Northern Territory budget papers 2003 - 2004
2003/04 Budget paper
Northern Territory. Department of Treasury
Northern Territory budget papers; E-Journals; PublicationNT
2003-05-29
Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).; Please Note: This can't be read online. Please download to read the documents
Northern Territory Budget paper No. 01 2003-04 Speech and Appropriation Bill -- Northern Territory Budget paper No. 02 2003-04 Fiscal and Economic Outlook -- Northern Territory Budget paper No. 03 2003-04 The Budget -- Northern Territory Budget paper No. 04 2002-03 Capital Works Program -- Northern Territory Budget paper No. 05 2002-03 Budget Overview -- Budget paper No. 06 2002-03 NT Economy -- Northern Territory Budget paper No. 07 2002-03 Regional Highlights -- Northern Territory Budget paper No. 08 2002-03 Building Territory Business
English
Appropriations and expenditures; Periodicals; Budget; Finance, Public
Northern Territory Government
Darwin
2003/04
application/pdf
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Northern Territory Government
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591859 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 01 2003-04 The Speech and Appropriation Bill]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591861 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 02 2003-04 Fiscal and Economic Outlook]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591863 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 03 2003-04 The Budget]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591865 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 04 2003-04 Capital Works Program]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591867 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 05 2003-04 Budget Overview]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591869 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 06 2003-04 NT Economy]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591871 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 07 2003-04 Regional Highlights]; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591873 [LANT: E-Journals: Northern Territory Budget paper No. 08 2003-04 Building Territory Business]
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/244898
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591861
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591865; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591867; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591869; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591871; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591873; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591859; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/591863
Fiscal and Economic Outlook 64 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ For the States, SPPs are an important source of funding for the provision of core services, such as health care, aged care and education. In the Territory, SPPs represent around 17 per cent of total Commonwealth grants. The Territory will receive an estimated $329 million in SPPs in 2002-03, and $317 million in 2003-04. Commonwealth Budget estimates indicate that the Commonwealth will meet its commitment under the Intergovernmental Agreement to maintain aggregate levels of SPPs in 2003-04. However, the States continue to be concerned about the Commonwealths intentions in the future, with forward estimates showing no real growth in SPPs to the States. Potentially, SPPs provide significant opportunities for collaboration between the Commonwealth and the States in areas of shared responsibility or interest. However, there is a general concern among the States that the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly unilateral in its approach to SPPs. Issues with SPPs In addition to Commonwealth funding, SPP agreements often require States to commit significant amounts of their own funding to programs that are focused primarily on Commonwealth policy priorities. The result is a reduction in States autonomy and budget flexibility by locking States into expenditure levels in particular areas, even if budget priorities and local requirements change. SPP agreements largely focus on input controls, such as maintenance of effort conditions, which require States to maintain their existing level of funding for the particular area, and requirements for States to match Commonwealth contributions. In addition to limiting States flexibility, these controls encourage a focus on inputs and processes; diverting attention and accountability away from what is actually achieved (ie, outcomes). Matching requirements are of real concern in the current negotiations on the new Commonwealth-States/Territories Disability Agreement and Australian Health Care Agreements. In the latest offers on both these agreements, the Commonwealth requires States to match its growth funding, despite the fact that States contribute the lions share of funding in these areas of service delivery 80 per cent in the case of disability services. SPPs also place additional financial risks on the States in two ways. First, the indexation arrangements built into SPP agreements are often inadequate, usually restricted to, at best, inflation and population growth, with no allowance for increasing demand. Second, where the Commonwealth ceases to fund an SPP program, there is often a community expectation that the program will continue. In such circumstances States may have little option but to acquiesce to community demands. SPPs are also a source of administrative inefficiency and blurred accountability, with oversight responsibility residing with both levels of government. In addition, there is often a lack of clarity or competing policy objectives and the unnecessary involvement of both levels of government in the minutiae of program implementation. There is broad agreement among all States that SPP reform is a high priority. All States have endorsed a common set of Best Practice Principles and Guidelines to guide future SPP agreements, and a working group of senior Commonwealth and State officials has been established to progress this issue.