Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 11 Hansard (Thursday, 22 September 2005) . . Page.. 3653 ..
(j) additional media resources ($0.112m); and
(k) other salaries and wages ($2.128m).
(3) The Authority requested additional funding of $5.449 million for the period up to 30 June 2005. This period covered three cash disbursement dates, 31 May 2005, 14 June 2005 and 28 June 2005. Rather than provide the whole amount in one instalment, Treasury requested the Authority to cash manage its funding and submit funding requests according to its needs at each cash disbursement date. Based on individual requests, Treasury provided additional funding of $1.271m, $2.089m and $2.089m for salaries and administrative expenditure on 31 May 2005, 14 June 2005 and 28 June 2005 respectively;
(4) 3 June 2005 was the date Treasury commenced processing the request. 14 June 2005 was the date the instrument number 2004-05/8 was signed by the delegate. The cash disbursement to the Authority was made later that day;
(5) 20 June 2005 was the date Treasury commenced processing the request. 27 June 2005 was the date the instrument number 2004-05/8 was signed by the delegate. The cash disbursement to the Authority was made 28 June 2005;
(6) For the cash disbursement date of 14 June 2005 the Authority requested $2.329 million, but Treasury provided $2.089 million after evaluation of the Authority’s cash position and projected payments. For the cash disbursement date of 28 June 2005 the Authority requested $2.089 million and was provided the same amount;
(7) Each funding request was evaluated separately;
(8) Evaluation of the requests revealed that the Authority did not have sufficient funds to meet its normal operational expenditure;
(9) The Authority advises that all additional funds it sought in 2004-05 were spent by 30 June 2005. The main reason the Treasurer’s Advance request was dealt with in three stages was to ensure that no more cash was provided to the Authority than needed.
(Question No 501)
Mr Pratt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 2005:
(1) In relation to the reduction in revenue of $1.6m in motor vehicle registrations and transfers as reported in the June 2005 interim quarterly report, how much of the $1.6m was attributed to the drop in (a) motor vehicle registrations and (b) transfers;
(2) What was the reason for the drop in (a) motor vehicle registrations and (b) transfers.
Mr Quinlan: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) Financial information on the stamp duty applied to new motor vehicle registrations and transfers is recorded and budgeted as a single line item. It is not feasible to separate the $1.6m decrease between the estimate recorded in the 2005-06 Budget papers and the June interim outcome into the two elements.