Federal Budget 2014

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Budget: Tony Abbott government prepares to unveil $10 billion infrastructure package

[Jonno]

Here comes the roads!!!!

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Get set to pay more for petrol

Motorists could be slugged with a petrol price rise of up to three cents a litre as the Abbott Government considers increasing fuel excise for the first time in more than 10 years.

The excise, which reaps the government 38.1 cents per litre, has been frozen since 2001, when the Howard government ceased indexing it to inflation.

That decision, made in the wake of popular opposition to the introduction of the GST, has been a key contributor to a shortfall in revenue that many economists say has contributed greatly to the current difficult budget position ...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/get-set-to-pay-more-for-petrol-20140508-37wz3.html

[Jonno]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/tony-abbotts-grand-infrastructure-plan-may-be-an-expensive-road-to-nowhere?CMP=soc_568

Tony Abbott's grand infrastructure plan may be an expensive road to nowhere

The prime minister is throwing billions of dollars at projects before any proper cost-benefit analysis has been done


The budget's centrepiece – one thing the government IS actually spending money on – is a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure plan. The government argues that building things, primarily roads, increases productivity and economic growth. It also helps fulfil Tony Abbott's desire to go down in history as the "infrastructure prime minister", rather than, say, the prime minister who broke even more promises than any who preceded him.

But given how the government is approaching the task, the rationale for this spending doesn't necessarily stack up.

Most expert opinion says infrastructure can boost productivity to some extent, if it is the right infrastructure in the right place, and if it is subject to the most rigorous cost-benefit analysis before it is announced by a politician in a hard hat. If that doesn't happen, infrastructure spending can end up being an enormous waste of money. Oh dear.

The chairman of the Productivity Commission, Peter Harris – who would seem to be an appropriate person to listen to on this point – was very blunt with his advice in a speech on Friday, targeting the federal government's intention to set aside a huge honeypot, reportedly as much as $5bn, as top-up funding for states that sell big assets such as power generators or ports and then very quickly reinvest the money in infrastructure.

"Project plans are being dusted off all over Australia in the face of the new incentives for recycling capital from privatisation. We should all hope that there is more than dust being brushed off. But right now we can only hope," he said. Quite blunt, really (for a Productivity Commission guy).

He said governments should instead be dusting down their flawed processes for deciding what projects to fund, with cost-benefit analyses done and published before announcements or election promises were made, or ribbons cut.

He also pointed out that this hasn't been happening for some time.

"The norm in major projects is that the announcement precedes the detailed planning. Then if there is time a cost-benefit assessment may be done, but often won't be published due to confidentiality concerns. Following that, there is a rapid move to tender in order that the promise is not overtaken by the appearance of delay."

The Productivity Commission's draft report in March to the Abbott government said the way things had been done in the past has resulted in "poor value for money".

"There are many examples in Australia of poor project selection leading to highly inefficient outcomes. In such cases, investment in public infrastructure is a drain on the economy and tends to lower productivity and crowd out more efficient projects," that report said.

In other words, if you do the press release first and the business case later, it can totally backfire, and potentially have exactly the opposite economic impact to the one the government is seeking.

And here's the rub. That's exactly what the Abbott government has done. It has pledged billions of dollars to projects before any business case had been done and is giving some of them even more money in this budget, again without a business case.

Pledging there would be "cranes over our cities" within a year of his election, Abbott make election promises totalling $3bn to the $10bn West Connex toll road in Sydney and the first stage of the East West link road in Melbourne – at a time when neither had business plans, and when Infrastructure Australia, which is supposedly the independent arbiter of the nation's infrastructure priorities, said neither was "ready to proceed".

Documents recently released to the NSW parliament show the full business case for West Connex is still not complete, although very detailed work has been done on the public relations strategy.

But West Connex is set to get an additional $2bn as a concessional loan in Tuesday's budget, to "speed up" its construction.

Doing precisely what Harris says politicians should not do, Abbott and the Victorian premier, Denis Napthine, have already announced that the commonwealth will be chipping in an additional $1.5bn to the second stage of the East West link.

