❓ Question on Notice regarding the establishment costs and recurrent costs of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in Western Australia, compared to the costs of existing tribunals and boards. The Attorney General provides a detailed breakdown of costs, including establishment, recurrent, and a comparison to existing bodies.
AnsweredQoN 735Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) what is the estimated cost of establishing the Tribunal and disbanding the existing tribunals and boards; (c) what are the estimated recurrent costs of the Tribunal; and (d) what was the estimated 2003-2004 recurrent cost of the existing tribunals?
(c) what are the estimated recurrent costs of the Tribunal; and (d) what was the estimated 2003-2004 recurrent cost of the existing tribunals?
(d) what was the estimated 2003-2004 recurrent cost of the existing tribunals?
(b) $5.9M which includes $3.4M for fit out of special purpose premises to accommodate a single tribunal which will be an identifiable point of contact for all citizens in respect of most civil and administrative decisions and reviews currently made by a plethora of boards, tribunals, courts, ministers and public officials. Other one off establishment costs included are $1.0M for information and systems support and $1.5M project development costs. (c) 2003/2004 $ 6.31 M 2004/2005 $10.11 M 2005/2006 $10.45 M 2006/2007 $10.72 M These figures include the cost of the judicial component of SAT, which will ensure users of SAT are provided with better decisions and higher levels of procedural fairness and protection of rights. The public will have greater confidence in administrative decision-making and review through independent judicial oversight. (d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources. The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
(c) 2003/2004 $ 6.31 M 2004/2005 $10.11 M 2005/2006 $10.45 M 2006/2007 $10.72 M These figures include the cost of the judicial component of SAT, which will ensure users of SAT are provided with better decisions and higher levels of procedural fairness and protection of rights. The public will have greater confidence in administrative decision-making and review through independent judicial oversight. (d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources. The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
(d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources. The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
(c) what are the estimated recurrent costs of the Tribunal; and (d) what was the estimated 2003-2004 recurrent cost of the existing tribunals?
(d) what was the estimated 2003-2004 recurrent cost of the existing tribunals?
(b) $5.9M which includes $3.4M for fit out of special purpose premises to accommodate a single tribunal which will be an identifiable point of contact for all citizens in respect of most civil and administrative decisions and reviews currently made by a plethora of boards, tribunals, courts, ministers and public officials. Other one off establishment costs included are $1.0M for information and systems support and $1.5M project development costs. (c) 2003/2004 $ 6.31 M 2004/2005 $10.11 M 2005/2006 $10.45 M 2006/2007 $10.72 M These figures include the cost of the judicial component of SAT, which will ensure users of SAT are provided with better decisions and higher levels of procedural fairness and protection of rights. The public will have greater confidence in administrative decision-making and review through independent judicial oversight. (d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources. The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
(c) 2003/2004 $ 6.31 M 2004/2005 $10.11 M 2005/2006 $10.45 M 2006/2007 $10.72 M These figures include the cost of the judicial component of SAT, which will ensure users of SAT are provided with better decisions and higher levels of procedural fairness and protection of rights. The public will have greater confidence in administrative decision-making and review through independent judicial oversight. (d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources. The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
(d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources. The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job. Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
3 April 2003
Response time
37 days
(a) See attached document.
(b) $5.9M which includes $3.4M for fit out of special purpose premises to accommodate a single tribunal which will be an identifiable point of contact for all citizens in respect of most civil and administrative decisions and reviews currently made by a plethora of boards, tribunals, courts, ministers and public officials. Other one off establishment costs included are $1.0M for information and systems support and $1.5M project development costs.
(c) 2003/2004 $ 6.31 M
2004/2005 $10.11 M
2005/2006 $10.45 M
2006/2007 $10.72 M
These figures include the cost of the judicial component of SAT, which will ensure users of SAT are provided with better decisions and higher levels of procedural fairness and protection of rights. The public will have greater confidence in administrative decision-making and review through independent judicial oversight.
(d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources.
The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job.
Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
(b) $5.9M which includes $3.4M for fit out of special purpose premises to accommodate a single tribunal which will be an identifiable point of contact for all citizens in respect of most civil and administrative decisions and reviews currently made by a plethora of boards, tribunals, courts, ministers and public officials. Other one off establishment costs included are $1.0M for information and systems support and $1.5M project development costs.
(c) 2003/2004 $ 6.31 M
2004/2005 $10.11 M
2005/2006 $10.45 M
2006/2007 $10.72 M
These figures include the cost of the judicial component of SAT, which will ensure users of SAT are provided with better decisions and higher levels of procedural fairness and protection of rights. The public will have greater confidence in administrative decision-making and review through independent judicial oversight.
(d) Existing bodies have advised the Department of Justice that the recurrent costs of carrying out the functions, which will be transferred to the SAT is $6.7M. Of the $6.7M, $723,000 is from non-government sources.
The $6.7M identified costs consist of the total budget of boards and tribunals that will transfer, in their entirety, to the SAT and the estimated cost of functions where only part of the total business of certain boards and tribunals is transferred to SAT. Due to the nature of costing, $6.7M is considered to be an underestimation as administration support for many existing bodies is provided by public service officers as part of a much broader job.
Further, it should be acknowledged that the jurisdiction of SAT would encompass functions not currently carried out by an existing agency or tribunal.
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.