Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 13 October 2009) . . Page.. 4343 ..

all interested, which of course none of us on this side actually believe you genuinely are. And you will be able to read the submission put forward by the ACT government.

With respect to the most significant loss, there are losses and gains in a whole range of areas, because the discussions, for example, focus on community health, then they focus on admitted patients in hospitals. They are just a couple in health. When you look at education, there is a range of areas there. Under the draft report, there are gains and there are losses across a range of areas. The most significant loss is in the proposal around capital, and that proposal by the Commonwealth Grants Commission is for the first time that the commission will consider the full capital funding requirements of jurisdictions based on population growth; that is, in short, that those jurisdictions where the population is increasing the fastest will have greater capital requirements than jurisdictions whose population is not increasing as fast. That, potentially, puts at risk for us $40 million.

We are not accepting those arguments at this stage, but we have worked hard behind the scenes, through the processes that are established, through this independent body which makes recommendations to the commonwealth Treasurer, with data, with evidence and with analysis. That is the way in which there will be any win through the Commonwealth Grants Commission process for the ACT, and I think we all accept that. I have to say that the work that Treasury and other departments have put into this is first class. I would like to acknowledge their work at this point in time. They have done an enormous job to make sure that a jurisdiction of our size gets heard at the table, because of the importance of the GST pool to the ACT.

In relation to the question—I can’t recall; I think it was Mr Smyth’s question—regarding the 2009 relativity, it is 1.27051. And I was correct on the relativity issued under the draft report which has, as I said, around a 1.15.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, a supplementary question?

MR HANSON: Treasurer, what proposals did the ACT government put to the commission in response to the terms of reference for the review of revenue sharing arrangements?

MS GALLAGHER: Treasury has put forward, as I said, 1,091 pages of submissions across absolutely every area of government possible in terms of services provided, in terms of potential for revenue sources—everywhere. Those submissions are made public. I note that the opposition hate it when I answer a question for them—they just hate it. As soon as I answer they think, “Damn, she has actually got the answer; we’ll stop listening now because we really don’t care about this at all.” That is the respect we get from this opposition. I have given you my answer; read the website.

MR HANSON: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked the question and I was listening attentively. Her attack on us is not relevant and is completely out of order. She should answer the question.

MR SPEAKER: I am sure the Treasurer is coming back to the question right now.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .