Accessing Emergency Funding to Meet Urgent Claims

Have government departments met their legislative obligations when accessing emergency funding?

Video presentation

Video transcript

What we found and recommend

We consulted with the relevant agencies subject to this review and considered their views when reaching our conclusions. Their full responses are in Appendix A. 

Following documented processes and controls

Most Treasurer’s Advance approvals for 2019–20 did not result from requests specifically seeking Treasurer’s Advance funding

Typically, most Treasurer’s Advance approvals resulted from funding requests that were considered and approved by the government where the Treasurer’s Advance was identified as the source of funding after the event. 

In this review we examined 33 funding requests out of around 300 and found that: 

• the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) provided evidence to support all funding requests and its assessments of these requests
• 12 of these requests followed the process outlined in the Resource Management Framework (RMF) for Treasurer’s Advance requests. We noted some exceptions where not all the mandatory information requirements were explicitly addressed
• the other 21 requests were initiated as general funding requests where the Treasurer’s Advance was subsequently identified as the appropriate funding source after the event. 

The RMF does not explicitly require all requests or approvals to be processed under its requirements and the Appropriation Acts and the Financial Management Act 1994 (FMA) do not specify any process or requirements for accessing the Treasurer’s Advance.

Because most requests funded by Treasurer’s Advances did not follow the RMF process, and therefore the key requirements specified in the RMF did not apply, there was less clarity about matters like urgency in these requests and in DTF’s advice and recommendations to the Treasurer. 

All Treasurer’s Advances disclosed in the state’s Annual Financial Report 2019–20 (AFR) were approved by the Treasurer as Treasurer’s Advances. While most requests were not initiated to seek access to the Treasurer’s Advance, they ended as such and were approved accordingly.

DTF has accepted that funding requests are ‛urgent’ when there is no alternative appropriation funding

DTF advised us that it is a long-standing practice to accept funding requests as urgent when recommending the use of Treasurer's Advance.

This is because after the annual Appropriation Act is passed:

• any additional funding approved by the government that is over and above the amounts appropriated for departments is deemed ‘urgent’
• any additional in-year funding that the government approves for a department, is funded from the Treasurer’s Advance, unless there is an obvious alternative funding source available.

DTF’s practice of referring to the annual Appropriation Act’s purpose ‛to meet urgent claims that may arise before parliamentary sanction is obtained’ instead of applying a literal definition of ‘urgent’ when assessing funding requests is appropriate.

Consistent with DTF’s advice to the Treasurer, this is because not supporting the recommended Treasurer’s Advance allocations would result in departments breaching the Constitution Act 1975 and the annual Appropriation Act by drawing funds from the Consolidated Fund without authority.

For the funding requests we examined, DTF’s assessments did not always explicitly address the urgency of the funding request at its initial approval, even where it was an RMF request. However, DTF did address urgency as part of its advice to the Treasurer on the final funding requirements and requests for the Treasurer’s Advance in June 2020.

Some requests did not address the RMF requirement of being ‘unforeseen’

DTF advised that in the context of assessing requests for the Treasurer's Advance, ‘unforeseen’ should be interpreted to mean that an item was not included in an appropriation bill in that year, irrespective of the reason for exclusion. ‘Unforeseen’ is not defined by what government should have known about an issue at the time of making a decision, or when the Treasurer approves a Treasurer's Advance.

Some funding requests did not meet the RMF requirement of being ‘unforeseen’ because they provided ongoing budget supplementation rather than one-off funding for unforeseen events. 

From the selection of requests we reviewed, the Treasurer’s Advance of $121.3 million provided to support Victoria Police operations in 2019–20 continued a pattern established in recent years where Treasurer’s Advance funding is used for this purpose. It would be beneficial for DTF to undertake an annual review of the nature of expenditure that the Treasurer’s Advance supports to identify opportunities to minimise its use for reasonably foreseeable spending. An annual review could also monitor and advise on any underlying budgeting, financial management or cost pressures that may contribute to the need for such requests.

Approval and authorisation

Treasurer’s Advance payments disclosed in the AFR were within parliamentary authority and approved by the Treasurer.

Before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in early 2020, the government had $2.8 billion in Treasurer's Advance funding available under the Appropriation (2019–2020) Act 2019 to meet departments’ urgent claims in 2019–20.

Parliament responded to the pandemic by approving an additional $24.5 billion in Treasurer’s Advance funding—$10 billion for 2019–20 and $14.5 billion for 
2020–21—under the Appropriation (Interim Act) 2020, largely intended to support the government’s public health, social and economic responses.

Of the $5.3 billion in Treasurer's Advances approved by the Treasurer for 2019–20, $4.9 billion was used. Of this, only $2.4 billion was used for the government’s COVID 19 response.

We saw no evidence that payments from the Treasurer’s Advance were more than the relevant approvals.

Transparency and accountability

The Treasurer’s Advance disclosures in the AFR are complete, accurate and fairly represent performance 

Accountability for use of the Treasurer’s Advances is achieved by disclosing details of payments to departments against these advances in the state’s AFR for the year, and also in the subsequent Annual Appropriation Act. 

DTF provided transparency in the AFR by separately disclosing if individual Treasurer’s Advance items for 2019–20 were attributable to the government's COVID-19 response.

The payments shown in the AFR against individual Treasurer’s Advances reflects advice from departments to DTF on the amounts that they actually drew down. DTF compares aggregate information relating to departments' drawdowns to relevant aggregate information entered by departments in the State Resource Information Management System (SRIMS), which is the state’s central ledger system, to check if they match in aggregate. 

Departments' chief finance officers provide a separate attestation to DTF to confirm that all amounts included in SRIMS are consistent with their audited accounts. However, departments' accounts do not typically include separate disclosures that show the actual amounts spent against Treasurer’s Advances.

In terms of actual expenditure:

• DTF does not seek confirmation from departments on their actual spending or commitments against individual Treasurer’s Advance approvals
• departments disclose the total amount approved for all Treasurer’s Advances as part of a note on compliance with annual parliamentary and special appropriations in their audited financial reports. However, they do not separately disclose their actual expenditure against Treasurer’s Advances either individually or in aggregate.

Our limited assurance review did not extend to verifying that the funds reported as drawn down by departments were actually expended.

Departments could enhance transparency around Treasurer's Advance expenditure if their financial reports included separate disclosures on the amounts they spent against Treasurer’s Advance initiatives. 

