Page 874 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, the government can influence the supply of GPs, and we certainly have acted on this through allowing competitive pressures and innovative business models and through targeted funding. For example, the government provided $12 million over four years up to the 2012-13 fiscal year for a range of strategies to support and grow the GP workforce in the territory.
The Chief Minister reported in August last year that 88 per cent of practices within the territory say they are now taking on new patients, that GP numbers have increased overall and that the proportion of practices who bulk-bill some patients has now risen to 89 per cent. Clearly, the more GPs we have in the territory, the more competition there is between practices and the more likely it is that GPs will look at innovative business models and pricing that attracts patients to their practices.
In looking at the specific question Mr Smyth has raised this afternoon, I can confirm that I have received an application for a waiver of fees for this lease under section 131 of the Financial Management Act. This request was received on 3 April, so six days ago. I can advise the Assembly that the application will be assessed on its merits, as are all waiver requests that I receive. It will be assessed under the waiver criteria of the Financial Management Act 1996, and I repeat for the benefit of the Assembly the criteria for a waiver: that the legislation is producing an unforeseen or perverse outcome; that the territory has contributed through action or inaction of one of its agencies for the liability or value of the fee; or that a fair or just result can be brought about only by a waiver of the fee.
The application is under active consideration. I will not be providing a running commentary this afternoon of that consideration. It is simply not appropriate for me as Treasurer to be commenting on the personal business and taxation affairs of any local resident or business. This is consistent with the approach I brought to a similar motion about the tax and business arrangements of a particular business the opposition put forward last October. It may be worth them noting that, as I said at the time and as I repeat again this afternoon, I will not be providing a commentary in this place on private business and taxation affairs.
Any requests for a waiver will be granted on the merits of the individual case, taking full account of the details of that case. This is the only appropriate, the only fair and the only just way that waiver requests can be considered. If we are going to go down a process of those who are lucky enough to have their case sponsored by a member of the Assembly, if there is some perception that that will achieve a beneficial outcome, then that is a very serious path that we should not go down. MPs are rightly able to make representations and should rightly make representations, but if there is an expectation that a private members motion brought to this place will result in an outcome, that is an unrealistic expectation and it is a very bad precedent to set. I repeat again this afternoon that applications are assessed against criteria and provided to me as Treasurer with advice from the relevant agency.
Particularly in the context of one of the criteria for a waiver—that is, that the territory has contributed to the reason for the particular fee—it is appropriate to seek advice from the various territory agencies who may or may not have had involvement. But the idea that there is some benefit in raising a motion on private members day I wish
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video