I'm reading the budget (at like http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-05.htm) and I can't figure out how to find out how much money they're spending on stuff.

If you look at the 2nd section in that page ("Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry — further efficiency") it just references how much is being spent in that department RELATIVE to the previous year - not how much is being spent in total. Some of the sections in that document include the total, but not all of them. So it's sort of useless if you're trying to build up a picture of how much is being spent overall in each department.

I assume there must be a document that actually details the amounts but I cannot find it anywhere. Where is it?!@#

Relative in real terms? :o

It's normally pretty straight forward. Last years actual vs. This year's budget. I have already read the Health and Ageing budget and it was like that.

It's normally pretty straight forward. Last years actual vs. This year's budget. I have already read the Health and Ageing budget and it was like that.

As I said, I don't care about the difference between last years and this years, I want the actual real values.

I think we're making some progress looking at the numbers, it's just divided up weirdly and all the data is not presented consistently. There should just be one document that lists them all but that doesn't appear to exist - I guess because it would be huge and possibly hard to read, and they've gone this summary version to make it a bit more readable?

The numbers are absolute numbers. I will have a look when I get home.

The numbers are absolute numbers. I will have a look when I get home.

aight, I must be looking at the wrong document. We can find absolute numbers but they're at a really high level (per department or per 'function'), but then trying to drill down to get more detail is proving problematic

This might be a bit heavy for you but the actual budget is here - http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Bills1.nsf/0/61F0A349D04D7D86CA2575B5000E323C/$file/r4110b.pdf

I just re-read what you wrote in the above post and budgets (from both sides of politics) are drafted with broad outcomes which provides greater ability to act. That's a layman's explanation as I don't want to go into constitutional law at this time of night.

My lecturer's favourite illustration of this point is the following from the Department of Defence.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
Outcome 1 -
The protection and advancement of Australia’s
national interests through the provision of
military capabilities and the promotion of
security and stability
'000
= 20,148,040 - 20,148,040
19,099,284 - 19,099,284

It's usually something broad like that, which means the Department of Defence gets $20 Billion to do whatever in the defence of Australia.

last edited by Triamks at 22:34:17 16/May/09

I don't get your point - I don't see how they get 20b to do 'whatever', a casual glance through some of the budgets shows how it's broken down. It's not like the DoD gets a cheque for $20b to do whatever they feel like?!

All the numbers stated in the budget paper you referred to Trog are the amounts allocated by the Government to the outcomes as stated.

Appropriations bills have to be very specific actually and you will see there is a great deal of precision as to what amounts are appropriated out of consolidated revenue.

All five years need to be included to possibly bind future parliaments to the initiatives, unless the future parliament amends that part of the historical appropriation bill.

For example, the Exceptional Circumstances Drought Assistance Program has a total expenditure over the forward estimates of $426m. The budget paper states total spending will be %567m but that some of this expenditure will be met from existing resourcing.

Each year represents the amount allocated to that department for that year for the purpose. So in this year's budget the Department of Agriculture has $194.3m for the Exceptional Circumstances Drought Relief purpose. Next year they will have no funds (unless a new bill appropriates more money).

So I don't see how you are concluding a general discretion is empowered to the Department. Also don't forget there will be acts of parliament which mandate how such kinds of relief must be calculated. Sure there will others areas with larger amounts of discretion i.e. running bureaucracy.

edit: on re-reading your post, the numbers stated in the section about further efficiency are the savings expected from the department in each financial years. This they are stated as negative numbers - they are negative expenses (or improvements to the bottom line).

last edited by infi at 00:34:01 17/May/09

It's not like the DoD gets a cheque for $20b to do whatever they feel like?!

Actually it pretty much is. But based on the spending figures they have requested.

Be logical for a second, if they had to list every line item in the federal budget, the paper would a 30 or 40 volume set of book. Not to mention it would lead to a situation where you'd have to quote projects up to 12 months in advance so therefor over quote, and then because you said x for that project, they'd spend it all and only on that project because if they don't they won't get it next year. As it is a lot of that already goes on.

And who cares how many sets of green underwear the army thinks they'll need ? It will be being appropriately audited at that level.

All the numbers stated in the budget paper you referred to Trog are the amounts allocated by the Government to the outcomes as stated.

