Should TransLink be given revenue collection powers?

[SurfRail]

Discuss - eg how it might be levied, how it might be collected, what kind of return would be aimed at, who would pay and in what proportion, what proportion of TransLink's budget it should make up, should it be limited to SEQ etc.

Keep in mind that this is a very common arrangement overseas (eg it's Vancouver namesake has an arrangement like this which I believe is charged on top of fuel).

For my part, I would be in favour of at least looking at this, because:
- It could be analogous to the fire levy which councils collect as part of the rates bill - different charges for different types of property based on size, use, location etc (here it would just be "no charge" somehow if you lived rurally or somewhere beyond the remit of the system), and a simple payment mechanism
- It would reinforce a user pays system which is fairer - residents who live in SEQ take advantage of the benefit of the public transport system whether they use it or not, and larger properties like shopping centres, office towers, sites used to host private events etc generate a larger impost for the network's resources
- It would help put more of TransLink's budget beyond political interference

I don't know how I would feel about a fuel tax - not necessarily for or against as its a fairly alien concept to us, not sure how effective it has been elsewhere or if it would fly here.

Thoughts?

[somebody]

I think I'm going to vote no, but not because it's a bad idea.  It's a part of giving Translink independence which has just be removed.

If they can't tax fuel (might require a constitutional amendment), then what are they going to tax?  Parking probably wouldn't bring in enough revenue.

I would say that they should be given a budget to implement services and the freedom to decide appropriate fares.

[Stillwater]

Fuel levy clean and dirt cheap to administer (well, relatvely dirt cheap.)  Feds collect, pass back to state.  However, could distort the cost of goods carried by road transport, so that is where some sort of rebate should apply.  Lot of people live in city, so lotsa money from there, to be spent there.  People outside SEQ would pay it, so they should benefit from it also -- southern rail in Cairns for instance, buses for places that do not have them, or subsidised services.  Perhaps like this: http://www.tassielink.com.au/

[somebody]

Fuel levy clean and dirt cheap to administer (well, relatvely dirt cheap.)  Feds collect, pass back to state.  However, could distort the cost of goods carried by road transport, so that is where some sort of rebate should apply.  Lot of people live in city, so lotsa money from there, to be spent there.  People outside SEQ would pay it, so they should benefit from it also -- southern rail in Cairns for instance, buses for places that do not have them, or subsidised services.  Perhaps like this: http://www.tassielink.com.au/

But if it's not uniform between states then it probably violates the constitution.  I guess Surfrail would know more.

[SurfRail]

The political and legal issues over fuel make it probably very unattractive, moreso in Queensland than elsewhere - historical issues with fuel taxes, Constitutional questions, a larger regional population etc.  Being "difficult" doesn't make it impossible, but if there is an easier and more legally surefooted way of doing then there is no point wasting time on fixing the difficulty - just sidestep it.

I'd say it would simply be a delegated taxation power - I don't believe there would be any conceivable constitutional issue with imposing a levy on properties solely for TransLink's use.  GCCC and SCRC already do something virtually the same and it makes up a big chunk of BCC's general rates.  (Somebody actually challenged the LRT's system's contribution from GCCC and was smacked down big time, but he was a conspiracy nutter.)  The State can do what it likes, subject to restrictions in the Commonwealth Constitution, and I'm confident none of the fuel tax/excise issues apply to things like this because section 90 deals with taxes on imports and goods, not just something like land tax or rates which are perfectly legal.

Each local council which is actually connected to a mass transit system, depending on how far you want to go, collects a certain amount from each rates account and remits it to OSR, consolidated revenue or TransLink directly (I am not au fait on requirements but assume it would be like the fire levy).  Councils like Brisbane, Gold Coast, Logan etc would definitely be in - councils like the various Aboriginal councils, Boulia, Barcoo etc would definitely be out because there is no service, only limited ability to recover anything etc - councils like Townsville, Cairns, Bundaberg etc might be included depending on how far we want to take this beyond SEQ.  It's a vexed question because a lot of regional areas are quite large but mainly contain primary producing properties.  Even with councils included in this regime there would probably be exemptions because of things like that (eg Scenic Rim would be one as you only have limited levels of service like the 540 and long-distance buses, although obviously the development of the bus network for Yarrabilba etc would be helped by something like this).

Notionally there should be some expectation of funds collected being actually spent in that area, but it wouldn't need to be 100% precise because some regions would have more pressing needs than others and a better ability to pay (eg BCC).  This already happens with the way consolidated revenue is paid out, it just makes it a bit more transparent and fair.

In my ideal world, I would package this up with removing BCC, GCCC and SCRC from the funding and operational picture altogether and limit their role to Christmas lights tours or subsidised taxis etc, not the line-haul stuff.

[mufreight]

Most definately not.  It would simply create another financial black hole that would absorb funds that would otherwise be use for some practical productive purpose.

[Jonno]

I have said No as we are already paying enough taxes, rates, charges. The problems is we are not spending them smartly.  We are too focused on investments with negative ROI.

[Stillwater]

It is important to note the distinction between a tax and what is known as 'excise'.  And who can impose these things under the Constitution.  For that matter, we should also understand a levy, such as a fire brigade levy on the rates bill. Tax, excise, levy -- all different.

[somebody]

It is important to note the distinction between a tax and what is known as 'excise'.  And who can impose these things under the Constitution.  For that matter, we should also understand a levy, such as a fire brigade levy on the rates bill. Tax, excise, levy -- all different.

My understanding of what was meant by an excise was a tax on exports.  SurfRail is probably about to tell me why that is wrong.

[Stillwater]

Bottom line - at the end of all this flooding, the current revenue stream will be insufficient to do all that needs to be done to put everything right, PLUS the stuff CanDo is talking about, additional levees and the like.  In 2011, the feds introduced a temporary flood levy that all Australians had to wear.  That was reasonable painless.  Bear in mind that southern states have had some horrific fires that will require significant reconstruction.  So it is not unreasonable for there to be a 'disaster levy' of some sort.  Because much of the lost infrastructure is maintained by councils, we can expect a rates hike, but really can't complain if we want our communities brought back to something approaching ship-shape.  As to public transport in Qld, we know that the farebox revenue is falling because of the ticketing system.  We must look to a clean and easy revenue-raising system, and that might be something like an additional levy on rates, say another $20 per household.  The state could encourage such an arrangement by introducing a $ for $ scheme with local government, so that money raised through such a levy would be doubled by $ for $, the added attraction being that the dollars would be returned in durect proportion to the LGA where the money was raised.

Right now, governments are in denial.  They promise to tax less and spend more, while reducing borrowings.  It is a nonsense, but the Australian community falls for the message every time.  The practical outcome is projects delayed beyond their original planned start date (CoastConnect).  The project costs more to build subsequently.  Or projects can be stripped to the bare bones version (CRR Lite).  Stop-gap band-aid measures have to be introduced while we endure delays (rail capacity enhancement measures) and this may not be an efficient use of funds, but the only thing we can do.  Ultimately, governments go into dillusional mode (everything will be fixed in the year 2031) or challenging another level of government to build something and trying to look good by saying something like .... 'yes this project will cost the feds $10 billion, but we have $5 million on the table to make a start.  A start can be made tomorrow, using our $5 million, if only the feds will commit the $10 billion.'  Ministers who make such statements know that even the $5 million is safe, so it is a Clayton's promise.

Folks, it is government of the people, by the people, funded by the people.

[Set in train]

For my part, I would be in favour of at least looking at this, because:
- It could be analogous to the fire levy which councils collect as part of the rates bill - different charges for different types of property based on size, use, location etc (here it would just be "no charge" somehow if you lived rurally or somewhere beyond the remit of the system), and a simple payment mechanism
- It would reinforce a user pays system which is fairer - residents who live in SEQ take advantage of the benefit of the public transport system whether they use it or not, and larger properties like shopping centres, office towers, sites used to host private events etc generate a larger impost for the network's resources
- It would help put more of TransLink's budget beyond political interference

Good idea, but only if a property is occupied. Contributions should only be made where people are present or will be present during the levied period. You've always got a building there (unless land) that needs protecting, so yes, that levy should be paid; the ambulance levy conversely was being paid on properties where no people existed.

[SurfRail]

Most definately not.  It would simply create another financial black hole that would absorb funds that would otherwise be use for some practical productive purpose.

My view is that it would give them greater certainty over what they could fund and they can plan accordingly.  Their allocation would be much less dependent on convincing the dunderheads at Treasury why public transport is worth paying for, and upon political problems of convenience (eg BCC wanting to do its own thing to the detriment of the rest of the system).

[SurfRail]

I have said No as we are already paying enough taxes, rates, charges. The problems is we are not spending them smartly.  We are too focused on investments with negative ROI.

There needn't be any increase in what is being levied, only in who is paying it (ie the people who benefit from PT and the organisations which create demand for it in areas of short supply, like suburban shopping centre owners and greenfield developers) and how it is being recovered (ie without political machinations by councils and bureaucrats - just a simple calculation based on previously agreed objective criteria like rates).

[Stillwater]

So Jonno, do you believe the money required to fix the current flood damage throughout Qld can be paid for from within the current revenue stream to governments, without a levy or increases in taxes, while still meeting all existing commitments?