Giving money to Summernats

Tharwa school would have lasted maybe 6 months extra with $300,000.

It’s astounding how few people realise how expensive running a school actually is.

If Summernats is really such a roaring success, then how come Chic had to ask the ACT Govt/Taxpayer to bail them out this year?

And I would really like to see a breakdown of where all this money that Summernats is bringing into Canberra really goes: Dickson McDonalds and KFC?

I assume that Le Chic will be declaring the $300K as income then?

They’re nothing like the same. First there is the issue of loan versus handout, second there is the issue of government money versus a transaction between two private entities, thirdly if a bank insisted on it being public knowledge no-one is forcing you to take the loan from them and fourthly no, I wouldn’t give a damn.

whingers liek foskey and fellow traveller seepi seem to forget that soem places provide fiscal incentives for entrpreneurs like chic henry to move their event.

summernats does inject a lot of money into the local economy.

im not sure the local business community would be happy if summernats moved to the gold coast.

especially if they found out one of the reasons for the move was local govt not supporting the event.

Bugger that. If you want public money then the public have a right to know what it’s being spent on. Don’t like it, don’t take our money.

would you be happy for your (current or future) mortgage schedules to be public knowledge caf? They are one and the same.

Considering the scrutiny and mutual obligation rules that individuals who receive taxpayers money come under, I think business welfare ought to be similarly scrutinised.

If the Government invests $300,000 in Summernats, and it returns millions into the economy, it seems like a reasonable investment.

When people come cap-in-hand to the government to ask for money, you would think the government would be in a strong position to insist that the agreement NOT be confidential.

How about rather than blame the government for this, a serious eye is actually placed on what the recipients of said funds have done with the cash, and what inherent benefit is delivered by the government dedicating its funds in this way? These answers generally can be only garnished by the parties in question.

Your comment, “with no obligations as to how the money had to be spent” is a bit, shall we say unfair, considering that many contracts signed between third parties and Government tend to be commercial in confidence, so it really is no-one elses business unless there is a stuff-up and it heads off to arbitration.

Woefully blind mate, as one header states

If Chic had said “additional security to make the event more family friendly”, noone would have questioned it. Instead, the $ went into the pool paying all the bills.

The bloke just needed to politician speak instead of being honest…