Page 619 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(5) What is the total value of all contracts let by the ESA for (a) 2003-04, (b) 2004-05 and (c) 2005-06 to date;
Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The Authority’s Chief Executive Financial Instructions outline the policy and procedure for the procurement of goods and services, which complies with the Government Procurement Act 2001 and government procurement guidelines requiring the posting of contract information on the Buyers and Sellers Information Service (BASIS).
(2) Yes
(3) Some contracts below $50,000 have been posted on BASIS; however, contracts under $50,000 are not required to be posted to BASIS under the Government Procurement Act 2001. Not all contracts over $50,000 have been posted on BASIS as yet. The update of BASIS for the remaining contracts above $50,000 is currently being addressed.
(4) (a) The Emergency Services Authority was established on 1 July 2004. Information for this period relates to the Emergency Services Bureau and information is contained in the Department of Justice and Community Safety 2003-04 Annual Report.
(b) 62
(c) 19 (to 31 December 2005)
(5) (a) The Emergency Services Authority was established on 1 July 2004. Information for this period relates to the Emergency Services Bureau and is contained in the Department of Justice and Community Safety 2003-04 Annual Report.
(b) $16.727m.
(c) $4.770m (to 31 December 2005).
Emergency Services Authority—expenditure
(Question No 827)
Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice, on 14 December 2005:
(1) In relation to the annual financial statements for the Emergency Services Authority (ESA) what is the explanation for the difference, as recorded on the Balance Sheet, between the value of Property, Plant and Equipment, according to the Amended Budget for 2005, of $69.656m and, according to the Actual 2005, of $39.098m;
(2) What is the explanation for the difference between expenditure of $16.683m on Property, Plant and Equipment, according to the Statement of Cash Flows, and expenditure of only $4.880m on “Additions” to Property, Plant and Equipment, according to Note 22;
(3) What is the explanation for the increase in Employee Benefits from $6.947m, according to the Amended Budget 2005, to $10.009m, according to the Actual 2005;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .