❓ A parliamentary question regarding the allocation and calculation of a $159.492 million contingency fund within the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill. The response provides a general explanation of the fund's purpose and calculation, but does not specify which agencies will receive the appropriation.
AnsweredQoN 102Legislative Council
Asked
31 March 2010
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer
QuestionView source ↗
TREASURER’S ADVANCE — CONTINGENCIES
I refer to the document “Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010: Details of Excesses and New Items for the 2009–10 Financial Year”. (1) In relation to the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, what agencies are estimated to spend this appropriation? (2) For each agency identified in (1), what items within the agency are estimated to require this contingency? (3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON
I refer to the document “Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010: Details of Excesses and New Items for the 2009–10 Financial Year”. (1) In relation to the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, what agencies are estimated to spend this appropriation? (2) For each agency identified in (1), what items within the agency are estimated to require this contingency? (3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(1) In relation to the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, what agencies are estimated to spend this appropriation? (2) For each agency identified in (1), what items within the agency are estimated to require this contingency? (3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(2) For each agency identified in (1), what items within the agency are estimated to require this contingency? (3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(1) In relation to the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, what agencies are estimated to spend this appropriation? (2) For each agency identified in (1), what items within the agency are estimated to require this contingency? (3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(2) For each agency identified in (1), what items within the agency are estimated to require this contingency? (3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(3) For each item identified in (2), what amount of money is estimated to be spent as part of the contingency? (4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(4) How is the contingency on page 13 of the document, totalling $159.492 million, calculated? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
I thank the member for the question. (1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(1) The contingency is for new decisions or cost pressures that may emerge between the date of tabling the bill and 30 June 2010. It is not possible at this time to identify the individual agencies. (2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(2) An example of such cases would be the need to provide natural disaster relief funding in the case of a natural disaster. (3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(3) Not applicable. (4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
(4) The amount is an estimate based on previous years’ experience. In this regard, the contingency is marginally higher than that provided in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Act 2009—$149.3 million—and in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008—$77.9 million.
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.