Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

Dark times ahead for ACT

By housebound - 8 September 2009 17

The ABC news tells us that the ACT might be about to face a loss of its share of GST revenue as Western Australia does its usual lobbying effort to avoid sharing too much of its wealth with the rest of us.

This time, WA is backed by a Commonwealth Grants Commission report (3.9 MB download). If you go to page 493, you will see that we got an extra $29.7 million dollars of GST revenue in 2007-08 because of our extra costs of being a national capital. In 2007-08, these costs included our wide roads, the limitations of the NCA/NCP, the costs of using the AFP, the ACTION subsidy (due to free parking in the triangle), our low volunteer firefighter numbers, Canberra nature Park and the cost of anti-terrorism measures.

They propose that only the first three: wide roads, NCA/NCP, AFP – should remain. Of course, there is nothing in the document that shows how much we will lose as a result

The Libs are jumping up and down according to this ABC report – perhaps preemptively, perhaps not – and ACT Labor is yet to say anything.

UPDATE
Here’s the story from the ABC with comments from both Brendan Smyth and Katy Gallagher.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
Dark times ahead for ACT
peterh 9:47 am 09 Sep 09

Wanon said :

PM said :

I reckon we should expand the ACT to take in other places in the Capital Region, for example Quangers and Yass. Then we’d have less reliance on fed govt employment and therefore a broader tax base. Easier for businesses to work cross-border ie no longer will there be different regs. We’d also streamline use of other infrastructure eg dams.

Totally agree, the ACT should annex Quangers and Yass and surrounds. Makes life so much more simpler. Then we can get back to bad mouthing Charnwood instead. 🙂

annexing queanbeyan, yass and surrounds would only create more problems for the ACT, we would gain access to infrastructure, but also to the local council structures of these areas. The outlay that the ACT government would have to make to employ these councils would not increase our coffers, the infrastructure we would gain would include the upkeep of many roads that we currently don’t have to worry about.

Granny mentioned an international competition, if we focused nationally on the positives that could assist the ACT to generate revenue to cover any shortfalls from the commission, we would be able to become far more self sustainable. Generating revenue by raising taxes and increasing parking costs will not solve the current issues that are faced, we need to be able to explore other ways to increase the revenue – or at least make canberra an attractive place to live and work.

with the recent annoucement from centrelink of the plans to downsize the canberra helpdesk in favor of reallocation of resources to adelaide and brisbane, the number of workers drops from 53 to 6, there doesn’t seem to be much confidence in canberra, especially from the likes of Peter Gershon, and the Federal Government.

housebound 9:12 am 09 Sep 09

Looks like they’re about to charge for duelling, accoridng to the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/09/2680498.htm

Choose your weapons, lads.

YapYapYap 12:50 am 09 Sep 09

Kramer said :

The following CGC paper states that the ACT incurs costs $16 million due to NSW residents using ACT hospitals, which is not completely recovered from the NSW govt:
http://www.cgc.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0018/16542/NSW_-_2008-18_Admitted_Patients_submission.pdf

The cost recovered from NSW is in the order of $70m pa. Maybe $16m is the shortfall, as NSW pays some sort of ‘averaged’ cost rather than the full cost met by the ACT.

YapYapYap 12:46 am 09 Sep 09

Add to the equation all the NSW school students educated here at ACT taxpayers expense – and no, NSW doesn’t pay and neither do the Grants Commission calculations take those costs into account. You can add to that the military brats and dipo kids and come up with millions and millions.

Wanon 9:23 pm 08 Sep 09

PM said :

I reckon we should expand the ACT to take in other places in the Capital Region, for example Quangers and Yass. Then we’d have less reliance on fed govt employment and therefore a broader tax base. Easier for businesses to work cross-border ie no longer will there be different regs. We’d also streamline use of other infrastructure eg dams.

Totally agree, the ACT should annex Quangers and Yass and surrounds. Makes life so much more simpler. Then we can get back to bad mouthing Charnwood instead. 🙂

PS, Boo at the jealous stab at the free parking in the triangle. You need affordable public transport that runs frequently and on time, don’t just price car travel out of the market.

screaming banshee 9:01 pm 08 Sep 09

Just more reasons for two levels of gubmint instead of three, by all means keep the boundaries for the “we’re better than them” arguments but is it really rational to manage things like

– Hospitals
– Vehicle registrations and driver licencing
– Trade and Business licencing
plus the many other things managed on a state by state basis which are common to, I don’t know, all states and territories aka national.

So scrap the bs duplications from state to state, scrap state governments.

And that includes Cirque du assembly

Mr Evil 2:24 pm 08 Sep 09

Dark Times + Witches of Mt Ainsley = We’re all going to burn in Hell!

Why doesn’t the ACT Govt start charging utility companies for locating their infrastructure on Govt land………….oh, hang on, they’ve already tried that one!

PM 2:20 pm 08 Sep 09

I reckon we should expand the ACT to take in other places in the Capital Region, for example Quangers and Yass. Then we’d have less reliance on fed govt employment and therefore a broader tax base. Easier for businesses to work cross-border ie no longer will there be different regs. We’d also streamline use of other infrastructure eg dams.

Granny 1:47 pm 08 Sep 09

I think we should take this as an opportunity to pull together as a community and brainstorm some ways in which we could create this revenue and more without relying on the whims of whichever federal government. Maybe we could hold an international competition with a substantial prize for the best entrepreneurial idea!

Kramer 1:26 pm 08 Sep 09

The following CGC paper states that the ACT incurs costs $16 million due to NSW residents using ACT hospitals, which is not completely recovered from the NSW govt:
http://www.cgc.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0018/16542/NSW_-_2008-18_Admitted_Patients_submission.pdf

Thumper 1:17 pm 08 Sep 09

I was of the opinion that the ACT received funds from NSW for the use of the hospitals.

captainwhorebags 1:09 pm 08 Sep 09

It’d be nice to do away with the arbitrary state boundaries and have Australians subsidising other Australians.

Kramer 1:03 pm 08 Sep 09

Also there’s loads of nearby NSW residents who mooch off our hospitals, water, roads and other infrastructure.

sepi 12:54 pm 08 Sep 09

Perhaps we can think some additional costs of being the national capital to throw back at them – Chinese Olympic torch Relay anyone?

PM 12:48 pm 08 Sep 09

We are also disadvantaged as having a lower proportion of employment possibly subject to payroll tax ie federal public service is not subject to it.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site