Cheers - that is really interesting. From what I have read Barnaby is popular in that seat.

I think it will be a slog for Tony - respect though. I think he is a good man!

Is AzzaMarch Chomsky's son or something? Goddamn brother is always on point

Yeah I don't think Windsor would be winning it in a landslide that's for sure.

-PB

Haha thanks man. Just a combination of doing Economics at uni, and making use of the wealth of easily accessible data that is out there.

I am constantly amazed about how many discussions I hear (not just on 442 forums!) where the underlying assumptions in the argument are just plain incorrect! So important to read up on the underlying facts when deciding what should be done in any situation!

[-( That's what you're here for, to correct us :lol:

Mar 14 2016 at 12:00 AM

Time for a massive infrastructure boost

Last updated: Mon Mar 14 2016 - ‎1‎:‎31‎:‎27‎ ‎AM


Given this unique convergence this is the time to act, swiftly and boldly. I have discussed this concept with several informed and experienced people in economics and government, and there appears to be broad agreement across political lines that the idea has merit.

What do we do about it?

For a start, we don't have to passively fall into step with the rest of the world's low growth expectations. Instead Australia should aim to maximise its economic potential and create growth.

There is no doubt that Australia has the capacity to jump-start its economy, but we are bogged down with minutiae, some of which is undoubtedly important, but none of which will put us on a path to sustainable, faster growth. Our current economic debate has a narrow focus on trying to balance the budget, which is not possible anytime soon without exacting a great cost on the nation.

We have idle resources that can be deployed. Treasury has stated we are likely operating with the largest output gap since the mid-90s between current output and our economy's potential output. Australia's annual economic output is over $1.6 trillion.

An output gap of 3 per cent would represent $50 billion per annum of foregone output each year. We have the opportunity to invest substantial much needed resources into new infrastructure.

Balance the economy first

We should concentrate on "balancing the economy" through maximising income, output and employment rather than targeting a specific budget outcome or attempting to "balance the budget."

Ultimately, the budget is a subset of the economy, not the economy itself. And any program on which we embark should acknowledge the scale of the opportunity. It needs to be bold.

An investment of $160 billion would represent 10 per cent of GDP or 2 per cent of GDP each year for five years. We need to think on this scale.

We have various federal and state bodies, such as Infrastructure Australia, which recognise the need for investment in airports, ports, road, rail and other projects. All of these are national assets that can increase in value or yield a return over time.

And the indirect effects are incalculable in terms of national wealth and well-being through greater productivity, jobs and increased tax revenue. So what is required?

We need a change of approach in how we think about capital investment and infrastructure. We should consider an innovative approach to account for infrastructure projects through the creation of a dedicated federal government balance sheet for capital projects of undisputed potential.

Such an approach would explicitly recognise that government spending could create national assets that are balance sheet items. It would be consistent with the current government's commitment to infrastructure and the recently announced Infrastructure Australia Plan.

Variations already adopted

The idea is not entirely new. Variations on this approach have already been adopted, with the National Broadband Network, or the HECS Scheme where the funding loans are separate from the recurring Budget.

I understand the government has 2.5 to 3 per cent internal rate of return hurdle rates meaning it can consider broader criteria, like the national interest, when considering where to invest. The government recognises that balance sheet items can't be financed out of current revenue. If and when these national assets are sold, proceeds could repay borrowings.

I am confident this initiative could achieve bi-partisan support. It would also require a new understanding between the federal government and the states about investment and ownership of assets.

I don't have all the answers on how best to implement this change. But I believe the nation can devise well-defined rules and oversight mechanisms with rigour and transparency ensuring the efficient allocation of resources.

Nothing I propose here need be at the exclusion of other policy initiatives. Of course, further investment will be required in health, education and other social programs. But a new and reinvigorated approach to infrastructure investment has the potential to unleash a new wave of activity and prosperity that can take up the slack left by the reduction in mining investment.

Our economy has spare capacity. The nation is yearning for bold ideas and action. The macro environment is ideal. The time to act is now. A new approach to investing in national assets can generate income and wealth and put Australia on a path to growth and an even more prosperous, secure future.

Frank Lowy AC, is chairman of Westfield Corporation.


Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/time-for-a-massive-infrastructure-boost-20160313-gnhpii#ixzz42nHmUI5h
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Half a bil to ask people a yes/no question?

Wtf?

I also like this nugget: "while the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the gay and lesbian community amounts to $20 million."

Dafuq is that?

-PB

Well, the Wilfully Ignorant Party are the better economic managers, no?


A plebiscite allows a right wing low intellect campaign of fear mongering, ostracisation & ultimately demonisation of a minority - LBGTI

I do not understand how it costs so much? All parties seem to be the same in regards to referendum costs. Where does all the money go? Can't they just set up a website and everyone use a computer?



I can't wait to see ignorant politicians from all sides come out with the pathetic line of "I believe marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman and see no need to change it". It's a cop out. The whole problem is people enforcing their religious/homophobic beliefs on others when it doesn't affect them in the slightest.

Yep, half a bil for something that should just be done in parliament seems like a massive waste of money.

-PB

I would bet a large sum of money that you wouldn't find a single member of The Greens who would say this

Left wing politicians are generally known for being progressive in this way. It's like a tenant of left-wing politics.

In my opinion, there is no logical or reasonable reason to oppose same sex marriage. Marriage existed long before Islam and Christianity did. Non-religious people who oppose it are selfish and probably trying to make underlying sexual tendencies :lol:

I take a 2-pronged approach. Either the govt should legalise same-sex marriage OR

Get out of the marriage business completely, and leave it as a religious sacrament, or a secular private ceremony.

