❓ The WA government questions the Commonwealth's National Health Plan, disputing the claimed financial benefits and highlighting the potential for a disproportionate impact on WA's GST revenue due to its unique fiscal circumstances. They express uncertainty about the net financial impact due to a lack of detail from the Commonwealth.
AnsweredQoN 173Legislative Council
Asked
22 April 2010
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer
QuestionView source ↗
NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN
I refer to the Prime Minister’s national health plan. (1) Taking into account both the withholding of one-third of the goods and services tax revenue by the commonwealth and the offsetting reduction in state spending responsibilities for health, what is the impact on the state’s net financial position in each of the next four financial years? (2) Does the Treasurer dispute commonwealth statements that, in addition, WA would receive a further $552 million over four years in extra health funding under the plan as agreed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting by the other states and territories? (3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON
I refer to the Prime Minister’s national health plan. (1) Taking into account both the withholding of one-third of the goods and services tax revenue by the commonwealth and the offsetting reduction in state spending responsibilities for health, what is the impact on the state’s net financial position in each of the next four financial years? (2) Does the Treasurer dispute commonwealth statements that, in addition, WA would receive a further $552 million over four years in extra health funding under the plan as agreed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting by the other states and territories? (3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(1) Taking into account both the withholding of one-third of the goods and services tax revenue by the commonwealth and the offsetting reduction in state spending responsibilities for health, what is the impact on the state’s net financial position in each of the next four financial years? (2) Does the Treasurer dispute commonwealth statements that, in addition, WA would receive a further $552 million over four years in extra health funding under the plan as agreed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting by the other states and territories? (3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Does the Treasurer dispute commonwealth statements that, in addition, WA would receive a further $552 million over four years in extra health funding under the plan as agreed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting by the other states and territories? (3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
(1) Taking into account both the withholding of one-third of the goods and services tax revenue by the commonwealth and the offsetting reduction in state spending responsibilities for health, what is the impact on the state’s net financial position in each of the next four financial years? (2) Does the Treasurer dispute commonwealth statements that, in addition, WA would receive a further $552 million over four years in extra health funding under the plan as agreed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting by the other states and territories? (3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Does the Treasurer dispute commonwealth statements that, in addition, WA would receive a further $552 million over four years in extra health funding under the plan as agreed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting by the other states and territories? (3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(3) If yes, why? (4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(4) How much of this additional funding will Western Australia receive in each of the next four financial years? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(1) A much higher proportion than 33 per cent of the goods and services tax would need to be dedicated to health spending in Western Australia under the commonwealth’s health reforms. This is because Western Australia’s health spending is somewhat higher than that of other states, on a per capita basis, but its GST share is much lower than that of other states, on a per capita basis. This could mean that around 60 per cent of Western Australia’s GST is relabelled as commonwealth health funding. There is no reduction in state spending. What has been proposed by the commonwealth is a relabelling of funding already provided by the state. The commonwealth has claimed that the arrangements will be budget neutral for states over the next four years. However, it is not possible to quantify the net financial impact, given the lack of detail and certainty provided by the commonwealth. For example, there is uncertainty in relation to transitional costs in setting up the reformed health system, the impact of reforms on system efficiency—including cost per service, delivering services that are appropriate to need, and integration with other services—and the impact of reforms on systems throughout. (2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Yes. Furthermore, this additional funding could increase the percentage of GST dedicated to health expenditure from 2014–15. (3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Although the commonwealth offer in the Council of Australian Governments document identified an amount of $552 million over four years, given the lack of certainty and detail provided by the commonwealth, it is not possible to reliably determine the level of additional funds that may be required. The numbers quoted by various sources appear to be based on a population share assumption. This ignores the fact that some of the funding will not be received by the Western Australian government and instead will go directly to a number of other recipients such as general practitioners, the non-government sector and private enterprise—that is, areas of current commonwealth responsibilities. It is estimated that approximately $370 million over four years—or $92.5 million per annum—may flow directly to the Western Australian government for additional state health services. After 2014–15, this amount would need to be funded by further cuts in the state’s GST receipts. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.