Abbott said the commonwealth's contribution depended on the Victorian government providing a business case for the second stage, but he was "confident it is a worthwhile investment". He didn't say how he could be so confident without a business case, or how likely it was he'd take back the cash if it didn't pass muster. Presumably, not very.

Added to this is the commonwealth's insistence it will "stick to its knitting" and fund only roads – leaving the states "free" to fund public transport. What has actually happened in most states is a dramatic scaling back of public transport plans in favour of the road projects that will attract the federal cash.

But again, most experts say that the only way to ease traffic congestion is to spend money on both roads and public transport.

All this raises questions about whether the massive road spend will achieve the government's intentions.

And in the meantime – in order to finance all this bitumen and also keep the budget bottom line heading in the right direction – personal tax and fuel tax will rise, and spending on Medicare, schools, higher education, pensions and unemployment benefits are likely to be cut.

Abbott is convinced of the voter, as well as economic, appeal of road funding. He wrote in his book, Battlelines, that even the "humblest person is king in his own car".

Some folk may indeed feel that way. But they could well value the things they'll be losing on Tuesday much more.

[Stillwater]

And the benefit-cost ratio of the BaT is?

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Budget provides $280 million for final section of Ipswich Motorway

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Premier Campbell Newman fears federal Budget may not deliver on election infrastructure commitments for Queensland

[Stillwater]

Looks like Tony Abbott's ambition is to be the roads prime minister rather than the 'infrastructure prime minister'.

If the leaks are correct, the recipient projects in the goodies basket in Tuesday's federal Budget will be: Gateway Motorway (North), Bruce Highway (Gympie, Mackay, Townsville), Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, Warrego Highway and BaT Tunnel.  Ipswich Motorway gets a look-in for Darra-Rocklea, but only partial funding, so state will have to kick in money they it might have wanted to spend elsewhere.

Any hope of something for NCL, for instance, would seem to depend on Queensland Government asset sales, which would allow the state to access some of the $5 billion pool of incentive funds the Commonwealth is offering the states for a quick diversion of money from those sales to the cost of new infrastructure.  (Not paying off Labor's big fat debt.)  There may be some hope on whatever the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, announces by way of a cash injection into the ARTC.  (ARTC investigating taking over management of sections of QR network.)

Both governments would be having an eye to the geographic distribution of the funds across electorates.  Gympie/Wide Bay looked after, but needs to be 'something big' for the Sunshine Coast, apart from the new University Hospital.

[#Metro]

If this tax mutiny goes ahead, Abbott wont be PM for long, Turnbull may step up to the plate is my theory.
Big test will be how the budget fallout is handled is my guess.

[Stillwater]

Albo has it right.


Outer suburban commuters will suffer under the Abbott government's plans to defund public transport at the same time as it imposes higher costs on motorists through an increase in petrol excise, Labor says.

Anthony Albanese: "You can't deal with urban congestion in our cities if you say the government's role is just to fund roads," he said, arguing a state treasurer, faced with a billion-dollar road project and a billion-dollar rail project, would invest much more in the road if it was the only one attracting federal co-funding."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/anthony-albanese-outer-suburban-commuters-to-suffer-under-budget-plans

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Queensland transport projects reliant on federal funding: Emerson

[Stillwater]

As soon as the Treasurer has given his Budget speech in the Parliament, government departments publish on their websites details of the spending proposals and program changes in their portfolio area.

Infrastructure will be a big spending item.  Maybe worthwhile checking here tonight: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/

[Stillwater]

Campbell Newman huffs and puffs and lays the groundwork for 'we have been dudded' line from Queensland Government.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/federal-budget-2014-premier-campbell-newmans-vow-if-queensland-receives-a-raw-deal-20140513-zrb5f.html

[Stillwater]

Roads to the future for Queensland in the federal Budget:
http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/May/budget-infra_04-2014.aspx

Bruce Highway
http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/publications/reports/pdf/factsheets2014/Factsheet_Bruce_Highway_Qld.pdf

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing (check out the rail alignment in the map)
http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/publications/reports/pdf/factsheets2014/Factsheet_Toowoomba_Second_Range_Crossing_Qld.pdf

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Federal Budget 2014: Queenslanders wary of 'Jekyll and Hyde' budget

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/5/13/statement-from-the-queensland-treasurer

Treasurer and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Tim Nicholls
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Statement from the Queensland Treasurer

Tonight's Federal Budget serves as a reminder that Governments need to act responsibly with scarce taxpayers funds, and that short term ill-disciplined decisions have long term consequences.

Treasurer Tim Nicholls said while there were some positives in the Budget for Queensland, there are clearly many difficult decisions the Federal Treasurer has had to make which will impact on Queenslanders.

"Two years ago the Queensland Government started the process that Joe Hockey has begun tonight," Mr Nicholls said.

"The 2014-15 Queensland State Budget will not require the same sorts of measures announced in tonight's Federal Budget because the Government made strong choices in our first budget with fiscal repair measures totalling $7.5 billion.

"We've lived up to our promise to cut waste and reduce our expenses and at the same time we've been able to deliver more funds for frontline services with record budgets for health and education."

Mr Nicholls welcomed the commitment of increased funding for infrastructure projects, and said he was particularly pleased to see funds allocated for:

    Commonwealth Games $156 million;
    Toowoomba Second Range Crossing up to $1.285 billion;
    Gateway Upgrade North up to $1 billion;
    Bruce Highway Upgrade up to $6.7 billion to 2022-23;
    Great Barrier Reef 2050 plan with a $40 million trust fund and
    Addressing insurance costs in North Queensland - $12.5 million.

"These projects are essential projects for Queensland and will help us to grow our four pillar economy," he said.

Mr Nicholls said it was deeply disappointing to see that the Commonwealth has revised the funding methods for health and education.

"The revisions are nothing more than an unjustified attack on the State's delivery of health and education services.

"We will use the time between now and the implementation of these measures to take the fight to Canberra.

"These changes will significantly increase the pressure on the State's budget, as we believe the shifting of expenditure to the State's Budget is unsustainable.

"Of particular concern is the freezing of indexation payments to local governments. The state is not in a position to assist, given our own budget repair task, so this reduction in funding is going to increase the strain on local governments.

"Our methodical and disciplined plan has us on track to deliver the first fiscal surplus in a decade by 2015-16, as a result of the action we took two years ago.

"But we are still constrained by the $80 billion of accumulated debt which means we can't deliver the roads, rail and dams that would help to grow the economy and create more jobs.

"That's why we have been talking to Queenslanders about our debt challenges. Queenslanders know that if you can't pay for today, there is no way you can build for tomorrow.

"On 3 June I'll be releasing the Government's plan to pay down debt.

"Not everyone will agree with the choices we will make but all Queenslanders will know that we can securely fund Queensland's future."

[Ends] 13 May 2014

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen calls Federal Budget 'cruel', while Clive Palmer says it's 'bulls**t'

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Federal Budget 2014: Joe Hockey sings familiar tune to Queenslanders

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Federal budget 2014: Commonwealth to slash share of hospital funding

[ozbob]

The Guardian --> Budget 2014: Abbott government's health and schools cuts anger states

[ozbob]

http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media/media-releases/492-budget.html

Queensland welcomes Federal partnership in road funding

    Created: 14 May 2014

The Queensland Government has welcomed confirmation from the Federal Government that it will meet its responsibility to fund key Queensland transport infrastructure projects.

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney, and Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the Commonwealth funding commitments follow 12 months of intense lobbying from the Queensland Government to make the state's roads safer.

"Last night's Federal road funding announcements are the culmination of a long battle waged by Queensland's LNP going back to our days in Opposition," Mr Seeney said.

"The proper funding of critical roads like the Bruce Highway, Gateway North, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, and the Warrego Highway would never have happened if Labor was in government in Queensland.

"We promised to deliver better infrastructure and planning and last night's federal budget confirms that we are doing just that by effectively advocating for Queenslanders."

Major projects that had funding confirmed in last night's Federal budget, included:

    $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway
    $1 billion for the Gateway Upgrade North
    $1.3 billion for the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing
    $508 million for the Warrego Highway.

Mr Emerson said the funding would deliver more capacity, safety and flood mitigation projects across Queensland.

"This time last year, the then federal Labor Government left Queensland in limbo with several crucial projects at risk because of their move away from the traditional 80-20 funding split," Mr Emerson said.

"We've come a long way since then to secure a good deal for Queensland roads.

"Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss and his team have kept their promise to fund their share on national highways and assist us in our efforts to make our roads safer.

"This budget reaffirms that these projects are secure with a proper funding model."

[Jonno]

1960's here we stay!!!!!

[ozbob]

The Conversation --> Federal budget 2014: infrastructure experts react

The Abbott government has committed an additional A$11.6 billion for an "infrastructure growth package" that is heavy on roads, but aimed at fast-tracking what it considers critical infrastructure.

The asset recycling initiative will cost A$5 billion over five years in order to encourage the states to sell assets and redirect the funds into infrastructure.

An additional A$3.7 billion will be directed towards road projects, including A$2.9 billion for Sydney's WestConnex, Melbourne's East-West Link, Adelaide's North South Corridor, NT road upgrades, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, and the Perth Freight Link. This funding will also extend to national highway upgrades, black spots, and the Roads to Recovery program.

An additional A$2.9 billion will go to support the Badgerys Creek airport in Western Sydney, part of a larger ten-year A$3.5 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan being delivered with the New South Wales government.

Together, the investment is expected to lead to additional infrastructure investment of A$125 billion, and add around 1 percentage point to GDP.

To find the money for the additional spending, the government will reintroduce the bi-annual indexation of the fuel excise, starting in August this year. Funds for asset recycling will also come from the sale of Medibank Private and the potential sale of the Royal Australian Mint, Defence Housing Australia, Australian Hearing, and the registry services business of ASIC.



In order to improve project selection and delivery, the government plans to introduce new governance arrangements for Infrastructure Australia (IA), in order to give it greater independence and transparency.

IA will be required to undertake audits of Australia's infrastructure asset base every five years and develop a 15-year infrastructure plan. It will also be tasked with evaluating proposals for "nationally significant" economic infrastructure, as well as proposals in the health and education sectors. It will be asked to evaluate projects seeking $100 million or more of government funding, and publish its findings.

Rolling expert responses follow.

Phillip O'Neill, Professorial Research Fellow, Urban Research Centre at University of Western Sydney

Australian cities were starved of infrastructure provision in the early and mid-2000s when the Howard-Costello Coalition government gave priority to the pay down of Australia's public sector debt and the establishment of the Future Fund to cover the government's pension liabilities.

The planned ramp-up of infrastructure spending by a newly elected Rudd Labor government in 2007 was undermined by the global financial crisis. This left a newly established Infrastructure Australia with the task of assessing infrastructure projects that it had no capacity to fund.

Not surprisingly, then, Australian cities are starved of efficient, technologically advanced infrastructure. Moreover, there is limited understanding at both state and federal levels about how best to combine private and public sector inputs to address the infrastructure deficit.

Rather than address the complex issues of infrastructure provision with innovative solutions, this budget seems to adopt a simple formula: lean heavily on existing revenue streams in order to lever funds into road building, the easiest of all infrastructure assets to provide.

Then, in the background, the budget provides incentives for state governments to divest brownfields infrastructure assets, motivated not by economic value objectives but by the lure of financial gains for struggling balance sheets.

It is heartening that federal politicians continue to acknowledge the need for raised infrastructure expenditure. It is disappointing, though, that the Coalition government has not shown any intention to explore new options for funding and delivering the infrastructure services needed in an advanced 21st century economy.

Australian financial institutions are seen worldwide as successful innovators in infrastructure financing. So too, Australian infrastructure constructors and operators are world leaders. Yet our governments, state and federal, seem incapable of harnessing this expertise to develop a new suite of world-leading, sustainable, productive infrastructure. Australian firms are leading infrastructure designers and providers offshore. Unfortunately we currently lack the political will and imagination to mobilise these at home.

