cgc.gov.au 2012... · web viewfound to be unsatisfactory or where they are required because of...

2013 UPDATE

NEW ISSUES FOR THE 2013 UPDATE

STAFF DISCUSSION PAPERCGC 2012-02-S

AUGUST 2012

Paper issued August 2012

Commission contact officer Priscilla Kan, 02 6229 8849, [email protected]

Submissions sought by Submissions should be emailed in Word format to [email protected] by 14 September 2012

Submissions of more than 10 pages in length should include a summary section.

Confidential material It is the commission’s normal practice to make State submissions available on its website under the CC BY licence, allowing free use of content by third parties.

Further information on the CC BY licence can be found at http://www.creativecommons.org

Confidential material contained in submissions must be clearly identified or included in separate attachment/s, and details provided in the covering email. Identified confidential material will not be published on the commission’s website.

http://www.creativecommons.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

CONTENTSBACKGROUND 1

ISSUES 1

WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN AN UPDATE? 1

2011 CENSUS 2

STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES 2DISAGGREGATED ERP 9

TREATMENT OF NATIONAL SPECIFIC PURPOSE PAYMENTS (SPPS) 11

TREATMENT OF COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS THAT COMMENCED IN 2011-12 12

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ON TRANSITIONING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AGED CARE AND DISABILITY SERVICES 12NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ON CHANGED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — ADJUSTMENT TO ACHIEVE BUDGET NEUTRALITY 16REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND — STREAM 2 —ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS 16

COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS COMMENCING IN 2012-13 OR 2013-14 18

MINING REVENUE — TREATMENT OF IRON ORE FINES 19

STAMP DUTY ON CONVEYANCES – ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS20

STAMP DUTY ON CONVEYANCES – ADJUSTMENT FOR DUTY ON TRANSFER OF LISTED COMPANIES 23

INSURANCE TAX – APRA PREMIUMS DATA 24

SERVICES TO INDUSTRY — AGRICULTURE FACTOR INCOME 26

THE COMPARABILITY OF STATE NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF EXPENSES 26

ATTACHMENT A 28

TREATMENT OF COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS IN THE 2013 UPDATE 28

BACKGROUND

1 In each update, new issues arise which require commission consideration and decision.

2 This paper sets out new issues identified by commission staff for the 2013 Update and staff proposals on how they should be handled, as a basis for seeking the views of State and Commonwealth treasuries. Comments should be provided by 14 September 2012 to [email protected]. States are encouraged to raise any other issues relevant to the update. The contact officer for queries is Priscilla Kan ([email protected] or 02 6229 8849).

ISSUES

3 This paper covers the following issues: how the 2011 Census data might be used in this update treatment of the changed distribution of national specific purpose payments treatment of Commonwealth payments which commenced in 2011-12 treatment of Commonwealth payments commencing in 2012-13 and 2013-14 Mining revenue — treatment of iron ore fines Stamp duty on conveyances – adjustment for non-real property transfers Stamp duty on conveyances — adjustment for duty on transfer of listed

companies Insurance tax — Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) data Services to industry — agriculture factor income data the comparability of State natural disaster relief expenses.

4 Proposals in this paper are made on the assumption that the terms of reference for the 2013 Update will be similar to those for previous updates.

WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN AN UPDATE?

5 Terms of reference for an update generally require the commission to calculate relativities using the same principles and methods as were used in the last (2010) Review and subsequent updates. In the past, they have asked the commission to take into account the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (as amended) (IGA); and to reflect equalisation principles, except where the reference directed otherwise.

6 Past terms of reference have allowed method changes, subject to consultation with Commonwealth and State treasuries, where data used in existing assessments are

1

found to be unsatisfactory or where they are required because of significant changes in Commonwealth-State relations.

7 Under the update guidelines, agreed by the Australian Government and the States, the commission may also make method changes, subject to consultation: to take account of major changes in federal financial relations and major new or

changed Commonwealth payments to accommodate other State budget developments, such as the abolition of

existing State taxes, or the introduction of new ones to amend assessment methods where data previously used are no longer

available or, after consultation, are found to be unsuitable to apply new or better data not previously considered to correct errors in calculations.

8 Despite this agreement, method changes are generally not made in an update. This gives States greater certainty that unexpected changes will not occur.

2011 CENSUS

STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES

9 We rely heavily on the ABS annual estimates of the population (estimated resident population (ERP)) in calculations. Every 5 years, the ABS runs a census which is used to rebase its annual estimates. Depending on data availability, the ABS releases different estimates of the population at different times. Preliminary estimates of the population are produced first. These are based on

the previous census (in this case the 2006 census), updated for births, deaths and estimates of net overseas and interstate migration (growth statistics).

Rebased estimates of the population are produced by using the census at the start and end of the period (2006 and 2011) as well as the births, deaths and the preliminary estimates of net migration. They are known as ‘rebased’ because the ABS has calculated annual estimates starting from a new base year (2011 instead of 2006). These were released in June 2012. To account for the difference in the change in population between the two censuses implied by the difference between the two census numbers and the growth statistics, the ABS produces an additional element of population change known as ‘Intercensal discrepancy’.

Final estimates change little from rebased census estimates but include estimates of net migration reflecting actual migration patterns rather than modelled patterns. These will be released in June 2013. The measurements of population growth may still not reconcile with the difference between the two census

estimates, and so intercensal discrepancy will still be an element of population change.

10 The ABS preliminary estimate for the Australian population at June 2011 (based on the 2006 census and subsequent births deaths and migration) was 294 000 people higher than the estimate based solely on recently released 2011 census.

Revision to national population estimates

11 For the first time, the ABS has been able to estimate the source of the national intercensal discrepancy. The ABS considers that the rebased national population estimates for 2011 and the growth over the past 5 years are accurate. The 2006 census, however, now appears to have resulted in an over estimate of ERP for June 20061.

12 However, the ABS reports that it does not have sufficient information to change the 2006 census, and potentially population estimates all the way back to 1971. Therefore, the ABS has decided to retain the 2006 census based estimates for 2006. As a consequence, it has decreased the population growth in each year from 2006 to 2011 to adjust for the 294 000 person discrepancy. This is shown in Figure 1. The growth in each year from 2006 to 2011 includes births, deaths, interstate and overseas migration and a negative adjustment of intercensal discrepancy.

Figure 1 Estimates of Australia’s population

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

22.0

22.5

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Popu

latio

n ('m

illio

n)

2006 Census based estimates

Published, 2011 based estimates

2011 Census based estimates, backcast

Source: ABS 3101.0.

1 Patrick Corr, Director of ABS Demography, 2011 census based population estimates briefing, 20 June 2011.

Revision to State population estimates

13 Just as the national estimates for 2011 are considered to be reliable, the State estimates are also considered reliable. However, the growth data at State level are not considered as reliable as national growth data because, while birth and death registration by State is generally good, we do not have reliable data on the State of residence of immigrants and emigrants, nor on interstate migration. Nor do we know the distribution between States of the 294 000 error in the 2006 estimate.

14 Therefore, the intercensal discrepancy at State level reflects both errors in the 2006 census estimate, and errors in the intercensal estimate of net overseas and interstate migration.

15 Table 1 shows the revisions to population estimates used in the 2012 Update. Negative changes indicate that the population has been revised downwards, while positive changes indicate the population has been revised upwards.

Table 1 Revisions to population, December 2010NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total

Preliminary estimate 7 261 105 5 579 574 4 540 687 2 314 126 1 649 947 508 971 361 987 229 434 22 445 831

Rebased estimates 7 176 687 5 499 030 4 446 516 2 319 812 1 633 196 509 742 364 216 230 529 22 179 728

Change -84 418 -80 544 -94 171 5 686 -16 751 771 2 229 1 095 -266 103

Change (%) -1.2% -1.4% -2.1% 0.2% -1.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% -1.2%

Source: Commission calculations

Further revisions to come

16 As mentioned above, the ABS has produced preliminary and rebased estimates of State populations for 2006 to 2011. In June 2013 it will release its final estimates. Compared with the preliminary estimates already available: The 2006 estimates for each State are final and will not change. The 2011 estimates are preliminary, but very little new data are yet to come.

These are not expected to change significantly. The estimates of population for 2007 to 2010 could change marginally. The relative size of the different components of population change could change:

Estimates of births will change based on recently identified problems in birth registration, and the population aged 0-4 in 2011.

Estimates of deaths will change marginally. Estimates of internal migration could change significantly based on

analysis of the 2011 census question ‘Where did the person live 5 years ago?’

Estimates of State shares of overseas migration could change based on analysis of this question.

Intercensal discrepancy could change significantly, as the amount of the difference between the 2 censuses that can be explained by demographic factors changes.

Implications for commission assessments

17 Population levels are an integral part of our assessment processes. We use them to calculate our financial averages and in EPC assessments such as Other revenue. We use them to rescale assessments and ensure that we have a zero sum game. We use them to calculate relativities for assessment years.

18 In the capital assessments of investment and net lending, population change is the key driver for the redistribution.

19 The commission needs to consider which measure of population, and population change, it should use in the 2013 Update for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12: Published population. These data would reflect growth estimates which would

incorporate births, deaths, net migration and intercensal discrepancy for each State. They would be equivalent to the dashed line in Figure 1. These will not change by very much with the final data next year.

Backcast estimates from the 2011 Census. The data on growth in each State’s population would be combined with 2011 census rebased estimates to produce a series equivalent to the dotted line in Figure 1. Growth would be births less deaths plus estimated net interstate and overseas migration, and would not include intercensal discrepancy. These estimates would use published population totals for 2011 and published growth for the period 2006 to 2011. These estimates would change next year when final births, deaths and migration estimates are published.

20 There are arguments for and against each option.

The general principle

21 In the past, the commission has said it prefers to use ABS data and should not be in the business of producing its own alternative estimates. In this case, the ABS offers two possible series. But, as Figure 1 shows, the estimates backcast from the 2011 estimate using growth statistics produce a population series that differs from the published level estimates. Both are derived entirely from published ABS numbers. The ABS says:

In using population estimates, for information on the population level for the 2006-11 period, the rebased ERP series is the best series to use. For population growth over the 2006-11 period, the comparison should focus on the components of growth (that is, births, deaths and migration), rather than the difference in population levels.2

2 ABS, Technical Note: The Impact of Improvements to the 2011 PES on Measuring Population Growth (2006-2011), Australian Demographic Statistics, Dec 2011.

22 The question for the commission is which is the most appropriate series for its purposes.

23 For its published population level estimates, the ABS has used data which it acknowledges is not optimal. They are based on 2006 census data which the ABS now considers overestimated Australia’s population and interpolated growth to reach the 2011 census numbers. In measuring total population change, the ABS has not used what it considers very reliable national growth statistics or reasonably reliable State growth estimates. It has done this because many users need a long time series and the ABS does not have the data to correct estimates prior to the 2006 census. However, we do not need a long time series and the ABS published estimates do not seem to be as fit for our purposes as backcast estimates would be.

24 In addition, intercensal discrepancy is not a real world component of population growth. The ABS makes estimates of real world growth, and that is what we want reflected in our assessments. For each of our assessment years, we want the best estimate of ERP to be used in all our assessments and the best estimate of population change for our capital assessments. We can obtain these using State ERP as produced by the ABS for June 2011 and backcast using ABS growth statistics to obtain the ERPs for earlier years. This would ignore the intercensal discrepancy which the ABS thinks most likely to have occurred because of an overcount in the 2006 census.

2013 specific issues

25 If the changes in growth estimates that are coming in 2013 were likely to remove interstate differences in intercensal error, we should use the ABS published numbers in the 2013 Update.

26 However, this seems unlikely. Revisions to births and deaths will be very small. Revisions to migration are not likely to be large. Between the preliminary and final estimates of population growth for 2001 to 2006, revisions to interstate migration totalled 11 000 people. Net migration to the 3 largest States was revised down by 11 000, while migration to the other 5 States was revised up by 11 000. This suggests that the ABS migration modelled figures are likely to be revised by a small amount relative to the 294 000 intercensal discrepancy. As such, staff do not recommend using published population estimates in the 2013 Update.

27 A further argument to use the backcasting approach specifically in 2013 is that the commission should apply a principle of ‘first do no harm’. The ABS revisions to births, deaths and migration for each State will not necessarily be in the same direction as the intercensal discrepancy. Therefore we should only change the population growth we used in the 2011 Update when we are confident that it is moving towards a better HFE outcome. We cannot be confident of that until the ABS releases its revised estimates of growth next year.

Mixing and matching

28 It would be possible to use the published population estimates for assessments driven by population levels and the backcast estimates which exclude intercensual discrepancy for assessments driven by population growth. This may be appropriate if we considered the published level estimates to be the best estimates for levels, and the published growth estimates to be the best estimates of growth. However, staff would not recommend this because we consider the backcast estimates are more accurate for both State totals and for growth. They better reflect the circumstances of the real world.

Impact

29 Table 2 shows the impact of changing from the preliminary estimates used in the 2012 Update to the 2 possible models we are considering in the 2013 Update: using the ABS published estimates of population levels in all assessments using the ABS published estimates of population growth and 2011 estimates to

derive population levels, and using this population series in all assessments using mixed model, using the derived estimates for capital assessments, where

population change is the major driver, but using published population levels in all other assessments.

30 As the rebasing does not affect the 2011-12 estimate, only 2 assessment years are affected in the 2013 Update. Therefore the redistributions in Table 2, which shown an impact on the 2012 Update, will overstate the differences between the different options.

Table 2 Change in redistribution by source of new population data, 2012 Update

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Redist$m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m

ABS level estimates 14.4 -54.4 -155.0 159.8 2.2 13.8 16.4 2.7 209.4

ABS growth estimates -14.2 -9.1 8.0 62.8 -8.5 -11.4 -5.5 -22.1 70.8

Mixed of both (a) -12.1 7.0 76.3 3.3 -12.7 -18.3 -10.4 -33.1 86.6

(a) ABS growth estimates used in the capital and net lending assessments, ABS level estimates used in all other calculations. The use of level estimates in the expense categories feeding into the investment calculations where the growth estimates are used can lead to counter-intuitive results, including that the mixed model does not produce results between the two other models.

Source: Commission calculation.

31 Table 3 shows the amount of intercensal discrepancy imbedded in population estimates for each assessment year. For example, the 2009-10 assessment year uses population as at 30 December 2009, which is 18 months before the 30 June 2011 estimate. The difference between the ABS official population estimates and the backcast estimates will be 18 months of intercensal discrepancy.

Table 3 Amount of Intercensal discrepancy within population level assessmentsU2012 U2013 U2014 U2015

2008-09 None

2009-10 None 18 months (prel im)

2010-11 None 6 months (prel im) 6 months (final)

2011-12 None None None

2012-13 None None

2013-14 None

32 Because the capital assessments use 3 years of data to smooth the data and reduce volatility, the intercensal period has a greater impact on this data for a longer time. For example, the 2009-10 assessment year is based on an average growth in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, each of which contains 12 months of intercensal discrepancy. Hence Table 4 shows the average for 2009-10 is 12 months. The 2012-13 assessment year will contain 6 months of intercensal discrepancy from 2010-11, averaged out over 3 years, giving an average of 2 months impact on the assessment.

Table 4 Amount of Intercensal discrepancy within population growth assessments

U2012 U2013 U2014 U2015

2008-09 None

2009-10 None 12 months (prelim)

2010-11 None 10 months (prelim) 10 months (final)

2011-12 6 months (prelim) 6 months (final) 6 months (final)

2012-13 2 months (final) 2 months (final)

2013-14 None

Recommendation

33 On balance staff consider that the backcast estimates, derived from published ABS data, represent a more appropriate measure for our purposes and propose to recommend that the commission adopt the backcast estimates.

34 The case for using backcast population estimates is stronger in the 2013 Update than it is after final estimates are produced. However, staff do not consider that a change in approach is warranted just for the 2013 Update.

Staff propose to recommend that the commission: use backcast population estimates as these represent a better estimate of

population levels and growth rates in future updates maintain the approach taken in the 2013 Update and

foreshadow this intention to the States in the update report.

Consultation

35 The decision on which population series to use is a difficult one that has a highly material impact on the distribution of the GST. As such, in addition to requesting submissions from States in response to this paper, we will raise this as an issue for the August meeting of the data working party to discuss. We will invite a representative from ABS demography to attend that meeting.

36 The ABS has been asked for advice on the best population series for our purposes. When this is received, we will forward it to States.

DISAGGREGATED ERP

37 In addition to the total population and population growth concepts described above, we also use ERP disaggregated by age, sex, remoteness, and Socio-economic index for areas (SEIFA). As these data are for 30 June, rather than 31 December, they differ from the total State population estimates. Intercensal discrepancy is not disaggregated, and so for our disaggregated population estimates we will have to use official estimates, not backcast estimates. This has no impact on the decision for State totals.

2013 Update

38 By 31 August 2012, data will be available for small areas by age and sex for June 2009 (2008-09) to June 2011 (2010-11 and 2011-12), and separately at the State level for Indigenous populations for 30 June 2011.

39 Official Indigenous estimates for years 2006 to 2010 will only be available on a 2006 basis.

40 We propose using a hybrid mixture of these 3 datasets to estimate population numbers for all years by age, sex, geography and Indigeneity.

41 The revisions to population estimates are expected to lead to large redistributions. In the 2008 Update, changes in population distribution by age, sex, location and Indigeneity redistributed $257.3 million.

Geographic classifications

42 SARIA3. In the 2013 Update, we propose continuing to use 2006 based SARIA. While it may be feasible to begin work on 2011 SARIA following the release of Urban Centre/Localities (UCLs) on 16 October, staff do not propose bringing this work forward as: the change is not expected to be large the tight timetables would likely flow into the update period, placing some

increased risk on the update.

