Discussion: After a few decades

working in rural policy, I am losing patience with the average punter who believes government is a magic pudding. I no longer see the PNG adoption of various cargo cults in the 50s and 60s as any less sophisticated than someone who believes in increased services and lower taxes. Or in this case no development and no sprawl.

So would Invisible agree or disagree with the Kangaroo Island council's proposal to levy all passengers on the Sealink ferry $11.34 per trip in order to upgrade KI roads? Sealink (which is not subsidised by the government, unlike Spirit of Tasmania) says it refuses to be the council's toll collector.

I wouldn't agree or disagree, not knowing the issue. But I would take issue with anyone who argued that Council should fund the roads but not levy an increased tax on anyone. This is an interesting policy case. First a few questions.
Do the roads actually require upgrading and who is lobbying for this?
Who will derive the most benefit from the road upgrade (presumably there is some overlap with the answer to the first question).
A coherent set of answers might go some way to pointing to the solution. I assume the locals are claiming they "can't afford to pay increased rates and all the damage is done by tourists anyway". If the latter part of the assertion is true, then levying a vehicle levy (as opposed to a passenger levy) on the ferry might make sense as long as it doesn't dampen tourism, in which case some of the rate payers might have second thoughts. Its a bit like the arguments over road taxes. The damage is done by the large vehicles which pay less than a share that might be suggested by their contribution to road costs. So, we end up with a subsidy for truck transport being paid by the general road user.
The question of who pays for the transaction costs of collecting the toll is another question.

I guess most of the roads are not federally funded, not being major highways. In fact, it's possibly the cost of sealing them that's the issue. Unsealed roads on KI are buckshot gravel on which it's comparatively easy to have an accident, especially if you are a tourist unfamilliar with the road's condition. A Sealink survey of passengers suggests an 8% downturn in their numbers if the levy is applied. (If applied, should the levy apply equally on flights to the island, or cars rented there?