This would also provide greater assurance that the amounts reported as drawn down were actually expended in the financial year. This is important because the Treasurer’s Advance authority lapses at the end of each year and unused amounts cannot be carried forward.

Recommendations

Back to top

Appropriation Acts give the Treasurer the legal authority to make payments from the state's Consolidated Fund.

An amount for the Treasurer's Advance is authorised in each annual Appropriation Act. This advance gives the government the necessary flexibility to meet funding needs that were not (or not fully) provided for when departments’ annual appropriation authorities were set.

The unused balance of the advances approved for departments lapses at year end.

1.1 The legal framework that governs public finances

The Constitution Act 1975, annual Appropriation Acts and FMA provide the legislative framework for administering public finances, including the government’s financial management and accountability obligations.

Figure 1A summarises the public finance and appropriations framework established by these Acts in Victoria.

Constitution Act 1975

The Constitution Act 1975 outlines the framework that Parliament must operate within. It also includes important financial provisions that establish Parliament’s role in controlling public finances. In particular, that:

‛… all taxes, imposts, rates and duties and all territorial casual and other revenues of the Crown in right of the State of Victoria (including royalties) which the Parliament has power to appropriate shall form one Consolidated Revenue …’.

The Act also states that:

• The Consolidated Fund is the account that all consolidated revenue is paid into.

  this revenue can only be appropriated for specific purposes that Parliament directs through legislation
• the government cannot issue money from the consolidated fund unless authorised by warrants approved by the Governor.

With the FMA’s complementary requirement, these provisions establish further constitutional control over the government’s expenditure of consolidated revenue. 

The Treasurer must prepare warrants, which are examined by the Auditor-General, to access money from the Consolidated Fund. These warrants determine if the requested funds are legally available. The Governor reviews and approves endorsed warrants.

Annual Appropriation Acts

The annual Appropriation Acts enable Parliament to exercise control over state finances by allocating public money to departments and the Treasurer. 

The Appropriation Acts give the Treasurer the authority to issue funds from the Consolidated Fund for departments to:

• provide outputs, which involves producing or acquiring goods and services

• Transfer payments are payments, such as grants or subsidies, to third parties outside of government for which no goods or services are provided in return.

  add to the net asset base, which involves acquiring or constructing assets or injecting capital funding
• make payments on behalf of the state, including transfer payments, central financing costs and other expenditure that is not directly related to the state’s purchase of goods and services.

Appropriations are provided on an accrual basis and cover all costs incurred in providing services.

Appropriation amounts must be within the upper limits of authority specified for each department’s appropriation. The Treasurer cannot exceed these limits without Parliament’s authority.

Contingencies

Appropriation amounts may include contingency provisions. DTF manages central contingency funding for future expenditure to support:

• service growth
• new initiatives in future budgets
• cost pressures on capital projects
• urgent and unforeseen expenditure.

The Appropriation Acts also give the Treasurer the authority to issue:

• additional money out of the Consolidated Fund to meet increased salary and related costs that arise from legislation or determinations if departments’ annual appropriations are insufficient to meet these costs
• funds from the Treasurer’s Advance to meet departments’ urgent claims for funding in excess of what the annual Appropriation Act authorises.

The Treasurer’s Advance

The appropriations schedule in the Annual Appropriation Acts includes a specific appropriation called the Treasurer’s Advance, which is made available to the Treasurer as part of DTF’s appropriation. The Treasurer’s Advance enables the Treasurer 'to meet urgent claims that may arise before Parliamentary sanction is obtained, which will afterwards be submitted for Parliamentary authority'. 

Parliamentary sanction, or approval, for Treasurer’s Advance expenditure is obtained through tabling the subsequent financial year’s annual Appropriation Bill. This bill includes a schedule with all payments made against the Treasurer’s Advance in the previous financial year. Payments made against the Treasurer’s Advance are also disclosed in the state’s AFR.

The Treasurer's Advance gives the government the necessary flexibility to meet funding needs that were not (or not fully) provided for when the annual appropriation authorities for departments were set. 

The number and value of Treasurer’s Advances approved each year varies depending on the extent of urgent and unplanned for spending by departments.

Figure 1B shows the amounts advanced to the Treasurer under the annual Appropriation Acts since 2014–15. It also shows the aggregate of Treasurer’s Advance payments to departments as disclosed in the state’s AFR.

FIGURE 1B: Treasurer's Advance authority and payments 2014–15 to 2019–20

Source: VAGO, based on relevant annual Appropriation Acts and the State of Victoria’s AFRs.

Figure 1C shows that the value of Treasurer’s Advances has increased as a proportion of total appropriations since 2014–15.

Financial Management Act 1994

The FMA requires the government, departments and public bodies to soundly manage and be accountable for public sector financial resources. The FMA establishes: 

• a framework for the government to budget, collect, spend and manage public money and other public resources 
• a requirement for the government to table Budget Papers in Parliament as supplementary information to support the annual Appropriation Acts
• financial accountability responsibilities for the government and individual public sector agencies relating to administering and managing public resources.

The FMA’s budget-management provisions do not deal with the Treasurer’s Advance. However, they do include provisions that enable the government to make temporary advances to meet urgent claims.

Temporary advances

Section 35 of the FMA permits the Treasurer to make temporary advances—distinct from Treasurer's Advances under the Appropriation Acts—to meet urgent funding claims before obtaining parliamentary sanction. Total advances approved by the Treasurer under section 35 cannot exceed 0.5 per cent of the total amount appropriated by the annual Appropriation Act for each financial year. 

These temporary advances are loans. In this respect they differ from Treasurer’s Advances because all money advanced under section 35 must be paid back into the Public Account immediately once parliamentary sanction is obtained. In 2019–20, $325.3 million was available under this provision.

The state’s AFR for the year and the annual Appropriation Act for the subsequent year, which disclose the details of temporary advances, provide accountability for advances made by the Treasurer under section 35. 

The Resource Management Framework

DTF issues the RMF to help departments understand and apply the legal and policy framework that underpins public sector resource management, budgeting and reporting processes. 

The RMF is mandated for departments by the Assistant Treasurer’s Standing Directions 2018 under the Financial Management Act 1994. These directions include mandatory requirements and guidance for departments on matters relating to the department funding model, objectives and outputs, appropriation funding, trust accounts, carryovers, reporting and other matters, including requests for the Treasurer’s Advance.

