Aaaah, Richard Greene is the only Robin Hood (except for Errol Flynn of course).

Afternoons after school, Robin Hood, Mickey Mouse Club. Stay up late til Channel Close with Crusader Rabbit and the Epilogue.

It's a Perth thing from the early 60's.....

Queensland and WA have quite a few things in common, in particular the resources sector, growing populations and large land mass, including remote areas. These states produce the bulk of export income for Australia and subsidise other states that are not performing as well. Queensland gets far more funds from the Federal Government than WA, though, 90 cents back for every $ raised in GST, compared to WA's 68 cents. WA lacks a lot of infrastructure and services compared to other states, but is propping up everyone else, who pay for their infrastructure and services with the help of WA. The mining tax and the health reform plan add insult to injury - bigtime. Interesting article http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opin...ml?comments=51

You sound like a Scot and North Sea oil.

The only one still there?

not really... what it says is that Queensland negotiated that the commonwealth picks up 75% - so queensland in effect has a "25% Excess" and did have insurance - all the other states :-)

Sandgropers only started whining like girls about it recently. A couple of years ago WA was a bludging state getting more than it paid in.

I didnt know that. Thanks for highlighting this article Helen. Very interesting.

Suddenly I'm a lot less pragmatic about paying the levy.

No, this sort of talk from WA has been going on for years. There are many here would would support secession. I've found another article in The Australian from last October that helps to explain WA's position: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225945329693.

Colin Barnett, until the recent Victoria election, was the only Liberal premier in Australia, under a Federal Labor Govt. He's been sticking to his guns about protecting WA's interests, as the resources in a state belong to the people in that state. Also, it is a state's right to collect royalties and the Australian Constitution would need to be amended to change that (fiddling with a country's constitution is a very dangerous activity, from what I have heard). The ALP suffered greatly during the last 2 elections and now only has 3 Federal MPs from WA. Living in WA, you certainly feel that the rest of Australia does not understand what it's like over here and a lot of Australians have never been to WA.

Apparently there is a 5 year lag for the grant amounts to be adjusted. In 2007-08 WA contributed $8.2 billion to the Federation, that is Australia took $8.2 billion more out of WA than it put back in. WA's boom of resources exports, property taxes and payroll tax, has meant that Canberra now distributes less money to WA. However, as the largest Australia state, with huge distances to cover, a lack of infrastructure, a lack of large regional towns (unlike Queensland), a large indigenous population and rapidly growing population, WA should be getting at least as much as Queensland. If the other states know that they are going to be bailed out by other states, it's not much of an incentive to improve their revenue sources. I'm not talking here about the natural disasters currently happening, but in normal times.

My spidey sensing are tingling....I'll stick my neck out and say this article is probably going to turn out to be very misleading.

The funding queensland will be using to rebuild is through the NDRRA scheme.

Almost all the states use this scheme to rebuild essential assets after natural disasters.


NSW

For example, in the NSW floods in 2009 they used the same NDRRA funding to rebuild roads, bridges etc in NSW. Could it be because the NSW insurance states: "protect all of the state's assets for any one loss of $3bn."...really doesn't cover widespread destruction of many low level assets but instead one off destruction of a big asset. If their insurance did cover it why were they claiming from the NDRRA?

"The Commonwealth will reimburse a State if State expenditure exceeds certain thresholds; is on eligible measures and the State meets other conditions.
The New South Wales Government has adopted the Commonwealth’s terms and conditions for financial assistance in New South Wales. This approach is adopted by all States and the Northern Territory."
(my emphasis)

(Source: NSW Floods 2009 Note: Pdf)

Further to this it looks like almost all states claimed NDRRA funding for the floods of late last year to "rebuild essential infrastructure".


Vic

For example for the 2011 Victoria Floods:

NDRRA assistance for essential public infrastructure - available across 27 LGAs:
- Payments will be made to repair or rebuild infrastructure such as roads, bridges and schools.
- A $4 million Community Recovery Fund to help restore community facilities.

(Source: Victoria Floods 2011)


Western Australia

NDRRA assistance includes:

...
- restoration of essential public assets

(Source: WA Severe thunderstorm on January 29 2011 )


Why is the "comprehensive insurance" not being used to restore public assets in these states I wonder. Anyone know?

Fish, that would be a great question to pose to The Australian's reporter or a letter to the editor.

I think after the latest 2010 adjustments they are now going to review it every 3 years. This is understood to be because of the potential for WA and Qld to rapidly increase revenue in this time due to WA mining receipts and the massive LPG projects starting in Qld. In others words to adjust to take more money from WA/Qld.

I guess the aim is that the stronger states subsidise the weaker at any point in time. Most states have had their turn. Whenever a state is out in front and subsidising others they get annoyed. Hence the billboard NSW tried to erect outside Brisbane Airport. Maybe it is time for a WA billboard at Mascot

Maybe because WA does not have large regional towns it is seen as cheaper to support a centralised in Perth population vs qld where more infrastructure is required across the state to support large populations bases spread over a large area...I'm sure an alternative argument exists as well?

So do you support secession? WA would certainly need to be build some other towns then.

I wouldn't bother writing to The Australian these days. Ideological rag at the moment.

On the logic of those in WA and QLD you could say Perth and Brisbane do nothing for the mines and that the landowners should get it all. Bunch of whiners.

And yes WA used to be a net recipient scrounging off NSW.

Well actually you could say that is the logic of people in NSW as well going off the attempted billboard at Brisbane Airport

You can logically argue two ways"

1) The federation should be dissolved and each state look after its budget. In which case you can also argue that the mining areas of, say, WA should split from places like Perth and take the mining proceeds to build themselves up. And so on.

2) The federal system should disappear and the country be treated as one entity with common laws and budgets. With modern communications I think that's the logical way to go.