This article raises two important questions, but unfortunately rather glosses over the first: . “Why should government provide financial support to the private sector, like tourism, for some marketing campaign just because the industry has run into difficult times?” The answer is, it shouldn’t, unless it can show there are convincing reasons for spending money on this rather than the myriad other demands on government resources – health, education, infrastructure etc. Resisting the special pleading of vested interest groups for business welfare is one of the hallmarks of good government.

Poor Queensland.

I have no idea why some industries get bailed out and others just sink. In QLD the Racing industry got both State and Feds funding for what is their risk.

Why?

The only answer is political opportunism. To try and buy favour and votes with our money. If your business went broke who would bail you out? Nobody.

Remember a business in NSW that John Howard bailed out with 6 million bucks? Yeah, his brother's company. That really tells you what really goes on doesn't it?

You, like me, are suckers. There is a damn limit and we are almost there. Viva la Revolution and may it ensure no politicians exist in the future.

I have always been opposed to the use of public finance supporting private enterprise. Unfortunately this is a growing trend in the hope of winning some sort of medal. The QLD government supports the film industry and the motor racing industry as well as a variety of other sporting endeavours (mostly rugby league). There is no return for the public other than the reduction of public assets as the money gets used up. Now that the retail sector is calling itself an "industry" we can probably expect them to have their hand out very soon as people cut back on spending. It seems to me that when some group of private business people (that we can do without) start calling themselves an industry they immediately expect to be supported by the tax paying public.

Government assistance is justified where economies are built around affected industries/sectors, AND there is a history of viability AND there is expected future viability. Better to assist with tourism campaigns in the short-term and help ensure that small businesses and their employees remain afloat for the long-term, than pick up the tab from business closure, job losses, unemployment benefits, more welfare payments, more reliance on public hospital systems (people cant afford insurance if they lose their job) etc etc.

I dont believe in vote-buying (but am not naive enough to think that it doesnt exist), but do believe that in certain circumstances public assistance is warranted if there is a greater long-term good.