Departments’ accountable officers must attest to their compliance with the RMF’s mandatory requirements as part of their annual compliance attestation against Victoria’s financial management compliance obligations.

1.2 Treasurer’s Advance application and approval process and related roles and responsibilities

Neither the Appropriation Acts nor the FMA specify any processes or requirements for accessing the Treasurer’s Advance. 

The RMF outlines the mandatory requirements for requesting a Treasurer’s Advance when a minister is requesting budget supplementation directly from the Treasurer. It also describes DTF’s role in assessing these requests and the Treasurer’s role in approving them. 

DTF advised that the RMF requirements do not apply to ministerial submissions to Cabinet and its committees. While there are prescribed templates and guides for ministerial submissions issued by the Cabinet Secretariat and DTF, these submissions can take many forms and can be based on what ministers consider appropriate for decision making. Many of these decisions would ultimately involve the use of the Treasurer’s Advance.

The RMF’s application pathway and requirements

The RMF states that:

• a minister may submit a letter of request to the Treasurer to apply for budget supplementation from the Treasurer’s Advance 
• DTF assesses each request and provides advice to the Treasurer 
• the Treasurer determines whether to fund the request or not
• the Treasurer’s Advance may be applied to output or asset funding requests. This is determined by the Treasurer, who is informed by advice from DTF
• additional warrant authority, beyond that included in the warrant for the relevant budget, is not required to access the Treasurer’s Advance.

The RMF also states that the Treasurer’s Advance capacity is limited to the amount specified in the Appropriation Act. Due to this, the Treasurer only initially provides ‘in principle’ approval for successful funding requests. DTF then reviews the final source of funding and confirms it with the Treasurer towards the end of the financial year. DTF considers the total capacity of the Treasurer’s Advance and other available sources of departmental appropriation authority during this review.

As Figure 1D shows, the RMF requires Treasurer’s Advance applicants to submit a documented request that contains specified minimum information, including the reasons for the request and if it is urgent and unforeseen. 

FIGURE 1D: RMF mandatory information requirements

Source: The RMF effective from 1 July 2019.

The RMF also includes non-mandatory requirements for DTF and the Treasurer on assessing, determining and advising departments on Treasurer’s Advance requests. 

Application and approval process

The RMF outlines a clear process for submitting, assessing and determining ministerial Treasurer’s Advance requests. 

The requests that specifically seek access to the Treasurer’s Advance in the first instance are typically for funding responses to unforeseen events. This could include natural disasters and public health or other emergencies that require government interventions, and other urgent funding needs that were not foreseen when setting departmental budgets.

However, not all requests that the Treasurer’s Advance funds follow the processes described in the RMF. This is because ministers also submit requests for funding without first identifying an appropriation source. Such requests may be for:

• supplementary funding for existing activities
• new funding for new initiatives 
• accessing funds held by DTF in contingency, which typically represent amounts that the government has approved but not released in previous funding decisions. Departments need to apply to justify releasing these funds.

The government considers and approves these funding requests with supporting advice from DTF as part of its usual decision-making processes. The Treasurer’s Advance is identified as the source of funding after the event.

Initial in-principle approval

Because Treasurer’s Advance capacity is limited to the amount specified in the annual Appropriation Act, the Treasurer only initially approves successful funding requests in principle. 

Figure 1E shows the initial ‘in principle’ approval stage of the Treasurer’s Advance application and approval process as it is applied in practice. This stage applies to:

• funding requests that are designated as requests for the Treasurer’s Advance from the outset and follow the process set out in the RMF 
• general funding requests that are met from the Treasurer’s Advance but do not follow the process set out in the RMF.

DTF records decisions on the Treasurer's in-principle approvals of Treasurer’s Advance requests and the government’s funding decisions. The Treasurer writes to the relevant Minister on the in-principle outcome of direct requests for Treasurer’s Advances.

Final in-principle approval

As Figure 1F shows, DTF reviews the final funding source and the Treasurer confirms it after the end of the financial year. DTF and the Treasurer consider the total Treasurer’s Advance capacity and other available funding sources through departmental appropriation authority during this stage.

DTF advised that this final approval stage remains in-principle and represents the upper limit of funding available until departments confirm their final drawdowns against each Treasurer's Advance. It is these final drawn down, or payment, amounts against each Treasurer’s Advance that are disclosed in the state’s AFR and are approved by the Treasurer. The final amount drawn down is the final amount approved for each Treasurer's Advance.

Special circumstances that impacted the Treasurer’s Advance process during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic

Special circumstances applied during 2019–20 because the Treasurer’s Advance was available through two different Appropriation Acts:

• the Appropriation (2019–2020) Act 2019, which allocated $2.8 billion in Treasurer's Advances to meet urgent funding requests from departments and agencies in 2019–20 before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in early 2020 
• the Appropriation (Interim) Act 2020, which authorised a further $10 billion in Treasurer’s Advances in 2019–20, largely intended to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, several government decisions were still to be made in late June 2020 when DTF was preparing the year-end brief to the Treasurer on Treasurer’s Advance funding. This meant that DTF needed to ensure that its recommendations to the Treasurer included the amounts subject to further government decisions and that total amounts remained within the available Treasurer’s Advance capacity under each authority.

Figure 1G shows the Treasurer's Advance and other amounts authorised and allocated for 2019–20. In this review we focused on the Treasurer’s Advance. 

FIGURE 1G: Treasurer’s Advance and other funding: 2019–20

Source: VAGO, based on information provided by DTF.

We provide more detailed information on Treasurer’s Advance funding applied for, approved and used in 2019–20 in Appendix D.

1.3 Review objective and approach

We undertook a limited assurance review engagement under section 20 of the Audit Act 1994 to determine whether government departments met their legislative obligations when accessing emergency funding in 2019–20. 

A review engagement provides meaningful assurance, but less assurance than an audit. Our review examined:

• the adequacy of the processes that departments used to request and gain access to the Treasurer's Advance for 2019–20 
• evidence that those processes operated for selected advances, which represent over 59 per cent of the value of the 2019–20 approvals.

We provide more detail on our review in Appendix C.

Back to top

Conclusion

We found no evidence that the processes for accessing and allocating the Treasurer’s Advance in 2019–20 were inconsistent with legislation.

Most Treasurer’s Advances did not result from requests that specifically sought funding from the Treasurer’s Advance. 

While this is consistent with legislation, it means that the RMF's mandatory documentation requirements for Treasurer’s Advance requests, including that they address if they are urgent and unforeseen, are not always made explicit. This does not mean that there is non-compliance with the RMF, but there would be benefits if all funding requests that are intended to be met from Treasurer's Advance are assessed against the RMF requirements.

2.1 Background

As discussed in Chapter 1, the FMA and Appropriation Acts do not specify any processes or requirements for accessing the Treasurer’s Advance. 

The RMF includes mandatory requirements for funding requests that specifically seek access to the Treasurer’s Advance. It also describes DTF’s and the Treasurer's role in assessing and approving these requests. 

In this review we examined 33 funding requests that represented $2.8 billion, or 58 per cent, of Treasurer’s Advance payments in 2019–20.

For these advances, we sought evidence of:

• the initial funding requests, including funding requests that both specifically sought access to the Treasurer’s Advance and funding requests that initially did not
• DTF's assessments and advice that supported the initial, or primary, funding decisions
• DTF's advice and the Treasurer's decisions on:
  • the initial in-principle Treasurer’s Advance funding approvals in June and July 2020
  • the final in-principle Treasurer’s Advance funding approvals in September 2020.

2.2 Funding request applications

The RMF’s mandatory information requirements, which we outline in Figure 1D, only apply when a funding request specifically seeks access to the Treasurer’s Advance from the Treasurer. 

DTF advised us that in practice, Treasurer’s Advance approvals arise from:

• budget decisions on general funding requests as part of Cabinet subcommittees' decision-making processes
• releasing centrally held contingencies that the government and/or the Treasurer can approve 
• requests for Treasurer’s Advances, which the Treasurer determines under the RMF process.

Budget decisions on general funding requests as part of Cabinet subcommittees' decision making processes

DTF told us that general funding requests, or budget bids, are not required to identify an appropriation source and are assessed on their own policy merits. DTF scrutinises the costing and proposed phasing of expenditure, including whether requested funding is likely to be spent in the current year.

General funding requests that are met with the Treasurer’s Advance but do not follow the RMF process can arise where departments require funding:

• for purposes that were anticipated but require funding over and above the appropriated amounts, which the government approved without specifying a funding source
• to implement new government-approved services or asset initiatives that were not provided for in the Appropriation Act but have financial implications in the current year
• to access contingency amounts provided for in previous funding decisions by the government., which is common for major capital projects. DTF controls a central pool of contingency funding
• to respond to unforeseen events, such as natural disasters and public health or other emergencies that require government interventions.

Once the government agrees to provide additional funding to a department in the current year, it is assumed that this will be funded from the Treasurer’s Advance unless a more appropriate funding source is identified.

Releasing centrally held contingencies

To request funds held in central contingency, ministers or departments must seek access to contingency funding that has been approved in a previous government decision. 

While contingency funding requests still require approval by the Treasurer, they follow a simpler approval process. This process usually requires departments to demonstrate that they have met certain criteria before the funding is released. 

DTF and/or the Treasurer may designate such funding releases as Treasurer’s Advances.

Requests for Treasurer’s Advances

DTF advised us that the RMF requirements for Treasurer’s Advance requests are:

• intended to address requests for urgent and unforeseen funding needs that do not go through a government decision-making body, such as a Cabinet subcommittee, and are not related to centrally held contingencies
• not applicable for assessing budget bids that come through central government or requests to access funds held in central contingency.

Funding requests we examined

Twelve of the 33 Treasurer’s Advance requests we examined followed the RMF process for Treasurer’s Advance requests. The other 21 were general funding requests. 

DTF was able to provide documentation and information to support all funding requests. This evidence clearly demonstrated that DTF assessed and advised on all requests and that general funding requests were considered by the government, with the Treasurer deciding on requests that specifically sought access to the Treasurer's Advance.

For the requests we examined that followed the RMF process, we noted exceptions where some requests did not explicitly address all of the mandatory information requirements set out in the RMF. 

For example, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change’s request for $390 million in Treasurer’s Advance funding to cover the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Department of Justice and Community Safety's (DJCS) and portfolio entities expenditure incurred during the emergency response to the 2019–20 bushfire season did not meet all of the mandatory requirements for Treasurer’s Advance applications. Specifically:

• the request letter did not include an explicit reason why the spending was urgent and unforeseen 
• the letter did not directly reference or confirm that DELWP or the other departments and agencies had reviewed and exhausted other funding sources for the request
• the letter did not address any adjustments to output and financial performance targets arising from the request.

However, we accept that, in substance, DELWP established the urgency of the spending, which was the subject of this request. The request clearly referenced the challenging and unprecedented bushfire season and DELWP's role in responding to the state of disaster declared between 3 January and 11 January 2020. 

DELWP asserted that the spending had already occurred as part of its immediate and direct responses to the bushfires. We also accept that the 'unforeseen' element was satisfied due to the significance of the bushfire events and related expenditure. 

DTF advised us that DELWP discussed the lack of alternative funding sources with it before formally submitting the request.

COVID-19 funding requests that did not follow the RMF process

A number of the 21 general funding requests we examined that did not follow the RMF process were for government responses to COVID-19. These significant requests, which included the Business Support Fund and funding for the hotel quarantine program, were initially considered and approved by the government and subsequently met by Treasurer’s Advance approvals. 

Our review confirmed that DTF assessed and made recommendations to the Treasurer on both the initial funding requests and subsequent Treasurer's Advance approvals. Appendix E contains our analysis of a selection of funding requests relating to the:

• Business Support Fund
• bushfire response and recovery
• COVID-19 emergency accommodation program that included hotel quarantine.

Improvement opportunities

The alternate funding request pathways for most Treasurer's Advances mean that key information requirements and criteria set out in the RMF are not always transparently established in funding applications or explicitly addressed in DTF's assessments and recommendations to the Treasurer.

It is reasonable to conclude that DTF designed and specified the RMF's mandatory requirements for direct ministerial requests to the Treasurer for the Treasurer’s Advance to elicit information it considers important when assessing such requests and making recommendations to the Treasurer.

We found that most requests do not proceed through the RMF process, but are submitted to government and assessed by DTF and determined under the Cabinet decision-making process. The RMF requirements do not apply to these funding requests even if they are ultimately met from Treasurer's Advance.

In some cases, even requests that do follow the RMF process do not address mandatory information requirements. There are therefore opportunities for DTF to improve the process by:

• requiring departments to submit a formal request under the RMF process for all funding claims that are intended to be met by the Treasurer’s Advance 
• ensuring that it assesses the extent to which all funding requests that are expected to be met by the Treasurer’s Advance explicitly address the RMF's mandatory requirements.

Initial in-principle Treasurer’s Advance decisions and approvals were made throughout 2019-20 and finalised in June and July 2020 based on DTF's review of the available appropriation authority. The final in-principle approvals for all Treasurer's Advance requests were made in early September. There is therefore enough time available for these steps to occur in future. DTF advised us that departments already provide updates on all new and supplementary funding requests in June each year to inform DTF’s advice on Treasurer’s Advances.

DTF could implement these improvements by updating the RMF to:

• acknowledge that the Treasurer's Advance is used to meet funding requests that occur through multiple pathways
• clarify the RMF requirements and when they apply
• require DTF to assess if all funding requests that are proposed to be funded by the Treasurer’s Advance meet the RMF's mandatory requirements and seek additional information from departments when necessary.

2.3 DTF's assessments and advice to the Treasurer

For the requests we examined, DTF provided evidence to support its assessments and advice to the Treasurer for the initial, or primary, funding decisions, including:

• its briefs to the Treasurer on requests that specifically sought Treasurer’s Advance funding under the RMF process
• general funding requests that did not specifically seek access to the Treasurer's Advance and were determined by relevant government decision-making processes, such as Cabinet subcommittee deliberations.

DTF also provided evidence for its advice to the Treasurer for the initial and final in principle approval stages for 2019–20 Treasurer’s Advances.

For the requests we examined in this review that followed the RMF process, we noted some exceptions where DTF’s assessments and advice to the Treasurer did not explicitly address all of the mandatory information requirements set out in the RMF.

Initial in-principle approvals

The funding available under the Treasurer’s Advance is limited to the amount specified in the annual Appropriation Act. Given this, the Treasurer only initially provides in-principle approval for successful funding requests to retain flexibility to meet urgent claims that arise late in the financial year and ensure that the approved authority for the Treasurer’s Advance is not exceeded. 

There is clear evidence that DTF manages the Treasurer’s Advance and requests for budget supplementation with knowledge of the budget situation, including the availability of appropriation funding, centrally controlled contingency allocations and the Treasurer’s Advance.

DTF provided clear evidence of its advice to the Treasurer on the initial in-principle Treasurer’s Advance funding approvals in June and July 2020. DTF’s initial brief in late June 2020 indicated that the Treasurer had $13 131.7 million in supplementary funding available consisting of:

• $10 000 million in Treasurer’s Advance authority under the Appropriation (Interim) Act 2020 for the government’s COVID-19 response
• $2 806.4 million in Treasurer’s Advance authority in the Appropriation (2019–20) Act 2019
• $325.3 million in temporary advances allowed under section 35 of the FMA.

DTF also identified $6 062.6 million of departments’ budget supplementation requests in 2019–20, which included $1 422.8 million of urgent new Treasurer’s Advance requests. 

DTF noted that its advice to the Treasurer was based on draft, rather than final, requests from several departments. It also stated that its recommendations to support funding for several requests were subject to future Crisis Council of Cabinet decisions or Treasurer’s approvals based on separate briefs or the outcomes of Commonwealth funding requests. 

DTF’s initial brief in June 2020 recommended that the Treasurer approve $6 027.3 million of total budget supplementation funding, including contingency releases, for 2019–20 sourced from:

• the Treasurer’s Advance ($5 332.1 million, including $2 691.9 million for non COVID 19 related responses and $2 640.2 million for COVID-19 responses)
• unapplied appropriation funding ($374.1 million)
• temporary advances under section 35 of the FMA ($321.0 million).

The Treasurer approved DTF’s recommendations on 30 June 2020.

DTF provided a further brief to the Treasurer in early July. This brief:

• recommended approving a further $129.6 million in Treasurer’s Advances for departments, including $92.6 million for COVID-19 responses and $36.9 million for other funding needs 
• included a recommendation to confirm $25 million of funding sought as part of the earlier June brief for additional operating and maintenance costs claimed by Metro Trains Melbourne, resulting from new metropolitan rail assets forming part of the rail network. 

The Treasurer approved these recommendations from DTF on 13 July 2020.

In total, the Treasurer approved initial in principle Treasurer's Advances of $5 436.7 million for 2019–20. 

Final assessments and approvals

Departments provided updated advice on their final requirements and expected drawdowns of Treasurer’s Advance funding for 2019–20 following DTF’s final advice on initial in-principle approvals for Treasurer’s Advances in July 2020. The Crisis Council of Cabinet and the Treasurer went on to make further funding decisions. Overall, these changes decreased the amount of funding required from the Treasurer’s Advance.

In early September 2020, DTF briefed the Treasurer on the final position of the Treasurer's Advance for 2019–20 . As part of this advice, DTF:

• recommended approving an additional $2.7 million in final Treasurer’s Advance funding
• recommended approving some reclassifications of Treasurer’s Advances as COVID-19 responses and non-COVID-19 responses
• recommended that the Treasurer sign letters to ministers on the final outcomes of Treasurer’s Advance funding requests, which approved a total of $5 328.9 million of Treasurer’s Advances in aggregate for 2019–20
• indicated that departments were expected to draw down a total of $4 898.9 million in Treasurer’s Advance in 2019–20, with $2 423.7 million relating to the state’s COVID-19 response and $2 475.2 million for non COVID-19 initiatives.

The Treasurer approved the final in principle Treasurer’s Advance amounts that DTF recommended and provided letters to ministers on 3 September 2020, which confirmed the amounts for all funding requests met by the Treasurer’s Advance in 2019–20.

2.4 Urgent and unforeseen claims

While the Appropriation Acts indicate that the Treasurer's Advance should be used to meet urgent claims, they make no reference to ‘unforeseen’ claims. The RMF introduces the concept of ‘unforeseen’ in relation to the Treasurer’s Advance.

We found that few funding requests that are met by the Treasurer’s Advance and few DTF briefs on these requests explicitly address the criteria of urgent and unforeseen because:

• most funding requests that end up being met by Treasurer’s Advance are submitted as general funding requests and not as direct requests for Treasurer’s Advances. The RMF requirements do not apply to general funding requests
• DTF interprets the urgency criteria as satisfied if there is no alternative appropriation funding available.