Michiel Bliemer, Professor in Transport and Logistics Network Modelling at University of Sydney

The infrastructure measures in the Budget 2014 are not unexpectedly focused on road infrastructure. Although rail was mentioned by the treasurer, it is hard to find anything regarding investments in public transport.

As is well-known, more road infrastructure may locally alleviate congestion, but it also means more cars on our roads and into our cities where congestion problems will only get worse.

Public transport alternatives take cars off our roads, which means less congestion for car drivers and improved mobility for non-car drivers and leads to a more sustainable transport system for the future. It is therefore disappointing to see only substantial investments in road infrastructure. The asset recycling initiative offers perhaps a short term boost in infrastructure investments, but does not seem an appropriate model for sustainable infrastructure funding.

The indexation of the fuel excise tax and the hypothecation of the additional revenues for funding infrastructure projects, however, is a good idea given that revenues have been steadily decreasing over the years due to increases in the fuel efficiency of cars. An even better idea would be to introduce a user pays system that charges a higher price per kilometre during peak hours.

Chris Standen, PhD candidate in Transport Policy & Planning at University of Sydney

Asset recycling makes economic sense, but only if the privatised asset does not become a monopoly, and the proceeds are invested in new infrastructure, on which the economic or social return outweighs the forgone future revenue from the recycled assets.

Urban motorways give a negative return on investment, despite glossy business cases contrived by proponents to show the opposite. They encourage sprawl and create dependence on a costly and inefficient mode of transport. As a result, transport costs in car-dependent Australian cities are now twice as much as in cities with good public transport.

Urban motorways do not fix congestion because they simply attract more traffic. Sydney's M5 and M2, for example.

In the case of WestConnex, Abbott and Baird are squandering A$12billion on a motorway that will allow people to drive from Penrith to the city in 92 minutes, even though the same journey can be completed in 49 minutes today in the comfort of a train. They will be charging motorists thousands in tolls every year for the privilege, on top of all their other costs.

Graham Currie, Chair, Public Transport, Director of Research (Transport Engineering) at Monash University

What we have is a car budget really which won't do very much for the problems we have in cities which are facing congestion problems. I'm not sure more roads is going to help that issue so it's a bit biased and one sided in my opinion.

What they do is they say that public transport is a state issue. But they invest in roads so it just creates a biased investment program and priorities. We end up having more and more investments in roads because the states are struggling with budgets for public transport. It just encourages more and more road travel when particularly our central areas are struggling to deal with that because we don't have enough capacity.

We need a national interest to stop dealing with that issue and to move, particularly in inner areas, towards real investments, which is something all big cities are doing worldwide but unfortunately this [BUDGET] is just going to encourage more of that thinking.

Jemma Green, Senior Research Fellow at Curtin University

The budget is devoid of any spending on mass transit infrastructure - and instead proposes to spend large amounts of money on roads, some of which are actually not needed. Whilst roads obviously need to be maintained and built, at the expense of the kind of infrastructure that allows cities to operate efficiently and grow is a material omission. Congestion is costing cities billions of dollars each year.

The proposal to build a Perth Freight Link appears to lack detailed business case assessments and is a bizarre attempt at putting in expensive infrastructure that will create more issues than it solves. It will increase the capacity of the Fremantle Port when the surrounding residential areas cannot withstand further heavy traffic imposts.

[#Metro]

I'm always wary of "more concrete will solve everything" type solutions. Seeing some academics say "public transport takes cars off the road" is also goes against real world evidence. (SEB carries 7 lanes of traffic, therefore we should expect the parallel SE Freeway to be empty at peak hour, clearly not the case, you can check this yourself).

