Call for levy to fund boat facilities boost

[jaybee]

The Boating Industry Association of Queensland (BIAQ) is calling for a $25 levy to be collected with registration fees to fund additional boating facilities.

BIAQ general manager Barry Hibberd says if the State Government accepts the proposal to include the $25 levy, about $2 million will be raised for much needed improvements.

Mr Hibberd says facilities such as boat ramps have deteriorated over the past decade, and he says at the association's annual general meeting this week, the Government was requested to look at the South Australian model, where a levy has worked well.

"The South Australian model has worked really well. South Australian Transport has marketed it very successfully, very professionally," he said.

"I mean, they have got world class facilities, toilets, parking, washdown, barbecues...they've got six lane ramps and not only in Adelaide, it's extended out to the regional areas like Port Lincoln and the like."


Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:26 AEST

[Kerry]

Well maybe it might be time to "actually" spend the actual levey that is supposedly already levied to do these types of things instead of spending it elsewhere.

That might also include spending some of the monies, which is already "collected" from boating resources back into the actual source.

"Levies" appear to be the flavour of the month/year to "fix" already badly managed resources >:(

Cheers, Kerry.

[krazyfisher]

why do we need a second levy there is already one on our rego >:(

[jaybee]

i think it is going to be a $10 increase krazy, i personally believe take the levie of the rego and bring in licenses. oh well
cheers.

[bazz]

I agree with Kerry,what do we pay our rego for now?I have always been of the understanding that the rego we already pay on our boats were for this purpose.
Where does the money go to that we already pay?How much does the Government collect on rego's anyway?A levy is just another form of tax regardless of what name you call it.If they can't control the money they already collect,why are they going to be able to control another $25 on your rego? For me the idea stinks.

[Lucky_Phill]

The $10 levy currently collected goes into a " fund " which is distributed to maintain facilities and also heads to the " research " side of things Re:- fisheries.

Posibily, some of that levy is used to " administer " the levy....you know what I mean. ;D :( ::)

[bugman]

Phil,

The levy goes into Treasurey as consolidated revenue. Treasurey allocate a certain amount of money to fisheries. I think you'll find those two figure may not correlate.

Glad my boat sunk!!!

Bugman

[Ron_Collins]

Hi All

All of the posts are way off the mark, some by many miles. If the subject is still around after the Tinnie and Tackle Show I'll provide some accurate information. Ron Collins.

[krazyfisher]

If this info is wrong what is the right info I was told 2 weeks ago that BIAQ wanted to put a $25 levy onto the rego, will have to find the paper work

ron
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/longr/monthly/reglr-21mar2003-3.htm
this is where I think the info came from I have it from else where and will find out please let us know

[jaybee]

Cant find my rego papers at present but dont we pay $15 at present and they want to increase it to $25 or do they want to put a $25 increase on the levie we now pay, now i am confused
cheers

[rick k]

More 'user pays'. Well, I pay a sh....er a lot of income tax, gst, rego, medicare levy (consolidated revenue) and rates.

And I don't seem to get too much for it.

The arts are subsidised.

Pro footy is subsidised.

I am sick of paying more and more for less and less, while what I do pay is peed up against the wall to win votes from people who'se interest are directly the opposite of mine.

Perhaps we should lobby for a levy on those who sell boats in Queensland; that would put their prices up, they would sell less boats, and the ramps and fishing spots would be less crowded (sorry Bugman). Lets see, average boat life, 20 yrs, at 25 yr, that's $500 per boat. Per dealer.

Rick

[bugman]

It's ok fishtime :'( :'(

I'm over it now :'( :'(

[Ron_Collins]

Hi All

I'm heading to the Tinnie and Tackle Show shortly, but will endeavour to clarify some of the misconceptions and issues this good topic has raised.

First I'll comment on the bit of correct information: the BIAQ has issued a press release saying it supported a $25 levy on registered boats to raise funds for infastructure improvement through upgrading existing facilities and the building of new facilities.

I have no idea who the BIAQ consulted before it announced what is a fairly heavy levy. BNB is the owner of two registered boats, and I wasn't asked. I'm sure no one on the Ausfish site was asked. In fact I'd guess that none of the about 175,000 registered boat owners in Queensland was consulted.

Here are some indisputable facts: we, owners of registered "recreational" boats, currently pay a $12 "private pleasure vessel levy" (PPV). This was introduced not long after the current Government was elected. Roughly around the same time it honoured a pre-election promise to reduce the cost of boat registrations.

Boat registrations are administered and fees are collected collected by Queensland Transport's Maritime division. Somewhat ironically, the current $12 levy is "paid" or otherwise allocated by Transport to the Department of Primary Industries and ultimately those funds are dispersed to Queensland Fisheries Service.

Multiply 175,000 by $12 and you'll see the amount we are speaking about. At a glance it's easy to calculate it's $2 million, and rising fast.

Currently those funds are allocated in line with a budget approved by QFS and members of the fishing fraternity. In the past I've been one of the people sitting on that committee and I can say that the expenditure, most of which is utilised by appropriate projects, is closely scrutinised. There is also an agreed amount allocated to "administration".

But according to the Government, the rules of the levy preclude it being used for the provision or maintenance of general facilities. The whole issue is clouded by the fact that we're dealing with two departments and cross departmental dealings are far from easy.

In the early days there was a high priority given to fish stocking, but now we have the Stocked Impoundment Permit (SIP) scheme in place and it seems to be adequately providing funds for that aspect of rec fishing.

I can't go into great detail here, but recently I asked the Department of Primary Industries to work with Queensland Transport to come up with a plan which will allow some of the PPV money to be spent on facilities. I will know in about two months what the reaction to that request was and whether or not it will happen.

Personally, I would not mind paying another levy of say $10, provided it was utilised in accordance with closely scrutinised rules that made sure funds did not disappear into the old black hole, and budgets were approved by the Government and representatives of recreational fishers.

I think that covers most of the matters I wanted to either comment on or clear up as far as accuracy was concerned. If I get any waves of inspiration while standing at the Show later today, I'll add them to this post. Best wishes. Ron Collins.

[jaybee]

Ron Collins
we're dealing with two departments and cross departmental dealings are far from easy.
Ron wouldn't be easier to have a separate body say Sunfish Handle the levy, as it appears the government doesnt know what it is doing or wants to be accountable.
regard.

[old_fisho]

Well i may as well have my 10 cents worth . Up at Bribie last weekend stayed at banksia beach nice little boat ramp their but it CANNOT be used >:( .Why you ask well talking to a old bloke who has lobbied the council and it is something to do with the indiginious people wont let them move some sand. So how many other ramps are like this ,just let go because of red tape ???. I wouldnt mind paying a little extra but only if i knew it went into boat ramps and related facilities. As i am a beginner in the boating scene some places are a discrace and need upkeep.
Thats All
Perry.

[Maxg]

Well ask them what happens to the GST buks from your recreational dollars, which get back into your State coffers. For every billion spent on rec angling, including boating etc whatever, the fed gov gets 100 million which ends up in your State Gov's revenue bucket. They make a big profit out of rec angling. Let them use that. Max

[Ron_Collins]

Hi All

Back from the Show.

In my opinion, it would not be a good idea to ask Sunfish to handle or otherwise manage the PPV. Why? Firstly, Sunfish is a beneficiary of the levy in that a large slice their annual funding comes from it. You may recall that Sunfish had a deal of trouble gaining funds for the current financial year.


Secondly, and again it's my opinion only, it needs a wider representative body than Sunfish to manage the money and its allocation to ensure that funding is not always directed to one sector or another, which could happen under the Sunfish banner.

GST is a separate issue, along with fuel excise, and I'm happy to comment on those issues a little later. For now, that's about as far as I can take the rego levy without speaking with some of our members of Parliament and the BIAQ.

Meanwhile, any other feedback or points of view that may assist our cause would be appreciated. Ron Collins.

[Vern_Veitch]

Whilst I agree with Ron's facts, I do not agree with some of his views. To my mind, there is no justification to take even more revenue from boat owners. Some of the taxes we pay that should go at least in part towards boating facilities include:
1. GST (on everything we buy for rec fishing and boating including safety gear.
2. Fuel Excise
3. Our share of income tax
4. Boat and Trailer Registration - note that although some of our boat registration goes towards facilities, none of our trailer rego is allocated back to our benefit.
There are probably others but these are already well above the total spent on managing facilities and fisheries.
The $12 PPV levy is not for facilities but is used for a range of projects including Sunfish funding (projected to be $125 000 next F/Y) QB&FP "Flying Squad" and various fisheries research and management issues as allocated by QFS.
To put this in balance we need to look at other places government spends money. A short list includes:
1. Car racing on the Gold Coast for 1 day a year - about $10 million I believe.
2. A walking bridge overthe Brisbane River - $27 million.
Lang Park rebuild - about $230 million.
3. Trawler buy-back $20 million
4. Cane industry rescue package - State and Commonwealth total is over $200 million in the last 5 years for an industry that is unlikely to be economically viable in the medium to long term.
The next question is how much would it cost to upgrade facilities. I cannot give an estimate but the proposed, in my dreams, boat ramp that is urgently needed in Townsville has been estimated to cost about $4 million on top of other construction costs to have 12 lanes and 500 car and trailer parks with some support buildings for coast guard etc.
I guess all of the above really means that the government sees the boating community as some sort of milking cow that they can ignore. And with our lack of support for those volunteers who are out there trying to improve things, they are probably right.
I cannot afford the time that I previously spent on this page due to study commitments but will try to keep an eye on it when time permits.
Vern

[Kerry]

First I'll comment on the bit of correct information: the BIAQ has issued a press release saying it supported a $25 levy on registered boats to raise funds for infastructure improvement through upgrading existing facilities and the building of new facilities.

So is the correct information a "new additional" $25 levy in "addition" to the "existing" levy?



I have no idea who the BIAQ consulted before it announced what is a fairly heavy levy.

