Ms MARTIN - 2000-08-16
A couple of months ago, I wrote to the Commonwealth Treasurer about the Territory government’s attempt to remove the fuel subsidy. In his response, Peter Costello advised: ‘The Commonwealth has ensured that the Northern Territory will receive sufficient funding for the continuation of on-road fuel subsidy arrangements from 1 July 2000’. That means we are getting the dollars from Canberra to fund the fuel subsidy. I ask the Chief Minister, doesn’t this prove once and for all that his attempt to remove the fuel subsidy is just a blatant dash for cash, undermining Territorians’ unique lifestyle by forcing them to pay even more for fuel?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, no. The answer simply is no. If it is a blatant dash for cash, it is the same blatant dash that Mr Beattie, the Labor Premier of the state of Queensland, is engaged in. If it is a dash for cash, it is the same dash for cash that Premier Bracks in Victoria is engaged in.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of writing to the federal Treasurer. I can tell her that the Treasurer of the Northern Territory government speaks regularly on the phone to his friend Peter, on almost a weekly basis. We do have some communication with our federal counterparts.
Are we receiving the fuel subsidy from the Commonwealth? The answer is yes. That is a subsidy that was given to the Northern Territory to replace its ability to raise revenue on its own as a result of a High Court decision. That High Court decision also affected tobacco and affected alcohol levies. In the same way, our Living With Alcohol Program is now funded by direct cash injection from the Commonwealth because the Northern Territory no longer has the ability to impose its own excise on heavy alcohol. The Northern Territory government reserves to the right to move around how that subsidy is spent on reducing the harm that alcohol causes in our community.
Using the same logic, we reserve the right to determine the use of that fuel money because it has in fact replaced what would have been raised by our own devices. It would have gone into our own consolidated revenue for spending where this government felt the priorities lay.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Will you please desist? I say that, Mr Speaker, to the opposition on behalf of the many Territorians who contact my office, who try to listen to the radio, who try to take an interest …
Ms Martin: Costello spelled it out very clearly.
Mr BURKE: Again the Leader of the Opposition tries to drown out what I am saying. All she does is drown out the radio broadcast for many Territorians who wish to hear what is being said and try to take an interest in politics in the Northern Territory.
Our point of difference with the Commonwealth is that the money essentially replaces revenue resources that we would raise through our own means. We believe that we set the priorities for Territorians, not the Commonwealth, in that area and in other areas. That issue is in abeyance at the moment. We have agreed with the federal Treasurer that it will be discussed at a Treasurers’ meeting later this year, and I understand there is no change from that position.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, no. The answer simply is no. If it is a blatant dash for cash, it is the same blatant dash that Mr Beattie, the Labor Premier of the state of Queensland, is engaged in. If it is a dash for cash, it is the same dash for cash that Premier Bracks in Victoria is engaged in.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of writing to the federal Treasurer. I can tell her that the Treasurer of the Northern Territory government speaks regularly on the phone to his friend Peter, on almost a weekly basis. We do have some communication with our federal counterparts.
Are we receiving the fuel subsidy from the Commonwealth? The answer is yes. That is a subsidy that was given to the Northern Territory to replace its ability to raise revenue on its own as a result of a High Court decision. That High Court decision also affected tobacco and affected alcohol levies. In the same way, our Living With Alcohol Program is now funded by direct cash injection from the Commonwealth because the Northern Territory no longer has the ability to impose its own excise on heavy alcohol. The Northern Territory government reserves to the right to move around how that subsidy is spent on reducing the harm that alcohol causes in our community.
Using the same logic, we reserve the right to determine the use of that fuel money because it has in fact replaced what would have been raised by our own devices. It would have gone into our own consolidated revenue for spending where this government felt the priorities lay.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Will you please desist? I say that, Mr Speaker, to the opposition on behalf of the many Territorians who contact my office, who try to listen to the radio, who try to take an interest …
Ms Martin: Costello spelled it out very clearly.
Mr BURKE: Again the Leader of the Opposition tries to drown out what I am saying. All she does is drown out the radio broadcast for many Territorians who wish to hear what is being said and try to take an interest in politics in the Northern Territory.
Our point of difference with the Commonwealth is that the money essentially replaces revenue resources that we would raise through our own means. We believe that we set the priorities for Territorians, not the Commonwealth, in that area and in other areas. That issue is in abeyance at the moment. We have agreed with the federal Treasurer that it will be discussed at a Treasurers’ meeting later this year, and I understand there is no change from that position.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016