Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2010) . . Page.. 3499 ..

seeking to complete the Belconnen to city busway, just as I believe, and we had signalled, that we would provide busways between Fyshwick and Queanbeyan. We are about to begin the work for a study of the best options for providing priority bus travel down Northbourne Avenue.

These are works that we have recognised. We are funding them in terms of feasibility. In relation to some of those proposals that I just quickly noted, we are funding them.

MR COE: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Coe.

MR COE: Do you have any plans to convert the bus lane into a T2 or T3 lane?

MR STANHOPE: The one on Belconnen? I do not have any plans. I must say that I am more than happy to take some specific advice on longer term thinking in relation to that, but at this stage, Mr Coe, noting your eagerness in relation to this particular issue, I will get you some further advice.

This work that we have just completed on Barry Drive is very much a deliberate completion of a segment of a dedicated bus transit way from Belconnen to the city. We have provided, I think, $14 million—I would have to check—in the current budget to continue that work from Clunies Ross into the city. We have also provided funding in the budget for further feasibility or design in relation to the trickiest aspect of a dedicated busway to Belconnen. That, of course, is the more controversial aspect of how one would get through the Bruce precinct, essentially. We are looking again at how best to achieve that outcome.


MR SMYTH: My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, in your submission to the Henry review you said, “States should not be overly dependent on growth in vertical fiscal transfers to fund their expense responsibilities and should have access to own-source revenue bases which grow at rates equivalent to these responsibilities.” Minister, what additional revenue sources were you referring to in your submission?

MS GALLAGHER: I think the general submission that we put to the Henry tax review was that states and territories need ability to grow their own revenue in pace with their demand for government services. That was the view we expressed and it is one which I stand by. I think there was a level of concern with the tax review from states and territories that there would be a view expressed by the Henry tax review that would seek to curtail own-source revenue for states and territories.

In the end, that did not occur, although the Henry tax review did have a number of recommendations which encouraged states and territories to examine their own revenues to ensure that they are efficient. That is exactly what we are going to do. That is the response to the Henry tax review. In relation to our own-source revenue, we were talking about—the submission was talking about—the revenue lines that already exist but the fact that they do need to grow in pace with demand for government services.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video