Urgency criteria

DTF advised us that its interpretation of urgency is consistent with longstanding practice for Treasurer’s Advance use. This is because after the Annual Appropriations Act is passed:

• irrespective of the literal meaning of ‘urgent’, urgency in practice relates to any additional funding the government approves that is over and above the amounts appropriated for departments
• once the government approves additional funding for a department in the current financial year, it is funded from the Treasurer’s Advance because that is the relevant provision in the annual Appropriation Act for such decisions, unless there is an obvious alternative funding source identified by departments or DTF, such as special appropriations, unused appropriations, or prior year surpluses.

DTF’s practice of referring to the purpose of the Treasurer’s Advance that the Annual Appropriation Acts describe, which is ‛… to meet urgent claims that may arise before Parliamentary sanction is obtained’, instead of applying a literal definition of urgent when assessing requests is appropriate. 

DTF advised us that in this context, parliamentary sanction refers to a future appropriation bill, which means that the funding pressure cannot wait until then and must be dealt with in the current financial year.

This means that only funding requests that specifically seek access to the Treasurer’s Advance under the RMF process need to explicitly establish their urgency. 

For the funding requests we examined, DTF’s advice did not typically explicitly address the urgency of the funding request at the initial approval stage, even where it was an RMF request. 

However, DTF did address urgency in its advice to the Treasurer on the final requirements and requests for Treasurer’s Advances in June 2020. Specifically, DTF advised that not supporting the recommended Treasurer’s Advance allocations would result in departments having spent appropriated funds without authority, which breaches section 90 of the Constitution Act 1975 and section 3 of the Appropriation Act. These sections stipulate that funds cannot be drawn from the Consolidated Fund without the appropriate authority.

We also saw examples where DTF did not support providing Treasurer’s Advance for funding requests on the grounds that the planned expenditure was not regarded as urgent or unforeseen.

Unforeseen criteria

DTF advised us that in the context of assessing requests for Treasurer's Advance, ‘unforeseen’ is interpreted to mean that an item was not included in an appropriation bill in that year, irrespective of the reason for exclusion. ‘Unforeseen’ is not defined by what government should have known about an issue at the time of making a decision, or when the Treasurer approves a Treasurer's Advance.

In our review, we identified instances where the Treasurer’s Advance has been used to fund expenditure that recurs year after year. For example, to provide additional funding for Victoria Police to address budget shortfalls.

Figure 2A provides more detail on this issue in relation to the Treasurer’s Advance provided to Victoria Police in 2019–20 to support its operations.

FIGURE 2A: Victoria Police case study

Source: VAGO, based on information from DTF.

We also identified Treasurer’s Advances that were approved for spending described as 'scheduled asset replacement' or depreciation funding that would seem foreseeable given the clear and long-standing requirements for asset management in the Victorian public sector.

It is acknowledged that there may be good and valid reasons for holding funding back from an agency until such time that its required. It would be beneficial for DTF to undertake an annual review of the nature of expenditure that the Treasurer’s Advance supports to identify opportunities to minimise the use of Treasurer’s Advances for reasonably foreseeable spending, and to monitor and advise on underlying budgeting, financial management or cost pressures that may contribute to such requests.

Back to top

Conclusion

The Treasurer’s Advance disclosures in the state’s Annual Financial Report for 2019–20 are complete, accurate and fairly presented.

DTF enhanced transparency and accountability by disclosing if individual Treasurer’s Advance items for 2019–20 were attributable to government COVID-19 responses.

Agencies could further enhance transparency by disclosing the amounts they spend against each approval in their financial reports.

3.1 2019–20 Treasurer’s Advances

The State of Victoria's AFR discloses payments made against the Treasurer’s Advance during that financial year. The Annual Appropriation Act for the following financial year also discloses these payments.

Figures 3A and 3B summarise the outcomes of departments' COVID-19-related and non-COVID-19 requests to access the Treasurer's Advance during 2019–20. 

FIGURE 3A: Summary of COVID-19-related Treasurer’s Advance requests in 2019–20

Note: Some figure totals may not add up due to rounding.
Note: Unused departmental Treasurer’s Advance funding lapses and cannot be carried over into the subsequent financial year.
Note: The amounts shown for 'requested' are sourced from DTF's briefings to the Treasurer on Treasurer's Advance at the end of the financial year and so may differ from the initial requests made earlier in the financial year. The approval amounts are sourced from the Treasurer's final in-principle approvals in September 2020.
Source: VAGO, using data supplied by DTF.

FIGURE 3B: Summary of non-COVID-19 Treasurer’s Advance requests in 2019–20

Note: Some figure totals may not add up due to rounding.
Note: Unused departmental Treasurer’s Advance funding lapses and cannot be carried over into the subsequent financial year.
Note: The amounts shown for 'requested' are sourced from DTF's briefings to the Treasurer on Treasurer's Advance at the end of the financial year and so may differ from the initial requests made earlier in the financial year. The approval amounts are sourced from the Treasurer's final in-principle approvals in September 2020.
Source: VAGO, using data supplied by DTF.

Figures 3A and 3B show that DTF initially explores if alternative funding sources are available when considering these requests. As a result, around 10 per cent of requests were funded from alternate sources.

These figures also demonstrate that the actual amounts reported as drawn down by departments in total were less than or equal to the Treasurer’s final in principle approval.

3.2 Reporting on departments' use of Treasurer's Advances

In 2019–20, the 196 individual line items disclosed the AFR in notes 8.2.13 Payments from advance to the Treasurer exclusive of those attributable to COVID-19 for the financial year ended 30 June and 8.2.14 Payments from advance to the Treasurer attributable to COVID-19 for the financial year ended 30 June (pages 163–167) represent over 300 individual Treasurer’s Advance decisions.

DTF merges or amalgamates related Treasurer’s Advance requests for disclosure purposes. We reconciled evidence on individual Treasurer’s Advance approvals for 2019–20 to relevant disclosures in the AFR and found no material issues.

Verifying the amounts drawn down and spent

The disclosure of payments against individual Treasurer’s Advances in the state’s AFR and Annual Appropriation Acts reflects advice from departments to DTF on the amounts that they actually drew down against approved Treasurer’s Advances to the end of the relevant financial year. 

DTF compares aggregate information relating to departments' drawdowns to relevant aggregate information entered by departments in the state’s central ledger system SRIMS to check if they match in aggregate. 

Departments' chief finance officers provide a separate attestation to DTF to confirm that all amounts included in SRIMS are consistent with their audited accounts.
However, DTF does not seek confirmation from departments on their actual spending against each advance.

Additionally, departments only disclose the total approval authority they receive for Treasurer’s Advances as part of a note on compliance with annual parliamentary and special appropriations in their audited financial reports. They do not separately disclose their actual expenditure against Treasurer’s Advances either individually or in aggregate.

Departments could further enhance transparency by including separate disclosures of the amounts they have spent against Treasurer's Advances in their financial reports. 

Back to top

We have consulted with DTF, Department of Education and Training (DET), DELWP, DHHS, DJCS, DJPR, Department of Transport (DoT), Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and Victoria Police, and we considered their views when reaching our conclusions. As required by the Audit Act 1994, we gave a draft copy of this report, or relevant extracts, to those agencies and asked for their submissions and comments. 

Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.

Response provided by the Secretary, DTF

Response provided by the Associate Secretary, DET

Response provided by the Secretary, DELWP

Response provided by the Secretary, DHHS

Response provided by the Secretary, DJCS

Response provided by the Associate Secretary, DJPR

Response provided by the Secretary, DoT

Response provided by the Secretary, DPC

Response provided by the Chief Commissioner, Victoria Police

Back to top

Back to top

Review objectives, scope and approach

We conducted this limited assurance review in accordance with the Audit Act 1994 and Australian Standard on Assurance Engagements ASAE 3000 Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information.

A review is a limited assurance engagement that is less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Consequently, it does not enable us to obtain reasonable assurance that we would become aware of all significant matters that might be identified in a reasonable assurance engagement.

Our specific procedures included reviewing:

• whether DTF had comprehensive information to support its advice and recommendations on the initial and final in-principle approvals of all Treasurer’s Advances in 2019–20
• all approved Treasurer’s Advances over $100 million for 2019–20. DTF was able to quickly provide evidence to support these Treasurer’s Advances’ applications, assessments and approvals and we examined this evidence for a sample of them
• a further sample of Treasurer’s Advances below $100 million to ensure coverage of all departments and different types of Treasurer’s Advance purposes and funding decision pathways.

We also sought advice and explanations from DTF on the Treasurer’s Advance process and controls and how it implements these for specific Treasurer’s Advances.

Back to top

Figure D1 itemises departments’ use of Treasurers Advances in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most significant items in this list include:

• $784.7 million for the Business Support Fund (DJPR)
• $715.8 million (multiple items) for additional resources for health services and the health system for COVID-19 responses (DHHS)
• $145.8 million to support the metropolitan public transport network and services (DoT) 
• $142.2 million to quarantine returning international travellers (DJPR) 
• $108.9 million for the Working for Victoria Fund (DJPR).

FIGURE D1: Itemised requests for COVID-19-related Treasurer’s Advances by entity

Note: *Indicates the requests we examined.
Note: Some totals may not add up due to rounding.
Note: The amounts shown for 'requested' are sourced from DTF's briefings to the Treasurer on Treasurer's Advance at the end of the financial year and so may differ from the initial requests made earlier in the financial year. The approval amounts are sourced from the Treasurer's final in-principle approvals in September 2020.
Note: Unused Treasurer’s Advance funding lapses and cannot be carried over into the subsequent financial year.
Source: VAGO using data supplied by DTF.

Figure D2 itemises the non-COVID-19 purposes that the Treasurer’s Advance was used for in 2019–20. The most significant items in this list include:

• $660.897 million for bushfire responses (various agencies)
• $336.831 million for the Level Crossing Removal Authority (DoT)
• $121.284 million to support Victoria Police (DJCS)
• $118.150 million for additional resources for health services (DHHS)
• $112.638 million for essential maintenance and compliance in schools (DET).

FIGURE D2: Itemised requests for non-COVID-19-related Treasurer’s Advances by entity

Note: *Indicates the requests we examined.
Note: Some totals may not add up due to rounding.
Note: The amounts shown for 'requested' are sourced from DTF's briefings to the Treasurer on Treasurer's Advance at the end of the financial year and so may differ from the initial requests made earlier in the financial year. The approval amounts are sourced from the Treasurer's final in-principle approvals in September 2020.
Note: Unused Treasurer’s Advance funding lapses and cannot be carried over into the subsequent financial year.
Source: VAGO, using data supplied by DTF.

Back to top

The Treasurer’s Advance was used to fund a wide range of services, initiatives and projects in 2019–20, including:

• service delivery and outputs
• acquiring new assets and capital projects
• maintaining existing assets
• responses to COVID-19
• responses to natural disasters
• supporting royal commissions and other inquiries in terms of both conduct and responses to recommendations
• financial assistance in response to natural disasters
• economic stimulus in terms of financial support for businesses
• financial support for government entities
• financial support for individuals.

We selected 33 Treasurer’s Advances to more closely examine as part of this review based on these categories, their value and potential interest to Parliament and the community. We obtained evidence on the applications, assessments and approvals of these funding requests to gain assurance on how the process for accessing Treasurer’s Advance operated during 2019–20.

We provide information on a selection of these Treasurer’s Advances below to elaborate on the processes that departments, DTF and the Treasurer followed and demonstrate examples where requirements were not fully observed.

The Business Support Fund

The funding request to establish a Business Support fund, which was initially referred to as the Small Business industry support package, as part of the government’s response to support the economy during COVID-19 did not seek access to Treasurer’s Advance. The request was considered by government.

On 20 March 2020, the government approved a $1.7 billion economic survival and jobs package. This package include $500 million to establish the Small Business industry support package. This funding decision did not reference the use of the Treasurer’s Advance.

In April 2020, the government agreed to broaden the eligibility criteria for the business support fund. It also agreed to allocate $13 million from the fund to support small to medium non-government organisations in the creative sector. This change in eligibility criteria increased the number of eligible businesses from around 30 000 to around 46 500. DJPR’s submission to the government indicated that this increase could be managed within the existing $500 million funding approval.

In May 2020, DJPR sought additional funding of $250 million for the Business Support Fund to meet estimated demand until its scheduled closure on 1 June 2020. DTF noted several risks and uncertainties about the take-up rate for the fund, which could expose the government to significant additional costs. However, DTF supported this funding request and recommended capping the total budget for the fund at $750 million to address these risks. 

The government approved this funding request on 25 May 2020. DJPR’s submission, DTF’s advice and the government decision did not refer to using the Treasurer’s Advance to fund this initiative.

In June and early July 2020, further advice and submissions were provided to the Treasurer and the government on a range of issues. This contributed to an increase in the expected allocations from the Business Support Fund. 

DTF’s advice on these submissions confirmed the use of Treasurer’s Advance for this initiative and indicated a funding shortfall of up to $80 million. The Treasurer approved additional Treasurer’s Advance funding for the Business Support Fund based on DTF’s advice and recommendations in July 2020. 

The Treasurer approved a final in-principle Treasurer’s Advance of $787.1 million for the Business Support Fund in September 2020. This approval was based on DJPR’s advice to DTF on its final expected funding requirements for the fund in July 2020. DTF’s payments to DJPR for the Business Support Fund in 2019–20 totalled $784.7 million, which was within the approved funding limit.

Bushfire response and recovery

In mid-June 2020, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change requested a Treasurer’s Advance of $390 million to cover additional expenditure that DELWP, DJPR, DHHS, DJCS and Victoria Police incurred while responding to the bushfire season in 2019–20. Given the nature of the request, it should have complied with the mandatory requirements in the RMF.

DTF advised that the minister's request was consistent with the established process for funding fire and emergency response activities. Bushfire-related funding requests have been dealt with using Treasurer’s Advance due to the underlying uncertainty over the duration and severity of bushfire seasons. The process involves DELWP tracking and reporting actual and estimated spend to DTF throughout a fire season and seeking a final Treasurer’s Advance capturing these unanticipated costs, after fire suppression activities are complete. This process is intended to avoid delays in funding authorisation for the firefighting services.

On 30 June 2020, the Treasurer provided an in-principle approval for Treasurer’s Advances totalling $380.8 million for the four departments. The funding requested for Victoria Police was initially considered and approved by government and then approved in principle by the Treasurer as a Treasurer’s Advance.

DTF provided clear evidence to support the application, assessment, approval and tracking of this Treasurer’s Advance. However, we did identify some issues.

Application issue

The application for this Treasurer’s Advance did not meet all of the RMF’s mandatory requirements. The gaps were minor, except for the absence of any direct confirmation that DELWP and the other departments had reviewed and exhausted other funding sources before seeking access to the Treasurer’s Advance.

Assessment issue

DTF's assessment of this request did not explicitly address the extent to which it met some of the RMF’s mandatory requirements for Treasurer’s Advance applications. 

Issues with DTF’s advice to the Treasurer

DTF's advice to the Treasurer in June 2020, which recommended approving a Treasurer’s Advance of $380.8 million for this request, did not:

• explicitly consider the extent to which the request addressed the mandatory requirements in the RMF for Treasurer’s Advance requests
• include any positive statements that addressed the extent to which it had tested, and was presenting to the Treasurer as reliable, the costs that DELWP and the other departments claimed and that DTF was supporting for funding under the Treasurer’s Advance.

DTF advised us that its advice appropriately informed the Treasurer on why the additional funding was required because it included base appropriation information and the history of supplementation for the previous three fire seasons, together with commentary on the severity of the 2019-20 bushfires noting it was ‘longer and more intense bushfire season than average’. DTF also indicated that the costs included in its advice to the Treasurer were represented as ‘either incurred or committed’ actual expenditure and information about DELWP providing DTF with regular updates on costs relating to the 2019–20 fire season.

In September 2020, DTF confirmed and the Treasurer approved and advised the relevant ministers on the final in-principle Treasurer’s Advance authorities for bushfire response and recovery. This included:

• $340.9 million for DELWP
• $27.6 million for DJCS
• $7.6 million for DHHS 
• $4.8 million for DJPR. 

The departments collectively drew down $358.4 million against these approval authorities.

The Treasurer approved a separate Treasurer's Advance of $10.4 million for Victoria Police for its bushfire responses. Victoria Police drew down $9.6 million against this approval authority. In Figure D2 the information for the DJCS and Victoria Police Treasurer's Advances for bushfire responses is combined in a single line item 'Bushfire suppression'. This reflects the disclosure of this information in the state's AFR for 2019–20. 

The COVID-19 Emergency Accommodation program including hotel quarantine

The government approved $80 million on 20 March 2020 to procure and operate up to 5 000 hotel rooms and other accommodation facilities to quarantine international travellers returning to Victoria and the Hotel for Heroes program for health workers. Some of this funding was also used to support people who were rough sleeping or homeless to self-isolate and recover from COVID-19.

This funding decision did not reference use of the Treasurer’s Advance. However, there was clear evidence that DTF advised the Treasurer on the various funding requests to the government for the hotel quarantine program and on the Treasurer’s Advance allocations for the program.

DTF’s advice to the Treasurer on in-principle approvals in late June 2020 recommended $62.9 million of Treasurer's Advance funding to DJPR for the hotel quarantine program in 2019–20. DTF also recommended additional Treasurer’s Advances of $52.1 million for DJPR and $19.2 million for DHHS for the program. These advances were subject to the confirmation of a possible Commonwealth funding contribution. A separate Treasurer's Advance of $17.1 was also approved for DHHS for the broader emergency accommodation program.

The Treasurer approved these recommended advances as part of the initial in-principle approval process for the Treasurer’s Advance, allocating a total of $115.0 million to DJPR for the hotel quarantine program.

In July 2020, DTF recommended that the Treasurer approve an additional Treasurer’s Advance of $35 million for the program. This was based on advice from DJPR about additional cost pressures for hotel quarantine in 2019–20. However, DTF noted that the final endorsed costs for DJPR in 2019–20 were subject to change. DTF also noted that $52.1 million sought for the program in June may not be eligible for Commonwealth reimbursement. 

The Treasurer approved the additional Treasurer’s Advance of $35 million.

In September 2020, DTF confirmed and the Treasurer approved and advised the relevant ministers on a final in-principle Treasurer’s Advance authority of $150 million for DJPR and $19.2 million for DHHS for the hotel quarantine program. DHHS did not use this Treasurer’s Advance allocation and DJPR drew down $142.2 million. DHHS fully used the separate $17.1 million Treasurer's Advance approved for the emergency accommodation program.

Back to top