Wont get resolved till the Abbott question is resolved
First Test for Dan Andrews - Militant union flexing muscle
- Thread starter Todman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hard to comment as Andrews won't release the contract as he promised to! I can only assume the original contract didn't include a rigorous compensation clause for if a court found that the contract was "void or otherwise unenforceable".
I don't like governments binding successive governments by legislation but this seems to be a valid commercial contract signed by an elected government.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,750
- 14,968
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Congrats on the marriage!you can interview for the lead and I'll do the ladies
just don't tell my wife
When did you tie the knot?
on what basis do you say a $1.2b payment is standard
- Thread starter
- #156
The road itself was the solution recommended to the Bracks Government by their own study.
The contracts were signed well before the Libs went into caretaker mode. Caretaker mode starts at the end of the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly and lasts until the results of the election is known. Clearly Napthine was not in caretaker mode when the contracts were signed in early 2014. In any event if the contracts were being signed during the Caretaker mode the Opposition must sanction any major contacts.
The only question of any relevance now is should Daniel Andrews give a consortium of businesses $1 billion of tax payer’s money for nothing? If you think the answer to that question can possibly be “Yes” you seriously need your head read. There is no situation in which that is a good idea. Good thing it’s not your money.
The contracts were signed well before the Libs went into caretaker mode. Caretaker mode starts at the end of the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly and lasts until the results of the election is known. Clearly Napthine was not in caretaker mode when the contracts were signed in early 2014. In any event if the contracts were being signed during the Caretaker mode the Opposition must sanction any major contacts.
The only question of any relevance now is should Daniel Andrews give a consortium of businesses $1 billion of tax payer’s money for nothing? If you think the answer to that question can possibly be “Yes” you seriously need your head read. There is no situation in which that is a good idea. Good thing it’s not your money.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #157
Define 'well'.
Well before they knew that there would be an election?
Well before they knew that they hadn't developed a case for it?
Well before the public wanted it built?
Or was it in time to satisfy their political donors?
Could go on but you get the message, I hope.
Why add that very generous letter?
With blinkers off please, just assume that this was a Labor contract.
Because of standard terms of Government in Victoria, their last 6 months was in effect caretaker mode. The election date was known so far out from it that signing a contract a week before the campaign wasn't exactly shrewd - and political convention is that if the Government was to change, the outgoing government need to consult with their opponents about the contact. Again Napthine et al failed to even meet that convention.
- Jun 19, 2006
- 10,051
- 18,462
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The Liberals had a choice. They could wait 8 weeks and happily sign the contract upon re-election. That would've been seeking a mandate for something they never suggested was on the cards at the previous election. Had they been returned nobody could reasonably object to that.
Or they could ram through the contract shortly before an election that they knew would be close and write additional side-contracts in order to ensure that compensation had to be paid for the ALP to do what they'd campaigned on. They've locked the victorian taxpayer in to pissing money down the drain and it's a disgrace.
Frankly if I was Andrews I'd just pass a law declaring the contract void. Stuff the whining of sovereign risk from the usual business idiots. The contractors knew the ALP's position, they knew the likelihood of them being elected and they knew that the Libs were trying to get them to sign a farce contract. They thought they could get a $1B pay day from the public without having to build anything.
Or they could ram through the contract shortly before an election that they knew would be close and write additional side-contracts in order to ensure that compensation had to be paid for the ALP to do what they'd campaigned on. They've locked the victorian taxpayer in to pissing money down the drain and it's a disgrace.
Frankly if I was Andrews I'd just pass a law declaring the contract void. Stuff the whining of sovereign risk from the usual business idiots. The contractors knew the ALP's position, they knew the likelihood of them being elected and they knew that the Libs were trying to get them to sign a farce contract. They thought they could get a $1B pay day from the public without having to build anything.
- Jun 19, 2006
- 10,051
- 18,462
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And if Abbott could convince the upper house to vote with him he could remove that easily. There's nothing making the will of the people more expensive to implement it's just Abbott can't get it past the senate that was elected. In Victoria's case even if Andrews gets both houses of parliament on side the Liberals have designed it so it costs the government over $1B.
Michael O'Brien is a piece of ****.
It's not really about whether they had authority to sign the contract. The odd thing - the really irresponsible thing - was signing the contract while there was a judicial review action on foot in the Supreme Court. If successful, that would have likely frustrated the contract. If they'd won the election but lost the case, they could remake the decision and do it correctly. And then sign the contract.
Anyway, you're likely correct re Andrews' options. Legislation or negotiation, assuming the 'side letter' holds water.
This happens nearly every time in every state some NIMBY, usually a pensioner or NFP association so costs can't be retrieved, tries to stop something being implemented. So this is nothing new and is expected whether its the ALP or Libs.
He's just about to pass another test, despite what the police think.
Removing the requirement to have protesters identify themselves upon arrest.
We should all be about encouraging democratic freedoms, not restricting them.
Removing the requirement to have protesters identify themselves upon arrest.
We should all be about encouraging democratic freedoms, not restricting them.
What are you referring to? I'm talking about the City of Moreland and City of Yarra. Both would have been liable for costs. Both Councils were legally represented in the Supreme Court. Not some half baked nimby action in vcat. See: http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Par...nd-moreland-legal-challenge---east-west-link/
Note the consequences if the action were successful.
Even if there are challenges to every similar development - why sign the contracts until that has been resolved? Especially where the applicants are liable for costs and will pay.
Danny Cullen
Club Legend
- Banned
- #167
Get rid of the hippies and it will be built.
Labor/Loony greens pandering to hippies has got out of control.
Labor/Loony greens pandering to hippies has got out of control.
Get rid of corrupt businesses (i.e. Grollos) and we would have an even better state than we do now.
Danny Cullen
Club Legend
- Banned
- #169
I love Melbourne. Regularly visit.
The trip from the airport sucks balls. Get rid of the congestion.
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,715
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
No it was not - the East West Tunnel proposed by Eddington cost less and followed a different route - so please don't conflate
- Jun 19, 2006
- 10,051
- 18,462
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Where are you heading to? If the East-West link is going to help your trip from the airport you've probably got a dodgy cabbie who's ripping you off.
The easiest way is to build a railway line.
The easiest way to do that is to use current infrastructure from Southern Cross station, via the freight line to Albion and up beyond East Keilor (where the XPT also goes by the way) and then into the station at the back of Tullamarine itself. You don't need to build a new line. And using current infrastructure for the most part actually saves the State finances in a significant way. Heck, the V/Line trains needed are already rolling stock - with more to be built in Victoria on the way this year.
Widening Tullamarine Freeway will also help, which is also going to happen from this year. I would say have a dedicated lane for Skybus and the other airport buses in operation will only help it even further.
East-West Link is not needed.
As if councils haven't wasted other peoples money going to court with a Nimby action
Perhaps But Andrews is going to pay for it anyway with our money, but it will be imaginary.
He should do what the last govt did with an even worst example MYKI, keep it/build it anyway
- Jun 19, 2006
- 10,051
- 18,462
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Let me get this straight.
MYKI contracts were signed over 5 years before the Liberals came to power (with another election in between) compared to the E-W link being signed 8 weeks before an election by a government well behind in the polls.
There was no suggestion when the Liberals came to power that the MYKI contracts were invalid while the E-W link is up before the courts.
There was, to our knowledge, no side-contract for MYKI meaning compensation was payable even if the actual contract was found to be void. There was for E-W link.
The total cost of MYKI was $1.5B. The cost of the compensation payout alone for the E-W link is expected to be about that amount.
Yet MYKI is worse than the E-W link??? Only the most partisan hack could think that statement is reasonable.
Let's be honest. MYKI was a perfectly reasonable project delivered incompetently leading to huge waste. There was no drama around the signing of the contracts, no major opposition at the time they were signed and no dodgy compensation clauses. It rightfully led to the removal of a government due to cost blowouts and poor management. But the signing of the E-W link contracts by a government on its death bed mere weeks before an election with compensation clauses of $1B+ irrespective if the contract was valid is an outright fraud on the victorian people. A $1B+ gift to mates in the construction industry stinks of corruption. The new government should legislate to have the contract declared null with no requirement for compensation and call for a royal commission into the episode.
I can handle incompetency. It's something that's almost expected with governments to some degree and the public has the right to kick out governments because of it. But this is deceit pure and simple, legislating to deny an elected government the ability to deliver what the public voted them in to do. It absolutely stinks.
Similar threads