43 SEIFA. The ABS will not release the 2011 based SEIFA until March 2013. It therefore cannot be incorporated into the 2013 Update.

44 Urban areas for roads. The Roads assessment uses a split of urban and rural road use. The data used to split this are not updated annually, and are based on the old geographic classification. Population data are updated annually. For the 2013 Update, the ABS will publish data on both the old and new classifications. We will use the old classification to be consistent within the assessment.

45 From next year, the ABS will not publish population numbers using the old geography. For the 2014 Update we will need to consider whether it is more appropriate to migrate to the new standard geography, or to approximate the old geography.

46 Discrete Indigenous communities. The list of discrete indigenous communities will change with the new census. The definition we use is an area that meets any of the following criteria: sampled in the Community Housing Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS) issued with a special Indigenous census form more than 50% of its population is Indigenous.

47 We will not have Indigenous ERP at sub-state levels until August 2013. Therefore, it is not possible to get new data for this geography in this update. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) did not run a CHINS in 2011. For the 2014 Update, we will need to consider what modifications we need to make to the definition of a discrete Indigenous community.

Table 5 Proposed release dates for Geographical areas following 2011 CensusGeographic classification Release DateSA2s and other standard geography Already releasedUCLs & Significant urban areas 16 October 2012ABS remoteness areas 13 December 2012SEIFA 28 March 2013

Source: abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Australian+Statistical+Geography+Standard+(ASGS)abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/2011.0.55.001Main%20Features1262011.

3 The State-based version of the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia developed for Commission purposes.

mailto:abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/2011.0.55.001Main%20Features1262011

http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Australian+Statistical+Geography+Standard+(ASGS)

2014 Update

48 For the 2014 Update, final, rather than preliminary, estimates will be available. Final data will be available disaggregated by age, sex, Indigeneity and geography for 2011. For 2010-11 assessment year, fully disaggregated data will be available. For other assessment years, the hybrid estimation will still be required, but will not be as complex as that required for the 2013 Update.

49 A time series of Indigenous estimates will not be available until the first half of 2014. For June 2009 and June 2010, we propose estimating Indigenous population projections based on the ABS 2006 based projections and the 2011 estimates.

50 The changes to method between 2013 and 2014, and between 2014 and 2015 (when the 2006 Indigenous projections are expected to be available), are expected to have a small impact on the distribution of the GST.

51 New geography will be available for both SEIFA and SARIA. While changes to SARIA are expected to be very minor, changes to SEIFA could lead to a moderate redistribution. These issues will be considered for the New Issues paper for the 2014 Update next year.

Recommendation

Staff propose to recommend that the commission: use 2011 census based data where available in a timely manner mix 2011 and 2006 census based data to estimate demographic structures

of States not change any geographic classifications for the 2013 Update.

TREATMENT OF NATIONAL SPECIFIC PURPOSE PAYMENTS (SPPs)

52 In 2013-14, the 2011 Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Arrangements (IGA 2011) notes that the distribution of SPPs will move closer to an equal per capita (EPC) distribution. The distribution of the Schools, Skilled workforce development and Affordable housing SPPs will be 20% according to the historical distribution and 80% EPC. The National Health Reform base funding and the Disability SPP will move to an EPC distribution.

RecommendationStaff propose to recommend that the commission:

consistent with methods used in the 2010 Review and subsequent updates, backcast this changed distribution into the assessment years.

TREATMENT OF COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS THAT COMMENCED IN 2011-12

53 This section discusses the proposed treatment of Commonwealth payments that commenced in 2011-12, as listed in Australia’s Federal Relations, Budget Paper No. 3, 2012-13. Staff have developed these proposals using the Commonwealth payment guidelines developed in the 2010 Review (see Attachment A, Figure A-1). A summary of staff proposals on the treatment of each payment is in Attachment A, Table A-1.


adopt the treatment of each Commonwealth payment commenced in 2011-12 as set out in Table A-1 of Attachment A.

54 Making recommendations in relation to some programs has proven difficult. State views on the treatments proposed, and any additional information on the nature of the programs, are welcome. In particular, State comments on the proposed treatment of the following national partnership payments are sought.

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ON TRANSITIONING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AGED CARE AND DISABILITY SERVICES

Background

55 The National Partnership on transitioning responsibilities for aged care and disability services forms part of the National Health Reform (NHR) arrangements. The agreement will contribute to the Commonwealth assuming funding and policy responsibility for all aged care services for non-Indigenous people aged 65 years and over and Indigenous people aged 50 years and over from 1 July 2011. Under the partnership, the Commonwealth is taking: Funding and service delivery responsibility for Basic Community Care Services

(BCCS) for Older People (those aged 65 years and over; 50 years and over for Indigenous Australians). These services were previously provided under the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program until 30 June 2011.

Funding responsibility for specialist disability services for Older People. These services will continue to be delivered by the States in accordance with their roles and responsibilities under the National Disability Agreement.

56 During the transition in 2010-11 and 2011-12, BCCS were delivered by the States on the Commonwealth’s behalf. For 2012-13 and beyond, it is expected that the Commonwealth will directly engage service providers and the payments to them will become Commonwealth own-purpose expenses. Payments to States for the BCCS will cease in 2012-13.

57 The Commonwealth also introduced new payments to the States commencing in 2011-12 for specialist disability services for older people. These will continue.

58 As part of these reforms, States will reimburse the Commonwealth for the cost of packaged community care and residential care services delivered to Younger People.

59 The changes were agreed by all States except for Victoria and Western Australia. The Commonwealth will provide funding to Victoria and Western Australia to continue to provide HACC program services in those States. These 2 States will not receive additional funding for specialist disability services.

60 Table 6 shows the Commonwealth payments relating to the transitional arrangements.

Analysis

61 The IGA 2011 says, in clause D66 (d), that: changes to the roles and responsibilities for funding and delivering aged care and

disability services set out in the NHR Agreement: i should not influence the per capita relativities until the issue is

considered through a broader methodology review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission

ii any methodology review will ensure that, where responsibilities are transferred to the Commonwealth by some States, these responsibilities will continue to be assessed as State services for other States

iii any adjustment to a State’s entitlement of National Disability SPP resulting from changes in Commonwealth State roles and responsibilities in the aged and disability care sectors will not affect the GST relativities until the issue is considered through a broader methodology review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

Table 6 Commonwealth payments for transitioning responsibilities for aged care and disability services (with earlier home and community care payments included for comparison)

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust$m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m

National Partnership on home and community care

2008-09 328.5 265.3 249.7 110.3 93.0 28.9 13.0 7.6 1 096.22009-10 355.8 285.7 280.0 120.7 101.3 32.1 14.6 8.9 1 199.1

Basic community care maintenance and support services component

2010-11 378.8 305.1 311.2 130.9 109.4 34.7 15.9 9.8 1 295.82011-12 (a) 462.6 323.6 377.3 139.1 131.4 45.0 19.6 8.6 1 507.22012-13 352.4 150.7 503.12013-14 381.4 163.1 544.52014-15 (b) (b)2015-16 (b) (b)

Specialist disability services component

2011-12 55.5 17.0 41.7 5.7 0.8 4.6 125.32012-13 57.3 17.6 22.9 6.0 0.8 4.8 109.42013-14 58.7 17.9 24.8 6.3 0.8 5.0 113.52014-15 60.0 18.1 26.8 6.5 0.8 5.1 117.22015-16 61.0 18.4 29.0 6.6 0.8 5.2 121.0(a) Last assessment year of 2013 Update.(b) Funding in 2012-13 and 2013-14 reflects payments to Victoria and Western Australia under the Home

and Community Care Program Review Agreement. Funding is not published past 2013-14. Provision has been made in the Contingency Reserve subject to negotiations with the States.

Source: Commonwealth Budget Paper No 3 (2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 data obtained from earlier budget papers).

62 The intent of the IGA 2011 was reflected in the 2012 Update terms of reference which said:

... changes to the roles and responsibilities for funding and delivering, Home and Community Care, aged care and disability services set out in the NHR Agreement should not influence the per capita relativities, including any budget neutral adjustment to a State’s entitlement to National Disability SPP.

63 The terms of reference meant that the commission did not need to change its assessments of aged care and disability services and it: continued to treat the HACC payments made in 2008-09 and 2009-10 as

impacting on the relativities treated the payments for the National Partnership Agreement on transitional

responsibilities under the BCCS program paid in 2010-11 as equivalent to the HACC payments and as having an impact on the relativities.

64 If the 2013 Update terms of reference contain a similar clause, or are silent on the issue, implying that the commission would use the same methods as for the 2012 Update, we would do the same as in the last update; that is, we would leave the Welfare assessment unchanged and treat the BCCS payments as impacting on the relativities.

65 As part of the reforms, the Commonwealth has changed individual State funding of BCCS services to be based on Treasury modelling which aims to estimate the costs of delivering services to the different age cohorts. To ensure that these changes to funding have no impact on the relativities, we should reverse the change. However, we have little basis for estimating what individual State funding would have been in 2011-12 if the Commonwealth had maintained its previous policies. Therefore, we do not propose to reverse the change in Commonwealth funding for BCCS in 2011-12.

66 The commission will also need to make a decision on how it will treat the new specialist disability payments for 2011-12. They are made in relation to services provided to older people (a Commonwealth responsibility) but they are being provided by the States according to their responsibilities under the National Disability Agreement. They are part of the changes that terms of reference says should not impact on the relativities so we propose to ignore the payments.

67 To continue these arrangements in the next update, the commission would need information on notional BCCS payments for 2012-13.

RecommendationsStaff propose to recommend that, if the 2013 Update terms of reference are silent or repeat the requirement that the changes arrangements should not impact on the relativities, the commission:

make no change to the assessments continue to treat the HACC payments made in 2009-10 as impacting on the

relativities for all States treat the payments for the National Partnership Agreement on transitional

responsibilities under the BCCS program paid in 2010-11 and 2011-12 as equivalent to the HACC payments and as having an impact on the relativities

not reverse the change in Commonwealth funding for BCCS in 2011-12 treat the Specialist disability services component of the National Partnership

from 2011-12 as not impacting on the relativities.

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ON CHANGED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — ADJUSTMENT TO ACHIEVE BUDGET NEUTRALITY

68 Since 1 July 2011, as part of the National Health Reform Agreement agreed with the States in August 2011, the Commonwealth has made an adjustment to the National Disability SPP to ensure that the changes to Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for aged care and disability services as part of the National Health Reform arrangements are budget neutral. Victoria and Western Australia are not participating in these arrangements and no adjustment has been made to the National Disability SPP for these 2 jurisdictions. This National Partnership payment stems from the changed arrangements for Older People.

69 If the 2013 Update terms of reference, consistent with clause D66 of the 2011 IGA discussed above, ask the commission to ensure that the budget neutrality adjustment does not affect the calculation of the relativities, either by: an explicit clause similar to that in the 2012 Update terms of reference, or being silent on this issue, which we would interpret as meaning that the clause in

the 2012 Update still applies,

we would need to treat the payments as not impacting on the relativities.

RecommendationsStaff propose to recommend that the commission:

treat the National Disability SPP - Adjustment to achieve budget neutrality as not impacting on the relativities

REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND — STREAM 2 —ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS

70 The Commonwealth committed $6 billion to the Regional Infrastructure Fund. It said the broad objectives of the fund are to: promote development and job creation in mining communities and communities

which support the mining sector provide a benefit to Australia’s economic development and to invest in Australia’s

resource or export capacity address potential capacity constraints arising from export production and

resource projects.

71 The funding will be delivered in 3 streams: Stream 1 — payments to commence in 2010-11 to support projects committed in

2010. Stream 2 — payments to commence in 2011-12 to support ongoing investment in

economic infrastructure.

Stream 3 — payments to commence in 2012-13 to contribute to the new Regional Development Australia Fund to support local projects.

72 Table 7 shows total Regional Infrastructure Fund payments to States in 2010-11 and 2011-12. Payments from Stream 1 and 2 have been combined. Stream 2 payments total $4 million in 2011-12 and State allocations have not been finalised.

Table 7 Regional Infrastructure Fund payments – Streams 1 and 2(a) combinedNSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total

$m

2010-11 1.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4

2011-12 0.0 0.0 104.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.4$pc

2010-11 0.19 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51

2011-12 0.00 0.00 22.90 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.14

(a) Stream 2 payments totalled $4 million in 2011-12. State allocations have not been finalised for this Stream.

Note: Per capita amounts are calculated using 2010-11 ERP.Source: Australia’s Federal Relations, 2011-12 Budget Paper No. 3.

73 2010-11 payments. Stream 1 payments commencing in 2010-11 were made: to New South Wales for a study into the implications for the Scone community of

current and projected rail movements over a level crossing on the New England Highway and to find solutions to issues identified

to Queensland for planning study to examine options for an alternative alignment of the Bruce Highway around Mackay.

74 Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT argued these payments should affect the relativities. New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory made no comment. South Australia said the payments should be treated like other national network road construction payments. Western Australia said the payments should not affect the relativities because they relate to infrastructure to support economic development for which no needs are assessed by the commission.

75 The commission decided the payments should affect the relativities in the 2012 Update because, while the Scone and Mackay projects may eventually affect the national road network, they were not an integral part of its construction. The commission also considered needs had been assessed for expenditure funded by the payments, including equal per capita needs for economic development infrastructure.

76 2011-12 payments. Stream 1 payments made in 2011-12 to Queensland were: $54 million for the construction of a grade separated interchange at the Warrego

Highway and Brisbane Valley Highway intersection to improve safety, efficiency and reliability of the east-west transport corridor for road users including freight movements to the port of Brisbane.

$40 million to upgrade the intersection of the Bruce and Capricorn highways to reduce congestion around Rockhampton, and between Stanwell Industrial Corridor, the Port of Gladstone and the mining areas of Emerald.

77 Staff propose these payments affect the relativities because they support normal State functions and needs are assessed. We understand on the basis of oral advice from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, that, while the 2 projects affect parts of the national road network, they are normal State-type road projects aimed at improving local traffic flows. They do not reflect the Commonwealth’s strategic road network needs. Therefore staff consider these payments should not be treated as national network road payments.

78 Payments were also made to Western Australia for improvements in the vicinity of Perth Airport ($7.4 million as part of $480 million committed). While we understand that funding for this project will cover roads both on and off the national network, it is anticipated the majority of funding will be for off network roads. Staff propose these payments affect the relativities because they support normal State functions and needs are assessed.

79 Stream 2 payments commenced in 2011-12. $10 million has been allocated in 2011-12 ($4 million) and 2012-13 ($6 million) for Regional Infrastructure Planning projects (2013-14 payment is estimated to be $300 million). Eligible projects include rail, roads, ports, airports, energy, communication, water and other critical infrastructure as well as project development work. Projects are sourced by Infrastructure Australia who will work in conjunction with State and local governments, Commonwealth agencies, Regional Development Australia committees and the resources sector. Funding can be provided to State or local governments, and private sector organisations.

80 Staff propose the payments should affect the relativities because they are available for regional infrastructure planning which is a normal State function.


continue to treat Regional Infrastructure Fund Stream 1 payments as impacting on relativities

treat Regional Infrastructure Fund Stream 2 payments as impacting on relativities.

COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS COMMENCING IN 2012-13 OR 2013-14

81 Table A-2 in Attachment A provides a list of new payments that will commence in 2012-13. The Commonwealth budget paper No. 3 shows no payment commencing in 2013-14. Although the payments shown will affect the year in which the 2013

relativities will be applied, commission staff do not propose to backcast any of them because they are not made as a result of major change in federal financial arrangements. The new payments will be reflected in the relativities when they appear in the data for the assessment period.

82 We are aware that the trials relating to the first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will commence in 2013-14. Staff do not consider these a major change in federal financial arrangements so again will recommend to the commission that they should not be backcast. We understand that a fully implemented NDIS will commence in 2017-18. The commission will not need to consider its treatment until then.


not backcast any of the Commonwealth payments commencing 2012-13 or 2013-14.

MINING REVENUE — TREATMENT OF IRON ORE FINES

Background

83 In the 2010 Review, the commission classified minerals into two groups: high royalty minerals — oil and gas, export coal, lump iron ore and bauxite low royalty minerals — other minerals including iron ore fines.

84 This classification reflected ‘what States do’ — they applied a higher royalty rate to some minerals than others.

85 In June 2010, the Western Australian Government announced an agreement with 2 mining companies to remove the royalty concession that applied to around half the iron ore fines produced in the State. The agreement meant a royalty rate of 5.65% would apply to all iron ore fines.

86 Although the increase would not affect commission assessments until the 2012 Update, the commission decided to consider the issue in its 2011 Update and advise States what it proposed to do. The commission subsequently received terms of reference for the 2011 Update that directed it to leave iron ore fines in the low royalty mineral group.

Issues

87 In its 2011-12 Budget, Western Australia announced two further increases in the royalty rate applying to iron ore fines. The rate will increase to 6.5% from 1 July 2012 and to 7.5% from 1 July 2013. The second of these increases will align the royalty rate

on iron ore fines with that applying to lump iron ore, which the commission assesses in the high royalty rate group.

88 The first rate increase will affect data for 2012-13, the last year of the 2014 Update; the second, the 2015 Update. Because the treatment of mining royalties is under consideration by the GST Distribution Review, staff propose to recommend to the commission that it consider how Western Australia’s changed royalty arrangements might be treated in the 2014 Update when the Government’s response to the Review is known.


not consider how Western Australia’s changed royalty arrangements might be treated until the 2014 Update when the Government’s response to the GST Distribution Review is known.

STAMP DUTY ON CONVEYANCES – ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS

Background

89 Some States have made or are planning changes to the scope of transactions subject to stamp duty on conveyances. One of the changes is to abolish duty on transfers of non-real property. Following the GST introduction in 2000, States agreed to abolish some taxes and duties including stamp duty on transfers of non-real property. In 2013-14, the application year for the 2013 Update, the majority of States will no longer apply this duty.

90 The commission will need to consider how this policy shift should impact on the commission’s assessment of stamp duty on conveyances. In the 2010 Review Report, the commission outlined its view of average policy for stamp duty on conveyances and the way it made adjustments to State revenue bases for differences in scope4. In particular, the commission based adjustments to State revenue bases on average policy that applied in the application year for the 2010 Review (2010-11). We have adopted this approach in our analysis of the issue and for duty on transfers of listed companies (below) by looking at policies that will be in place for the application year of the 2013 Update (2013-14). Such an approach is also consistent with the way the commission has dealt with taxes that States agreed to abolish under the GST sharing arrangements including transfer duty on non-real property. The commission said in its 2007 Update report that it would backcast changes based on average policy in the application year.

91 In terms of defining average policy, the commission’s 2010 Review Report said:4 See pages 102 and 103 of volume 2 of the 2010 Review Report.

We consider the average policy is not to impose a tax or provide a service, unless a majority of States do so and it affects a majority of the aggregate tax base or relevant population (page 46, Volume 1).

Issues

92 In 2013-14, the application year for the 2013 Update, average policy, based on State policy announcements, will be to not apply the duty on non-real transfers. Table 8 shows which States plan to collect the duty in 2013-14 and the situation in earlier years.

Table 8 States that collect duty on transfer of non-real property

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

2008-09 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2009-10 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2010-11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2011-12 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2012-13 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2013-14 No No Yes No Yes No No YesSource: Commonwealth Grants Commission 2010 Review Report, Volume 2, page 102. Interstate

comparison of taxes 2010-11, New South Wales Treasury. Queensland Budget Strategy and Outlook 2011-12.

93 In 2013-14, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory plan to retain the duty. Queensland announced in its Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Review 2011-12 that it would defer abolition until this measure can be accommodated in its budget (in its 2011-12 Budget, Queensland said it would be abolished from 1 July 2013). Similarly, South Australia’s latest budget announced that abolition will be deferred until budget circumstances allow (in the 2011-12 mid-year budget review, South Australia said it would be abolished from 1 July 2013). The Northern Territory deferred abolition from 1 July 2012 to a future date, to be determined. In its recent budget, New South Wales postponed abolition by twelve months to 1 July 2013.

94 In 2012-13, it is average policy to impose this tax, but from 1 July 2013 average policy will be to not impose the tax, if announced abolitions come into effect. While budget circumstances might see further deferrals, we consider that the latest announced intention of States should be used as the basis for defining average policy5. States may wish to comment.

95 The commission currently makes an adjustment to the revenue bases of States depending on whether or not they apply this duty (a 6% upward adjustment to revenue bases of States that did not apply the duty). There are two obvious approaches we could take when average policy is to not apply the duty:

5 The commission may have difficulty considering changes announced close to its reporting date.

The commission could remove the adjustment altogether. Removing the adjustment would require those States that still apply the duty to provide adjusted revenue base data for all assessment years that exclude these transactions.

Estimate the impact on revenue bases by reducing the revenue bases of States that still apply the duty by 6%. Downward adjustments would only be made to revenue base data for assessment years in which a State still applied the duty.

96 The more accurate way of dealing with the change in average policy would be to remove the adjustment entirely and obtain new data that removes these transactions for all assessment years. We seek comments from States, particularly those that will need to provide new data, about whether they can identify and provide data on non-real duty transactions. Alternatively, the use of a fixed percentage adjustment factor may be seen as more consistent with the simplification the commission aimed to achieve in the 2010 Review. We seek State views.

97 The duty collected from non-real property transfers in 2010-11 comprised about 5% of total duty collected. The commission could include this revenue with other differentially assessed transfer duty in which case, the extra duty collected would increase the all-State average tax rate. Our preliminary analysis suggests this is likely to result in a materially different assessment outcome. Consistent with the commission’s 2010 Review approach that non-average revenues should not affect GST shares, we propose that the commission assesses this revenue equal per capita. If not already provided, States will need to report the revenue collected from transfer duty on non-real property for all assessment years.


Treat duty collected on transfer of non-real property as outside average revenue policy of States and either remove any transactions of this type from the revenue bases of States if data can be provided to do this. If not adjust revenue bases down by 6% for those States and years where the duty still applied.

For States still collecting duty on transfer of non-real property, assess any revenue equal per capita so it does not affect GST shares.

STAMP DUTY ON CONVEYANCES – ADJUSTMENT FOR DUTY ON TRANSFER OF LISTED COMPANIES

Background

98 A second area of change in State policies is for duty on transfer of listed (public) companies that hold land. Duty did not apply to these transactions in most States in

the past. That has changed in recent years. By 2012-13, most States will apply duty to such transfers.

Issues

99 Table 9 summarises which States collect the duty or plan to do so.

Table 9 States that collect duty on transfer of listed companies that hold land

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

2008-09 No No No Yes No No No No2009-10 Yes No No Yes No No No Yes2010-11 Yes No No Yes No No No Yes2011-12 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2012-13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes2013-14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No YesSource: Commonwealth Grants Commission 2010 Review Report, Volume 2, page 102. Advice provided by

States to commission staff during the 2012 Update.

100 The commission’s approach to defining average policy implies that duty on transfer of listed companies that hold land should be treated as average policy for the 2013 Update.

101 In most States that apply the duty, a transaction becomes liable only when 90% or more of a listed company is transferred. Such transactions can be infrequent but large, and could produce large annual variations in duty collected from this source. Duty is charged at a concessional rate of 10% of the normal duty rate by a number of States including New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia (but not Western Australia or the Northern Territory). If such transactions are combined and assessed with other dutiable real property transfers to which undiscounted duty rates apply, large fluctuations in average duty rates may result from year to year and consequent large movements in assessed revenues, particularly for States where little or no change has occurred to their level of transactions from year to year. Direct inclusion of these transactions in the revenue base and actual revenue may weaken the integrity and reasonableness of the assessment.

102 Another problem will be estimating the revenue base for transactions in States that do not apply the duty. As for other adjustments in this category, we could apply a fixed adjustment factor to revenue bases. Given the limited number of States applying the duty at present and the lumpy nature of these transactions, we are likely to have difficulty reliably estimating such an adjustment.

103 The commission could treat transactions involving transfer of listed companies in a number of different ways. The options include:

simply combine these transactions with other conveyance transactions and allow any impacts on average duty rates to affect the assessment results

separately assess these transactions to recognise the markedly different average duty rates that apply to them.

104 Staff consider that a decision on how to assess these transactions may be informed by information about their current size and impact. Hence, we will seek data from States through the normal data request process before recommending an assessment approach to the commission.


include transactions involving transfer of listed companies in the revenue base and revenue for the 2013 Update

settle the method of assessing these transactions after the commission obtains data from States that apply the duty so that their likely size and impact can be judged.

INSURANCE TAX – APRA PREMIUMS DATA

Background

105 The commission’s Insurance tax assessment uses Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) data on the total premiums paid to insurers to determine each State’s tax base. Data are provided for direct (private sector) insurers and public insurers on the risks insured in each State. The data are adjusted to remove premiums from workers’ compensation and reinsurance, because most States do not tax these types of insurance6.

Issues

106 Two issues have arisen with the APRA data used in the assessment.

Public insurers data

107 APRA has recently advised the commission that it will not be able to provide total premiums data for public insurers for this Update due to confidentiality concerns. Data from direct (private sector) insurers are collected under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 and will continue to be available. Public insurers are not regulated by APRA and are not covered by this Act. Earlier this year APRA sought permission from public insurers to release their data to the commission. Some public insurers have refused. APRA cannot tell us which insurers have refused, nor do we know whether all public insurers have responded to APRA.

6 Revenue from fire and emergency services levies is also removed since the commission considered these levies to be more in the nature of a user charge.

108 Data for public insurers represent around 24% of the revenue base and vary significantly between States (in per capita terms). Their premium data have a material impact on the assessment. Most of these data are publicly available, however the commission would prefer to source data from APRA to ensure they are comparable and consistent across States.

109 Can States ask their public insurers to give APRA permission to release their data to the commission for this and future updates?

Life insurance data

110 In the 2010 Review the commission said its Insurance tax category included duties imposed on life insurance, general insurance and compulsory third party (CTP) motor insurance. It said the revenue base was determined using the total premiums for these types of insurance, with an adjustment to remove premiums from workers’ compensation insurance and reinsurance. It has recently come to our attention that the APRA data used to determine the revenue base includes total premiums for general insurance including CTP insurance, but does not included premiums for life insurance.

111 APRA does not collect life insurance data at State level7. However, data from two States suggest taxes on life insurance are a small proportion (less than 5%) of total insurance tax revenue. Staff do not have evidence to say whether or not the distribution of life insurance policies between States differs markedly from the distribution of general insurance policies.

112 Given the relatively small size of life insurance duties and the unavailability of data from APRA, we plan to continue to calculate the revenue base using the total premiums of the general insurance industry, adjusted to remove premiums from workers’ compensation insurance and reinsurance, and also to remove revenue from fire and emergency service levies.

113 States may wish to comment.

SERVICES TO INDUSTRY — AGRICULTURE FACTOR INCOME

114 In the 2012 Update, there were large revisions to the ABS agriculture factor income. The ABS said this was the result of changes to its methodology. The ABS considers the revised series is more reliable than the previous one, which was assessed as reliable and fit for purpose by the ABS during the 2010 Review.

7 Most States impose life insurance duty on the sum insured, rather than the annual premiums. APRA does not collect either data at State level.

115 The ABS does not expect further methodological changes, and therefore large revisions, in the short term.


continue using the ABS agriculture factor income data.

THE COMPARABILITY OF STATE NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF EXPENSES

Background

116 During the 2012 Update, the commission became aware that some States did not have private natural disaster insurance arrangements. It was concerned that this might compromise the comparability of the expenses States incur on natural disasters. It is important that State expenses are comparable and do not reflect different State policies because our assessment of natural disaster expense needs is an actual per capita assessment of State expenses.

117 In the 2012 Update report, the commission said it would make a decision on the appropriateness of the assessment after the completion of the review of State insurance arrangements undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD), and Emergency Management Australia and due in March 2012.

118 In the March 2012 report, DoFD concluded that the information assembled by KPMG for DoFD proved insufficient to allow firm conclusions to be drawn as to the adequacy of insurance arrangements — other than for the ACT.

119 DoFD is seeking further information from some States with respect to the availability and cost-benefit of insurance cover for currently uninsured assets. It aims to publish a final report on 19 September 2012.

120 States will be consulted after the final report has been received and considered by staff.


await DoFD’s final report before considering appropriateness of the current APC assessment of State natural disaster relief expenses.

ATTACHMENT A

TREATMENT OF COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS IN THE 2013 UPDATE

1 The following figure sets out the guidelines developed in the 2010 Review to assist in deciding the treatment of Commonwealth payments to the States.

Figure A-1 Commonwealth payment guidelines

(a) Such as a trial program which is not part of services delivered under average State policy.

27

Is payment included in GFS general government sector?

NoYes

In scope Out-of-scope

Does payment influence State fiscal capacities?Is it: quarantined by ToR? a purchase by the Australian Government? for programs delivered at behest of

Australian Government which lead to above average or unique State outcomes?(a)

a payment to third party which does not influence State fiscal capacities?

a payment in relation to which needs have not been able to be assessed?

Does payment influence State fiscal capacities?

Yes

No to all Yes to any

No impact on relativities

Impact on relativities

Assess revenues APCAssess expenses differentially

Assess disability

Assess revenues and expenses the same or offset revenues against expenses

Table A-1 Proposed treatment of Commonwealth payments commenced in 2011-12, Australia’s Federal Relations, Budget Paper No. 3, 2012-13

Commonwealth payment Description2011-12

$m

Proposed treatment

Reason for No impact treatment

Health

National health reform — Financial assistance for long stay older patients (LSOP)

To provide funding over 3 years to care for people aged 65 or over in public hospitals, who have finished acute and post-acute care and are waiting for Commonwealth aged care placement.The Australian Government will contribute to the cost of up to 2000 LSOP places in public hospitals in 2011-12, up to 1700 places in 2012-13 and up to 1400 in 2013-14. The Australian and State governments will fund the 2011-12 and 2012-03 national LSOP census which will be used to determine the number of LSOP in each State (2011-12 funding is based on the 2006 LSOP census).

106.1 Impact

Health infrastructure (new components) Health and hospital fund —

translational research and workforce training (Vic only)

Funding for new medical research infrastructure in the areas of mental health and neurological disorders, child health, Indigenous health and medical bionics. Also funding for investment in new and existing clinical schools, universities and training facilities to enhance health workforce capability.

51.0 Impact

Health infrastructure projects in Tasmania

One-off funding for the upgrade of chemotherapy and cancer facilities in North West Tasmania, with a focus on the North West Regional Hospital at Burnie.

1.4 Impact

Health services (new components) National public health — Human

quarantine servicesFunding for the implementation of health measures at Australia’s international borders. The aim is to manage the risk of travellers bringing designated quarantinable diseases into Australia.

0.7 No impact

The Commonwealth is responsible for international border quarantine services

Attachment A

28

Table A-1 Proposed treatment of Commonwealth payments commenced in 2011-12, Australia’s Federal Relations, Budget Paper No. 3, 2012-13 (cont’d)


$m

Proposed treatment


BreastScreen Australia radiography workforce initiatives

To increase BreastScreen Australia’s radiography workforce, through the provision of recruitment and/or retention activities such as professional development, training, or employment opportunities for both trainee and experienced radiographers.

0.3 Impact

Health services — Indigenous health Family-centric renal

accommodation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Northern Territory

Funding for the construction of 2 family-centric long-stay renal accommodation facilities for renal patients and their families in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.

3.0 Impact

Improving ear health services for Indigenous Australian children

Funding to support the delivery of additional surgical services, clinical leadership programs and ear health services

6.1 Impact

Improving trachoma control services for Indigenous Australians

Funding for the continued expansion of trachoma control activities in jurisdictions where trachoma, an infectious disease which can lead to blindness, is endemic. Funding is also being provided to jurisdictions where trachoma has been previously found, in order to determine whether full trachoma control programs are required for those jurisdictions.

2.9 Impact

Torres Strait health protection strategy — Saibai Island Health Clinic (Qld only)

Funding for additional staff for the treatment of communicable diseases at the health care clinic on Saibai Island, and development and implementation of a culturally appropriate sexual health education campaign for the Torres Strait.

1.2 Impact

Mental — Supporting national mental health reform

Provision of a total funding pool of up to $200 million from 2011-12 to 2015-16 to address priority service gaps in mental health services including accommodation, emergency departments and community based crisis support.

9.0 Impact

Attachment A

29Attachm

ent A29

Attachment A

29



$mProposed treatment


Preventive health (new components) Healthy children Provision of facilitation and reward funding to deliver programs

for children from birth to 16 years old to increase level of physical activity and improve the intake of fruit and vegetables in child care centres, preschools and schools. Reward funding will be paid in 2013-14 and 2014-15.

32.5Impact for facilitation funding; no impact for reward funding

No impact for reward funding as directed by terms of reference

Healthy workers Provision of facilitation and reward funding to support workplace health programs that focus on decreasing rates of overweight and obesity, increasing levels of physical activity and intake of fruit and vegetables, smoking cessation and reducing harmful levels of alcohol consumption.

33.6 Impact for facilitation funding; no impact for reward pyt

No impact for reward funding as directed by terms of reference

Education

Empowering local schools Funding to all States to empower participating schools to make decisions at a local level to better respond to the needs of students and the local school community.The agreement will be implemented in 2 phases, funding for Phase 1 will be made in 2011-12 and projects completed by June 2014. Phase 1 will focus primarily on increasing local decision-making on governance, funding, infrastructure and workforce arrangements. The evaluation of Phase 1 will inform Phase 2 due to start from July 2015 (mechanism for implementing Phase 2 is not known).About 714 government schools will participate in Phase 1 (about 286 non-government schools will sign their own agreements with the Commonwealth). States manage school selection and are encouraged to select schools with high Indigenous population and are located in the 10 sites identified for Placed-Based Initiatives in the 2011 Budget: Playford, SA; Burnie, TAS; Bankstown, Wyong and Shellharbour, NSW; Rockhampton and

57.2 (18.6 non-govt)

Impact for government schools and no impact for non-government schools

No impact for payments to non-government schools because they are payments through the States to third parties and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Attachment A

29Attachm

ent A29

Attachment A

30

Logan, QLD; Kwinana, WA; Shepparton and Hume, VIC.





Helping our kids understand finances — professional learning and MoneySmart schools

Funding over 2 years to support the delivery of face-to-face professional learning to teachers in primary and secondary schools and the trialling of teacher support materials, consistent with Helping Our Kids Understand Finances initiative.

1.0 Impact

More support for students with disabilities

Funding for the provision of targeted assistance to teachers and schools to support students with disabilities. This initiative provides education authorities the flexibility to select a range of activities that will best meet the needs of students, teachers and schools in their jurisdictions. Payments are made to government and non-government schools.

78.7 (17.1 non-govt)

No impact Needs for students with disabilities are not assessed

Rewards for great teachers Funding to support education authorities to align their current approaches to performance management with the Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework (the Framework) and enable the payment of bonuses to teachers who achieve certification at the highest levels of standards (linked to the National Professional Standards for Teachers).Teachers who become certified at the highest levels of the standards will be rewarded $7500 for Highly Accomplished teachers and $10000 for teachers who achieve the Lead Teacher level.The 2011-12 and 2012-13 payments are made to the States to support the costs of implementing the Framework and the national certification process for Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers. Teacher reward payments will be paid from 2013-14.

50.0 (8.7 non-govt)

Impact for government schools (except rewards to teachers), no impact for non-government schools

No impact for reward payments to teachers and payments to non-government schools because they are payments through the States to third parties and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Attachment A

32


Commonwealth payment Description 2011-12 $m

Proposed treatment


Investing in Focus Schools One-off funding to support government and non-government education providers to accelerate their implementation of agreed actions in some 200 selected Focus schools that have previously received little or no benefit through other Australian government funded initiatives and reforms such as Smarter Schools National Partnership, the Closing the Gap: Expansion of Intensive Literacy and Numeracy Programs or the Focus School Next Steps initiative.The outputs reflect a focus on Indigenous students. All States are involved in selecting participating schools according to the quotas for each State set out in the agreement. The agreement specifies that participating schools must be named as a Focus school under the Action Plan and nominates a preference for schools that have 30 or more Indigenous students enrolled.

40.0 (6.2 non-govt)

Impact for government schools and no impact for non-government schools

No impact for payments to non-government schools because they are payments through the States to third parties and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Skills and workforce development

Building Australia’s future workforce — training places for single and teen parents

Total funding of $80 million for the provision of training places at the Certificate II level or above, for single and teen parents affected by changes to parenting payment that comes into effect on 1 January 2013.The States provide matching contributions (financial and/or in-kind) which may include new funding, existing and/or redirected/reallocated funding that supports the implement of the agreement.

6.7 Impact

Commonwealth/State and Territory joint group training program

To support group training organisations to deliver strategies and initiatives to improve Australian apprenticeship commencements and completions.Funding will be provided for the employment of apprentices and trainees in skills need areas. It will also be used to support innovative projects that assess apprentices.

14.0 Impact

Attachment A

33





Community services

National disability SPP — Changed roles and responsibilities – adjustment to achieve budget neutrality

Since 1 July 2011 (through to June 2014), the Commonwealth makes an adjustment to the National Disability SPP payment to ensure that the changes to Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for aged care and disability services as part of the National Health Reform arrangements are budget neutral. No adjustment is made for Victoria and Western Australia because they do not participate in the new arrangements.

-3.7 No impact As required by previous terms of reference

Transitional responsibilities for aged care and disability services

Basic community care maintenance and support services (this payment commenced in 2010-11 and replace the Home and Community Care program)

Funding for the provision of basic community care maintenance and support to people aged 65 years and over (50 years and over for Indigenous Australians), and will replace the Home and Community Care program for States other than Victoria and Western Australia. From July 2012, funding for these services for States other than Victoria and Western Australia will be provided by the Commonwealth directly to service providers.

1507.2 Impact As required by previous terms of reference changes should not affect the relativities

Specialist disability services Funding for specialist disability services for people aged 65 years and over (50 years and over for Indigenous Australians), in participating States. No payment to Victoria and Western Australia because they do not participate in new arrangements.

125.3 No impact As required by previous terms of reference – this is a new payment and changes should not affect the relativities (as well needs are not assessed)

Attachment A

34





Social and community services — Queensland pay equity regulation — back pay

One-off funding to assist Queensland social and community services sector employers to meet their obligations under the new Australian Government regulation (the regulation) for back pay to employees in the sector who were employed between 27 March 2011 and 29 February 2012. Most of the funding is made as COPEs.The regulation affects certain Queensland social and community services sector employers that would have transitioned back to the State workplace relations system from 27 March 2011 in the absence of the State’s referral of workplace relation powers to the Australian Government. Under the regulation, such employers are required to back pay affected employees the difference between the amount paid during that period and the amount that would have been payable if their wages had been set by the 2009 Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the State award.

7.7 No impact Payments through the States to private sector service providers which do not affect State fiscal capacities

Affordable housing

Building better regional cities Funding of $100 million over 3 years for investment in local housing infrastructure projects that will help build more affordable homes in high growth regional cities over 2011-12 to 2013-14. Payments are made direct to local governments.

30.0 No impact Payments are made direct to local governments and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Infrastructure

Adelaide Oval redevelopment and precinct works

One-off funding for the construction of 2 underground car parks and the creation of new wetlands and other enhancements around the Riverbank precinct. This is part of the South Australian Government’s Adelaide Oval upgrade project due for completion in 2014-15.

30.0 Impact

Attachment A

35





Centenary of Canberra 2013 — a gift to the national capital

Funding of $62 million ($52m in 2011-12 and $10m in 2014-15) to the ACT to commemorate the Centenary of Canberra in 2013.$42 million will be provided for the redevelopment of Constitution Avenue, including a dedicated cycle lane and shared commuter paths. $20 million will also be provided for the development of the National Arboretum Canberra. This will assist in the completion of this nationally significant project in partnership with the ACT Government.

52.0 Impact

Cloncurry community precinct One-off payment to local government to help establish a multi-use community hub in Cloncurry Queensland. The project will establish a library, gallery space for local and touring exhibitions, function rooms with multi-media connections, a commercial grade kitchen and community open space, together with the refurbishment of the existing 1939 Shire Hall. This project is jointly funded by 3 levels of government and the private sector and is expected to be completed in 2011-12.


King George V sports and community precinct

One-off payment to local government to support the redevelopment of the King George V sports and community precinct in Glenorchy, Tasmania. The facility will include a dedicated office for the Migrant Resource Centre.


Liveable cities Funding over 2 years to help improve the planning and design of capital cities and major regional centres that are experiencing population growth pressures and housing and transport affordability cost pressures. Payments include direct payments to local government.

10.0 Impact for payments to States and no impact for payments to local govt

No impact for payments direct to local governments because they are payments to third party and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Attachment A

36





Managed motorways Funding over 4 years for smart infrastructure technologies to reduce congestion and improve both traffic demand management and the overall efficiency of the transport network in major cities. Managed motorways integrate data collection sensors and control tools to improve real time management of motorways to secure a higher and more consistent level of motorway performance.All projects will be jointly funded by the Australian Government and the relevant State government. Funding is conditional on the State government signing NP Agreements on the establishment of Single National Jurisdictions for heavy vehicles, interstate rail operations and maritime regulation.

10.0 Impact

Manuka Oval lighting upgrade One-off funding to the ACT for the installation of lighting at Manuka Oval to meet high-definition broadcast standards to provide Canberra with an appropriate facility to host AFL matches and elite and international cricket matches.Manuka oval is recorded as a municipal asset.

2.5 No impact Payments for local governments asset and do not affect State fiscal capacities

National transport regulator reforms (new component) — transitional assistance

One-off funding to Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory to assist them with the implementation of national transport regulation reforms for heavy vehicles, rail and maritime safety.Other components of the reforms program – National heavy vehicles regulator and National rail safety regulator have no impact on the relativities.

3.0 No impact Purchase of services by Commonwealth Government

Regional Infrastructure Fund — Stream 2 — economic infrastructural projects

Funding over 9 years to support ongoing investment in economic infrastructure. Eligible projects include rail, roads, ports, airports, energy, communication, water and other critical infrastructure as well as project development work. Payments in 2011-12 and 2012-13 (total $10 million) are for regional infrastructure plans. Payment will increase to $300 million in 2013-14.

4.0 Impact

Attachment A

37

Payments for Stream 1 impact on relativities.





Sydney Cricket Ground redevelopment One-off funding to replace the Noble, Bradman and Dally Messenger stands in the Sydney Cricket Ground. This project will be jointly funded by the Commonwealth Government, the NSW government and the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust (the trust is a State PTE) and work is due for completion in 2013-14.A similar payment was made to the Sydney Cricket Ground in 2007-08 and 2008-09 and had no impact on the relativities. The treatment was applied because it was paid to a State PTE (out of scope before 2010 Review) and did not affect State fiscal capacities (during that time, we did not assess State net lending).

50.0 Impact (increase in State PTE asset value will result in an increase in State equity in PTE and its net financial assets)

Macquarie Point Railyards precinct remediation project

One-off funding to support the: remediation of the Macquarie Point Railyards site to

meet relevant standards to allow for future residential and/or commercial development, and

redevelopment of Brooke Street Pier infrastructure to support vessel berthing and accommodate construction of commercial development to cater for the continued operation of local ferry and cruise services.

The Commonwealth contribution will be held in trust by Tasmania until the Waterfront Development Corporation (a public non-financial corporation) is established.

50.0 Impact

Environment

Animal and plant pest and disease eradication

Funding for programs to eradicate exotic animal and plant pests and diseases, which if allowed to establish and spread, would have serious economic and environmental impacts.There was a similar payment previously for Plant disease and eradication which impacted on the relativities.

14.5 Impact

Attachment A

39


Commonwealth payment Description2011 12



Coal seam gas and large coal mining development

Funding over 3 years to strengthen the regulation of coal seam gas (CSG) and large coal mining development by ensuring that future decisions are informed by substantially improved science and independent expert advice.The Commonwealth will establish the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining (IESC) body under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to provide advice to the States.The States will provide input to the IESC’s research agenda, amend relevant laws, regulations and guidelines and seek advice from the IESC when approving projects. Payments to States are for the costs associated with the agreed reform.

20.0 Impact

Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement

implementation

The Australian Government and Tasmania signed a Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement in August 2011. The aim is to support the forest industry to progressively transition to a more sustainable and diversified footing, to protect additional areas of high conservation value native forest, and to build regional economic diversity and community resilience.Clause 51 of the Agreement says the Commonwealth government will instruct the CGC to quarantine payments under the agreement and any other current or future funding agreements as a result of the funding.Payment to support the implementation of the Agreement (one-off of $43 million in 2011-12) as well as ongoing management of additional native forest reserves ($7m in 2011-12).

50.0 No impact

Required by terms of reference (similar payments were quarantined by terms of reference and the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement said payments associated with the Agreement will be quarantined)

economic diversification projects

One-off payment for regional development projects to support diversification of the Tasmania economy.

16.0 No impact Required by terms of reference

Attachment A

40





Northern Australia sustainable futures Funding over 2 years to Queensland and the Northern Territory to build the capacity of local governments and communities in Northern Australia to effectively manage water infrastructure maintenance and engage communities to appropriately manage community and household demand for water.

0.3 Impact

Sustainable Australia — sustainable regional development

Payments direct to New South Wales local governments over 4 years for regional sustainability planning to support selected local government authorities for capacity building and other activities associated with the development and/or implementation of regional sustainability planning.

0.8 No impact Payments direct to local governments because they are payments to third party and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Other payments

Centenary of Canberra 2013 – joint national program

Funding of $5.6 million to the ACT over 3 years to celebrate the Centenary of Canberra in 2013. These activities include cultural, sporting and civic awareness events and will engage communities across Australia to celebrate the centenary of the role of Canberra as the nation’s capital.

2.6 No impact This is a joint national program and therefore is considered as a purchase of services by the Commonwealth

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2011

One-off payment to Western Australia in relation to security for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that was held in Perth in November 2011.

43.3 No impact Purchase of services by the Commonwealth

Location-based mobile telephone emergency warning capability

One-off payment to Victoria for meeting the establishment costs incurred in the development of the national emergency warning system that enables the delivery of warnings to mobile telephones based on the location and handset at the time of an emergency. Victoria is responsible for investigating the capability of a system and negotiating with telephone networks on behalf of all States and Territories.

Amount not

known yet

No impact Purchase of services by the Commonwealth

Attachment A

41





Projection and promotion of the Melbourne Royal Exhibition Building world heritage property

One-off payment to Victoria for the conservation of the fabric of the Melbourne Royal Exhibition Building and its world and national heritage values.The State government of Victoria owns the building and Museum Victoria manages it. The building is listed as a World Heritage property and is protected under the provisions of the Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

20.0 Impact The building is a State asset

Temporary assistance for Tasmanian exporters

One-off funding to Tasmania to support the delivery of direct shipping transition assistance for exporters, Burnie Port improvements and an industry-led freight logistics coordination team, in response to the cessation of direct international container shipping services to Tasmania.

$11 million will be made available to previous users of direct international services who can demonstrate they have suffered increased costs as a result of cessation of those services, and who can provide evidence of positive measures that they have implemented or plan to implement to respond to the new shipping environment.

$3.5 million will be available to other exporters who are able to provide evidence of positive measures they have implemented or plan to implement to maintain competitiveness on an ongoing basis.

$4 million to fund Stage 1.1 of the planned redevelopment of Burnie Port.

$1.5 million to establish an industry-led freight logistics coordination team to consider strategic issues associated with the development of Tasmania’s freight and logistics sector.

20.0 No impact for $14.5m payments to exporters; Impact for the rest as the payments relate to economic development assistance for which needs are assessed

No impact for payments to exporters because they are payments to third parties and do not affect State fiscal capacities

Attachment A

42

Table A-2 Commonwealth payments commencing in 2012-13, Australia’s Federal Relations, Budget Paper No. 3, 2012-13

Commonwealth paymentEstimated

2012-13 ($m)

National Partnership (NP) on Stronger Futures in the Northern TerritoryThe Commonwealth is negotiating with the Northern Territory Government on the new NP (to replace the NP for Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory) which is due to commence on 1 July 2012. The total funding is around $3.4 billion over 10 years with significant investment in families, education, health, housing, infrastructure, jobs and safety to Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory. Estimated funding for 2012-13 includes:

For health,

Hearing health services — integrated hearing health services to children in remote communities.

Mobile outreach service plus — counselling and support services for families living in remote areas that are affected by trauma associated with child abuse and neglect.

Oral health services — integrated oral health programs for children in communities.

For education,

Building a quality school workforce – additional teachers — funding to the Northern Territory Government for 200 teaching positions in remote government and non-government schools.

Building a quality school workforce – quality teaching — enhance the capability of the existing education workforce in remote communities and improve teachers’ abilities to support students with critical needs. Payments are made to government and non-government schools.

Expansion of the school enrolment and attendance measure (SEAM)— Use the income support payment system to connect schools and families where children are not enrolled, or going to school and encourages dialogue between the school and the family on factors impacting on school enrolment and attendance.

For community services,

Child, youth, family and community wellbeing — continued funding for playgroups, home and parenting support services, youth workers and safe houses; expansion of the number of communities for children sites; and an extra 12 remote Indigenous family and community workers and the continuation of 2 mobile child protection teams.

Community safety and justice — remote policing, community night patrols and legal assistance services.

Municipal and essential services — delivery of municipal services and basic essential services to outstations and homelands, such as access to power, water and sewerage and road maintenance.

Remote engagement and coordination — more effective engagement with communities through continued support for the Northern Territory Aboriginal Interpreter Service.

Tackling alcohol abuse — tackle alcohol abuse and ensure licensed premises operate properly. These initiatives will complement the Northern Territory

2.4

4.3

2.3

28.0

14.8

1.9

13.4

21.3

5.0

4.4

4.0

Attachment A 43

Government’s Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms.

Table A-2 Commonwealth payments commencing in 2012-13, Australia’s Federal Relations, Budget Paper No. 3, 2012-13 (continued)


2012-13 ($m)

National Partnership (NP) on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (continued)For affordable housing,

Healthy homes —provision of safe and healthy houses (including funding towards asbestos removal in homes and other buildings in NTER prescribed communities) for Indigenous Australians.

Indigenous housing — improve remote Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory, particularly in communities currently covered by compulsory 5 year leases.

4.9

22.4

Health

Tasmania’s health system emergency rescue packageIn June 2012 the Commonwealth announced a $325 million emergency rescue package for Tasmania’s health system over 4 years commencing in 2012-13. The package includes funding for additional elective surgeries, the establishment of walk-in centres, addressing the gaps in mental health services and more training for medical specialists etc.This payment did not appear in Budget Paper No. 3 due to the timing of its announcement and no further details on the level of annual payments are available at this stage.

Amount not known yet

Indigenous health — Renal dialysis services in Central AustraliaThe Commonwealth will provide funding for the delivery of renal dialysis and support services to Indigenous Australians in Central Australia.

1.6

Mental health — Expanding the early psychosis prevention and intervention centre modelThe Commonwealth will provide funding to explore how the model could be used to reform early psychosis management within the Australian mental health system. Up to 16 new centres will be established across Australia. The new centres will provide an integrated and comprehensive psychiatric service to help address the needs of people aged 15-24 with emerging psychotic disorders. Services provided include early intervention and clinical treatment.

28.2

Public dental waiting list programAs part of the Commonwealth’s dental package, the Commonwealth will provide funding to assist the States for the treatment of people on public dental waiting lists, including ensuring support for the Indigenous Australians.The dental package was funded by the currently unallocated Commonwealth Dental Health Program funding. The funding was intended to replace the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme but has been redirected to boost dental services before the Scheme is closed and any new scheme commences.

69.2

Education

Reward for school improvementFunding to facilitate adoption of the National School Improvement Framework and enable reward payments to be made to schools showing the most improvement.The payment was listed as a payment commenced in 2011-12. Treasury advised that this payment will not be developed for 2011-12 and is expected to commence in 2012-13.

10.0

Attachment A 44

Table A-2 Commonwealth payments commencing in 2012-13, Australia’s Federal Relations, Budget Paper No. 3, 2012-13 (continued)


2012-13 ($m)

Skills and workforce development

Building Australia’s future workforce NP— Skills reformThis NP complements the revised National Agreement for skills and workforce development that commenced in April 2012.The Commonwealth will provide funding to support long-term reform in the VET sector, particularly reforms that provide more accessible training for working-age Australians, a more transparent, higher quality and more efficient VET sector.

238.4

Infrastructure

Townsville Convention and Entertainment CentreThe Commonwealth will provide funding for the construction of the Townsville Convention and Entertainment Centre to deliver a commitment made as part of the 2010 election.

10.0

Attachment A 45

cgc.gov.au 2012... · web viewfound to be unsatisfactory or where they are required because of...

Documents