Chairman Dan

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think his political legacy will be well beyond the size of a leaf - some good; some not so.

 

First the bad:

• Debt size. It is big, but to be honest, although I think the removal of the level crossings was a bit of a luxury, most of the infra spend was needed to upgrade infrastructure; roads, tunnels, and public transport. Also, as the head of the Vic government, the buck stops with him in terms of the debt structure; the only reason why interest payments have gone up with RBA rates is because the bonds issued by the government were floating rather than fixed rate. This probably saved the treasury a few basis points (1/100'ths of a percent) in the coupon rate of the bond, but they should have known that there was only one way rates would go and should have issued them as fixed. Vics credit ratin at the time of most of the debt issuance was AAB (it is no AA), so they should have been able to do it. Or at least they should have entered into (massive) insterest rate swaps to hedge the risk, which would have cost a packet at the time, but they would be quids up now - as for soem reason, not too many predicted the interest rates precipitous rise. That was really the fault of the Threasury.. they are supposed to know what they are doing with respect to raising funds.
• Corruption: There have been controversies around corruption fdor specific incidents in the Andrews era. The private hearings that IBAC are required to hold don't help transparency and feed cycicism about how well the government of the day are held to account. The last report (something about awarding training contracts to a health union from memory) was a scathing report, but because it fell short of crominality, there was nary an even acknoweldgement it was corruption by the DA.
• Belt and Road initiative; and attempted trade agreement with China. While other less developed economies have felt the brunt of the Belt and Road initiative, Victoria's economy is robusty enough to treat it for what I hope DA's team was hoping to get - access to cheap finance. However, the touted trade agreement was something that should not have happened, and IMHO no state should have a trade representative (as NSW has); this should squarely fall on the shoulders of the dfederal government.
• Dropping of standard of public health: I want to be careful on this one, as, IIRC, when the federal government distribute taxes to the states, it earmarks health budgets for each state, and I do know that a state Labor Victorian government ususally disproportionately suffers at the hands of a federal LNP government. So, without doing the numbers, it would appear the state Labor government has allowed this important service to fall behind other states. I se the upfront investment of removing the level crossing in deference to say health as geared for votes - most people came  into incovenience with level crossings every day, but reliance on public health for most is infrequent. Yes, level crossings have shown to be dangerous, but as the numbers show, they are predominatly dangerous in the areas precisely where the level crossings haven't been removed - rural areas.
• Privatisation of the Land Titles office and licensing/registration arm of Vicroads! WTF? I didn't know about it until today - how on earth does anyone justify privatising those regulatory functions which are monopolies. We all know what happens when monopolies are privatised.
• I am sure there are others.

Now the Good:

• Legalising euthanasia: Many progressive societies and most populations have come to realise a death with dignity and freedom of pain is as important as protecting life. The DA government brought that in for Victoria.
• Infrastrcutre development: A lot of the road, tunnel and public transport development is vital to keep Victoria in iits economic development. All reliable, quick and affordable (to the user) public transport systems lose money - they are considered public utilities and not commercial enterprises for that very reason. Look what happened when Connex took over running the trains in Vic (BTW, there had to be brown paper bags going around that contract - it was awarded at the time Britain, under a corrupt conservative government was booting them out of the railways here for non-performance).  Every economy, exceept those that rely on exploitation, authoritarianism and the like, that has a fast, cheap to use, reliable and extensive public transport system have normally well performing economies. Virtually none are private enterprises, and not many are privately run. Britain is today debating seriously, nationalising the previously privatised public transport network. Many operators have simply walked away.  Remeber, Melbourne is going to be Australia's biggest city shortly and it needs the infrastructure.  Note, a lot of this investment is long overdue from previous Labor and LNP governments.
• Port of Melbourne Lease - unlike our federal government that leased a port in Darwin used by out military to the Chinese, DA leased to Port of Melbourne to the Lonsdale group, which, admittedly, is 20% owned by China Investment Corporation, but otherwise by local and western/firendly Asian pension/super funds. I don't think it has military operations there, and it is a 50 year lease that will net the state $9.7bn.
• COVID response.. I wasn't sure to put this in the good or bad. I think it was good from the point of view of taking the hard decisions necessary that NSW didn't, but other states did, to contain the virus. The clear winner was WA, and I think SA did OK, too. Execution by leaving it to private esecurity firms was bad, which is (or was) blamed for the outbreak. I am putting it in the good, because they did not shirk from what had to happen (which NSW did), but they just stuffed it up a bit.
• I am sure there are more..

This next term will shape his legacy further - if he sees it out. There are rumours he is mulling retirement, and an article in The Age suggests he is leaving a hosptial pass for his successor. In terms of securing energy and water and the prices - it is hard to do in a privatised system (again - why this was done is anyone's guess, and over here, there is discussion of re-nationalising the lot). He has promised a new SEC, but a) how it is going to materialise; and b) will he be around to do it are both unanswered questions.

 

He is by no means perfect; he has had a hostile press who have put in the same energy into booting and keeping federal Labor out, yet he still commands a decent majority of support from Victorians and is now the longest continually serving premier. Hate him if you want, but compare his performance to others in Vic and other states (except WA, which has the benefit of all the mining). Oh, yeah.. Vic did have a good manufacturing base; Tony Ars...hole Abott put pay to that as much as he could (and SA for that matter).

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thx jerry.

I don't understand about " cost blowouts" on govt jobs. The users finish up paying about twice the "contract price". How does this work, and how are the profits fitted in if costs rise?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am certainly no expert on government contracts, but I would guess, there is some time and materials or it is cost plus basis of contract; or the contract states various assumptions that the price is for and if they find, during the execution of work, the assumptions don't hold true.

[onetrack]

Govts records on privatisation of any public infrastructure is abysmal - and ports top the list. Where any port has been privatised, the new private owners have always take huge advantage of their now-monopoly position, and have ramped up port handling charges until the users scream in pain.

Of course, the fabulous Govt deal never has any restrictions on what the new port owners can charge - the State Govts just wax lyrical on how much income it means for the State.

At all times, anyone in the entire State, and any other part of the country, that uses the port, wears the cost of the increased port handling charges. This always translates through to increased costs for everyone. 

[facthunter]

Harder to judge when you live in another state, with respect. When the China thing started it was Federal policy also.  The party in each jurisdiction has the job of picking it's leader.  National LNP have put a lot of effort into discrediting Andrews ably aided by the Press. ( Murdoch).  They feared Andrews would run for a federal seat. HE was always available to answer questions.   When little was known about the Covid HE took the safest option to save the most lives.   Nev

[octave]

8 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I don't understand about " cost blowouts" on govt jobs. The users finish up paying about twice the "contract price". How does this work, and how are the profits fitted in if costs rise?

I know that with the Westgate tunnel, there is a fixed contract and wage rises come out of the contractor's profit (although probably anticipated) and not the public purse at least according to this article.  

 

http://West Gate Tunnel workers reach pay deal: $300k a year.

 

A government spokeswoman said the West Gate Tunnel was a fixed-price contract, meaning any added costs relating to wages would be absorbed by the builders.

 

The only downside I can see is this (from the same article 

 

But shadow treasurer Louise Staley said the West Gate Tunnel worker salaries were incredibly large – even for the building industry – and this deal would set a precedent for future transport projects that would ultimately be paid for by the taxpayer.

 

In any case blaming the state government is irrational as far as I can see.

 

 

[facthunter]

The Opposition in Victoria is in a pretty sorry state. I doubt anyone believes otherwise. Internal ructions.   Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

I was referring to general contract blowouts rather than the Westgate tunnel specifically. Truly fixed-price contracts where there is no escape would be very complex and involve a lot more than the potential for labour cost blowouts in the profit maring. In civil engineering contracts of that scale, and under a fairly large part of the river/estuary, all sorts of geological problems may be thrown that can't be anticipated and the company will want to make sure thei profit margin can absorb it. In a way, their profit margine becomes part insurance policy.

 

Even then, the government will insist that there is adequate insurance cover in place for the contractor, because any contract is useless if the operator goes broke trying to deliver it. I am not even sure if you can insure for unexpected losses.

 

To take this down a slight tangent, what is the real business case for this? It seems like a hell of an expensive project that, if the Domain tunnel is anything to go on, will include expensive maintenance - and for what - does the bridge close down or something regularly - or is the time when it is windy and they have to limit speed that bad? I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in a tunnel as a bus goes up in flames as it did last week on the bridge.  I wold have thought building a second bridge and arterial system would have been a better use of funds as a second arterial system will take much more load off the existing road network than a tunnel.

[facthunter]

I don't think the "Person in the street" has the information to make those decisions. The "Opposition" will always make accusations about anything a gov't does. I don't like the "Bridge that fell down and killed 35 workers" as a nice piece of engineering to be on at any time. Rivers are nice to boat on and play on, but they cut Cities in Half and cost a fortune to traverse.   Nev.

[Bruce Tuncks]

But, I still think that contracts cost the government heaps more than they first say. Maybe they have a schedule of costs and the customer ( govt) wears the increases?

[Marty_d]

Here's an idea, reduce the road usage by encouraging home based work (for those who can) and making city centres car free areas.  There's no reason for businesses to have 100's of people turning up to the same physical location to do stuff they can do anywhere. 

[red750]

re Working from home.

 

This is something that is causing a deal of consternation in Melbourne at the moment. 

 

Pro's

 

Saving commuting costs

Less traffic

Less invironmental pollution

Better work life balance 

 

Cons

 

CBD businesses losing business (no one buying lunches, etc)

Loss of jobs in CBD due to above - surplus staff

Unfair on those who have to go to work eg hospital staff, teachers, police, etc.

Empty offices, unused technology

Meetings have to be held online

Effects on others in household.

 

On the last point, my son works from home two days a week (5 days during lockdown). Because he is on the phone (call centre operator), we have to tippy toe around, and try to stop the dog barking, and can't have the TV on during the day. That means for me at 78 that I almost have to live in my bedroom while he is working from home.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Technology had already started the work from home evolution; the pandemic just brought it forward. From the beginning of 2015, I was already working form home 2 days a week, until the end of 2017  when I left that firm, and by then working from home was up to 3 days a week. The next two firms I worked for required being in the office 5 days/week, but were accomodating of people who for one reason or another needed to work fro home regularly. I joined the firm I am with now during lockdown, so didn't go into the office for about 10 months after joining and then it was only for 2 weeks as we entered a second lockdown.

 

Post lockdown we are required to be normally in the office 2 days/week. Before lockdown (and me joining), the firm required people to be in 3 days/week. At the moment, no one is really couinting how often someone is in per week, and apprently they weren't before lockdown, either. In my team, we have one team (mandatory) day per week, and one other is at the discretion of the team member. Some of my team are in 5 days a week, and most come in two, but sometimes, they opt for the mandatory days, and sometimes, when the work is on, they don't come it all. People will work out what works best for them and go by it. As I tend to treat my staff as adults and lete them know I want the work done on time and to requisite quality,they actually respond by doing it as they now hjave the responsibility.

 

A mate of mine has not been in the office for about 10 years - he is a tech whizz and works entirely from home. Most companies I know and have read abvout have adopted the hybrid model. Teh advantages and disadvantages that @red750 has listed are the common ones we read about, but I htink it is a bit more nuanced than that. For example:

• Saving commuting costs is often balanced by increased electricity, gas and telephone costs; houses need to be heated/air conditioned, working from home chews up your data allowance, oir required you to up up your contract, and of course, that hardware and lighting has to be pwoered, too. Yes, employers can and some do kick in, and, depending on where you live, it will only part balance it, but it is still there. However, the other thing to think about is those who had weekly, monthly, or annual travelcards - often they use these on weekends for personal travel; as they no longer need these, they will have to sepaarately cover any weekend travel (car, spearate PT tickets, etc).

• Less traffic and better chance of getting seats on PT This will also contribute to cleaner air, safer steets, etc.

• Less environmental pollution - this is somewhat offset by the demand for energy to do stuff at the home - while the energy is still required to power the offices and the PT, etc. In fact there are studies that suggest hybdrid models can be more polluting as there is  no saving in energy usage at the office, yet everyone is upping their usage at home (but less driving, rail, bus, trams, etc also contrinutes to the less environmental pollution)

• Better work life balance - this is usually the case, but then I haven;t worked for an employer who did not respect work life balance beforehand The difference was the commuting time. I can tell you I have worked some horrific hours post pandemic and some times working form home actually componds it, as therfe are a couple of more hours in the day that you can now use productively.

• CBD businesses losing out: Yes that is true, but many of the suburban and regional economies have had a corresponding increase; While this is bad news for CBD shops, this owuld have happened eventually. The pandemic made it happen quicker. In terms of overall impact to the economy, it ihas shifted the location, but not really changed things. I go out and grab my lunch more often than not, for example,. peeople are not having their morning cofe at their local cafe; local shops also have reported an uptick of trade as it is quicker to get to the high street than go to a mall or similar, and they can get what they want when they want it, rather than waiting for the next day delivery. When you're working in the office, if you need something you may not be close to the shops, you may be too busy, etc., so it goes on Amazon and the like.

• Loss of jobs due to the above: Not really - they move to the 'burbs and regions.

• Unfair on those professions that still have to go to the office. I don't think that is different to what it was before the pandemic, but I admit more people were going to the office. Telecommuting has been around for a t least 15 years or so; it's just the uptake was slow. The other thing, is it unfair? If I take a public facing job that can't be made remote by technology (today!) then that is my decision, isn't it? Also, you could argue, certainly in the corporate world, workers had better accommodation than teachers and public health officials (although privatre hospitals in Australia adre a dream, usually).  Also, some health care and teaching can be conducted online, as the pandemic showed.

• Empty Offices/Unused technology: This will eventually work itself out, and provides an opportunity, too. The company that way back allowed us to work from home had already downsized its office space by 75%; my current company consolidated its two buildings into three floors of another building and didn't renew the lease on the other two buildings. As leases expire, organisations will nto simply renew, but will reduce as well. So, it will eventually find its way to equilibrium. This means, though, that there is a threat to super and other investment funds - especially those that are directly exposed to commercial real estate or have shares in real estate management and/or development companies. There will be a glut of office spalce, which will drive valuations and rents down (it already is over here), which will adversly affect pension funds/ However, these office buildings can be converted relativbely cheaply (depending on where) into apartments, and can be used to relive both the house price inflation and rental market.

• Meetings being held online is already the modus oeprandi nad has been for a very long time. Even when we are in the office, most of our meetings are online; Pre-pandemic when I was in the office 5 days a week, most of my meetings were online. They are usually still very effective, and don't waste time travelling to meeting rooms. I got my last job in Melbourne in 2003 from where, with all meetings held online (video conferencing). In fact this saves more pollution as client/supplier meetings are held online rather than people flying all over the place to attend sales pitches (for example). BTW, we have not interviewed prospective employees and contractors in person at all - second, thrid and sokmetimes fourth interviews are all conducted as video interviews.

• Effects on others in the household can be positive or negative, depending on the household. I know @red750's son working from home is a pain in the arse, but with me working from home, it is more of an impact on me than anyone at home as they keep on bugging me while I am working. The family find it convenient and sometimes forget that I am working. I am lucky in that I do have a separate room to work in.

 

Looking at the YT video below, starting at the Sprint Steet/Collins Street intersection, the car drives into Collins Street. WIth a streetscape like that, I woul dbe going into the office more often than not, especially in the good weather. The entrance to the building I used to work in can be seen on the right at 1:06 --> 1:07 just past what looks like a Mulberry store. I still remember lazy lunch times just strolling down the Paris end of Collins street taking in the ambience.

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[red750]

The city will soon be like a scene from On The Beach, with tumbleweeds blowing down the street.

[facthunter]

Methinks you exaggerate. Melbourne CBD is one of the most densely settled in the world. (Just came out int he last 24 hours).  Nev

[octave]

 

1 hour ago, red750 said:

The city will soon be like a scene from On The Beach, with tumbleweeds blowing down the street.

Melbourne is the second fastest growing city in Aus after Brisbane.   I don't think it is tumbleweeds any time soon.

 

 

[old man emu]

Two diverse comments.

 

1. The Internet has introduced the demise of the "blue collar/white collar" employment segregation. Now workers are either "go-to-workers" or "work-from-home workers." This is going to result in problems for determining the remuneration that is acceptable for each person's time. Those "go-to-work" people incur greater costs because they have to travel, maintain a certain standard of dress, and even pay more for their midday meals. "Work-from-home" people avoid those costs, and as well can claim tax rebates for the functioning of their home office.

 

Today it was announced that the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank has told the bank's work-from-home people to get back to the office. The banks don't like paying rent on unused office space, or low volume service locations. But bank branch closures is a fish on a different bicycle.

 

2. What you have been talking about in relation to government managing of infrastructure projects is currently being satirized in the ABC comedy Utopia. The actors include the usual gang of Melbourne comics including Rob Sitch and Kitty Flanagan. Utopia is written and produced by three of the founding members of Working Dog Productions: Rob Sitch, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner.

[octave]

There are all sorts of pros and cons when it comes to work from home. Some of these pros and cons benefit the employee and some the employer.  During the pandemic I worked from home. I used my own internet connection and equipment provided my own work space which I also heated and cooled. I did not get compensated for these things however I did save heaps on transport and other expenses.

 

Working from home may be ideal for some industries and not so for others. It is not a case of good vs evil.

 

My son has a very successful computer games development company  Most of his workers do work from home and some live overseas. This is an ideal situation for working from home. Other areas of enterprise would not be so suited 

 

Driving from my home into Melbourne at rush hour is insanely inefficient.  The more workers who can work from home the less congestion in the roads or public transport.  Perhaps we might even discover that we do not need to continually build more insanely expensive tunnels and roads.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, red750 said:

The city will soon be like a scene from On The Beach, with tumbleweeds blowing down the street.

On what basis?

 

Melbourne city as @facthunter says, is one of the most densly populated in the world. But also, Melbourne has had its peaks and troughs in terms of popularity and at the moment, outside working hours, it apparently is in a peak.

 

During woring hours (last time I worked there), it wasn't overly busy for the number of people who worked in the city. In fact, after movign back to Mlebourne after living in London, it was noticeable how bereft of people the streets were at around 7:30am when I was walking from the car park to the office.

 

 

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Those "go-to-work" people incur greater costs because they have to travel, maintain a certain standard of dress, and even pay more for their midday meals. "Work-from-home" people avoid those costs, and as well can claim tax rebates for the functioning of their home office.

This is true to a point- but it is time we addressed the real issue - why can companies deduct form their income legitimate business travel expenses and individuals can't? Yes, the rorts businesses used to use have been clamped down, but if I have a legitimate need to travel to work to earn an income, then surely, I should also be entitled to a deduction of that (reasonable) cost of travelling to and from the location I have to go to in order to earn that income. Now that telecommuting is more mainstream, the cost to the budget seems less impactfiul than it once was.

 

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Today it was announced that the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank has told the bank's work-from-home people to get back to the office. The banks don't like paying rent on unused office space, or low volume service locations.

