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.”


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.

You just proved my point. Thanks

 

[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?


Been here too long

I didnt think I could make it more obvious.

 

[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.


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?

The Federal Govt can fund the States for specific purposes. They do it all the time.

 

[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.

You just proved my point. Thanks

Well that depends. Was your point that NSW does NOT own the energy grid? Because my post would prove your point in that case, although a quick review of your posts suggests otherwise.

Or was your point that you shouldnt get all uppity and arrogant in a discussion without checking your facts? Again, my post would definitely back that up, but again when I run a rule over your recent posts, Im not getting that vibe.

I guess Im missing your point (<<---------this is your exit point).

 

[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.


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.

They gave away (sold for $1) the $560,000,000 odd valued Vales Point power station and after spending a fortune on upgrading the grid, then sold it a price that would be recouped in 5 or 6 years, when it could have been financed at a fraction of the cost to the public purse.

 

[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.

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.

They gave away (sold for $1) the $560,000,000 odd valued Vales Point power station and after spending a fortune on upgrading the grid, then sold it a price that would be recouped in 5 or 6 years, when it could have been financed at a fraction of the cost to the public purse.

And they tried to sell it to a Chinese conglomerate before feds stepped in

 

[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.


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.

You just proved my point. Thanks


Well that depends. Was your point that NSW does NOT own the energy grid? Because my post would prove your point in that case, although a quick review of your posts suggests otherwise.

Or was your point that you shouldnt get all uppity and arrogant in a discussion without checking your facts? Again, my post would definitely back that up, but again when I run a rule over your recent posts, Im not getting that vibe.

I guess Im missing your point (<<---------this is your exit point).

According to you the NSW Govt owns 49.6% of it. I think that’s what you posted. I've been on the road all day and I did forget about the great 2014 power asset sell off by the NSW Govt. But that is not what this is about.

This was about the Federal Govt using the stimulus to not to build public housing. It is a State responsibility you stated. Just because it is a State responsibility does not mean it could not be funded by the Federal Govt. Have the Federal Govt. funded public housing in the past? Yes they do to some extent, indirectly “more than $1.5 billion a year through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) to states and territories.” Should they do more now? Yes they absolutely should have but they won't. Not because they cannot but because of ideology, pure and simple.

 

[Nelson]

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?

You may be at cross purposes. The Federal Goverment can absolutely make specific purpose payments to the States. That is dictated by s 96 of the Constitution:

*During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.*

That section has not been read down by the High Court. The Federal Government uses specific purpose payments relying upon s 96 to interfere in what the constitution contemplates as "State" matters routinely. It is a bugbear of many Constitution nerds.

The Williams litigation (the 2012 and 2014 cases I gather you were talking about) concerned the Federal Government (the Executive) attempting to directly fund the National School Chaplaincy Program. In 2012 they were doing it in the absence of any legislative basis. When challenged they claimed (having probably not thought about it previously) that they were relying on Executive power generally under s 61 of the Constitution. The High Court smacked them down.
They got some legislation passed and then Mr Williams took that to the High Court in 2014. This time they were looking at legislative powers under s 51 of the Constitution. The government sought to rely on s 51(xxiiiA):

*(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), **benefits to students** and family allowances;*

The High Court again said no: "benefits to students" means student benefits in the sense of student welfare payments and things of that ilk, not anything that may broadly be argued as being of some theoretical benefit to a student.

The Federal Government then got around this problem by making specific purpose payments to the States to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program which persists 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?

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.

You just proved my point. Thanks


Well that depends. Was your point that NSW does NOT own the energy grid? Because my post would prove your point in that case, although a quick review of your posts suggests otherwise.

Or was your point that you shouldnt get all uppity and arrogant in a discussion without checking your facts? Again, my post would definitely back that up, but again when I run a rule over your recent posts, Im not getting that vibe.

I guess Im missing your point (<<---------this is your exit point).

According to you the NSW Govt owns 49.6% of it. I think that’s what you posted. I've been on the road all day and I did forget about the great 2014 power asset sell off by the NSW Govt. But that is not what this is about.

This was about the Federal Govt using the stimulus to not to build public housing. It is a State responsibility you stated. Just because it is a State responsibility does not mean it could not be funded by the Federal Govt. Have the Federal Govt. funded public housing in the past? Yes they do to some extent, indirectly “more than $1.5 billion a year through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) to states and territories.” Should they do more now? Yes they absolutely should have but they won't. Not because they cannot but because of ideology, pure and simple.

Mike go back to Mt previous post about the a high court rulings on Federal spending. They can spend on constitutional basis and by heads of govt agreement which is what the NHHA is. Back to my original point. They can’t, won’t and shouldn’t just grant funds to the states. They need a heads of govt agreement which takes at least months to get past state leaders of different persuasions. They need y to o create jobs NOW and get funds flowing

 

[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?

You may be at cross purposes. The Federal Goverment can absolutely make specific purpose payments to the States. That is dictated by s 96 of the Constitution:

*During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.*

That section has not been read down by the High Court. The Federal Government uses specific purpose payments relying upon s 96 to interfere in what the constitution contemplates as "State" matters routinely. It is a bugbear of many Constitution nerds.

The Williams litigation (the 2012 and 2014 cases I gather you were talking about) concerned the Federal Government (the Executive) attempting to directly fund the National School Chaplaincy Program. In 2012 they were doing it in the absence of any legislative basis. When challenged they claimed (having probably not thought about it previously) that they were relying on Executive power generally under s 61 of the Constitution. The High Court smacked them down.
They got some legislation passed and then Mr Williams took that to the High Court in 2014. This time they were looking at legislative powers under s 51 of the Constitution. The government sought to rely on s 51(xxiiiA):

*(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), **benefits to students** and family allowances;*

The High Court again said no: "benefits to students" means student benefits in the sense of student welfare payments and things of that ilk, not anything that may broadly be argued as being of some theoretical benefit to a student.

The Federal Government then got around this problem by making specific purpose payments to the States to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program which persists to this day.

Agree with all of that but to get to the crux of it, can feds COMPELL states spending without constitutional or heads of govt agreement?

 

[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.


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.

You just proved my point. Thanks


Well that depends. Was your point that NSW does NOT own the energy grid? Because my post would prove your point in that case, although a quick review of your posts suggests otherwise.

Or was your point that you shouldnt get all uppity and arrogant in a discussion without checking your facts? Again, my post would definitely back that up, but again when I run a rule over your recent posts, Im not getting that vibe.

I guess Im missing your point (<<---------this is your exit point).

According to you the NSW Govt owns 49.6% of it. I think that’s what you posted. I've been on the road all day and I did forget about the great 2014 power asset sell off by the NSW Govt. But that is not what this is about.

This was about the Federal Govt using the stimulus to not to build public housing. It is a State responsibility you stated. Just because it is a State responsibility does not mean it could not be funded by the Federal Govt. Have the Federal Govt. funded public housing in the past? Yes they do to some extent, indirectly “more than $1.5 billion a year through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) to states and territories.” Should they do more now? Yes they absolutely should have but they won't. Not because they cannot but because of ideology, pure and simple.

Mike go back to Mt previous post about the a high court rulings on Federal spending. They can spend on constitutional basis and by heads of govt agreement which is what the NHHA is. Back to my original point. They can’t, won’t and shouldn’t just grant funds to the states. They need a heads of govt agreement which takes at least months to get past state leaders of different persuasions. They need y to o create jobs NOW and get funds flowing

It would not take months in this environment at all. This is a unique opportunity that they have missed. The National Cabinet is to/has replaced the previous outdated COAG model. The National Cabinet is a more agile and modern arrangement between the Federal Govt and the States.

You are entitled to your view. It's just not how I see things.

 

[Geo]

goo ole section 96 hey...

 

[trentrunciman]

It's a very sad situation over there right now and really highlights the underlying hate that exists in the US. Greatest country on earth it is not.

The really strange thing is many Americans believe that the rest of the world envies them and wants to be like them.

I don't get it. Chauvin and Floyd knew each other. I also just watched a porno with Floyd starring in it. Weird man

 

[Yossarian]

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.

Whoever does Morrison’s advance point work is hopeless. Don’t send your man in if you haven’t checked things out first. Amateur hour...

 

[trentrunciman]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GP08aLZL4&list=PLvlQxhn3qUxxij6Bag9qyT9hKYUos7MAP&index=8&t=0s

 

[tigger]

Captain Jackson did really well to have his eye brows done before going on TV. During Covid 19 too!

 

[jadtiger]

The NFL have now admitted they where wrong to stop peaceful protest during their national anthem and now support the players rights to do so(BBC website).I am sure the petulant president will soon have another dummy spit

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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.

Whoever does Morrison’s advance point work is hopeless. Don’t send your man in if you haven’t checked things out first. Amateur hour...

Only standing on his nature strip anyway from the footage I saw.

 

[trentrunciman]

If you're in Sydney stay away from the city. I popped into work and it's nuts

 

[trentrunciman]

RIP social distancing