Sensational-Adelaide.com

Briefly:
- West Lakes surely deserves a tram line in its own right as a medium to high density TOD. The one game per week did not in itself justify the line.
- Tiered motor vehicle charges would be easier said than done. You would need a way to validate a person's income and the ATO would be reluctant to (or legally prohibited from) sharing personal details to another jurisdiction.
- Scrapping the Legislative Council is in itself easier said than done and also vastly outside the scope of the Budget.

AtD wrote:West Lakes surely deserves a tram line in its own right as a medium to high density TOD. The one game per week did not in itself justify the line.

^^^ This. A tramline to a stadium alone is a folly.

A casualty of the 2010 SA state budget may have been the Department of Treasury and Finance's bandwidth.

A budget document from the above's website is downloading at a whopping 1.06kb/sec.

AtD wrote:Briefly:
- West Lakes surely deserves a tram line in its own right as a medium to high density TOD. The one game per week did not in itself justify the line.
- Tiered motor vehicle charges would be easier said than done. You would need a way to validate a person's income and the ATO would be reluctant to (or legally prohibited from) sharing personal details to another jurisdiction.
- Scrapping the Legislative Council is in itself easier said than done and also vastly outside the scope of the Budget.

Regarding the West Lakes tram extension, I realise the possibility of West Lakes becoming a TOD in the future, however, I believe that trams better serve inner suburbs. So with this in mind, if I ruled this state, I would rather extend the tram line to Norwood and Prospect first. However, this is just based on my personal preference for where trams should go.

With the tiered motor vehicle charges, maybe a better mechanism could be to base such charges on the market value of the car instead?

And regarding the legislative council, It is based on the saving that having 22 less politicians would achieve, not to mention the faster it would be to pass legislation.

Will wrote: I would also, get rid of the Legislative Council.

Would you agree to changes to the electoral system so that we get proportional representation in the lower house? Otherwise without an upper house we'd be left with just Labor and the Libs. There'd be no other voice like the Greens or Dignity for Disability, and I think that's bad news for South Australia.

Splashmo wrote:

Will wrote: I would also, get rid of the Legislative Council.

Would you agree to changes to the electoral system so that we get proportional representation in the lower house? Otherwise without an upper house we'd be left with just Labor and the Libs. There'd be no other voice like the Greens or Dignity for Disability, and I think that's bad news for South Australia.

You have a very valid point. Indeed, it is something I thought about when making such an idea public. However, in the end the Queensland example suggests to me that in the long run, the benefits outweigh the negatives that would be caused by losing the small parties.

Will wrote:Thanks for the explanation guys.

*Introduce a tiered system for fines, license fees, vehicle registrations.... For, example those earning over $100 000 should pay double the amount, whereas those over $500 000, should pay triple the amount. Such a mechanism would make it fairer for everyone.

Dislike, dislike, dislike! Punishment (fees) should always be absolute, not relative, and reflective of the crime (costs), not the individual. Be very careful with arbitrary limits on things, too - if it's fairness you're after, Mr. $101k paying double the speeding fine of Mr. $99k doesn't seem at all right. It's not the business of government to be deciding who they think is rich and who isn't - then they start deciding who you can marry and who you can't, what you can view on the Internet and what you can't.......Oh, wait.

Will wrote:*I would get rid of all housing grants. they only serve to increase the prices of housing.

Like, like, like! Home ownership is not for everyone - only those who can afford it. Handing out cash to everyone creates a false market that simply cannot sustain those prices when the bonuses are removed. We've all seen what happens in that instance.

Will wrote: I would also, get rid of the Legislative Council.

After seeing what happened when the Howard Government controlled both houses of federal parliament, I would never want to see the Legislative Council removed in South Australia. It would be okay while the government was doing things that I like, but if they decided to do something that I didn't agree with, there'd be no-one there to have a second look at things.

Will wrote:

Splashmo wrote:

Will wrote: I would also, get rid of the Legislative Council.

Would you agree to changes to the electoral system so that we get proportional representation in the lower house? Otherwise without an upper house we'd be left with just Labor and the Libs. There'd be no other voice like the Greens or Dignity for Disability, and I think that's bad news for South Australia.

You have a very valid point. Indeed, it is something I thought about when making such an idea public. However, in the end the Queensland example suggests to me that in the long run, the benefits outweigh the negatives that would be caused by losing the small parties.

The Queensland example is nothing to write home about -- have you forgotten the Bjelke-Petersen years? If you want to abolish the Legislative Council (which, as AtD said, is easier said than done and not a budget matter), than you ought to be serious about parliamentary reform. And in that case, the unicameral example to look to would be the ACT or (less favourably) New Zealand parliaments. But really, there are sound reasons why we should want to keep an upper house, and the focus should be on making it work better before even considering abolishment (which Rann proposed out of the blue before the 2006 election, never mind he'd had a constitutional convention in the previous session). Either way, Hare-Clarke's the way to go.