In fact, I would prefer the govt just creates a "relationship registry" - one stop shop where people can register whatever relationships they want, which would then entitle partners to inheritance rights etc. If people want to register longterm friendships, multiple person relationships etc it shouldn't be any business of the govt to decide if that is valid or not!

And on top of this, apparently everyone running in this seat has now agreed to preference away from Barnaby. So he would likely have to win on first preferences (or very close to) in order to get over the line.

To be honest, I get very suspicious of the modelling cost of the plebiscite.

Reading the article, the actual plebiscite would cost $150 million if it is run at a separate date to an election. Then there is " $280 million of lost productivity".... hmmm...

Also, this is important to note:

"PwC undertook the modelling of its own volition, having decided to join more than 800 organisations that have signed a corporate letter backing same-sex marriage".

So clearly they are pushing an agenda here. An agenda I agree with, but an agenda nonetheless.

It is ridiculous to be having a plebiscite on the issue - it has no legally binding value.

The proper place for this debate is in parliament.

But this study is looking at "total economic cost" NOT accounting costs. What this means is that they are taking into account opportunity cost. Which is valid in and of itself, but also something that is often used to inflate costs because it is always difficult to measure.

When people want to inflate something (costs - like in this case, or economic benefits of bidding for a sporting event for example) these numbers get amplified.

Yes it's obvious they just pulled that number out of their asses because it helped get them to half a billion which has a far greater impact than just a couple of hundred million.

It's amazing how people make shit up out of thin air to push their agendas.

Can you imagine if it was Labor who proposed the plebiscite? The narrative would be the complete opposite, they would be praising the ALP for having the courage for bring a vote on this vital social reform, give all Australians the opportunity to participate and do it properly at a grassroots level rather than gloss over it in parliament in a half assed conscience vote.

It's only because TA thought to do a plebicite, that people are rallying against it, because if the vote got up it would be seen as the Liberal party who were the architects of marriage equality rather than the ALP, and there's no way proponents of equality want to give the Liberals any kind of kudos.

It's all politics.

Sorry, have to disagree with that.

A plebiscite is a patently absurd idea, it would be bagged no matter who suggested it.

The reality is that this is purely a delaying mechanism to avoid a rupture within the Liberal party.

Marriage Equality is already the official ALP policy - hence why that ALP senator resigned last week.

The LGBT community in Ireland supported a national vote on the issue.

That's because in Ireland it was a legally binding referendum that changed the law. That is how their system works.

In Australia the mechanism to change the law is via parliament.

A plebiscite here is, in literal terms, meaningless legally.

You mean like an agenda to justify a Liberal Party decision of 'saving' $300M.....:idea: ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

No they are taking account of all costs - not opportunity cost.
EG The $20M of mental health problems caused by a plebiscite - indirect costs, which simpletons cannot grasp (due to wilful ignorance)

There was no specific exclusion of same sex couples in the Irish constitution, some for advocating for change by way of parliament than national vote.

A plebiscite here isn't meaningless, it gives everyone the right to have their say on whether they endorse a change to the social fabric. It gives both sides time to prepare and prosecute their cases, and whatever result will be the one that is adopted by parliament. A change to traditional marriage one that is endorsed by the grassroots is a far greater victory for equality advocates than leaving it to opportunistic politicians and legal experts.

I also think it's important conservatives who oppose SSM get to have their say, as it won't be good for their mental health if big social changes are made and they feel they have been effectively shoved out of their process and denied a voice.

Everyone has a right to have their say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

"The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permits marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex. Prior to the enactment, the Constitution was assumed to contain an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage."

Their vote was a referendum to amend their constitution.

Our vote is a plebiscite with no legal implications.

Our constitution makes no comment on marriage. The Marriage Act covers this issue. You change the Marriage Act through a vote in parliament.

Mental health costs ? Wtf. How do they measure that, let alone quantify it? You just go down to the local school and submit your vote. If you have mental breakdown because of that then you have far greater issues than casting a vote.

What about all the physical activity benefits, public transport and fuel excise, flooding the government coffers with tax dollars? Did the biased, agenda driven PWC report capture those costs? What about the billions in mental health benefits and increased productivity due to increased national optimism blah blah when the vote gets up? All the economic activity of the after party alone will pay for the pleb.

These people seriously do a disservice to the causes they advocate by trying to hoodwink the public with their biased, bizarre reporting methods. I would've expected an organisation PWC to stick to tangibles like dollars and cents, and not get too caught up in the sloppiness, uncertainty and guess work of all these "other" costs. I guess it's just more revenue streams to exploit.

Do you know what the constitution previously said in regards to marriage?

Link to PWC report:
http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2016/cost-plebiscite-mar16.html

The modelling estimates that a standalone plebiscite - not on the same day as a federal election - will cost the taxpayer $158 million to facilitate, $66 million for the community to fund the “for” and “against” campaigns, $281 million in lost productivity as people take time out to vote, and at least $20 million in costs associated with the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of Australian citizens.

The lost productivity due to the time to vote is the very definition of Opportunity Cost.

“The real costs to government, the economy and members of the community to hold a standalone plebiscite are more than three times higher than the numbers commonly quoted,” PwC Australia CEO Luke Sayers said. “Total economic costs have not been considered before and should be part of the debate on the best way to achieve a resolution to this issue.”

These "Total Economic Costs" are inclusive of opportunity cost - over half the total number!

Again, I agree with their conclusion - the plebiscite is a massive waste of time.

But they are using rubbery figures in their modelling, no doubt.

Our plebiscite alters nothing legally. Again - it is literally meaningless from a legal perspective.