Lots of projects have super dogy cost benefit 'analysis' (watch out anything with 'wider economic benefits' used to inflate the BCR). We all know how 'vital' and 'essential' Clem & and AirportLink turned out. Many road projects that proclaim to 'reduce congestion' could have the same congestion reduction effect simply by installing gantries and charging a peak hour toll. Voila, traffic problem solved sans concrete. AirportLink and Clem 7 demonstrate unequivocally the power of a small toll in causing dramatic traffic falls. You'd only need to wipe off say 5% of the traffic to make a big difference, so such a toll could be something like $1, capped at $2 per day max.

Even extending public transport does not provide immunity against silly spending - $465 million dollars for 1km of busway at Buranda - saving what 60 seconds? - you could saturate the entirety of Brisbane in BUZ with that kind of money, and let's not get to the Hi Waste Bus Network design and 100% escalated rail costs.

Government is in many cases well placed to finance large higher risk or unprofitable projects, on the other hand, the incentives in the system are all wrong - skewed to high symbolism, hi-waste style projects which is why things like WestConnex pop up.

Planning solutions, rather than infrastructure solutions, are often overlooked, and they shouldn't be.

[#Metro]

Reference http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/what-does-transit-do-about-traffic-congestion-1.html

[ozbob]

Twitter

Aust Railway Assoc ‏@AustRail

#Budget2014 delivers a blow to rail with a planned 70% decrease in funding over the next four years http://tinyurl.com/pwh5deo

13 May 2014

Coalition's road frenzy forgets rail's role in moving Australia's freight

The peak industry body for rail in Australia has welcomed the Federal Government's budget announcement to invest $39billion into infrastructure, but has expressed utter disbelief over the drastic decrease of almost 70 per cent in funding for rail over the next four years.

Chief Executive Officer of the Australasian Railway Association (ARA), Bryan Nye OAM, said that though he welcomed the $2.7billion for rail, it was a mere drop in the ocean compared to the $26.8billion for roads in the forward estimates and that the future for federal funding for rail was looking bleak.
"This Budget is a reflection of the Federal Coalition Government's attitude towards infrastructure funding, which unfortunately is roads, roads and more roads," said Mr Nye.

"This Budget has shown a drastic decrease in planned funding for rail transport over the next four years, with the federal government's investment in rail decreasing by 42 per cent come 2015 and almost 70 per cent come 2018.

"Mr Abbott announced pre-election that he wanted to be known as the 'Infrastructure PM', however roads are but one part of Australia's transport infrastructure. Without restoring the balance and investing in rail Mr Abbott is jeopardising the future of Australia's economic wellbeing.

"Without federal funding, the onus is now heavily placed on the states to invest in rail. I am hoping that the states take on this crucial infrastructure responsibility and are assisted by federal government through established schemes like the Asset Recycling Fund," he said.

Amongst the $39billion dollars announced for infrastructure investment in the forward estimates, the ARA was pleased to see some money remain for rail, namely $300million allocated to the Inland Rail project; $50million to the Advanced Train Management System technology; and $75 million for the next stage of upgrades to the Port Botany Rail Line in Sydney. However, out of these few announcements no new money has been allocated on new projects for rail.

"Whilst we welcome the few announcements for rail in this budget, it is bitter sweet, as they represent no new dollars and only a fraction of the $39billion dollars announced for infrastructure in total.

"Inland Rail for example needs $4.5billion to be completed by 2026, a deadline the Coalition has committed to meet. However, all they have announced is re-allocation of already committed dollars which falls far too short of the required amount to progress this nation building project.

"This budget is a clear reflection of the federal government's lack of interest in supporting rail – an industry that is the sixth largest in the world; moves almost 1 billion tonnes of freight and 784 million people every year; and has carried the nation's economy on its back for the past 180 years," Mr Nye concluded.

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Daily Telegraph -->Tony Abbott is taking the roads-to-nowhere path

[Gazza]

Where's NSW?

[ozbob]

Been significant freight rail investment in NSW, with commensurate indirect benefits to PT.   As we are seeing in ICAC, not all is what it seems in NSW ... lol

NSW itself has put a lot into PT,  they have  bit more money to play with than most states.

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/record-146-billion-infrastructure-and-services

[ozbob]

Crikey The Urbanist --> Is Labor right to oppose indexation of fuel excise?

[ozbob]

Using just a marker pen and a white board, Labor's shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, Anthony Albanese, breaks down what he calls the 'so-called infrastructure plan' contained in the Coalition's 2014 budget ...

--> http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/may/14/albo-explains-the-budget-video

[Stillwater]

Spot on, Albo.   

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Pain-sharing promise to haunt PM

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Families on benefits the biggest losers, analysis of budget shows

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> State premiers demand emergency meeting with Abbott government over $80 billion health and education shortfall

[ozbob]

ABC Radio AM --> Pensioners may face higher charges for power, water and public transport because of a federal budget cut to the states

CHRIS UHLMANN: From July pensioners could face higher power, water and public transport costs because of the federal budget.

Pensioners are already grappling with the prospect of Medicare co-payments, more expensive medicines and less generous pension indexation rates.

But their utilities bills could also go up because the Abbott Government is saving $1.3 billion by ending a deal to help the states subsidise gas, water, electricity and public transport.

From Canberra, political correspondent Louise Yaxley.

LOUISE YAXLEY: The National Seniors organisation says pensioner discounts on power, water and gas bills as well as rebates on council rates and public transport concessions can add up to around a $1000 or $1200 a year of assistance to older people.

A Federal Government spokeswoman points out the Commonwealth only puts in a relatively small proportion, around 10 per cent of that, but this budget means from July the states either have to pay more from their own budgets or ask pensioners to make up the difference.

Michael O'Neill from National Seniors says his organisation has written to all state and territory leaders asking for urgent clarification.

MICHAEL O'NEILL: Whether they intend to pick it up or not, the question is certainly in terms of if not, why not. I think the response from older Australians will certainly be one of great anxiety and I think also considerable anger given the way it's been implemented in almost overnight fashion.

Essentially they will look at it as buck passing between the Commonwealth and the state and the last thing that older Australians appreciate is being used as political football.

LOUISE YAXLEY: South Australia's Premier Jay Weatherill says his Government hasn't decided yet if it will pass on the amount the Commonwealth is stripping out from July.

JAY WEATHERILL: Well, they're the things we're grappling with. Our budget is on the 19th of June and we're deep in discussion.

LOUISE YAXLEY: The Local Government Association president Felicity-ann Lewis says it's a big issue for councils who rely on some of that money to help pensioners pay their rates. So mayors and councillors are hoping the states take an extra budget hit themselves to cover the cost.

FELICITY ANN-LEWIS: Or are they just simply going to say to the pensioners, well, sorry you can't have that rebate?

LOUISE YAXLEY: Victoria has already held its state budget and didn't plan for this extra hit, but it's an election year for that state and Ms Lewis says the Government's indicated it will absorb the extra cost this year, meaning at least in one state pensioners will keep the full rebate for another 12 months.

This is one element of the massive stoush between the states and the Commonwealth over this budget which strips $80 billion from the states over a decade.

Victoria's Premier Denis Napthine held talks with the Prime Minister last night. A spokesman for Dr Napthine says they were full, frank and productive and discussions will continue.

South Australia's Jay Mr Weatherill is frustrated and furious.

JAY WEATHERILL: So it's for them to actually tell the Australian people how this is actually going to work, not play this ridiculous game of making the cut and then expecting another level of government to sit down and try and make it work for them.

LOUISE YAXLEY: It's their money and they've got the upper hand at the moment, haven't they?

JAY WEATHERILL: I don't think anybody that's been looking at the public debate in the last few days thinks that the Federal Government has the upper hand. I think they're in freefall. I think you only need to look at the face of the Prime Minister and the face of the Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey to see the rising panic as they realise that this budget is threatening their very survival.

CHRIS UHLMANN: South Australia's Premier Jay Weatherill ending that report from political correspondent Louise Yaxley.

SA Premier Weatherill is a sharp shooter!

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Budget hole opens up

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Budget spending on roads tipped to send states off the rails

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Budget spending on roads tipped to send states off the rails