Omicron wrote:

Will wrote:Thanks for the explanation guys.

*Introduce a tiered system for fines, license fees, vehicle registrations.... For, example those earning over $100 000 should pay double the amount, whereas those over $500 000, should pay triple the amount. Such a mechanism would make it fairer for everyone.

Dislike, dislike, dislike! Punishment (fees) should always be absolute, not relative, and reflective of the crime (costs), not the individual. Be very careful with arbitrary limits on things, too - if it's fairness you're after, Mr. $101k paying double the speeding fine of Mr. $99k doesn't seem at all right. It's not the business of government to be deciding who they think is rich and who isn't - then they start deciding who you can marry and who you can't, what you can view on the Internet and what you can't.......Oh, wait.

Will wrote:*I would get rid of all housing grants. they only serve to increase the prices of housing.

Like, like, like! Home ownership is not for everyone - only those who can afford it. Handing out cash to everyone creates a false market that simply cannot sustain those prices when the bonuses are removed. We've all seen what happens in that instance.

Regarding the tiered system, I don't think it is fair for an ordinary worker on $38k a year paying the same amount as a plastic surgeon on $1 million a year. The value of money is relative to how much you have. If you have more, you can afford to pay more. Punishments such as speeding fines are eant to be a deterent. If I was rich, a $200 fine would not put me off speeding, because the monetary equivalent would be like paying $10 now as a student.

And regarding home ownership, my proposal is based on my belief that home ownership is for everyone, not just the rich. I would hate to live in a society where working people can work as hard as they can yet never own their own home. I feel that such grants actually serve to inflate the price of property which negates their purpose to begin with.

SRW wrote:[

The Queensland example is nothing to write home about -- have you forgotten the Bjelke-Petersen years? If you want to abolish the Legislative Council (which, as AtD said, is easier said than done and not a budget matter), than you ought to be serious about parliamentary reform. And in that case, the unicameral example to look to would be the ACT or (less favourably) New Zealand parliaments. But really, there are sound reasons why we should want to keep an upper house, and the focus should be on making it work better before even considering abolishment (which Rann proposed out of the blue before the 2006 election, never mind he'd had a constitutional convention in the previous session). Either way, Hare-Clarke's the way to go.

SA people are very different from QLD people. Queensland is like our own Alabama. In SA, someone like Bjelke-Petersen would never be elected.

Will wrote:

SRW wrote:[

The Queensland example is nothing to write home about -- have you forgotten the Bjelke-Petersen years? If you want to abolish the Legislative Council (which, as AtD said, is easier said than done and not a budget matter), than you ought to be serious about parliamentary reform. And in that case, the unicameral example to look to would be the ACT or (less favourably) New Zealand parliaments. But really, there are sound reasons why we should want to keep an upper house, and the focus should be on making it work better before even considering abolishment (which Rann proposed out of the blue before the 2006 election, never mind he'd had a constitutional convention in the previous session). Either way, Hare-Clarke's the way to go.

SA people are very different from QLD people. Queensland is like our own Alabama. In SA, someone like Bjelke-Petersen would never be elected.

But just look at who SA has elected: Bannon, Brown, Olsen, Rann. Which one of them is not proof that, far from being abolished, the upper house should be given more power?

Aidan wrote:

Will wrote:

SRW wrote:[

The Queensland example is nothing to write home about -- have you forgotten the Bjelke-Petersen years? If you want to abolish the Legislative Council (which, as AtD said, is easier said than done and not a budget matter), than you ought to be serious about parliamentary reform. And in that case, the unicameral example to look to would be the ACT or (less favourably) New Zealand parliaments. But really, there are sound reasons why we should want to keep an upper house, and the focus should be on making it work better before even considering abolishment (which Rann proposed out of the blue before the 2006 election, never mind he'd had a constitutional convention in the previous session). Either way, Hare-Clarke's the way to go.

SA people are very different from QLD people. Queensland is like our own Alabama. In SA, someone like Bjelke-Petersen would never be elected.

But just look at who SA has elected: Bannon, Brown, Olsen, Rann. Which one of them is not proof that, far from being abolished, the upper house should be given more power?

What's your point? neither of those men is a redneck hick.

^^ I don't think that's a reliable method of determining the structure of the political system. The opposition will be in power one day.

Will wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Will wrote: SA people are very different from QLD people. Queensland is like our own Alabama. In SA, someone like Bjelke-Petersen would never be elected.

But just look at who SA has elected: Bannon, Brown, Olsen, Rann. Which one of them is not proof that, far from being abolished, the upper house should be given more power?

What's your point? neither of those men is a redneck hick.

My point is that it's not just redneck hicks who are bad news when they're given too much power.