Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[mike]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”

 

[Tim Sheens]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.

It won't stimulate any building industry in Greater Sydney or Melbourne, as you will struggle to get a new house and land for sub $750K, unless it's a 3 bed, single garage dog box on a 250m² postage stamp on the outskirts. Might benefit the other states and regional areas though which will probably be worse affected by COVID than the two largest cities in Australia.

I agree in that I would much rather see the money spent on public infrastructure projects, but Nelson also makes a valid point. That $25K might make a renovation that was previously a little bit too expensive now feasible with the input. It also stimulates the property market and makes it that little bit more attractive for those who were looking to buy cheap, outdated homes to renovate and sell (or live in.)

Having just signed a building contract, I've added about $40K of upgrades to my place. Now some of them are very practical like a 10kW solar system, low energy lighting fixtures and a gas wall mounted fireplace (large cost items that represent the large chunk of that cost,) but a lot of them admittedly are aesthetic like black bathroom fixtures, frameless showers, fully tiled bathrooms etc so yeah I can understand your concern about that.

Yeah, as I began reading your post and long before your last paragraph, I immediately thought about your soon to build new mountains home and with it, recent experience on the matter.

Having more information now after only learning of it later last night and not discounting valid points made by @Nelson, my thoughts are basically the same in that it is not suitable in it's current form, with much of it just being splashed on projects at the ready or well in the pipeline.

Unless significantly altered to levels suggested by others including @diedpretty and probably some $/m2 restrictions, I maintain the state/federal partnership for public housing that I wrote of would be a more effective use of these funds. I won't get into the nonsensical jurisdiction debate.

 

[TillLindemann]

How was old mate having a crack at everyone for standing on his lawn yesterday. "I just seeded it."

No expert on lawns, wouldn't have thought seeding in Autumn/Winter would have been advisable.

Haha it made my day

 

[Nelson]

How was old mate having a crack at everyone for standing on his lawn yesterday. "I just seeded it."

No expert on lawns, wouldn't have thought seeding in Autumn/Winter would have been advisable.

As long as the soil temp stays low enough over winter it won't germinate until spring and should have worked its way well into the soil by then. He's gone pretty early if that's what he's doing though...

 

[Geo]

In the bush fires in 2002 we had the pleasure of Bob Carr lobbing on our driveway as his driver was a family friend... funny thing was we met him 10 mins earlier down the boat ramp Greeted with hi I’m Bob Carr here to help then you guessed it on the driveway Hi I’m Bob Carr here to help

 

[Tim Sheens]

In the bush fires in 2002 we had the pleasure of Bob Carr lobbing on our driveway as his driver was a family friend... funny thing was we met him 10 mins earlier down the boat ramp Greeted with hi I’m Bob Carr here to help then you guessed it on the driveway Hi I’m Bob Carr here to help

Had you been holding a book he would likely remember you to this day.

 

[Tiger5150]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”

Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

 

[Tiger5150]

The Feds do provide money for specific purposes.
They had money on the table for the East West link in Melbourne. When Labor got in and cancelled the project in favour of a rail project, the Feds withdrew the money and wouldn't contribute to the rail project.


Exactly, you have just proved my point. In your example the Fed were tipping in money for a federal asset (East WEst Link) but would not put money into a State Asset.

I'm not sure that is correct Tiger5150.
The proposed East West Link would not have been an interstate highway. (Which the Feds are definitely responsible for). It would have been a part of the uncompleted Melbourne ring road. All the other parts of the ring road are managed by Vic Roads and the State government stumps up for repairs and enhancements. So I can't see why that section would become a "federal asset". I can't see that the feds would saddle themselves with the ongoing maintenance cost of a Melbourne-only road system.
.
However I'm not as certain about it as you seem to be. To quote Randy Newman, "I could be wrong....but I don't think so".
(The refusal by the federal Libs to not support Labor's rail project had more to do with politics I think. The East West link was a major point of difference in the state election and Labor cancelled the project after it won government from the Libs).

There are a heap of roads that are not interstate highways that are still federal roads.

Your point about pulling funds because of politics also underlines why IMO the Feds will not blanket grant funds with the hope that the States would do the right thing.

 

[mike]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.

 

[Tiger5150]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.

Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

 

[mike]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

You don’t get Federal Funding to the States. No point continuing.

 

[mike]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.

 

[Tiger5150]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.

Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

 

[mike]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.


Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

Yes absolutely.

 

[Tiger5150]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

You don’t get Federal Funding to the States. No point continuing.

Federal funding to the states was tested in 2012 and 2014 by the High Court which ruled that the federal government is limited to where the authority to spend money is expressly conferred by legislation. The legislation authorising the spending must also be supported by one of the “heads of power” granted to the federal parliament by the constitution.

What is your understanding of the Constitutional role of Federal funding to the States?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.


Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

Yes absolutely.

Feel like he’s setting you up for something

 

[Tiger5150]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.


Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

Yes absolutely.

Hmm arrogance doesnt always pan out. NSW owns 49.6 of the NSW energy grid since 11 August 2016. It is majority owned by an Australian-based consortium of AustralianSuper and IFM Investors and regulated by the Federal Government.

 

[Harvey]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.


Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

Yes absolutely.

I thought they went to the last election under the policy of selling them off, or did the firesale only get as far as the poles and wires?

Jeez that income would be handy in the current COVID environment. Unfortunately it has all been pissed up against the wall via new (too small) stadiums & ripping up perfectly good rail lines to convert them to a driverless metro system.

 

[Tiger5150]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.


Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

Yes absolutely.


Feel like he’s setting you up for something

Ya think?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Whilst it targets the market into which I will hopefully soon return, I am disappointed in the proposed package to stimulate the residential construction industry. Even with the eligibility rules, this is money once again spent on the haves at the expense of the have nots.

There has long been huge under spending on public housing, so in conjunction with states providing the land, it would be money much better spent on thousands of dwellings for the homeless amongst us. Instead, a good chunk of it will be spent on opulent fittings and inclusions.


Public housing is a State responsibility. This is Federal money.

You don’t think it could have been channeled through the States as targeted funds? It‘a nonsense argument. The federal govt does that sort of thing all the time.


REally? Give me one example of when the Federal Goverment dictated what they spent their money on.

Roads, transport infrastructure and other large infrastructure projects. Grants for heaps of spending. If they grant money they can say what it is to be spent on. Simples.


Roads, Transport infrastructure remain Federal Assets afterwards. They are not state projects. They can not demand what the States spend money on constitutionally. They would not trust and should not trust to give the states $xB and trust they spend it where they wanted and would need to set up a beauracracy to administer it.

It cant and wouldnt happen

Oh really. A quick google...

“ NSW will receive $960 million in federal funding to upgrade the energy grid and invest in emissions reductions initiatives.”


Mike you are really struggling with the concept of Federal vs State assets arent you?

Nope not at all.


Ok, well let me give you a little assistance. The energy grid is a national (federal) asset. A new house for public housing is and will always be a State asset and responsibility.

Wrong again. NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid.


Wrong again? Are you sure of that? You seem awfully sure about it, bordering on arrogant. I'll give you a last chance.

Are you sure that NSW owns the assets for the NSW grid?

Yes absolutely.


Feel like he’s setting you up for something


Ya think?

Been here too long