I cannot even parse this statement, which perhaps just generates my complete lack of knowledge about all things budgetary. Are you saying "this is the budget"?

Appropriations bills have to be very specific actually and you will see there is a great deal of precision as to what amounts are appropriated out of consolidated revenue.

I'm not claiming otherwise, I'm wondering where the information I am looking for is

To be clear, my point is - not every section in the document I'm looking at (to be clear, it's the 'Expenses' section of this document. A lot of the sections DO include the full amount (and explain that it's over the next x years, but lots of them only include relative amounts (such as the one I quoted in my first example) ... your example:

For example, the Exceptional Circumstances Drought Assistance Program has a total expenditure over the forward estimates of $426m. The budget paper states total spending will be %567m but that some of this expenditure will be met from existing resourcing.

.... is one of the ones that clearly states how much is getting spent.

So I gues what I really want is the data in the text ^ from that PDF but in table form so it's clearly readable and understandable. All the stuff in that document in the table is relative spending to previous years, which isn't really useful.

Each year represents the amount allocated to that department for that year for the purpose. So in this year's budget the Department of Agriculture has $194.3m for the Exceptional Circumstances Drought Relief purpose. Next year they will have no funds (unless a new bill appropriates more money).

Right - but that's only $194.3m in that table because it's a new budget expense (ie, last year was $0). But if last year was like $100m, I think in that table it would only show as $94.3m - thus rendering it useless if you are trying to get an at-a-glance understanding as to how much is being spent on that budget item!

I mean, I'm sure all the data exists somewhere - this just seems like a really stupid stupid way to explain it, unless I'm missing something really fundamental. Very possible, this is the first time I've ever even looked remotely at a budget.

So I don't see how you are concluding a general discretion is empowered to the Department. Also don't forget there will be acts of parliament which mandate how such kinds of relief must be calculated. Sure there will others areas with larger amounts of discretion i.e. running bureaucracy.

Are you talking to me? I'm not concluding anything, other than I can't figure out how to find out how much money is being spent, which I would have thought would have been useful information in a budget?!@#

Actually it pretty much is. But based on the spending figures they have requested.

Yeh what I mean is though, even at this high budget level, you can drill down and see what Defense is spending money on. eg, the first item in the thing I linked above is:

The Government will provide an annual contribution to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund of $US50 million ($A59.3 million) for each of the next five years. This contribution will support the development of the Afghan National Army and strengthen its ability to provide for the security of Afghanistan.

ahhh, equipping and training Middle Eastern armies... now that's something that's worked well for Western counties in the past!

But if last year was like $100m, I think in that table it would only show as $94.3m - thus rendering it useless if you are trying to get an at-a-glance understanding as to how much is being spent on that budget item!

No, if last year's expenditure was $100m then there would be 100 in the 08-09 column and and 94.3m in the 09-10 financial year. The budget paper is stating how much expenditure is budgeted for each financial year.

In the PDF you I can see how you're wondering about why so many of the porgrams are blank. I imagine its indicating that whilst that Department has responsibility for the program they are not stating how much they are commiting to it at this stage.

That document has all the detail that is available, and as Obes said, once the money has been appropriated by the Bill into that Department they can spend it as their Secretary sees fit (keeping in mind many welfare benefits and government funding mechanisms such as in aged care and childcare are prescribed by legislation).

No, if last year's expenditure was $100m then there would be 100 in the 08-09 column and and 94.3m in the 09-10 financial year. The budget paper is stating how much expenditure is budgeted for each financial year.

I don't think that's the case - I just randomly flicked to a page (p90 in that PDF), and the section "Australian Federal Police — logistics and security arrangements for the deployment in Afghanistan — further efficiency" in the 08-09 column has -6.6. So that column is ALSO relative to the year before.

Actually if you look on p79 at the bottom it also says:

(a) A minus sign before an estimate indicates a reduction in expenses, no sign before an estimate indicates increased expenses.

So it's estimated INCREASED (or decreased, as the case may be) expenses - it's not a total.

yeah it looks like you're right. i always assumed they were annual budgets. well in any case, the actual budget figures can be found in the portfolio budget statements. go to any minister's website and it will be there for their department.

i think those expnditure statements are formatted differently to reflect where the growth and savings in government are occuring.

I don't get your point - I don't see how they get 20b to do 'whatever', a casual glance through some of the budgets shows how it's broken down. It's not like the DoD gets a cheque for $20b to do whatever they feel like?!

Obes has addressed the latter part of the statement but I'll add that that it's 'whatever' falls within the outcome specified. I don't dispute infi's claim that the outcomes need to be specific, but at the same time that they're specific, they are one line statements. I also agree with Obes that specific things are audited later.

In regards to the former, I respectfully don't think what you claim is right. The figures listed next to each outcome are how much they're getting per that outcome not in total across the portfolio. So to continue my example, the Department of Defence is getting $20 billion for that outcome, then other things inside the portfolio are getting much less, with the exact amount specified next to each outcome. The summary pages at the beginning of each portfolio and at the end are useful in this regard.

Actually if you look on p79 at the bottom it also says:

(a) A minus sign before an estimate indicates a reduction in expenses, no sign before an estimate indicates increased expenses.

So it's estimated INCREASED (or decreased, as the case may be) expenses - it's not a total.

I respectfully don't think that's right either. I've always been told and thought that the figures in Appropriations Bills are actual amounts. If the figure from last year is prefixed with a minus sign, wouldn't that mean, the Department used less than what was appropriated for it to achieve that outcome? As infi said, the bottom line was improved as a result. Efficiency dividend and all that.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4871/defict.jpg

hahahaha that helps.

In regards to the former, I respectfully don't think what you claim is right.

No idea what you're talking about here... also, I'm not really claiming anything, I'm asking questions - pretty much everything I'm saying is in relation to the data in the PDFs and documents that I've linked to; I'm just trying to get clarification on how it should be interpreted because I simply don't understand how/why it's presented like that.

I respectfully don't think that's right either. I've always been told and thought that the figures in Appropriations Bills are actual amounts.

You don't have to be respectful :) I'm not emotionally invested in whether you agree or disagree. But I can't see how you can disagree; that reference thing I posted is directly from the 'legend' of the budget.

If the figure from last year is prefixed with a minus sign, wouldn't that mean, the Department used less than what was appropriated for it to achieve that outcome? As infi said, the bottom line was improved as a result. Efficiency dividend and all that.

If that is the case, then it still doesn't help me - because what I want to know is:

What has actually been budgeted for all these things?!

I don't think that is the case though, because it doesn't make sense in the columns for 2009-10 (ie, 'the budget') because we haven't had those yet and they can't have used less than what was appropriated to it - because it hasn't happened yet!

This seems like a really, clear simple question as it relates to the budget. But these documents don't make it clear in a manner that I find consistent or easily understandable. Again, it's possible I have some fundamental misunderstanding about how to read them, but so far the only way I can find out how much is spent in projects on a per-department basis is to look at the Expenses document and hope that in the text details below each section they've actually said how much they're spending in total (as opposed to a + or - figure of whatever it is).

well in any case, the actual budget figures can be found in the portfolio budget statements. go to any minister's website and it will be there for their department.

well in any case, the actual budget figures can be found in the portfolio budget statements. go to any minister's website and it will be there for their department.

isn't it just weird though that it's not in "the budget"?

no because the budget appropriates the money from consolidated revenue (the constitutional requirement). the ministers are then responsible for how it is spent.

this is the westminster system of government where ministers are basically running their own businesses and if they fail they must resign.

last edited by infi at 17:19:22 17/May/09

no because the budget appropriates the money from consolidated revenue (the constitutional requirement). the ministers are then responsible for how it is spent.

OK - so basically the highest level of budget reporting I can get from this thing is maybe Appendix C, Table C1, page 254 in this document - it details stuff like:
http://trog.qgl.org/up/budget-snapshot.jpg

(screenshot used because PDF is f***ing retarded and I can't copy/paste and preserve any formatting, what is this, the nineties!@#?)

But your explanation STILL doesn't explain (to my satisfaction, anyway) why there are things like the Afghan defence training stuff in that other document. Under your definition it would be something that, say, the minister of defence would get his budget from "The Budget" (I'll capitalise and quote that so it's clear I mean "The Budget" as in the commonly used term that refers to what the government does when they're deciding how to spend our tax dollars) - right? Or has the Minister /already/ done that, and it's just included in the Expenses document for reference for, say, nosy a******s like me trying to find out where defence money is going.

Just so it's clear, here's what we're trying to reproduce:

http://throb.typepad.com/special/2004%20US%20Budget.jpg

Ministers will present their spending proposals to the Expenditure Review Committee ("Razor Gang") one by one they march in and then they get told what they can and cannot have. They then have to manipulate their figures to match the amount of money the ERC is willing to give them. So they will present their portfolio spending proposals, they get slashed, the PM's priorities get shoved in, then the budget is finalised.

Agencies are subsidiaries of the Department, independent from government bureacuracy. By adding up the agency spending you will not be getting the full expendture for that department because you have to add in the Department's public servants. edit: actually the Departments are added in there so I guess you will.

edit: just have a read of the Departmental budget papers. they are very clear and easy to read and come along with a small explanation for each program.

last edited by infi at 17:34:19 17/May/09

Agencies are subsidiaries of the Department, independent from government bureacuracy. By adding up the agency spending you will not be getting the full expendture for that department because you have to add in the Department's public servants. edit: actually the Departments are added in there so I guess you will.

Yeh, that's what I figured.

So BASICALLY, to get a FULL breakdown of each Department, I have to go to each department website and work from there - because the data presented in that bp_2_expense report doesn't include everything, but maybe just has some highlights or something? Really the only way I'll know is if I sit down and add them all up, I guess!@#

edit: just have a read of the Departmental budget papers. they are very clear and easy to read and come along with a small explanation for each program.

Just had a crack at this and it's already a bit annoying, heh. I grabbed the Department of Defence and I'm trying to reconcile that with the numbers here. I think I am just looking at the wrong things and/or don't understand enough about the intricacies between departments, agencies, etc.

This is from "The Budget" (Appendix C, Table C1, page 254, here in the document referenced above)

http://trog.qgl.org/up/budget-defence.jpg

But this is from the DoD website's budget document here

http://trog.qgl.org/up/budget-defence2.jpg

So the line item "Department of Defence" in the first one is 26,308 - which ALMOST matches "Total Defence funding" in the 2nd one (26, 641). But I don't get why the other stuff (like Australian War Memorial) if it's included in the first one under 'Defence' and it doesn't appaer to be accounted for in the other thing. Unless the first one is /not/ actually divided strictly by "Department", and it's just a loose classification ?

How about you write to your friendly local parliamentarian, and then once you get the answers you can do a presentation on it in class for all the other students to learn from? :P

How about you write to your friendly local parliamentarian, and then once you get the answers you can do a presentation on it in class for all the other students to learn from? :P

it sure is f***ing tempting to do that, but I just find it so weird that despite all the time and effort they put into this thing there's no really, clear, easy to way to interpret "The Budget", as a whole. Hence, why I want to make a pretty graph, but I can't believe the raw data is so hard to find/understand.

Awesome.

have you tried asking wolfrad|alpha?

Result:
(no data available)

Hah, even WA can't find any data for it :P

last edited by reso at 18:21:33 17/May/09

I just find it so weird that despite all the time and effort they put into this thing there's no really, clear, easy to way to interpret "The Budget", as a whole.

I'm sure somebody has done a thesis on this very point. Otherwise hit up Parliament's website for the possibility of info. In my opinion, at one level, the public isn't meant to know the finer details of the budget, at the other, the doctrines of responsible and representative government would necessitate that the public should have this info so as to carry out its function in this democracy.

the doctrines of responsible and representative government would necessitate that the public should have this info so as to carry out its function in this democracy.

No ... that is why we elect people. Voters should be outcome focused, and politicians should represent their voters.

You can always try writing to the Parliamentary Library, they have reports on EVERYTHING.

So the line item "Department of Defence" in the first one is 26,308 - which ALMOST matches "Total Defence funding" in the 2nd one (26, 641). But I don't get why the other stuff (like Australian War Memorial) if it's included in the first one under 'Defence' and it doesn't appaer to be accounted for in the other thing. Unless the first one is /not/ actually divided strictly by "Department", and it's just a loose classification ?

Just a guess, but perhaps some of it is discretionary spending for the Department of the Defence, while some is fixed expenditure and thus doesn't appear in departmental budgets?

No ... that is why we elect people. Voters should be outcome focused, and politicians should represent their voters.

I'm sorry, I thought I did say we elect people.