ANAO In As In

ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 126 Distribution of funding

6.12 Since

December 2007, agencies have been required to publish on their website details of individual grants. In addition, since January 2009, the grants administration framework has required Ministers who are Members of the House of Representatives to report to the Finance Minister each instance in which they approve a grant in their own electorate.

6.13 As

outlined in an ANAO performance audit on the grant reporting obligations 145 , where audit reports or public commentary have raised questions about the political distribution of grant funding, the concerns raised have generally related to a wider issue than grants approved by a Minister in hisher own electorate. Specifically, the concern has more often been whether the total distribution of approved grants under a particular program has favoured the party in government, rather than just the electorate of the particular Minister who was making the decisions. This was the case in respect to the programs with concerns being raised with ANAO about the extent to which the funding had been awarded to projects located in electorates held by the Australian Labor Party ALP, with comparatively fewer grants awarded to projects located in electorates held by the Coalition.

6.14 An

indicator of the equity and impartiality of decision‐making that is frequently applied is the distribution of approved funding across party electorates. In this context, and as noted at paragraph 6.13, concerns had been raised with ANAO about the extent to which the funding had been awarded to projects located in electorates held by the then Government. Those concerns were based on analysis of data reported on the AusIndustry website for the CTIP. Analysis of that data, as advised to ANAO by the Parliamentarian, had suggested ‘a significant skew, of about two to one, in funding towards electorates with Government representation’. This analysis was based on the 94 grants that had been announced and were reported on the AusIndustry website as at 31 May 2013.

6.15 ANAO

conducted a similar analysis as the one provided by the Parliamentarian using the grants that were required to be reported on the department’s website by 31 May 2013. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.1. Although there was a skew toward ALP‐held electorates at this date under the CTIP, there was a skew in funding of a 145 ANAO Audit Report No.21 2011–12, op. cit., p. 91. ‐ ‐ ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 127 similar magnitude towards Coalition‐held electorates under the CTFFIP. The combined results of these analyses show that ALP‐held electorates had received 82.8 million 56.6 per cent in funding as at 31 May 2013 and Coalition ‐held electorates had received 63.6 million 43.4 per cent in funding. Table 6.1: Funding distribution by major political party as at 31 May 2013 Party CTIP CTFFIP Number Value of executed grants m Number Value of executed grants m ALP 62 63.9 50.5 79.4 57 43.5 32.3 39.0 Coalition 35 36.1 13.1 20.6 74 56.5 50.5 61.0 Total 1 97 100 63.6 100 131 100 82.8 100 Source: ANAO analysis of departmental records. Note 1: For CTIP, one grant related to a project located in an electorate held by an independent. The value of this grant was 128 533. For CTFFIP, two grants related to projects located in an electorate held by an independent. The value of these grants was 377 605.

6.16 The

award of funding was undertaken through a public, open call for applications and was wholly consistent with the IA committees’ recommendations as to which application should be approved. In the context that 62 per cent of approved funding related to projects located in electorates held by the governing party, ANAO also examined whether there was any evidence of the electorate status influencing the process by which applications were received, assessed as to their eligibility and merit, and recommended to the program delegate. As no funding decisions were made by the delegate after the 2013 Federal election was announced, the distribution of funding, provided in Table 6.2, was based on the seats held after the 2010 Federal election. 146 146 Decision-making under the programs ceased after 2 August 2013. The Caretaker period for the 2013 Federal election commenced on 5 August 2013 and the 2013 Federal election was held on 7 September 2013.