Ronald Regan believed in the trickle down effect _ help the rich and society will benefit right down to the bottom. Some wits responded with comments that only one thing trickles down.
Trickle down also works with government, especially in a three-level federation.
In the past week Graham Richardson revealed _ almost as an aside _ a prime example. His main point was that John Kerin was a hopeless Treasurer because he did not query programs brought to Cabinet.
Richardson wrote: “”One of the proposals in the Budget was a “better cities” program [they are Richo’s cynical quote marks], to cost $800 million over five years. It was proposed by Brian Howe and the only explanation for Hawke’s supporting it was that he owed Howe and the Left for backing him in the leadership ballot. When it was discussed at the ERC [Expenditure Review Committee], it had no support at all; hundreds of millions of dollars were sought with virtually no detail on how they should be spent. . . .
“”One of the reasons why Labor governments have been so successful for so long is that the Budget proposals of Cabinet Ministers are really put through the mincer. The “”better cities” program was the only time I witnessed the process breaking down.
“”Kerin . . . allowed his prime minister to pass the scheme on his own vote and Brian Howe’s. There was none of the fight for Budget integrity that Treasurers need to show.”
Once given the $800 million, Howe’s department had to spend it. There was no “”great big white board” in Howe’s office, but of its nature the program favours inner-city Labor electorates (especially those held by the Left), and the bureaucratic justification for spending it in those electorates can be easily obtained. Worse than that, though, is the trickle down effect.
Instead of planning city redevelopment for social needs and along sound long-term econonic lines in harmony with other programs, state and local governments found themselves twisting their plans to make their plans qualify for a slice of the $800 million federal booty to shore up their ailing Budgets.
And the ACT was one of the first state and territory governments to join the unseemly queue for the booty. The ACT, which has had buckets of federal money over the past four decades to create Canberra, lined up for even more money to renew and rebuild that creation before it even had a chance to get old.
The proof of that warping effect came late last week. The Master Builders Association provided figures that showed a huge glut of new dwellings. Its response was to call on the Government for a slowdown in the number of greenfields blocks.
Canberra needs about 3000 new dwellings a year, which means about 4500 dwelling sites should be in the pipeline at any one time (allowing for an 18-month turnaround).
The MBA says that online now we have 6000 blocks in developers’ and builders’ hands; 3000 expected to come on line in 1994-95 and 2000 redevelopment projects proposed or lodged. It did not give the average number of dwellings in the redevelopment projects, but four must be conservative. It means we have some 17,000 dwelling sites in the system when we need about 4500.
The MBA blamed interest rates, lower migration into the ACT and a large jump in completed by unoccupied houses for the glut. The Minister, Bill Wood, parrotted the MBAs assertion and danced almost precisely to its call to slow half the greenfields proposals, despite the fact there are two inquiries under way into what is the best mix of greenfields and renewal development.
Urban renewal is to remain unabated.
Interest rates and lower migration causing the glut? No, no, no. Changes to planning laws enabling developers to transmogrify the socially responsible granny-flat idea and responsible redevelopment of some wrecked housing into rampant sub-division of existing blocks and wholesale redevelopment of places which still have a good economic life.
And why did the ACT Government promote these planning changes and even allow its housing authority to take part in them with an untendered joint venture in Braddon? To pick up a slice of the slush-fund created as a pay back for Howe’s support for Hawke in the leadership tussle. That’s why.
And what sort of house does Bob Hawke live in? A redeveloped medium-density unit? No way. He lives in a house in the better part of the city.
BLOB BLOB BLOB
The draft report of the committee into citizens’ intiated referendums is due next week. The committee was chaired by Independent MLA Michael Moore.
A usually reliable source said Moore, who was out of reach yesterday, is to back down on his support for the CIR Bill and to call for a delay in consideration of the Bill until after the election. The source thought Moore, as an independent, liked a monopoly on issues that would otherwise be dealt with by CIR. Surely the source is wrong. I cannot believe that Moore, whose political life has been spent arguing against big-party politics, would back away from CIR which transfers power from big parties to the people.
Besides, only completely irresponsible for journalists repeat things told to them by sources who have not the courage to be named, because the material is invariably tittle tattle, and I for one cannot believe a man with Moore’s track record would engage in such a cynical, disgraceful change of heart on an issue so dear to the conduct of ACT democracy.
Oddly enough, of all the Bills before the Assembly, the CIR Bill needs the least community consultation and public scrutiny because if it is the complete horror that its detractors suggest, the citizens can organise a referendum to get rid of it. Surely the Great Consultative Government and People’s Power Independents should have nothing to fear.