Page 620 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(4) Why does the Statement further to the statement of Cash Flows (a) show an amount of $2.880m appearing in the Actual 2005 but not in the Amended Budget 2005 nor in the original estimates for 2004-05 Budget for the ESA; (b) what was the source of these funds; (c) what investments have been purchased through the use of these funds (refer 2005-06 BP4, page 379) and (d) why has the ESA purchased investments on its own account;
(5) Why are receivables valued at $0.613m overdue for more than 60 days and what action is being taken to recover those funds;
(6) Why are doubtful debts equivalent to around 37 per cent of total receivables and what action is being taken to reduce the level of doubtful debts;
(7) Why are payables valued at $0.054m overdue for more than 60 days and what action is being taken to rectify this issue;
(8) What is the explanation for the difference in User Charges as recorded on the Statement of Cash Flows of $7.299m and the Profit and Loss Statement of $7.701m;
(9) What is the explanation for the difference in Other Revenue as recorded on the Statement of Cash Flows of $0.621m and the Profit and Loss Statement of $0.717m;
(10) Why is the $0.130m gained through disposal of Property Plant and Equipment as recorded in Note 22 not recorded as a Cash Inflow from Investing Activities on the Statement of Cash Flows.
Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The difference between the actual value of Property Plant and Equipment and the amended budget value of Property Plant and Equipment for 2004-2005 is due to the original balance sheet budgets transferred from the Department of Justice & Community Safety being indicative estimates only. This is reported at page 70 in the Management Discussion and Analysis Report contained in the Authority’s 2004-2005 Annual Report.
(2) The difference between the expenditure of $16.683m on Property Plant and Equipment in the Statement of Cash Flows and expenditure of only $4.880m on “Additions “ to Property Plant and Equipment contained in Note 22 is due to Capital Works in Progress, Note 24. In addition, the Statement of Cash Flows is based on cash principles, whereas the ‘Additions’ in Note 22 relates to the Statement of Financial Position which is based on accrual accounting.
(3) The increase in Employee Benefits from $6.947m in the Amended Budget to the actual cost of $10.009m is due to the original balance sheet budgets transferred from the Department of Justice & Community Safety being indicative estimates only.
(4) (a) The “Receipts of Transferred Cash Balances” of $2.880m represents the residual transfer of projects from the Department of Justice & Community Safety to ACT Emergency Services Authority (ESA) after finalisation of all transactions. The transfer of this amount was not known at the time of preparation of 2004-05 Budget.
(b) The funds were transferred from the Department of Justice and Community Safety (JACS).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .