2018 South Australian State Election

[SBD]

Thats the problem, talk to anyone in business and they would disagree with you.

https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2018/02/ ... the-state/

Thats a fairly basic summary of what the rest of the state is actually seeing.

I guess my focus is on the prosperity of the state and after 16 years of not delivering that im not falling for the same empty promises.

Mind you we say 16 years as if Labor has dominated, but 2 terms have been in minority government when they lost the popular vote by fairly hefty levels.

This is clearly a case of a writer picking and choosing statistics to fit their argument. Underemployment is an issue across all of Australia - but also the nature of work has changed quite dramatically over the last decade, facilitating easier casual employment and owner-operator businesses that are not easily captured via underemployment statistics. We are the SME state and without a large number of corporate headquarters that operate traditional salaried employment structures underemployment statistics can be exasperated in SA. This is not detracting from the very real issue of underemployment and lack of security from casual employment but this is not unique to SA.

The decline in SA's GSP as a share of the nations GDP is predominantly based on two things - our declining % of the population (I notice that they didn't provide a per capita trend), and the boost to national GDP figures due to the mining boom. The problem with resource/ commodity driven GDP is that wealth does not hit local communities as significantly as manufacturing and services do. People in WA are not almost twice as rich as people in SA as the majority of the wealth generated by mining is extracted from the state along with the commodities going off-shore in the form of profits or distributed to interstate/ international shareholders via dividends and not being spent in the local communities and the state. This is going to get worse given the inability of any level of government to raise significant taxes on the resource industry due to the power or the resource lobby and increasing automation in resource extraction from mine/ field to ship.

Things aren't perfect in SA nor is the Labor government perfect but given what they have been working with over the past 16 years (e.g. accelerated decline of our core economic driver, manufacturing, lack of significant population increase) they have done pretty well to take a few risks (e.g. biomed, renewables) to attract new industries and foreign investment, as we well revitalising key infrastructure to maintain (and enhance) Adelaide as an attractive place to live.

I cannot see a coherent plan from SA Best (self-serving populism at its core) and the liberal government (disgraceful lack of any vision whatsoever). With these alternates, it's a pretty easy pick this election.

To benefit the state economy from mining, we need (preferably) established mining towns with miners who live there with their families and go to work locally (Roxby Downs, former Leigh Creek) or fly-in-fly-out mines with flights only to SA airports. Most modern mines are relatively short-lived ventures in remote places (Carrapateena is expected to be 20 years), so the cost of establishing a town - hospital, schools, car dealership, range of shops,... cannot be justified. Establishing long-lived mines is expensive (and requires huge ore bodies to be found), and shorter ones near existing towns or settled areas receive resistance from the neighbours (e.g. Angas, Hillside, Bird in Hand, Iron Road).

I don't know what policy settings are more likely to encourage establishment of large long-lived mining that could support permanent settlements, so I can't tell which party(s) might be offering the best chances.

[Waewick]

Thats the problem, talk to anyone in business and they would disagree with you.

https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2018/02/ ... the-state/

Thats a fairly basic summary of what the rest of the state is actually seeing.

I guess my focus is on the prosperity of the state and after 16 years of not delivering that im not falling for the same empty promises.

Mind you we say 16 years as if Labor has dominated, but 2 terms have been in minority government when they lost the popular vote by fairly hefty levels.

This is clearly a case of a writer picking and choosing statistics to fit their argument. Underemployment is an issue across all of Australia - but also the nature of work has changed quite dramatically over the last decade, facilitating easier casual employment and owner-operator businesses that are not easily captured via underemployment statistics. We are the SME state and without a large number of corporate headquarters that operate traditional salaried employment structures underemployment statistics can be exasperated in SA. This is not detracting from the very real issue of underemployment and lack of security from casual employment but this is not unique to SA.

The decline in SA's GSP as a share of the nations GDP is predominantly based on two things - our declining % of the population (I notice that they didn't provide a per capita trend), and the boost to national GDP figures due to the mining boom. The problem with resource/ commodity driven GDP is that wealth does not hit local communities as significantly as manufacturing and services do. People in WA are not almost twice as rich as people in SA as the majority of the wealth generated by mining is extracted from the state along with the commodities going off-shore in the form of profits or distributed to interstate/ international shareholders via dividends and not being spent in the local communities and the state. This is going to get worse given the inability of any level of government to raise significant taxes on the resource industry due to the power or the resource lobby and increasing automation in resource extraction from mine/ field to ship.

