The The Program Design
2.11 The
primary purpose of the departmental assessment was to present the relevant IA committee with a report that included: an assessment of: the application against each of the merit criteria in the form of a score, with the scores summed to give the overall merit score; and the quality of the evidence supporting the application; options to reframe the project to exclude any ineligible activities 54 or eligible activities that the department considered did not provide value for money; additional commentary to highlight information that had the potential to significantly impact the final decision, but was not easily identifiable in the application; and • an assessment recommendation. Probity plan2.12 The
CGGs also outlined that an important requirement in grant administration is ensuring probity and transparency, such that decisions relating to the granting activity are impartial, appropriately documented and publicly defensible. In this respect, the department did not develop a probity plan or engage a probity advisor. 55 Objective of the programs2.13 Program
objectives that are clearly linked to the outcomes set by government were required by the CGGs. As such, it was important that the objective of the programs was consistent with the outcome set in the Clean Energy Future Plan, which was to reduce carbon pollution and assist manufacturers to reduce their exposure to rising energy costs. 56 54 The program guidelines identify that capacity expansion or productivity improvement projects with no improvement in energy efficiency or reduction in carbon intensity were not eligible projects for the purposes of the programs. 55 The department did, however, seek advice from the department’s legal section on: the program guidelines; the consistency between the program guidelines and supporting program documentation including the customer guidelines, program directions and delegations; and a change to the funding ratios that was reflected in the program guidelines in June 2012. 56 Australian Government, Securing a clean energy future: the Australian Government’s Climate Change Plan, 10 July 2011, p. xi.Parts
» 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