Talk:GST distribution dispute

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an Australian state premier called another "the Gollum of Australian politics" during an argument on tax revenue distribution? Source: Australian Financial Review article

• ALT1: ... that an Australian state premier said he would be taking a spear to meetings on a tax distribution dispute? Sky News Australia article
• ALT2: ... that the Australian government commissioned two recommendations on GST reform but used neither? Bit of synthesis here. The Guardian article for the first review, directions for the second review (pp. iv–v), and The Conversation report on the actual reform.
• Reviewed: Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act

Created by 5225C (talk). Self-nominated at 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

• New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Any chance of getting a reference for the paragraphs in the Background section, 5225C? No Earwig issues, and the other references (including the one for the hook fact) check out. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie: Absolutely, thank you.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Dominic Perrottet wasn't premier at the time of the remark. I think the hook should be changed. Steelkamp (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's an oversight on my part, I apologise. I propose ALT1 as an interesting alternative.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• AlT2 is also an option, but requires some synthesis of sources.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1 is better than ALT2. Governments ignore reports all the time, isn't that extraordinary. Steelkamp (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, I just wasn't sure if ALT1 would be seen as too much of a novelty.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching the hook fact error, Steelkamp. ALT1 looks fine and checks out. ALT2 is a bit boring, ALT0 has been struck. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting ALT1 to Prep 6 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GST distribution dispute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. Could take up to a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I started the review expecting this to be a pretty dry article, but actually it was fascinating! Very cool to see how things like resource endowments and tax policy shape politics. The article is close to GA status but I have a few comments below, placing the article on hold for now. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! It's probably more of a political article then an economic one. Here in Australia (and particularly WA), it's become a kind of perennial issue that characterises the east/west rivalry. I've had a go at all your comments, please let me know if there's anything else. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you for being kind about all my complaints and dumb questions. Pass :) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! Your feedback was very helpful and I'm glad you found it an interesting article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

• Prose: The prose is good but the article left me confused about how the GST system works, the Origins part may need to be rewritten. I get that the CGC distributes the revenue but what criteria or formula do they use to decide the distribution?

• As well as the feedback you've left below, I'm going to expand the Background section a little bit to give context on the GST distribution method. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• References: Article is well-referenced.
• Coverage: Some of the context to this dispute is probably obvious to someone from Australia but it wasn't clear to me, I have two recommendations for additions to the background section.

• Having read your feedback I have to agree, I did not really consider a non-Australian reader when writing the article so it obviously makes too many assumptions on background knowledge. Let me know what you think of my changes. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral: I think so.
• Stable: Yes.
• Illustrated: No, needs an image. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: and several states have begun inquiries. Just want to make sure the article is up to date, has anything happened with these inquiries in the past few months? Have any of the states said when they will be complete?

• The answer to both questions is no, unfortunately. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Disregard my previous comment. I've done some digging on the Vic parliament website and found a way around The Advertiser's paywall, so I have expanded these passages a little bit. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Background: I recommend adding a one sentence explanation of what GST is, something like, The GST is a value added tax of 10% on most goods and services.

• Done, as part of my expansion to the Background section in general. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Background: I think you should explain why there is a fiscal imbalance between states and why everyone else is taking Western Australia's tax revenues. Seems like it's because WA gets a lot of money from natural resources but it’s not spelled out explicitly in the article.

• Done, but I've added it to Origins rather then background. My intention was for Background to have all the contextual information about the system, and Origins to describe how the dispute started. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Prose: Link Western Australia, Howard Government.

• Done. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Images: I think you need at least one image, maybe of mining operations in Western Australia (there's a good one at Western Australia#Economy). Could also include images of some of the politicians involved.

• Added the picture you recommended and one of Morrison. I would have liked to add more but I don't think there's the vertical space. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Origins: The GST return received by WA was relatively steady from 2000 to the mid-2000s, taking its first plunge as the iron ore and gas boom began. Why is this? Wouldn't an oil and gas boom lead to higher tax revenues?

• Yes, because oil and gas pay royalties to the state government. Since the GST is intended to equalise spending capability, WA's share is reduced since other sources of revenue have increased. I think changes to the Background section should clear this up. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Origins: particularly given the state's GST share fell at the same time as iron ore royalties. Again I'm confused, I don't think I understand the relationship between tax revenues and GST share. The beginning of the paragraph says that their GST share fell when the iron and gas boom began; but in this sentence iron ore royalties are falling and their GST share is falling again? Why is that?

• Because of how the CGC calculates royalties. I didn't know the specific of this until you asked, but it's because they calculate them in three-year blocks. So if the CGC forecasts that for the next three years WA is going to earn a lot from royalties, they won't change the share even if the royalties crash in the first year (which is pretty much what happened). I've added this to the article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Origins: but said it would not be implemented until WA's share had risen to around 75 cents in the dollar under the HFE system. How does that make sense? If the share was 70 cents in 2010 and had been in decline ever since, what would make it rise to 75 cents?

• A decline in other tax revenue (such as royalties) would allow the CGC to raise the share under the old system. Turnbull said he would not enforce a floor until the system had raised the share itself, which would have taken at least four years (mentioned in the Change of state government section). I've added the forecast to the Origins section as well, but I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify this passage.

• References: "in the fourth year of what is effectively a domestic recession." This is a direct quote so it needs a reference.

• The reference is at the end of that paragraph (the whole paragraph is based on that source). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• References: The first paragraph of "Change in state government" does not have any references, needs at least one.

• Done. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Change in state government: Crossbench senator What is a crossbench senator?

• The crossbench refers to senators or MPs that are not a part of the government or the opposition. I've linked that term. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Change in state government: that would not come from the existing GST pool Where did they come from?

• Federal government revenue. Added to the sentence. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Introduction of GST floor: The final model the federal government implemented When did they implement it?

• Added both relevant dates (announcement and commencement). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Coverage: The article does not explain why, after years of saying that they would not implement a floor until WA’s share reached $0.70, the federal government changed their mind and implemented a floor. One source says, “The GST has threatened to be a federal election issue in WA, where the Liberals have several vulnerable seats." Could you expand on the electoral politics behind the GST dispute? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Added to both Change in state government and Introduction of GST floor sections. It also has a lot to do with the change in leadership (since Turnbull was seen as more east-centric then Morrison was), but I can't find a decent source for that so I've stuck to it being an election issue. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)