‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
71
Finalising the grant assessment and selection process
Report to the decision-maker
4.38 Once
the agreement of the Moderation Group on a group of recommended
projects for funding had been reached, the Chair of the Moderation
Panel prepared a report outlining the Group’s deliberations and recommendations.
99
Environment then prepared a briefing for the Minister in support
of his role as funding decision‐maker for the Biodiversity Fund program,
which outlined the Moderation Group’s recommendations. For each of the
four rounds, the material provided by Environment to the Minister included:
a brief providing background on the funding round under
consideration and an overview of the Minister’s responsibilities as
decision ‐maker approver as required by FMA Regulation 9
100
, and
a
range of supporting documents including:
projects recommended for funding;
a
reserve list of projects not provided for NATI;
the Grant Assessment Plan;
the
Moderation Group’s Grant Assessment and Selection Report;
the Probity Report;
advice
from the LSCBB, which had been separately briefed following
the conclusion of the Moderation Group’s deliberations;
and
a merit ranking that had been compiled by Environment
officers, not the Moderation Group, for the NATI, Round 2 and
Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests rounds.
99 The relevant report for each funding round was provided to the LSCBB for review, given it was the
board’s role to provide advice to the Minister concerning the project recommendations made by the Moderation Group.
100 Under FMA Regulation 9, which was in place at the time of all Biodiversity Fund program grants rounds, a proposal to spend public money including the awarding of a grant was to have been
considered and approved by an appropriately authorised party before a funding agreement or other arrangement to spend public money could be entered into. In this respect, the approver was not to
approve a spending proposal unless they were satisfied, after making reasonable inquiries, that the proposal was a proper use of Commonwealth resources, and was not inconsistent with the policies of
the Commonwealth.
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
72
4.39 The
briefs provided to the Minister did not, however, clearly indicate that
the moderation process had resulted in the exclusion of some highly
‐ranked applications in favour of other highly‐ranked applications with a
lower merit assessment score although the moderation process had been outlined
in supporting materials provided to the Minister, such as the Moderation
Group’s report. In addition, the brief for Round 1 did not specify that
the recommended group included 18 projects that had initially been identified
as ‘reserve’, and that those reserve projects now included in the recommended
list were in preference to a number of other higher‐ranked ’reserve’
projects. The provision of this information would have better positioned
the Minister to discharge his role as decision‐maker.
Approval of grant funding
4.40 In
the case of Round 1, Round 2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests
round, the Minister accepted the recommendations of the Moderation Group.
4.41 For
the NATI round, the Moderation Group had made several recommendations
based on different levels of expenditure as requested by the department
during deliberations. The Minister considered these recommendations,
but did not approve them. In response to a reduced Biodiversity
Fund program budget through the re‐phasing of funds, the Minister
requested that Environment prepare a revised brief outlining funding for
one applicant the highest‐ranked from each of four regions that had been targeted
by the funding round. The department prepared a brief in response to the
Minister’s request. As a result, the applications that were originally ranked as
1, 2, 5 and 10 by the department following the moderation process, were then
recommended for funding. The Minister approved the four projects for funding
to a value of 9.9 million.
Notification and feedback on assessment outcome
4.42 In
general, Environment notified applicants within one month of the funding
decision via a letter from the Minister if successful and by email from
the department if unsuccessful. In Round 1, unsuccessful applicants were
informed of the grant outcome prior to successful applicants. In the NATI and
Round 2 funding rounds, the department took considerably longer around
one month to notify unsuccessful applicants of the funding decision, than
it did for successful applicants.
