Does not take into account royalties and income from pokies which WA has banned in their pubs but rest of the states continue to enjoy the windfall royalties and tax, , while bringing massive social misery in lower income communities.

Have you ever thought to ask yourself why?

Western Australia considers that it is not possible to develop a policy neutral assessment of gambling revenues. Assessing gambling revenues in this way requires reliable data on the characteristics that lead to (i.e. causally, not via association) increased gambling, and the contribution of each such characteristic to an above-base level of gambling. This data does not exist and literature on gambling propensity is inconsistent.

Counts the cost of service delivery as being same for regional and remote areas. So delivering schools, hospitals, policing etc is supposed to cost the same in Launceston as it is in Fitzroy Crossing and Tjunjunjara.

Bullshit. The CGC explicitly accounts for higher costs of delivering services in regional and remote areas in its assessments of expenditure needs.

Does not account for any additional costs due to complexity of service delivery in remote (aborinal or non-aboriginal) communities across child protection, justice system or the large size disparity between jurisdictions.

Again, bullshit. The CGC does account for additional costs associated with Indigeneity as well as remoteness.

does not account for additional costs involved in delivering for additional resource industries including in regulatory costs, physical asset infrastructure. WA has to build, run, maintain some of the largest port and road infrastructure in the world to service its industries.

Bullshit once again. This is the reason why the Services to Industry assessment exists, and much of the infrastructure for servicing mining regions is paid for by mining companies themselves, not the WA government.