Page 2898 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
explicit. Neither the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police nor the Attorney-General nor the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory is able to set that Act aside, much in all as we might wish to do so. So, to suggest that we should develop some sort of contract that provides police services in some other way is to deny the existence of that Act.
The other point that I wanted to comment on was Mr Moore's statement about the Grants Commission bridging the gap. The Grants Commission does not bridge any gap. The Grants Commission makes an assessment of what is a reasonable national standard, given the performances of all of the States and Territories participating in the Commonwealth financial pool; and then it measures each State and Territory against that standard and says, "You are above standard in your expenditure" or "You are below standard in your expenditure" or, conversely, "You are above or below standard on the revenue side of the budget".
Back in 1986-87, the Commonwealth said that the ACT police services cost some figure above standard. Since then, of course, the standard itself will have changed because the performance of every State that contributes to that standard will have changed. Equally, the performance of the ACT police or the ACT division of the Commonwealth Police which we are now becoming responsible for will have changed. Once the Grants Commission has verified the performance of the ACT in terms of dollars spent to provide police services and it has balanced that against the standard, it merely makes a judgment and says you are over or below standard. If we can demonstrate some disabilities that other States do not have to contend with, the Grants Commission may make some financial contribution towards that disability, but it does not attempt to bridge the gap. If we are spending $20m more than we should be, it will not give us the $20m; that is not its purpose. But it will identify the fact that we are spending $20m more than every other State on a relativity basis to provide our police services. So, it is not a question of the Commonwealth Grants Commission bridging the financial gap. It merely highlights where the ACT sits in relative terms against this six-State or seven-State or eight-State - whatever it is - average. Then we will enter into a debate about whether we will get any more money or whether we can prove that we have some disability. So, we need to have a clear understanding of what the Grants Commission does, how it does it and how it fits into the total financial formula. If Mr Moore does not understand that I would be happy to spend some time with him making sure that he does.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, as per standing order 46, I would like to make a personal explanation.
Mr Kaine: After the debate is over.
MR SPEAKER: You may make a personal explanation at any time. Please proceed, Mr Moore. You claim to have been misrepresented?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .