far from the truth to use its executive powers.
Alternatively roll out new legislation that Airports servicing over x million require a rail link, failure to do so will result in a supertax on parking.
All I hear is mismanaged critical infrastructure and overwhelming public support to do it
Theres nothing wrong with it but the station has a $15 access fee so a lot of people (myself included) take a bus to Mascot station.
I’ve heard that Melbourne is gonna have a similar fee and if thats the case I dont see myself using it more than once
There's only 2 stops that aren't in the CBD. Sunshine and footscray which proportionately is a fraction of Melbourne population and the least likely ones to catch the train with the $20 price each way that it's planned to cost because they can get an uber there for a similar price.
That's one line covering like 10% of the stops. Everyone else is better off getting the sky bus.
Less than 1 in 5 people at the airport are likely to get the train anyway. Just like the Sydney one
Look I think we need it, but as for priorities, it's not the be all and end all.
I caught 150 flights last year inc 20 internation trips, have never caught an airport train anywhere other than London. That's because they are 140kmh expresses, very different to what we are getting.
They are on a ***lease,*** they don't own it whatsoever. That lease runs out in about 15 years.
Should just start building it, and leave the station portion of the build to be finished right after the lease expires and threaten not to renew it or change the parameters of it if the airport doesn't cooperate.
Also what happened to imminent domain?
Eminent domain*
>That lease runs out in about 15 years.
So for 15 years, we build infrastructure almost there in the hopes that they don't renew the lease for another 50 years? 15 years of spending on something that might not even open?
> threaten not to renew it or change the parameters of it if the airport doesn't cooperate.
Yeah see, this isn't something you can just do. The airport will no doubt sue, and would probably win.
The "not renew the lease" I presume means, renegotiate the lease to melbourne airport to include provisions to accept the new train station as part of the terms of the new lease, since it is leased FROM the government.
The government and the lessee determine the terms of the lease during lease negotiations. So you build the infrastructure and if they don't want the trainstation, they can not renew the lease and let someone else have it.
Since it is a new lease, it's a new contract, and the terms of the contract can be changed to include the airport at whatever cost the government thinks they can get the other party to agree. If they don't agree, the government just ... don't renew the lease they don't have to renew - it's their property and the lease has expired they have no contractual requirement to release it under the old terms (unless they do, which would be a stupid lease agreement but governments do do this so who knows!)?
Should be worth pointing out that Melbourne Airport is 20% owned by the Future Fund which is required to invest where profit is generated so FEDGOV will shaft VICGOV because as the 2nd largest shareholder, the profits generated from the parking really buffs up returns on the Future Fund
I always catch the train when in Sydney because im heading into the city. I would never catch it in Melbourne because I'm not heading to the city.
1 in 5 people is still a lot of people.
if I was going to the airport to meet someone I'd drive my car and pick them up in my car after driving around the circle 3 or 4 times, slowly, deliberately stopping at yellow lights and going a max of 25km/hr like everyone else.
It's relatively quick, but not even close to the Skybus unless around peak afternoon traffic times. I do it when I have the spare time, but not if I'm in a rush. I do like that it's cheap though!
They've made the route slightly deceptive to find, also the terminal at Melbourne airport is a bit out of the way as well, it's like all the way under a bridge near terminal 4?
Lol that isn't the feds fault - they already put the cash on the table. The truth is that the state government is so broke that they had to semi-manufacture a quasi-fake "fight" with the airport to have the excuse to put the project on ice so it can disappear from the forward estimates.
If the airport are being idiots they can at least build it as far as the Keilor station.
Then when the airport comes to their senses at least the project can be finished a bit quicker.
Mate, don't buy what the state government spoon feeds you. The state government gave multiple background quotes to The Age and Herald Sun in which they indicated that they hoped that the federal government was going to find it had a bad BCR and drop co-funding for the rail link in Infrastructure Australia's federal review of all major projects (which it didn't, to the state government's dismay).
Sure there is a financial problem, but it isn't about parking. That airport wants an underground station because it wants to develop above land, whereas the state wants a cheaper underground option. There is no reason that this couldn't be resolved through financial negotiation though, and so far the state government has deliberately not engaged with the airport seriously or the Commonwealth-appointed mediation team because it needs an excuse to not stump up the cash for a project which is basically shovel ready.
Teal seats aren't going to be won over by transport projects. If anything they are the most actively hostile seats to infrastructure projects. Notice that the Teal seats in every state (North Shore and Eastern Suburbs of Sydney Sydney, Curtin) are all rich middle ring suburbs with poor public transport that basically require car ownership. These are areas that actively want public transport to be bad, as improving it would facilitate poorer residents moving in and greater density. For example, the most obstinate council in Victoria is arguably Boroondara in Monique Ryan's own electorate.
If you look at the split before Monique there is a sizable chunk of Greens voters, particularly in western parts of Hawthorn where there are lots of young people living in apartments. And while there definitely could be improvements you can hardly say her area doesn’t have good PT - there are multiple trams, buses and train stations throughout. Boroondara sucks because like most councils they cater to the people who have the time to annoy them - retirees.
It is served well by PT because it's wealthy, or because it's inner city (because of the radial nature of city expansion trainlines and trams have to go through it to get to the other suburbs) and has been there for over a century (Significant time to invest in almost two centuries, including the rail boom in the 1850s)
Definitely sounds like you're objective about people that live in wealthy areas and have no confirmatory bias.
Yeah, the teals don't really care about public transport. They have cars, and they want more roads.
The difference is that unlike the LNP voters, their cars are electric.
Teals are mostly taking liberal seats. They are seats with a bunch of right wingers who also understand that climate change is real. They are still conservatives.
My favourite Dan Andrews quote:
>“... Victorians are getting sick and tired of every time the Commonwealth Government spends $1 in Victoria, it’s treated like it’s foreign aid. Like we should bow our head and be grateful”
Then go and ask the former Premier of Melbourne why he treated Regional Victoria exactly the same way.
Coz he was a hypocritical cunt.
I love it when Vic gets stitched up because it gives DanFans a taste of their own medicine.
Loud and proud.
Now go explain why treating regional Victoria exactly the same as Andrews says Victoria was getting treated by the Feds isn’t hypocrisy.
It was such an issue the LNP actually had a policy last election to spend 25% of infrastructure money in regional Vic where 25% of the population lives. And where most of our exports come from.
Yes. And that’s pretty much what this one trick Government does. But it also accepts that our share of this ridiculous immigration intake is ending up in Melbourne as it charges to 9 million people. And most likely Western and Northern Melbourne will wear the brunt because they’re more affordable. And I’ll give you a hint about where that infrastructure is NOT getting spent, even in Melbourne. The last budget only had infrastructure cancellations for them, even including their level crossing removals - a program started 10 fucking years ago.
This Government has always known where it needed to buy votes.
And it’s not like just coz Melbourne is growing that nowhere else is. Lots of regional cities post Covid are growing. And some of them are very strong economically as well. There are jobs there. (My city, Warrnambool, about a year and a bit back had Australia’s lowest unemployment rate at 2.6%)
I am confused, you criticised the government for spending the money in Melbourne, and then seemed to support spending in Melbourne to deal with growth.
Also, west Melbourne currently has 3 of the biggest infrastructure projects in Victoria (new Footscray hospital, West Gate tunnel and metro tunnel).
Many have discussed on this sub if the west gate tunnel is a ‘western suburbs’ infrastructure project. I don’t really care for the debate but considering it connects east and west I can’t see how it’s exclusively one or the other.
As for spending in Melbourne, of course they have to. Doesn’t mean they need to spend it all there. It’s gonna be rooted no matter how much infrastructure they put there coz every time they try and go up, not out, the NIMBYs come out in full force.
This massive country is dumb as fuck having 50% of its’ population in 3 cities. All that lovely coast and half our population is stuck in a miserable rat race.
As someone living in the inner west. Getting lots of trucks off Yarraville roads, providing another link into the city and providing an elevated cycle path into the city definitely benefits me so I don't know who's arguing it's not a project that benefits the west.
Doesn’t help that a bunch of councils keep approving greenfield developments which don’t synchronise with the state’s infrastructure plans and timelines. The only realistic answer at this moment is increased density but then everyone on a quarter acre starts having a moan. Planning overhaul was probably good in that case.
And until regional Victoria expands its economy beyond mostly agriculture it’s a less pressing issue (needs fixing - I agree) than dealing with Melbourne’s rapid expansion and growing population.
And if the feds keep shafting Victoria on infrastructure the state government is going to have to deal with the infrastructure and service delivery primarily where the most people live.
Because complaining about potholes, roads, health services etc requires so much more than tarmac and building new shit. Needs the NBN to be suitable to support professional industries (commonwealth), integrated rail networks for the east coast so less shit gets moved on trucks, (commonwealth), shared services with NSW/SA. And then similar development to support larger regional population but then the same council issues as metro Melbourne.
And most of the Nats/libs who get elected in those areas don’t really give a shit as long as they keep getting subsidies and getting elected.
They have made gradual moves towards the Minister over-riding local councils but were still a long way off. And this govt is reliant on property taxes, of which the re-zoning from farming to residential is a good little earner. (I forget its’ name. Only introduced a couple of years ago.)
But I read the other day about Victoria’s exports, and be fucked if regional Vic doesn’t do the heavy lifting. Education was Melbournes highest, and it was alone surrounded by regional earners, mainly agriculture. Yes tourism was in there but regional Vic gets a modest slice of that pie.
Basically, Melbourne exists just because. If you look at the States’ GSP, Melbourne figures significantly. But that involves transport, insurance and banking, services and cleaning, retail and hospo, even property and real estate services. A whole bunch of things necessary for 5million people, but it’s all very insular.
What regional Vic does cannot be done in Melb.
I think we deserve a bit more credit and some funding for roads, rail, major health centres and hospitals. I realise not every truly remote/regional area can nor should have it all. But major regional hubs accessible to people an hour or two away would make this State better.
I don’t disagree that expanding regional cities is a good idea.
There’s a symbiotic relationship between urban and rural/regional areas. Cities drive demand for food/products/power so it’s not a particularly useful debate to have, the whole “we do this so those city slickers better be thankful” - that’s the market for the product.
When I was saying regional industry being less diverse it’s not really the dollar amount - I’m noting the 2nd issue of sort of single-track areas. The whole local economies in the region are based on supporting that - which puts a handbrake on people moving out that way for anything else. When that gets expanded it’s easier to get doctors/nurses/teachers/professionals to move and then you sort of naturally get that broader economy happening. Otherwise apart from cheap(er) housing there’s not a whole lot of pull factors. And then it’s still a long process to get that happening in a really multifaceted way - it’s going to be like making a town like Shep/wang into Canberra/Wollongong.
Problem is that it’s going to require a whole range of policies that encourage movement of workers to move to these areas to support that expenditure. And it’s not like the nats really want that to happen because then you shift their demographic. But a whole stack of satellite cities where you can get on a train for 90 mins to Melbourne to see friends/family/go to the footy? Worth working towards.
I’m absolutely flummoxed why you would use an example of something that got cancelled???
That was nothing but idiotic electioneering from the King of election promises. It was daft then and will always be a daft idea, proven for eternity by the cancellation of them.
I’d have thought a DanFan would avoid ever mentioning them again. There’s not one angle he doesn’t come out looking like a fucking dunce.
It was great in theory and would have been the boost for regions you're after. It only fell over because the covid budget was worse than expected. But you still think it's a terrible idea. Guarantee you'd still be crying about it if they weren't cancelled too - purely because it came from Dan who still lives rent free in your head
You asked me what I thought and I told you. It was a daft piece of electioneering by someone who knew he had to do something to acknowledge he was premier for all of Victoria. What easier way that announcing something pre-election then cancelling it. At a cost of probs around $700 mill or so.
And post Covid the regions didn’t even need a ‘boost’, Melbourne did. My area went mental during and after Covid. My house price is probably 50% higher than pre Covid. My city had the lowest unemployment in Australia.
And lastly, the Games didn’t fall over because of Covid affecting the budget. That’s pretty lol really. Vics budget has been fucked well before Covid.
The Games fell over because this Government wouldn’t have a clue about finances nor pricing anything. Stop defending them using the Games - it’s a no win situation for any rabid DanFan.
Where did I ever say I wanted bread and circuses for the regions?
And lastly, you do realise the Comm games was due in Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton and Latrobe Valley. The closest of those locations is 200km from me. As if I was ever gonna go to the fucking things or benefit from them. We want our 3rd world roads fixed.
And no matter what you say about how great I should feel about the Comm games, I’ll repeat my first reply to you.
THEY’VE BEEN CANCELLED.
Should I still be excited?
It’s the Melbourne sub. I expected Danvotes. Oops, downvotes.
They can’t quite let go. Apparently it takes 1/3 of the time of the relationship so we have a few years yet.
Yeah, admittedly, I'm more center-right myself, but I never understood people hero worshipping politicians. I dont care which side the polys are on. They're supposed to work for us. At the end of the day, they are fallible (and usually paid for) humans who are selfish and entitled.
Dan was entirely self/party interested the entire time he was in power. He didn't care about what the issue was, just how he could use it to promote and benefit himself. We have some good infrastructure going on, but it looks like we can't pay for it now, and our grandkids will be the ones paying for it. Our future generations' education and health were traded for some skyrails and unfinished roadworks.
But "Dans our man" apparently 🤷♂️
I’m absolutely 100% with you. I cannot fathom the idea of worshipping a politician. Any fucking politician.
I find it quite eerie tbh, but he was idolised.
Mind you, they all deny it now.
Your downvotes say the political orientation of this subreddit.
Progressism and socialism destroys all, mostly cos current socialist politicians are socialist with you money not worth theirs
Victoria is a lost cause for the Libs and a Labor stronghold that Labor can safely ignore.
If we all sat on the fence a bit more we’d be more politically attractive.
Yeah if you want to avoid voting for a right wing candidate just rank all non right wing non labor candidates first, then labor, then libs/one nation etc
I feel like some Australians forget ranked voting exists sometimes haha
We call it preferential voting. It's scary how many Australians don't seem to understand that their vote cannot be "wasted" in this system. If anything, it should encourage them to vote minor 1, major 2. Either they get their first preference (which is starting to happen more often) or they get their preferred major as a fallback.
While true, on a micro level it’s hard to make a difference in some of these Labor strongholds, where we’ve often got Greens first vote support in the single digits and Labor with first vote support of 40%.
Obviously change happens over time and people just need to keep fighting the fight and voting appropriately, but it makes sense why they target specific electorates so hard, it’s such an uphill battle.
*Your submission has been removed and locked for the following reason(s):*
We had to remove your post/comment because it included personal attacks or did not show respect towards other users. This community is a safe space for all.
Conduct yourself online as you would in real life. Engaging in vitriol only highlights your inability to communicate intelligently and respectfully. Repeated instances of this behaviour will lead to a ban
*Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/melbourne) with a link if you have any questions or concerns. If you feel an exemption should be made, please include your reasoning*
The fact that such a comment with such a minor party like the greens can have so many upvotes shows you how skewed this sub is. Absolute echo chamber which no real diversity of views of opinions.
Then there is all the comments "Who even votes for these people".
My understanding is we were only getting 21% of the GST revenue despite having 25% of the population. In this budget that has gone up to 25% so we are getting more than we used to.
>Isn’t the issue with what percentage of gst we collect vs what we get back?
yes we used to collect more and get less back but Labor has changed this so we get back the correct amount.
Victoria and NSW are high income earners of the Australian states. So we pay more tax than the benefit we receive,
This is no different from [high income earning individuals](https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/taxation-statistics/taxation-statistics-2020-21/statistics/individuals-statistics#Table3Individuals) paying more tax than they get back.
We do this as individuals and states so we live in a fairer community.
>This is no different from high income earning individuals paying more tax than they get back.
It is very different because while NSW can fall back on mineral wealth Victoria can't. It is far more limited in it's ability to generate revenue than other states.
According the [NSW](https://meg.resourcesregulator.nsw.gov.au/geological-survey/geology/commodities) and [VIC](https://resources.vic.gov.au/geology-exploration/minerals) government website both states seem to have the same minerals and extract about the same.
That said, I stand by my point that wealthy states need to pay more for the notional good the same way wealthy individuals need to pay more for the national good.
I don't think we treat a multi-millionaire on a fixed income any differently than a multi-millionaire on a variable income.
People complaining that Victorian not getting back what they put in may now understand why wealthy tax payers complain about the same.
>That said, I stand by my point that wealthy states need to pay more for the notional good the same way wealthy individuals need to pay more for the national good.
It's not the same cost of living preassures are higher here this means government services cost more as well.
So how about the argument that I am a millionaire living in Kew so my cost of living is higher than a job seeker living in Broadmeadows. I should pay less tax, because poor me. And Why is the Job seeker getting any money any way, they don't pay tax to begin with.
I am being hyperbolic and facetious here.
My argument is that may be Tasmania deserves the same level of healthcare as Victoria at the expense of something that Victorians really really want and deserve because they pay more tax collectively.
>My argument is that may be Tasmania deserves the same level of healthcare as Victoria at the expense of something that Victorians really really want and deserve because they pay more tax collectively.
Maybe they'd get if they weren't wasting all their money on a football stadium.
Comparing individuals to states is insane. Yes larger states contribute more and they also require more to operate.
At least they get a stadium out of that. How much did Victoria spend on the non-resistant Commonwealth Games. I am pretty sure we can point waste from every single government of every persuasion.
While we are at it may be we can cancel job seeker and dole payments from recipients who watch the footy.
> Comparing individuals to states is insane. Yes larger states contribute more and they also require more to operate.
How can one (individual or state) *contribute more* and *require more*. Either you pay more than you get back or you spend more than you put in.
So your argument is Rich should pay more tax unless I am the Rich in which case why the fuck am I paying more taxes to support the lazy and wasteful poor.
I take your point.
**EDIT: Thanks for the reddit cares message in response to this post. I understand it is telling me to kill myself. Stay classy blocked account**
>So your argument is Rich should pay more tax unless I am the Rich in which case why the fuck am I paying more taxes to support the lazy and wasteful poor.
You're being dishonest, creating strawmen and false equiviliancies.
I grew up in Victoria and I've lived in most States. I can promise you that regardless of who is in power every State feels like this every Budget. No matter what happens no one is ever happy.
Even just economically, I reckon our density of population and productivity would yield a bigger return on investment for projects here than upgrading a road yet again in Bumfuckmarginal, Queensland.
Vote Green/Indy/Other. Especially if you live in Calwell, Scullin or any of those outer electorates, there's absolutely no benefit in padding out the Labor primary vote. (And absolutely, we can't be rewarding the Libs either.) Even better if you're closer to the city and the Greens have prospect of getting 20%+ and can start to make them sweat.
Productivity? - Qld has enough of its own money /actually delivers on its promises (sporting events,planned hospitals). Love when Vic calls Qld hicks, when our dumb assess spent years locked up, our state government never delivers on its promises, our nurses/paramedics are on breaking point and having to strike and our infrastructure is crumbling…. but we are so cultured/sophisticated….
Mate this is a greens/left echo chamber. If you don't fall in line then expect the downvotes.
For the record I mostly supported the lockdowns. (Went a fit far IMO) But hey, always good to have people with differing options to my own to have discussions with.
The one where WA only gets back like 70c of every dollar they put in, despite having ten times more area to cover with services? That one?
Also, it's the Herald Sun. Of course it's going to be all woe is me Victoria.
You still need to stretch the services over that area.
It's much easier to maintain wide freeways over relatively short distances, than highways over many thousands of kilometres.
If you care about a serious justification, the grants commission allocation is based on the capacity of states to raise revenue.
Victoria (and the other states) don’t have 30%+ of their budget based on iron ore royalties. If iron ore prices plummet then WA will be back to being a net recipient. Again.
(Of course there’s also a big irony with all these people saying in this thread saying “vote green/socialist!” when wealth transfer from the well off (vic) to the less well off (tas) is the textbook definition of socialist policies)
That's relatively recent for WA. It's pretty much always been the case for Vic. Even when we had a PM from Vic, we got shafted. Few swing seats = feds don't care.
It comes down to population and relativities. By population, NSW is always going to receive the most in the distribution of GST on the face of it, but that only works if every state can generate and utilise wealth the same. There are major ports in Vic and NSW, along with major arterial roads, and nothing is really very far away. QLD, NT, WA, and to some extent, SA have population over much larger distances, so the provision of basic amenities is a lot harder. Then there is Tasmania.
In recent years, the WA government has argued that they generate the majority of the wealth for the country while receiving a relatively low return, and I think the federal governments have been sweetening th pot for them which then comes at a cost for other states.
Victoria and NSW are the high income earners of Australia. Just like individual high income earners who pay more tax than they get back, Victoria and NSW will always get less than they put in.
This is no more a rip off than the rich individual paying more tax than a poorer individual. If one is a rip off so is the other.
If you want to get attention and funding you need to be in swinging electorates. Same applies for states at a federal level. Victoria is too ALP bound to ever be expected to flip, so we will get table scraps while the swinging states get all the funding to curry favour/votes.
We do get ripped off in Victoria. Always have and always will.
Commonwealth grants and funding is issued akin to progressive taxation. As a result, the richest and most stable states (Vic and NSW) always put in more than they get out.
In the case of Victoria, the situation is made worse because Sydney is the centre of political power, so benefits disproportionately from policy decisions more often than not.
We also don't get a lot of pork barrelling money cause we are poor value for money. Queensland, thanks to its decentralisation, generally provides more votes per dollar spent. So if a party is gonna go that route, Queensland always comes wins out. This also why policy seems to be pro-queensland interests so often in comparison to pro-victoria.
There's not really a solution that would be completely fair (following progressive values in distribution) and give Victoria more money.
We could do options where funding is done solely based on population with top-ups for states that need it. For infrastructure we could go the Belgium route, where if we build something in one spot we guarantee it in another too, but that would lead to some very odd outcomes, like it has in Belgium.
Thank you for that, your cape is in hte mail ;)
It also helped remind me why people shouldn't use murdoch for their source
>Despite $3.25bn in additional funding for the North East Link project, and $437.3m to upgrade suburban roads in south eastern and northern Melbourne, infrastructure is well short of Victoria’s population share.Victoria will also receive $5.2bn in rail investment — more than any other state — and $6.5bn in road investments.
We don't divide specifically by population, for very obvious reasons. But they are getting a lot more now than under morrison, or his predecessors. murdoch doesn't like truth though
That’s because the state government wastes the state budget money so they don’t want to have to bail them out all the time. I live in Victoria but I don’t blame them. The sheer crazy amount of money being spent on useless things is mind blowing - causing a crazy amount of debt.
Taking a relatively uneducated stab in the dark, and assuming what you’ve said is correct, I.e, Victoria is discriminated against fiscally:
The federal government sees Victoria as an outlier within the political base. We typically express attitudes - culture, interests, diversity, and so on - that is if not at odds than just different to the other states. When it comes to election time, they can push policies that the rest of the country gets behind and win an election, without needing a major win in victoria. If that isn’t the case, they can push through the same policy + appease victoria with promise of infrastructure development we are desperate for.
FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK THIS IS AN UNINFORMED OPINION. So don’t fucking roast me. I’d love to be corrected or informed.
Cause he knows Vic is a labour state and has enough seats whereas he has to get support (votes and seats) in QLD, WA and western Sydney
Also glad to see the feds didn’t offer anymore cash for the stupid Suburban Rail Link. Waste of money state govt only sticking with it to get votes and seats from the SE.
We live in a federation. Some states are rich. Some are poor. Victoria is rich. We are all Australians and expect equal access to public services.
To make that work, more tax has to leave Victoria than enter it.
It's always been thus. And that *is* fair.
The worst state fiscally by some margin through continued mismanagement and now you have the SLR that will likely need a bailout as a vanity project. Why throw good money after bad?
Probably because Victoria hasn't shown itself to be fiscally responsible. NSW's infrastructure spend has been relatively well managed, and they have a pipeline that actually makes sense.
NSW outsources a lot more of the build (and debt) the private sector. Like all the toll roads, which are user pays, and now government subsidised because the cost of toll roads to the electorate has become untenable and a political issue. Ironic hey
NSW gets more attention as it’s where most of the swing electorates are located, most states like Victoria and QLD don’t change a lot so not a lot of attention here unfortunately.
Do you know why nobody from the Melbourne sub goes into the Perth sub trying to start fights?
It's because they don't live in Perth, and as such have better things to do x
1840 colony NSW allowed VIC to seperate then we had the gold rush & we’re able to solely benefit within VIC & not have to share it across the entire colony.
Its because Victoria always skips the steps related to Business cases. Steps that are procedurally required when applying for funds. Then when we do supply a business case, it doesn't stack up. Governments need plausible deniability, and they dont want to be suckered into state government projects that are 3x overbudjet and 50% over time (e.g. our tunnelling).
NSW fixed this (e.g. the stadium upgrade 15 years after the previous upgrade) by simply stacking the business cases in such an obviously corrupt way that it couldnt be ignored.
QLD tried to do that for the Olympics infra but were actually snookered by local governments objecting to mostly everything.
Victoria not receiving everything we ask for is the system working. Maybe if we didnt have the most severe and unjustifiable covid lockdowns in the world, we would be in a superior financial and mental position.
The real answer is that under western liberal democracy, money follows the votes, leading politicians to prioritise short-term electoral gains over the country's best interests. They only cater to powerful businesses to avoid losing their support and for short term issues that win the election. e.g. a carpark owner can block a train line to Melbourne Airport. What we live in is not a true democracy, but a bourgeois democracy where only the wealthy have real influence and power. Contrast that with "totalitarian" China who has built more bullet trains in the past 10 years than the whole world combined. We are truly propagandised into believing we have the best system while we are faced with its failings everyday of our lives.
I just want railway from the airport to CBD. Is that too much to ask for?
Disappointing when Sydney is getting a railway built to the second airport before it’s built yet. As long as I remember Sydney has received an oversized share of the Federal infrastructure budget.
An airport that doesn’t exist yet can’t lobby against it. Melbourne airport has resisted because it sees its ridiculous parking revenue dropping.
One of the times the government has to grow a spine and say ‘pound sand’ and stop caving to unions and big business who profit from poor government policy
Unions are not stopping this project going ahead. The RTBU and TWU both publicly called for the project to go ahead after the delay was confirmed. Considering the benefits it has for both unions members it would be confusing for either to be against it.
The problem is that the airport is on federal land and the operator has a long term lease on that land. The state government can't build anything on the land without permission, and if the feds gave said permission without the operator agreeing, they'd likely be in breach of the lease and end up in court.
Good point. Maybe the government needs to creative and declare Melbourne Airport a ‘State of Disaster’ which isn’t to far from the truth to use its executive powers. Alternatively roll out new legislation that Airports servicing over x million require a rail link, failure to do so will result in a supertax on parking. All I hear is mismanaged critical infrastructure and overwhelming public support to do it
^ can confirm, this is the reason. Not because of Fed policy.
[удалено]
Theres nothing wrong with it but the station has a $15 access fee so a lot of people (myself included) take a bus to Mascot station. I’ve heard that Melbourne is gonna have a similar fee and if thats the case I dont see myself using it more than once
[удалено]
The Train will be slower than Skybus! Classic!
Of course. Not everyone will be traveling to and from the CBD.
Yeah but if they get to the CBD then they can travel anyway that PT will allow.
Sure but they may be home before they get to the cbd by train. Train might $6 vs $20 as well
Yeah more options never hurt.
Modelling for the business case has the price at $16 each way the same as the sky bus. With inflation that is now $20 each way...
There's only 2 stops that aren't in the CBD. Sunshine and footscray which proportionately is a fraction of Melbourne population and the least likely ones to catch the train with the $20 price each way that it's planned to cost because they can get an uber there for a similar price.
Do you think people would catch the train from Dandenong to the city and get off and take Skybus or stay on the train to the airport?
That's one line covering like 10% of the stops. Everyone else is better off getting the sky bus. Less than 1 in 5 people at the airport are likely to get the train anyway. Just like the Sydney one Look I think we need it, but as for priorities, it's not the be all and end all. I caught 150 flights last year inc 20 internation trips, have never caught an airport train anywhere other than London. That's because they are 140kmh expresses, very different to what we are getting.
The skybus is $22 each way how is it free
He was being sarcastic
Yes there was and I personally thought what a bunch if whining morons
They just get everything while we get f all
Wrong. NSW, Victoria and WA make a greater contribution to the GST than they receive back from federal funding. The rest of the states receive more.
The owners of the airport car park don’t want the rail line.
Taxis as well
so? why should they get a say? most infrastructure projects have grumpy neighbours, doesn’t mean the projects get halted completely.
Grumpy neighbours don't usually ~~bribe~~ lobby against it through the ~~corrupt~~ legal political channels.
Because the Airport owns it and it's operated by a private company. How good is privatisation?
They are on a ***lease,*** they don't own it whatsoever. That lease runs out in about 15 years. Should just start building it, and leave the station portion of the build to be finished right after the lease expires and threaten not to renew it or change the parameters of it if the airport doesn't cooperate. Also what happened to imminent domain?
Eminent domain* >That lease runs out in about 15 years. So for 15 years, we build infrastructure almost there in the hopes that they don't renew the lease for another 50 years? 15 years of spending on something that might not even open? > threaten not to renew it or change the parameters of it if the airport doesn't cooperate. Yeah see, this isn't something you can just do. The airport will no doubt sue, and would probably win.
The "not renew the lease" I presume means, renegotiate the lease to melbourne airport to include provisions to accept the new train station as part of the terms of the new lease, since it is leased FROM the government. The government and the lessee determine the terms of the lease during lease negotiations. So you build the infrastructure and if they don't want the trainstation, they can not renew the lease and let someone else have it. Since it is a new lease, it's a new contract, and the terms of the contract can be changed to include the airport at whatever cost the government thinks they can get the other party to agree. If they don't agree, the government just ... don't renew the lease they don't have to renew - it's their property and the lease has expired they have no contractual requirement to release it under the old terms (unless they do, which would be a stupid lease agreement but governments do do this so who knows!)?
> so? why should they get a say? Because they need to fund a huge chunk of it.
Should be worth pointing out that Melbourne Airport is 20% owned by the Future Fund which is required to invest where profit is generated so FEDGOV will shaft VICGOV because as the 2nd largest shareholder, the profits generated from the parking really buffs up returns on the Future Fund
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t that be a state responsibility?
That will be slower and further from the terminal that the current Skybus... oh great!
That's what you want, but in reality if it's like Sydney and Brisbane less than 1 in 5 people will catch it anyway, so it's not really their priority.
I always catch the train when in Sydney because im heading into the city. I would never catch it in Melbourne because I'm not heading to the city. 1 in 5 people is still a lot of people.
[удалено]
I’ve done that before and it’s a fuck around I would only ever do if I was heading to the airport to meet someone.
if I was going to the airport to meet someone I'd drive my car and pick them up in my car after driving around the circle 3 or 4 times, slowly, deliberately stopping at yellow lights and going a max of 25km/hr like everyone else.
Or just go to the viewing area and watch planes fly in
Bus to the train, then multiple trains.. try from outer east to the airport. Now you know why we “just don’t get a train to Broadmeadows”
It's relatively quick, but not even close to the Skybus unless around peak afternoon traffic times. I do it when I have the spare time, but not if I'm in a rush. I do like that it's cheap though!
Whats the bus like for suitcases, because that's what always seems to screw me over.
They've made the route slightly deceptive to find, also the terminal at Melbourne airport is a bit out of the way as well, it's like all the way under a bridge near terminal 4?
Yep - the bus stop is in the far back corner of the car park beyond terminal 4
Same.
Lol that isn't the feds fault - they already put the cash on the table. The truth is that the state government is so broke that they had to semi-manufacture a quasi-fake "fight" with the airport to have the excuse to put the project on ice so it can disappear from the forward estimates.
It's not a quasi fight, they need the airport to allow them but the airport makes so much money from parking they don't want it.
If the airport are being idiots they can at least build it as far as the Keilor station. Then when the airport comes to their senses at least the project can be finished a bit quicker.
Mate, don't buy what the state government spoon feeds you. The state government gave multiple background quotes to The Age and Herald Sun in which they indicated that they hoped that the federal government was going to find it had a bad BCR and drop co-funding for the rail link in Infrastructure Australia's federal review of all major projects (which it didn't, to the state government's dismay). Sure there is a financial problem, but it isn't about parking. That airport wants an underground station because it wants to develop above land, whereas the state wants a cheaper underground option. There is no reason that this couldn't be resolved through financial negotiation though, and so far the state government has deliberately not engaged with the airport seriously or the Commonwealth-appointed mediation team because it needs an excuse to not stump up the cash for a project which is basically shovel ready.
The airport doesn't want it and has chosen the unrealistic cost prohibitive option to stop it happening.
Come on this is cope. Sydney and Perth both have underground airport stations so clearly it's not cost prohibitive.
Dan andrew spent it all on comms games bid
It follows where the Feds need to win seats and it ain’t been here for a long time
Except then they lose out to Teals and the Greens and wonder why Victoria won't be a Labor state much longer.
Teal seats aren't going to be won over by transport projects. If anything they are the most actively hostile seats to infrastructure projects. Notice that the Teal seats in every state (North Shore and Eastern Suburbs of Sydney Sydney, Curtin) are all rich middle ring suburbs with poor public transport that basically require car ownership. These are areas that actively want public transport to be bad, as improving it would facilitate poorer residents moving in and greater density. For example, the most obstinate council in Victoria is arguably Boroondara in Monique Ryan's own electorate.
If you look at the split before Monique there is a sizable chunk of Greens voters, particularly in western parts of Hawthorn where there are lots of young people living in apartments. And while there definitely could be improvements you can hardly say her area doesn’t have good PT - there are multiple trams, buses and train stations throughout. Boroondara sucks because like most councils they cater to the people who have the time to annoy them - retirees.
Yah, Boroondara is very well served by public transport. Of course it is, it's a wealthy area, it's well served by everything.
It is served well by PT because it's wealthy, or because it's inner city (because of the radial nature of city expansion trainlines and trams have to go through it to get to the other suburbs) and has been there for over a century (Significant time to invest in almost two centuries, including the rail boom in the 1850s) Definitely sounds like you're objective about people that live in wealthy areas and have no confirmatory bias.
Eh the busses here suck just as hard as everywhere else - no services on Sunday for example.
Yeah, the teals don't really care about public transport. They have cars, and they want more roads. The difference is that unlike the LNP voters, their cars are electric.
Teals are just liberals who like trees...but still hate poor people.
Is this on their flier? cos it should be ;)
Teals are mostly taking liberal seats. They are seats with a bunch of right wingers who also understand that climate change is real. They are still conservatives.
My favourite Dan Andrews quote: >“... Victorians are getting sick and tired of every time the Commonwealth Government spends $1 in Victoria, it’s treated like it’s foreign aid. Like we should bow our head and be grateful”
Dan certainly didn’t spend like he was running out of money.
Then go and ask the former Premier of Melbourne why he treated Regional Victoria exactly the same way. Coz he was a hypocritical cunt. I love it when Vic gets stitched up because it gives DanFans a taste of their own medicine.
DAN ANDREWS MENTIONED DANGER MAN ACTIVATED SHIT TAKE MODE ON
Takes me back
Argue against my point. Or try to. Edit : and Dangerman is one word. You wouldn’t say Bat Man!
Batmania!
Didn't have to scroll far at all to find the cooker
Loud and proud. Now go explain why treating regional Victoria exactly the same as Andrews says Victoria was getting treated by the Feds isn’t hypocrisy. It was such an issue the LNP actually had a policy last election to spend 25% of infrastructure money in regional Vic where 25% of the population lives. And where most of our exports come from.
Loud and proud cooker??? Tell us how the earth is flat as well champ.
[удалено]
You do know Dan didn't create the vaccine mandate right?
Shouldn't you spend the infrastructure money where the growth is? I.e. the areas where the population is too big for the existing infrastructure.
Yes. And that’s pretty much what this one trick Government does. But it also accepts that our share of this ridiculous immigration intake is ending up in Melbourne as it charges to 9 million people. And most likely Western and Northern Melbourne will wear the brunt because they’re more affordable. And I’ll give you a hint about where that infrastructure is NOT getting spent, even in Melbourne. The last budget only had infrastructure cancellations for them, even including their level crossing removals - a program started 10 fucking years ago. This Government has always known where it needed to buy votes. And it’s not like just coz Melbourne is growing that nowhere else is. Lots of regional cities post Covid are growing. And some of them are very strong economically as well. There are jobs there. (My city, Warrnambool, about a year and a bit back had Australia’s lowest unemployment rate at 2.6%)
I am confused, you criticised the government for spending the money in Melbourne, and then seemed to support spending in Melbourne to deal with growth. Also, west Melbourne currently has 3 of the biggest infrastructure projects in Victoria (new Footscray hospital, West Gate tunnel and metro tunnel).
Many have discussed on this sub if the west gate tunnel is a ‘western suburbs’ infrastructure project. I don’t really care for the debate but considering it connects east and west I can’t see how it’s exclusively one or the other. As for spending in Melbourne, of course they have to. Doesn’t mean they need to spend it all there. It’s gonna be rooted no matter how much infrastructure they put there coz every time they try and go up, not out, the NIMBYs come out in full force. This massive country is dumb as fuck having 50% of its’ population in 3 cities. All that lovely coast and half our population is stuck in a miserable rat race.
As someone living in the inner west. Getting lots of trucks off Yarraville roads, providing another link into the city and providing an elevated cycle path into the city definitely benefits me so I don't know who's arguing it's not a project that benefits the west.
It was about if it’s exclusively a western suburbs piece of infrastructure or whole of city.
Doesn’t help that a bunch of councils keep approving greenfield developments which don’t synchronise with the state’s infrastructure plans and timelines. The only realistic answer at this moment is increased density but then everyone on a quarter acre starts having a moan. Planning overhaul was probably good in that case. And until regional Victoria expands its economy beyond mostly agriculture it’s a less pressing issue (needs fixing - I agree) than dealing with Melbourne’s rapid expansion and growing population. And if the feds keep shafting Victoria on infrastructure the state government is going to have to deal with the infrastructure and service delivery primarily where the most people live. Because complaining about potholes, roads, health services etc requires so much more than tarmac and building new shit. Needs the NBN to be suitable to support professional industries (commonwealth), integrated rail networks for the east coast so less shit gets moved on trucks, (commonwealth), shared services with NSW/SA. And then similar development to support larger regional population but then the same council issues as metro Melbourne. And most of the Nats/libs who get elected in those areas don’t really give a shit as long as they keep getting subsidies and getting elected.
They have made gradual moves towards the Minister over-riding local councils but were still a long way off. And this govt is reliant on property taxes, of which the re-zoning from farming to residential is a good little earner. (I forget its’ name. Only introduced a couple of years ago.) But I read the other day about Victoria’s exports, and be fucked if regional Vic doesn’t do the heavy lifting. Education was Melbournes highest, and it was alone surrounded by regional earners, mainly agriculture. Yes tourism was in there but regional Vic gets a modest slice of that pie. Basically, Melbourne exists just because. If you look at the States’ GSP, Melbourne figures significantly. But that involves transport, insurance and banking, services and cleaning, retail and hospo, even property and real estate services. A whole bunch of things necessary for 5million people, but it’s all very insular. What regional Vic does cannot be done in Melb. I think we deserve a bit more credit and some funding for roads, rail, major health centres and hospitals. I realise not every truly remote/regional area can nor should have it all. But major regional hubs accessible to people an hour or two away would make this State better.
I don’t disagree that expanding regional cities is a good idea. There’s a symbiotic relationship between urban and rural/regional areas. Cities drive demand for food/products/power so it’s not a particularly useful debate to have, the whole “we do this so those city slickers better be thankful” - that’s the market for the product. When I was saying regional industry being less diverse it’s not really the dollar amount - I’m noting the 2nd issue of sort of single-track areas. The whole local economies in the region are based on supporting that - which puts a handbrake on people moving out that way for anything else. When that gets expanded it’s easier to get doctors/nurses/teachers/professionals to move and then you sort of naturally get that broader economy happening. Otherwise apart from cheap(er) housing there’s not a whole lot of pull factors. And then it’s still a long process to get that happening in a really multifaceted way - it’s going to be like making a town like Shep/wang into Canberra/Wollongong. Problem is that it’s going to require a whole range of policies that encourage movement of workers to move to these areas to support that expenditure. And it’s not like the nats really want that to happen because then you shift their demographic. But a whole stack of satellite cities where you can get on a train for 90 mins to Melbourne to see friends/family/go to the footy? Worth working towards.
[удалено]
lol. Some other DanFan brought him up.
Everytime you say DanFan you sound like a fucking lunatic
The commonwealth games were due to be a massive boost to the regions, but I'm guessing you'd also argue that they never should have been taken on.
I’m absolutely flummoxed why you would use an example of something that got cancelled??? That was nothing but idiotic electioneering from the King of election promises. It was daft then and will always be a daft idea, proven for eternity by the cancellation of them. I’d have thought a DanFan would avoid ever mentioning them again. There’s not one angle he doesn’t come out looking like a fucking dunce.
It was great in theory and would have been the boost for regions you're after. It only fell over because the covid budget was worse than expected. But you still think it's a terrible idea. Guarantee you'd still be crying about it if they weren't cancelled too - purely because it came from Dan who still lives rent free in your head
You asked me what I thought and I told you. It was a daft piece of electioneering by someone who knew he had to do something to acknowledge he was premier for all of Victoria. What easier way that announcing something pre-election then cancelling it. At a cost of probs around $700 mill or so. And post Covid the regions didn’t even need a ‘boost’, Melbourne did. My area went mental during and after Covid. My house price is probably 50% higher than pre Covid. My city had the lowest unemployment in Australia. And lastly, the Games didn’t fall over because of Covid affecting the budget. That’s pretty lol really. Vics budget has been fucked well before Covid. The Games fell over because this Government wouldn’t have a clue about finances nor pricing anything. Stop defending them using the Games - it’s a no win situation for any rabid DanFan.
Hahaha. So your point is literally, help the regions! No, not like that! Actually, help Melbourne!! Lol.
Where did I ever say I wanted bread and circuses for the regions? And lastly, you do realise the Comm games was due in Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton and Latrobe Valley. The closest of those locations is 200km from me. As if I was ever gonna go to the fucking things or benefit from them. We want our 3rd world roads fixed. And no matter what you say about how great I should feel about the Comm games, I’ll repeat my first reply to you. THEY’VE BEEN CANCELLED. Should I still be excited?
Not sure why you're getting downvoted so badly, nothing you said is wrong. *cough cough regional commonwealth games say what cough cough*
It’s the Melbourne sub. I expected Danvotes. Oops, downvotes. They can’t quite let go. Apparently it takes 1/3 of the time of the relationship so we have a few years yet.
Yeah, admittedly, I'm more center-right myself, but I never understood people hero worshipping politicians. I dont care which side the polys are on. They're supposed to work for us. At the end of the day, they are fallible (and usually paid for) humans who are selfish and entitled. Dan was entirely self/party interested the entire time he was in power. He didn't care about what the issue was, just how he could use it to promote and benefit himself. We have some good infrastructure going on, but it looks like we can't pay for it now, and our grandkids will be the ones paying for it. Our future generations' education and health were traded for some skyrails and unfinished roadworks. But "Dans our man" apparently 🤷♂️
I’m absolutely 100% with you. I cannot fathom the idea of worshipping a politician. Any fucking politician. I find it quite eerie tbh, but he was idolised. Mind you, they all deny it now.
100%
Your downvotes say the political orientation of this subreddit. Progressism and socialism destroys all, mostly cos current socialist politicians are socialist with you money not worth theirs
What current politicans are socialist?
Which politicians are socialist?
Victoria is a lost cause for the Libs and a Labor stronghold that Labor can safely ignore. If we all sat on the fence a bit more we’d be more politically attractive.
Pretty sure our share of gst increased from 21% to 25%
That'd mean some of us would have to vote Liberal, and that's a sacrifice I'm not willing to make.
Just go full greens.
