Page 1325 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Cancer treatment services are funded at eight per cent growth per annum. The same can be said in acute care services, at eight per cent per annum; mental health services at six per cent growth per annum with home and community care funded to achieve nine per cent growth per annum. That is the strong and sustainable budget management that this government has put in place.
We have directed efficiency gains to front-line services in high priority areas while constraining overall expenditure. For example, since 2005-06 the government has funded an additional 126 hospital beds, making up for the legacy we inherited from Mr Smyth and Mr Moore and all of those others from that failed previous administration that actually reduced hospital beds by over 100. That was the legacy of the Liberals—100 fewer hospital beds than when they came to office.
Contrary to suggestions by the Liberal opposition, the ACT is not a high taxing jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Grants Commission 2007 update, the most recent update from that body, assessed that if the ACT applied average state tax and other state revenue rates it would raise $2,081 per capita. The ACT’s actual own source revenue from the most recent period was $1,970 per capita, well below the assessed average rate of taxation that the grants commission uses and well below the state average of $2,519. The most recent data from the ABS also indicates that the total of state and local government taxation in the ACT is $2,386 per capita. The national average is $2,594 per capita.
How can the Liberal opposition claim that this is a high taxing jurisdiction when we are below the national average when it comes to the average tax take? We are lower than New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia. How can the claim be made that we are a high taxing jurisdiction when we tax below the national average?
Mr Seselja: Comparing us to New South Wales.
MR CORBELL: That is the grants commission figure, Mr Seselja.
Mr Seselja: What about the small jurisdictions? How do we compare with them?
MR CORBELL: Do you not agree with the grants commission? The grants commission has made the assessment. The ACT is less than the per capita average on a national basis.
Mr Seselja: That is because New South Wales takes it right up.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR CORBELL: That is even after including the additional tax measures introduced in last year’s budget. We are still below the national average. That is what the Chief Minister means when he refers to putting our service delivery on a sustainable basis.
From 2001 to 2006-07, the ACT’s taxation revenue increased at an average rate of 4.2 per cent. This includes the taxation measures introduced in the 2006-07 budget.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .