GST allocation and NT spending priorities

Question

1. Is it the case that the Northern Territory received a larger GST in 2026-27 compared to the previous year? ($5.1 billion in 2026-27, which is about $389 million more than the previous year). 2. Is it the case that the Commonwealth Grants commission says that increase reflects higher assessed needs, including the cost of delivering services to remote First Nations communities, and costs relating to First Nations health needs? 3. If the Northern Territory receives additional funding because of high assessed need in health, remoteness and disadvantage, but shifts its spending priorities elsewhere, like to lock up our people, will those choices affect future GST assessments? 4. If unmet needs and disadvantage remain among First Peoples in the Northern Territory year after year, or they worsen, will those conditions contribute to a higher GST allocations in future? 5. If the problems remain, funding linked to those issues will continue, is there a requirement that the Northern Territory government spends that money actually addressing those needs? 6. Could the way our GST system is administered unintentionally create a perverse incentive for governments to maintain disadvantage, because this means they receive more funding that they can spend on policies designed to win votes, like tough on crime policies? 7. Why does the Commonwealth choose to deliver such a large proportion of funding through untied GST grants, where there are no requirements on how the money is spent or what outcomes are achieved? 8. Why doesn't the government shift from funding untied GST towards specific agreements that require targets to be met, rather than funding these harmful policies?

Answer

See attached response.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000216 BET146 - GST allocation and NT spending priorities.pdf (opens in a new tab)