That's a good point especially considering who the BIA are anyway (or think they are).[/quote]


.... some indisputable facts: we, owners of registered "recreational" boats, currently pay a $12 "private pleasure vessel levy" (PPV).

.... those funds are allocated in line with a budget approved by QFS and members of the fishing fraternity.

.... is also an agreed amount allocated to "administration".

But according to the Government, the rules of the levy preclude it being used for the provision or maintenance of general facilities.

.... whole issue is clouded by the fact that we're dealing with two departments and cross departmental dealings are far from easy.

An "administration" amount, now that % would be interesting but obviously not for public inspection, apart from the fact that the public actually pays the levy.

Really this whole "levy" appears to be convieniently "cross threaded", in that it always appears to be another department's problem.

To preclude this levy for the purpose then makes it a straight out tax, which isn't a levy at all. This I suppose answers the first query in that if the "existing" 12 bucks is precluded from being used for "the provision or maintenance of general facilities" then this BIA 25 bucks has to be an addition.


Personally, I would not mind paying another levy of say $10, provided it was utilised in accordance with closely scrutinised rules that made sure funds did not disappear into the old black hole, and budgets were approved by the Government and representatives of recreational fishers.

There's no way another levy of any description should even be considered until the "first" levy (tax) is actually used in the context of a levy and not simply a tax as if it's not used as a levy based on the purpose for which is was raised then it's not a levy at all but a straight tax and simply put another rort #>:(

Cheers, Kerry.

[Vern_Veitch]

Kerry,
I think you missed the point on a few issues that I clarrified.
The PPV levy allocation is accountable and it's use is for fishery management issues. Very little is spent on Administration.
The big issue is where is the rest of our boat and trailer funding being used. Queensland Transport will tell you they are spending some $8 million per year on facilities but most of that is spent on keeping seats shiny and offices cool in a Brisbane CBD building and not a lot on new or upgraded facilities. And they refuse to accept that our trailer rego should be used for boating facilities.
Our other taxes that I outlined in a previous post should cover basic admin costs but they are hidden in internal revenue so the Government can tell us that they are spending more than they take in rego's (boat only) and that everything is wonderful.
Those of us who only get to use ramps on weekends know better. Can you imagine if the SE Freeway was built to handle the minimum traffick load - it would still be 2 lanes. That is presently the condition of our ramps.
Vern

[adrian]

well this has opened my eyes but i have to agree that they should use the money they get from our regos on ramps and other things and as for the sand at bribie theyy should jsut clean it off as it's not owned by anyone but no one wants to take the responablity for it
maybe a stand is needed or maybe a water tax for using the waterways is next it seems to me that levies get money and give nothing in return

anzac

[Gazza]

and as sure as the sun sets......and probably rises again http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm16.gif

you will be told that "it's the local councils" responsibility http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm23.gif

oneday ,oneday..... a sitting/non-sitting gov't/opposition will utter the words......

"NO new taxes....and.....and.... NO new levies"

Regards
Gazza

p.s. Ron , don't you "trust " Sunfish to be "allowed" to handle money on behalf of RecFishos for RecFishos ??? ???

Couldn't do worse than the monies being presently taken and ........non-spent on RecFishos........ from RecFishos ??? ::)

[Ron_Collins]

Hi Gazza

I'm pleased to say that I have quite a close relationship with some Sunfish officials.

But the disbursement of the money that I'm talking about covers much more than rec fishing. That's why I would be keen to see its "administration" handled by a more diversified group.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that "rec fishing" is immensely more diversified than wetting a line off the local jetty, for instance. Rec fishing has to take into account the needs of, for instance, charter operators, divers, boaties who fish, tourism operators in fishing regions and so on. We could end up with a list a mile long if we set our minds to it, I'm sure.

That's why I would like to see a wider group on any money "disbursement" committee. The process would need to be very transparent and very accountable to those paying the dollars. Maybe I'm dreaming, but in my biased opinion I'm sure it could work.

So, Gazza, I hope that is a clearer explanation of my personal position regarding Sunfish and disbursement of any funds collected for rec fishing. Matter of fact, I think if you analysed the contents of BNB Fishing and the 4BC Talking Fishing Show, you'd find Sunfish gets a good run on most issues.

Best wishes for now. Ron Collins.

[Gazza]

Thanks Mate , respect your POV and clearer position ;)

NO new taxes....and..and....NO new levies
;)

Regards
Gazza

[Kapitan]

"No new taxes and no new levies" says the media tart Beatie!!!!!

Just more speed cameras and radar guns..........

Whichever way you look at it, it is all govenment revenue and its a growth industry. Governments/public servants are not known for efficient management of the things they do, (Qld Ambulance service???).

Just have to pay up and shut up.

[jaybee]

awwwwwwwwwww geeeeeeeee, and webby, lucky phil and a few others say i am a cynical bathtub,(i agree to that ;D) when is everyone going to wake up to the fact you cant trust the government which ever one it is, and what ever they have you involved in as an 'ordinary person' cause they will only tell you what they only want you to hear. The only outcome will be to line their pockets and try to make out it will do you good
cheers.
joe.