Things aren't perfect in SA nor is the Labor government perfect but given what they have been working with over the past 16 years (e.g. accelerated decline of our core economic driver, manufacturing, lack of significant population increase) they have done pretty well to take a few risks (e.g. biomed, renewables) to attract new industries and foreign investment, as we well revitalising key infrastructure to maintain (and enhance) Adelaide as an attractive place to live.

I cannot see a coherent plan from SA Best (self-serving populism at its core) and the liberal government (disgraceful lack of any vision whatsoever). With these alternates, it's a pretty easy pick this election.

Labor has no focus on SME or small business (or regional growth), its focus has always been on a heavy public service and cherry picking tax payer funded business incentives to try and provide the look of growth.

The state has also done nothing to address the population slump, they are actually against population growth going by their policies.

I understand Labor SA is pretty Teflon when it comes to being accountable for anything, but to suggest external factors are all to blame for the economic position of SA is pathetic, we have had systematic decline in the state over 20 years, which the predominately Labor period of Government has failed to do anything about.

Without significant Federal funding (both parties) and a fortunate distribution of GST carve up we have been able to sustain the state as an attractive place to live (albeit less people actually want to live here). But how long is that going to last? I would suggest it the other states get their way and the GST carve up is changed and our population growth inevitably creeps in to negative, not long.

[Waewick]

A $2500 grant will only really benefit those who could already afford to install solar - it might buy them a few extra panels or encourage them to install battery storage. It will not open up the possibility of benefiting from solar power to many lower income households. But that probably suits the Libs quite well.

$10000 spread out over 7 years will make solar and battery storage accessible to those who were not in a financial position to install such a system.

Like I say, I know which deal I prefer.

I would prefer to own the asset which I would under the Liberals plan. rather than essentially leasing out my roof for the benefit of someone else.

[Llessur2002]

A $2500 grant will only really benefit those who could already afford to install solar - it might buy them a few extra panels or encourage them to install battery storage. It will not open up the possibility of benefiting from solar power to many lower income households. But that probably suits the Libs quite well.

$10000 spread out over 7 years will make solar and battery storage accessible to those who were not in a financial position to install such a system.

Like I say, I know which deal I prefer.

I would prefer to own the asset which I would under the Liberals plan. rather than essentially leasing out my roof for the benefit of someone else.

This is a different scheme to the virtual power plant. Under this scheme you would own the assets and the electricity produced but you pay for the system (albeit over a long period of time).

Systems installed as part of the virtual power plant would either be free or heavily subsidised depending on circumstances (e.g. whether you live in a housing trust home or not).

Whichever way you carve it, for most people it's an easier route into solar and battery than a $2500 discount.

I earn an average wage but I am not in a financial position to install solar panels and battery storage at my house however much I would love to. A $2500 discount would not sway me. A $10,000 interest-free loan over 7 years definitely would. I suspect I am not an outlier here.

[Llessur2002]

And still they keep coming...

[Waewick]

A $2500 grant will only really benefit those who could already afford to install solar - it might buy them a few extra panels or encourage them to install battery storage. It will not open up the possibility of benefiting from solar power to many lower income households. But that probably suits the Libs quite well.

$10000 spread out over 7 years will make solar and battery storage accessible to those who were not in a financial position to install such a system.

Like I say, I know which deal I prefer.

I would prefer to own the asset which I would under the Liberals plan. rather than essentially leasing out my roof for the benefit of someone else.

This is a different scheme to the virtual power plant. Under this scheme you would own the assets and the electricity produced but you pay for the system (albeit over a long period of time).

Systems installed as part of the virtual power plant would either be free or heavily subsidised depending on circumstances (e.g. whether you live in a housing trust home or not).

Whichever way you carve it, for most people it's an easier route into solar and battery than a $2500 discount.

I earn an average wage but I am not in a financial position to install solar panels and battery storage at my house however much I would love to. A $2500 discount would not sway me. A $10,000 interest-free loan over 7 years definitely would. I suspect I am not an outlier here.

yep, fair point there are two.

but if you boil it down, not being able to afford it with a $2500 grant, you aren't likely to be able afford it with an interest free loan which you still have to pay back (except you pay back more)

I juat had a quick google search and there are already a number of resellers who offer interest free terms. Which would make the Libs offer even better.

[Norman]

I assume that, even with free rego, you still have to pay CTP insurance?

[Llessur2002]

I would prefer to own the asset which I would under the Liberals plan. rather than essentially leasing out my roof for the benefit of someone else.