Yes, and if I were an investor with influence, I would be asking why doesn't that CEO focus more on the opportuinity of significantly redicing the fixed overhead of office rentals, which will save him more and add to the bottom line than the decreased productivity of losing a couple of hours/day to commuiting and of course, workers increased disenfranchisement. The bank I worked for wanted to increase the number of mandatory days in the office and promptly abandoned it as people were prepared to walk. Not to mention the increased sick days as COVID is still lurking around.

 

Jeff Kennett apparently called for salary cuts to people who work from home. FFS! This is an example of how the politicians and complcit press wage wars on working people. The justification is that they don't have to pay for theirt commute. We are still out of pocket; the ATO is clamping down and making it harder ti justify home office expenses; an hour or two more of ourtime doing work is worth much more to the firm than the commute we pay; and when was the last time anyone set a base salary based on the cost of commute. You want to live in the sticks? You pay for the commute (the reducved house prices also cover it). Yes, sometimes commute expenses are added on, but quite rarely. I cover the cost of my fuel and hotel on my commute.

 

The problem is the debate is framed as an all or nothing thing; and the reality is it is now a hybrid model.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

Travel costs to and from a fixed place of work have never been deductible even though it's a cost you must incur to get your wages. Nev

[octave]

Just now, facthunter said:

Travel costs to and from a fixed place of work have never been deductible even though it's a cost you must incur to get your wages. Nev

I used to be in a situation when I was woking at 2 music schools. at one school I was an employee and I could only claim travel if I had to transport my tools of trade (which I did) At the other school I was a contractor operating my own business so I could claim all sorts of inputs. Both jobs were otherwise just about identical.

 

12 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The problem is the debate is framed as an all or nothing thing; and the reality is it is now a hybrid model.

Precisely

 

In my son's business let's say a programmer is tasked to write a bunch of code. This code has a value to the business and this value is the same whether it is written in the office or at someone's home.

[facthunter]

Poor old Jeff is a bit like Paul Keating. Jeff is pretty notorious for selling off a lot of Victorias infrastructure  (like the electricity grid) to level the Books. It's what most Neocons do. I refuse to use the deceptive term, Liberal because Liberal they are not. Nev

[Marty_d]

21 hours ago, red750 said:

re Working from home.

 

This is something that is causing a deal of consternation in Melbourne at the moment. 

 

Pro's

 

Saving commuting costs

Less traffic

Less invironmental pollution

Better work life balance 

 

Cons

 

CBD businesses losing business (no one buying lunches, etc)

Loss of jobs in CBD due to above - surplus staff

Unfair on those who have to go to work eg hospital staff, teachers, police, etc.

Empty offices, unused technology

Meetings have to be held online

Effects on others in household.

 

On the last point, my son works from home two days a week (5 days during lockdown). Because he is on the phone (call centre operator), we have to tippy toe around, and try to stop the dog barking, and can't have the TV on during the day. That means for me at 78 that I almost have to live in my bedroom while he is working from home.

You've mentioned your son requiring absolute silence before. 

Ever considered telling him to soundproof his bedroom and work from there?

 

Yes businesses in CBDs will lose out but so did nightsoil men when sewage systems became the norm.

 

As for trades and careers who can't work from home,  yes they should be compensated by higher wages, possibly the additional hours they spend travelling and transport costs.

 

You've put a few pros there but it can't be overstated how good it would be for the planet, people's family life, health and happiness if work from home was an automatic right where appropriate. 

 

 

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

During woring hours

I love your spelling errors sometimes Jerry. Think you're missing an "h".

 

But yes I replied before reading your post, good points. 

[willedoo]

9 hours ago, octave said:

Melbourne is the second fastest growing city in Aus after Brisbane.   I don't think it is tumbleweeds any time soon.

Also a large part of the growth in S.E. Queensland is Victorians relocating to Queensland. If they all stayed home, Melbourne would be bigger still. A lot of Brisbane growth is taken from Melbourne, so the way I figure it, if that wasn't happening, Melbourne would easily be the biggest growing city.