The However, A Program Design

ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 56

2.38 However,

as outlined in ANAO’s Grants Administration Better Practice Guide, irrespective of whether the approver is a Minister or an official, it is prudent for the approver to remain at arm’s length from the assessment process. This separation avoids the potential for perceptions to arise that the approver has influenced the funding recommendations subsequently put forward for the approver’s consideration. Role of Innovation Australia

2.39 It

is relatively common for an advisory committee to be used to provide advice andor recommendations to grant program decision‐makers. Where a program relates to a specific area, such committees are able to bring relevant knowledge, experience and judgement to bear in formulating, or assisting to formulate, funding recommendations. In this context, it is important that the basis on which an advisory committee is to be involved in an assessment and selection process is clearly defined, and that the committee’s deliberations and recommendations are appropriately documented.

2.40 Against

this background, the role of Innovation Australia IA was to:  undertake a merit assessment of each eligible application;  provide a recommendation to the program delegate or to the Cabinet of the Australian Government, where relevant; and  provide more general advice to the program delegate in relation to the programs and the development of the customer guidelines.

2.41 To

carry out this role, an IA committee was created and, on 22 March 2012, it received delegated authority from the Board of IA to make funding recommendations to the program delegate up to a maximum of 5 million. 69 All of the members of the IA committee had skills in manufacturing or engineering and business administration, but only three members had experience in clean technology and two members had experience in energy and carbon efficiency.

2.42 In

October 2012, the IA committee was separated into three committees due to the significant workload associated with the programs. The responsibilities of these committees in assessing, and making recommendations on, applications were as follows: 69 Figure 1.1 and paragraph 1.7 provide an overview of the IA committees.