This is a different scheme to the virtual power plant. Under this scheme you would own the assets and the electricity produced but you pay for the system (albeit over a long period of time).

Systems installed as part of the virtual power plant would either be free or heavily subsidised depending on circumstances (e.g. whether you live in a housing trust home or not).

Whichever way you carve it, for most people it's an easier route into solar and battery than a $2500 discount.

I earn an average wage but I am not in a financial position to install solar panels and battery storage at my house however much I would love to. A $2500 discount would not sway me. A $10,000 interest-free loan over 7 years definitely would. I suspect I am not an outlier here.

yep, fair point there are two.

but if you boil it down, not being able to afford it with a $2500 grant, you aren't likely to be able afford it with an interest free loan which you still have to pay back (except you pay back more)

I juat had a quick google search and there are already a number of resellers who offer interest free terms. Which would make the Libs offer even better.

But over seven years? I can't find anything over 36 months.

[Nathan]

But if electric car owners aren't paying for registration, and aren't paying so-called "fuel tax", why should they be allowed to drive on roads they're not paying for? Their presence on the road means I have to sit longer at the lights in my gas guzzler, creating more pollution. /s

[Ben]

Wouldn't surprise me if this is a warm up to an announcement that electric vehicles will be built in SA.

[Waewick]

This is a different scheme to the virtual power plant. Under this scheme you would own the assets and the electricity produced but you pay for the system (albeit over a long period of time).

Systems installed as part of the virtual power plant would either be free or heavily subsidised depending on circumstances (e.g. whether you live in a housing trust home or not).

Whichever way you carve it, for most people it's an easier route into solar and battery than a $2500 discount.

I earn an average wage but I am not in a financial position to install solar panels and battery storage at my house however much I would love to. A $2500 discount would not sway me. A $10,000 interest-free loan over 7 years definitely would. I suspect I am not an outlier here.

yep, fair point there are two.

but if you boil it down, not being able to afford it with a $2500 grant, you aren't likely to be able afford it with an interest free loan which you still have to pay back (except you pay back more)

I juat had a quick google search and there are already a number of resellers who offer interest free terms. Which would make the Libs offer even better.

But over seven years? I can't find anything over 36 months.

There are quite a few that do 5 years that I have found - AGL offered me no interest for around 5 years as well.

deducting $2,500 off the price would make that just as good as 7 years, assuming I can afford to repay 10k over any amount of period that is.

[Waewick]

But if electric car owners aren't paying for registration, and aren't paying so-called "fuel tax", why should they be allowed to drive on roads they're not paying for? Their presence on the road means I have to sit longer at the lights in my gas guzzler, creating more pollution. /s

to be fair, we would be subsidising people who are spending 80k+ on a car, they have paid tax to get that much money so they are already paying for your road.

[Waewick]

A Marshall Liberal Government will put four million dollars on the table to grow our food sector, enhancing access to new markets and boosting the industry’s capacity for job creation.

Food SA, the sector’s peak body, will receive an additional $1.25 million in the next three years to drive its programs to increase food production in South Australia and national and international sales.

Food SA gives industry a voice and plays a critical role in supporting and developing local businesses that have enormous potential for growth.

“Food SA creates and delivers a suite of programs to help our farmers, food processors and manufacturers grow and access markets in Australia and overseas,” said State Liberal Leader Steven Marshall.

“The food and beverage industry employs more than 140,000 South Australians.

“By 2050, it is estimated world food demand will increase by 70 per cent, much of which will be driven by countries in Asia.

“South Australia is perfectly positioned to grow and help meet this increased demand, with our rich farming land, strong reputation for producing high quality foodstuffs, and geographical proximity.”

The State Liberals’ commitment to Food SA will:
•Enhance their capacity to deliver core programs;
•Support the continuation of the SA Food Industry Awards Program; and
•Establish a Liaison Officer position within Food SA to work directly with businesses and advise on effective business direction and government program accessibility.

“Only a Marshall Liberal Government will ensure South Australia’s food industry has the support needed to reach its full potential.”

[Nort]

South Australia is perfectly positioned to grow and help meet this increased demand, with our rich farming land

Is this the farmland of the Adelaide plains that we are rapidly building suburbs on top of?

[monotonehell]

Food SA, the sector’s peak body, will receive an additional $1.25 million in the next three years to drive its programs to increase food production in South Australia and national and international sales.

So they are paying for a few years' marketing budget on an existing industry? That's not really going to achieve much.