Mrs BRAHAM - 1995-08-17
In light of the statements regarding statehood for the Northern Territory expressed by the federal Minister for Finance, Hon Kim Beazley, on ABC radio in Darwin this morning, does the minister share those views?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether many members picked up the comments by the federal Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley, which were reported this morning on ABC radio, but we should have some degree of concern that this gentleman should be so ignorant of Commonwealth/state financial relationships and the nature of the financial relationships between the Northern Territory government and the federal government.
Mr Stirling: You are no longer the candidate.
Mr HATTON: No, but I am the Minister for Constitutional Development.
Page 726
Let me quote what Mr Beazley had to say. He was suggesting quite clearly that, if the Territory became a state, its funding would be cut.
A member: Outrageous!
Mr HATTON: Not even members opposite believe this any more.
Mr Ede: Special revenue assistance is a little ...
Mr HATTON: Then look at the states which are receiving various forms of special revenue assistance.
Mr Ede: There is only one other, the ACT.
Mr HATTON: What about the special funding to Western Australia to overcome the losses that it made in respect of the gas pipeline? What about the special revenue assistance that was paid to Victoria for its losses on electricity? They are but 2 examples off the top of my head. All the time, there are examples of special circumstances that are covered as a result of negotiations between the Commonwealth and state governments. Special revenue is provided to New South Wales and Victoria for the losses on their railways. There was the South Australian State Bank situation. Would you like me to continue? There are many examples, under the Commonwealth/state financial relationships, whereby the Commonwealth provides special revenue assistance.
Let us be very clear about this. I think it was in 1988 that the Northern Territory's special Memorandum of Understanding on financial affairs ceased to exist. Since then, under the Commonwealth/state tax-sharing arrangements, funding for the Northern Territory has been based on the same formula as that used in relation to every state in Australia. It is correct that we receive higher per capita funding. Every member of this House should know that that is because it costs a great deal more to deliver the same standard of services in many of the rural and remote communities scattered across the Northern Territory. That is what the Grants Commission assesses. We are assessed for assistance under the same formula as every state in this country and, since 1988, the funding has come from the Commonwealth/state tax-sharing pool, not from a separate allocation of funding as it did in the early days. There are no differences in those financial relationships between the Northern Territory and the states.
What amazes me is that Mr Beazley - one of the 3 big men from the Commonwealth who were sitting in the mall yesterday, according to the newspaper - obviously does not understand that, and that is a matter of some concern in a federal government minister. Alternatively, if he does understand it, he is deliberately lying and scaremongering in the Northern Territory. Either way, it is totally unacceptable to suggest in any way that there are any financial constraints to statehood. The reality is that it is time now for people like Mr Beazley and others in the federal parliament to justify why the Northern Territory should not have statehood, not for us to have to justify why Territorians should enjoy the same rights as other Australians.
Page 727
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether many members picked up the comments by the federal Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley, which were reported this morning on ABC radio, but we should have some degree of concern that this gentleman should be so ignorant of Commonwealth/state financial relationships and the nature of the financial relationships between the Northern Territory government and the federal government.
Mr Stirling: You are no longer the candidate.
Mr HATTON: No, but I am the Minister for Constitutional Development.
Page 726
Let me quote what Mr Beazley had to say. He was suggesting quite clearly that, if the Territory became a state, its funding would be cut.
A member: Outrageous!
Mr HATTON: Not even members opposite believe this any more.
Mr Ede: Special revenue assistance is a little ...
Mr HATTON: Then look at the states which are receiving various forms of special revenue assistance.
Mr Ede: There is only one other, the ACT.
Mr HATTON: What about the special funding to Western Australia to overcome the losses that it made in respect of the gas pipeline? What about the special revenue assistance that was paid to Victoria for its losses on electricity? They are but 2 examples off the top of my head. All the time, there are examples of special circumstances that are covered as a result of negotiations between the Commonwealth and state governments. Special revenue is provided to New South Wales and Victoria for the losses on their railways. There was the South Australian State Bank situation. Would you like me to continue? There are many examples, under the Commonwealth/state financial relationships, whereby the Commonwealth provides special revenue assistance.
Let us be very clear about this. I think it was in 1988 that the Northern Territory's special Memorandum of Understanding on financial affairs ceased to exist. Since then, under the Commonwealth/state tax-sharing arrangements, funding for the Northern Territory has been based on the same formula as that used in relation to every state in Australia. It is correct that we receive higher per capita funding. Every member of this House should know that that is because it costs a great deal more to deliver the same standard of services in many of the rural and remote communities scattered across the Northern Territory. That is what the Grants Commission assesses. We are assessed for assistance under the same formula as every state in this country and, since 1988, the funding has come from the Commonwealth/state tax-sharing pool, not from a separate allocation of funding as it did in the early days. There are no differences in those financial relationships between the Northern Territory and the states.
What amazes me is that Mr Beazley - one of the 3 big men from the Commonwealth who were sitting in the mall yesterday, according to the newspaper - obviously does not understand that, and that is a matter of some concern in a federal government minister. Alternatively, if he does understand it, he is deliberately lying and scaremongering in the Northern Territory. Either way, it is totally unacceptable to suggest in any way that there are any financial constraints to statehood. The reality is that it is time now for people like Mr Beazley and others in the federal parliament to justify why the Northern Territory should not have statehood, not for us to have to justify why Territorians should enjoy the same rights as other Australians.
Page 727
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016