The The The WGEA Home
14. The
significant amount of grant funding provided to industry over the relatively short period of time the programs were in operation was consistent with AusIndustry’s culture of assisting businesses to access programs it administers. However, the approach that was taken to assessing applications was not sufficiently focussed on maximising program objectives and treating applicants equitably. As a result, it was common for funding to be approved for projects that did not have high expectations as to the extent of the reduction in carbon emissions intensity they would deliver. 13 Further, a number of the approaches employed to maximise the assistance to industry did not sit comfortably with the operation of a competitive grants program under the Australian Government’s grants administration framework. Specifically: some incomplete applications were permitted to proceed to the departmental merit assessment; some applications were ‘reframed’ 14 to improve their assessed merit in terms of published criteria. 15 The published program material, and internal program documentation, did not clearly establish the circumstances in which reframing assistance would be provided to applicants by the department, and the extent of this assistance. Further, applicants were not required to re‐submit reframed applications; 13 There were 57 successful applications that had a predicted percentage reduction of less than 10 per cent and another 131 successful applications that had a prediction percentage reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent. A reduction of 16 per cent from 2010 emissions levels would have been required to be consistent with the broader policy target set by the then Government to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. 14 This involved the department or the relevant assessment committee changing the project activities, grant amount andor underlying assumptions to exclude ineligible activities or activities that the department considered did not represent value for money. 15 This approach was not designed to maximise program outcomes by seeking to improve all eligible applications, but on reframing applications that were otherwise unlikely to be awarded funding. ‐ ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology ProgramParts
» The After The Program Design
» The The Program Program Design
» The However, A Program Design
» The situation in relation to the programs was similar to that identified in
» The department accepted the subsequent recommendation made in the earlier
» The program guidelines and IA’s disclosure of interest guidelines set out
» Notwithstanding the requirements of IA disclosure of interest guidelines,
» There Further, Program Design
» The The Performance Program Design
» Effective In In Access to Funding
» Relatively Access to Funding
» Determining Access to Funding
» However, The Access to Funding
» Consistent Access to Funding
» Specifically, In Access to Funding
» In Consistent Access to Funding
» Cabinet In The Access to Funding
» Accordingly, The Reduction in Emissions
» The The Reduction in Emissions
» In This The Reduction in Emissions
» In November 2013, the department noted in a review of the programs that:
» For example, one applicant that received funding under the programs initially
» In The Reduction in Emissions
» Another Reduction in Emissions
» As In In Reduction in Emissions
» However, The Reduction in Emissions
» As The Reduction in Emissions
» The In Reduction in Emissions
» Further, Reduction in Emissions
» There This Reduction in Emissions
» Agreed. Reduction in Emissions
» The In In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Given Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Further, following the then Government’s decision to bring forward the introduction
» From the information provided in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10, it is clear that
» However, this indicator was inconsistently applied in assessing applications,
» A Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In In In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Overall, Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Following The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The most common reason recorded for not recommending an application
» As Against A Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Nevertheless, Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» To Part Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Part Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Website In Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Reporting In Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Publication The Reporting and Funding Distribution
Show more