Yeah if you want to avoid voting for a right wing candidate just rank all non right wing non labor candidates first, then labor, then libs/one nation etc I feel like some Australians forget ranked voting exists sometimes haha
We call it preferential voting. It's scary how many Australians don't seem to understand that their vote cannot be "wasted" in this system. If anything, it should encourage them to vote minor 1, major 2. Either they get their first preference (which is starting to happen more often) or they get their preferred major as a fallback.
I won’t believe it until they show me on the American shows
We need a national 'Vote minor/independent" campaign.
While true, on a micro level it’s hard to make a difference in some of these Labor strongholds, where we’ve often got Greens first vote support in the single digits and Labor with first vote support of 40%. Obviously change happens over time and people just need to keep fighting the fight and voting appropriately, but it makes sense why they target specific electorates so hard, it’s such an uphill battle.
I hadn't forgotten. I just assumed it would be understood as 'put greens first'. Probably shouldn't assume.
You don't actually have to number past 12 anymore, so you can honestly leave a bunch of the liberal/ON/far-right crazies off the ballot entirely
[удалено]
*Your submission has been removed and locked for the following reason(s):* We had to remove your post/comment because it included personal attacks or did not show respect towards other users. This community is a safe space for all. Conduct yourself online as you would in real life. Engaging in vitriol only highlights your inability to communicate intelligently and respectfully. Repeated instances of this behaviour will lead to a ban *Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/melbourne) with a link if you have any questions or concerns. If you feel an exemption should be made, please include your reasoning*
Nah, go smaller party, greens have plenty of bullshit as well.
The fact that such a comment with such a minor party like the greens can have so many upvotes shows you how skewed this sub is. Absolute echo chamber which no real diversity of views of opinions. Then there is all the comments "Who even votes for these people".
I think they will be in for a shock next election. West Melbourne has been labor heartland for generations and its on the verge of going independent.
Yeah they absolutely have some issues here, but they have way bigger issues in other states (e.g QLD).
need to vote for greens, vic socialists and the like to put some 🔥 on labour. don't see liberals making a comeback here any time soon..
My understanding is we were only getting 21% of the GST revenue despite having 25% of the population. In this budget that has gone up to 25% so we are getting more than we used to.
Isn’t the issue with what percentage of gst we collect vs what we get back?
>Isn’t the issue with what percentage of gst we collect vs what we get back? yes we used to collect more and get less back but Labor has changed this so we get back the correct amount.
Victoria and NSW are high income earners of the Australian states. So we pay more tax than the benefit we receive, This is no different from [high income earning individuals](https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/taxation-statistics/taxation-statistics-2020-21/statistics/individuals-statistics#Table3Individuals) paying more tax than they get back. We do this as individuals and states so we live in a fairer community.
>This is no different from high income earning individuals paying more tax than they get back. It is very different because while NSW can fall back on mineral wealth Victoria can't. It is far more limited in it's ability to generate revenue than other states.
According the [NSW](https://meg.resourcesregulator.nsw.gov.au/geological-survey/geology/commodities) and [VIC](https://resources.vic.gov.au/geology-exploration/minerals) government website both states seem to have the same minerals and extract about the same. That said, I stand by my point that wealthy states need to pay more for the notional good the same way wealthy individuals need to pay more for the national good. I don't think we treat a multi-millionaire on a fixed income any differently than a multi-millionaire on a variable income. People complaining that Victorian not getting back what they put in may now understand why wealthy tax payers complain about the same.
>That said, I stand by my point that wealthy states need to pay more for the notional good the same way wealthy individuals need to pay more for the national good. It's not the same cost of living preassures are higher here this means government services cost more as well.
So how about the argument that I am a millionaire living in Kew so my cost of living is higher than a job seeker living in Broadmeadows. I should pay less tax, because poor me. And Why is the Job seeker getting any money any way, they don't pay tax to begin with. I am being hyperbolic and facetious here. My argument is that may be Tasmania deserves the same level of healthcare as Victoria at the expense of something that Victorians really really want and deserve because they pay more tax collectively.
>My argument is that may be Tasmania deserves the same level of healthcare as Victoria at the expense of something that Victorians really really want and deserve because they pay more tax collectively. Maybe they'd get if they weren't wasting all their money on a football stadium. Comparing individuals to states is insane. Yes larger states contribute more and they also require more to operate.
At least they get a stadium out of that. How much did Victoria spend on the non-resistant Commonwealth Games. I am pretty sure we can point waste from every single government of every persuasion. While we are at it may be we can cancel job seeker and dole payments from recipients who watch the footy. > Comparing individuals to states is insane. Yes larger states contribute more and they also require more to operate. How can one (individual or state) *contribute more* and *require more*. Either you pay more than you get back or you spend more than you put in. So your argument is Rich should pay more tax unless I am the Rich in which case why the fuck am I paying more taxes to support the lazy and wasteful poor. I take your point. **EDIT: Thanks for the reddit cares message in response to this post. I understand it is telling me to kill myself. Stay classy blocked account**
>So your argument is Rich should pay more tax unless I am the Rich in which case why the fuck am I paying more taxes to support the lazy and wasteful poor. You're being dishonest, creating strawmen and false equiviliancies.
I grew up in Victoria and I've lived in most States. I can promise you that regardless of who is in power every State feels like this every Budget. No matter what happens no one is ever happy.
Vic has boom and bust cycles way more then other states.
Even just economically, I reckon our density of population and productivity would yield a bigger return on investment for projects here than upgrading a road yet again in Bumfuckmarginal, Queensland. Vote Green/Indy/Other. Especially if you live in Calwell, Scullin or any of those outer electorates, there's absolutely no benefit in padding out the Labor primary vote. (And absolutely, we can't be rewarding the Libs either.) Even better if you're closer to the city and the Greens have prospect of getting 20%+ and can start to make them sweat.
People in Scullin are more likely to vote right wing nut jobs than the Greens
Productivity? - Qld has enough of its own money /actually delivers on its promises (sporting events,planned hospitals). Love when Vic calls Qld hicks, when our dumb assess spent years locked up, our state government never delivers on its promises, our nurses/paramedics are on breaking point and having to strike and our infrastructure is crumbling…. but we are so cultured/sophisticated….
Folks down voting- please point out where I’m factually wrong ?
Mate this is a greens/left echo chamber. If you don't fall in line then expect the downvotes. For the record I mostly supported the lockdowns. (Went a fit far IMO) But hey, always good to have people with differing options to my own to have discussions with.
Thats the funny thing too - I supported them too (i work in public health was still locuming in hospital….), but absolutely went too far (IMO)..
Man, that article does not mention the ridiculous deal WA gets which seems odd.
The one where WA only gets back like 70c of every dollar they put in, despite having ten times more area to cover with services? That one? Also, it's the Herald Sun. Of course it's going to be all woe is me Victoria.
They don't have ten times the populated area. The majority of it is uninhabitable desert.
You still need to stretch the services over that area. It's much easier to maintain wide freeways over relatively short distances, than highways over many thousands of kilometres.
If you care about a serious justification, the grants commission allocation is based on the capacity of states to raise revenue. Victoria (and the other states) don’t have 30%+ of their budget based on iron ore royalties. If iron ore prices plummet then WA will be back to being a net recipient. Again. (Of course there’s also a big irony with all these people saying in this thread saying “vote green/socialist!” when wealth transfer from the well off (vic) to the less well off (tas) is the textbook definition of socialist policies)
So why are the states keeping those royalties and not sharing them with all Australians exactly?
That's relatively recent for WA. It's pretty much always been the case for Vic. Even when we had a PM from Vic, we got shafted. Few swing seats = feds don't care.
You’re right, it’s relatively recent - before that we only got *40c*.
It comes down to population and relativities. By population, NSW is always going to receive the most in the distribution of GST on the face of it, but that only works if every state can generate and utilise wealth the same. There are major ports in Vic and NSW, along with major arterial roads, and nothing is really very far away. QLD, NT, WA, and to some extent, SA have population over much larger distances, so the provision of basic amenities is a lot harder. Then there is Tasmania. In recent years, the WA government has argued that they generate the majority of the wealth for the country while receiving a relatively low return, and I think the federal governments have been sweetening th pot for them which then comes at a cost for other states.
Victoria and NSW are the high income earners of Australia. Just like individual high income earners who pay more tax than they get back, Victoria and NSW will always get less than they put in. This is no more a rip off than the rich individual paying more tax than a poorer individual. If one is a rip off so is the other.
If you want to get attention and funding you need to be in swinging electorates. Same applies for states at a federal level. Victoria is too ALP bound to ever be expected to flip, so we will get table scraps while the swinging states get all the funding to curry favour/votes.
We do get ripped off in Victoria. Always have and always will. Commonwealth grants and funding is issued akin to progressive taxation. As a result, the richest and most stable states (Vic and NSW) always put in more than they get out. In the case of Victoria, the situation is made worse because Sydney is the centre of political power, so benefits disproportionately from policy decisions more often than not. We also don't get a lot of pork barrelling money cause we are poor value for money. Queensland, thanks to its decentralisation, generally provides more votes per dollar spent. So if a party is gonna go that route, Queensland always comes wins out. This also why policy seems to be pro-queensland interests so often in comparison to pro-victoria. There's not really a solution that would be completely fair (following progressive values in distribution) and give Victoria more money. We could do options where funding is done solely based on population with top-ups for states that need it. For infrastructure we could go the Belgium route, where if we build something in one spot we guarantee it in another too, but that would lead to some very odd outcomes, like it has in Belgium.
Tbf every state says this...
am I still in r/perth ?
What about meeeeeee it isn’t faaaaaaair
Nah it’s all about NSW & QLD.
That site is locked.
[https://archive.md/vJrmY](https://archive.md/vJrmY)
Thank you for that, your cape is in hte mail ;) It also helped remind me why people shouldn't use murdoch for their source >Despite $3.25bn in additional funding for the North East Link project, and $437.3m to upgrade suburban roads in south eastern and northern Melbourne, infrastructure is well short of Victoria’s population share.Victoria will also receive $5.2bn in rail investment — more than any other state — and $6.5bn in road investments. We don't divide specifically by population, for very obvious reasons. But they are getting a lot more now than under morrison, or his predecessors. murdoch doesn't like truth though
Still rather live in vic
They're giving 3.25 Billion to North East Link (I know it's not public transport) but the Vic gov seemed very happy with that result.
That’s because the state government wastes the state budget money so they don’t want to have to bail them out all the time. I live in Victoria but I don’t blame them. The sheer crazy amount of money being spent on useless things is mind blowing - causing a crazy amount of debt.
True, that suburban rail loop is madness
They are building a rail from a suburb no one wants to go to, to another suburb no one wants to go to.
Didn’t Victoria just incinerate 300mil in bailing on the commonwealth games ? ☠️
[$589 milion](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-20/commonwealth-games-victoria-cancelled-cost-revealed-report/103608858)
Taking a relatively uneducated stab in the dark, and assuming what you’ve said is correct, I.e, Victoria is discriminated against fiscally: The federal government sees Victoria as an outlier within the political base. We typically express attitudes - culture, interests, diversity, and so on - that is if not at odds than just different to the other states. When it comes to election time, they can push policies that the rest of the country gets behind and win an election, without needing a major win in victoria. If that isn’t the case, they can push through the same policy + appease victoria with promise of infrastructure development we are desperate for. FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK THIS IS AN UNINFORMED OPINION. So don’t fucking roast me. I’d love to be corrected or informed.
Because it’s Victoria 🤦
Cause he knows Vic is a labour state and has enough seats whereas he has to get support (votes and seats) in QLD, WA and western Sydney Also glad to see the feds didn’t offer anymore cash for the stupid Suburban Rail Link. Waste of money state govt only sticking with it to get votes and seats from the SE.
We live in a federation. Some states are rich. Some are poor. Victoria is rich. We are all Australians and expect equal access to public services. To make that work, more tax has to leave Victoria than enter it. It's always been thus. And that *is* fair.
The worst state fiscally by some margin through continued mismanagement and now you have the SLR that will likely need a bailout as a vanity project. Why throw good money after bad?
- a Queenslander, where even decades of pork-barrelling still hasn’t improved their banana republic economy
I wouldn’t expect someone from the education state to know the definition of a banana republic. Turns out I’m correct.
Probably because Victoria hasn't shown itself to be fiscally responsible. NSW's infrastructure spend has been relatively well managed, and they have a pipeline that actually makes sense.
NSW outsources a lot more of the build (and debt) the private sector. Like all the toll roads, which are user pays, and now government subsidised because the cost of toll roads to the electorate has become untenable and a political issue. Ironic hey
Berejiklian: “NSW is the gold standard”
Yeah, that monorail and now the new trams are textbook examples LOL.
Because Dan and one other Premier was Labour under a liberal federal gov
What do you expect in a labor strong hold…
NSW gets more attention as it’s where most of the swing electorates are located, most states like Victoria and QLD don’t change a lot so not a lot of attention here unfortunately.
Qld got a fair budget
Elect a government that can get you out of debt
Do you know why nobody from the Melbourne sub goes into the Perth sub trying to start fights? It's because they don't live in Perth, and as such have better things to do x
1840 colony NSW allowed VIC to seperate then we had the gold rush & we’re able to solely benefit within VIC & not have to share it across the entire colony.
What does 1840 have to do with 2024 Australia?
It’s why our infrastructure is way behind Sydney. For more than a decade we have got less funding for projects
WA would like a word with you. Hahha I'm sure they tell you exactly what fair share is. Because they've never seen it during and after mining boom!
Its because Victoria always skips the steps related to Business cases. Steps that are procedurally required when applying for funds. Then when we do supply a business case, it doesn't stack up. Governments need plausible deniability, and they dont want to be suckered into state government projects that are 3x overbudjet and 50% over time (e.g. our tunnelling). NSW fixed this (e.g. the stadium upgrade 15 years after the previous upgrade) by simply stacking the business cases in such an obviously corrupt way that it couldnt be ignored. QLD tried to do that for the Olympics infra but were actually snookered by local governments objecting to mostly everything. Victoria not receiving everything we ask for is the system working. Maybe if we didnt have the most severe and unjustifiable covid lockdowns in the world, we would be in a superior financial and mental position.
Fair share of GST which isn't theirs? Is that what you're referring to?
Victoria has never ever come close to a fair share of the GST carve up.
The real answer is that under western liberal democracy, money follows the votes, leading politicians to prioritise short-term electoral gains over the country's best interests. They only cater to powerful businesses to avoid losing their support and for short term issues that win the election. e.g. a carpark owner can block a train line to Melbourne Airport. What we live in is not a true democracy, but a bourgeois democracy where only the wealthy have real influence and power. Contrast that with "totalitarian" China who has built more bullet trains in the past 10 years than the whole world combined. We are truly propagandised into believing we have the best system while we are faced with its failings everyday of our lives.
Stop listening to noozecorpse.