ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
111
committee
members being asked to provide their scores against each of the
merit criteria prior to meetings scores were then collated and tabled
in meetings using the process discussed in paragraph 5.6
125
;
two or more spokespersons appointed prior to meetings leading the
discussion of each application by ‘typically’ giving a general overview
of a project, followed by their assessment of the application against
each of the merit criteria;
committee
members discussing the application, agreeing on whether to recommend
the application for funding and providing a final committee
score; and
a discussion of any conditions to be placed on the recommendation and
the identification of a reason if the committee was not recommending
an application.
5.4 In
support of this advice, the department provided agenda documents setting
out this process as a proposed approach for conducting meetings, but was
otherwise unable to substantiate the content of committee deliberations. As
was noted in paragraphs 2.50 to 2.54, the retained records of CTIC and CTFFIC
meetings including meeting minutes and recommendation sheets did
not provide a basis for identifying the matters discussed in meetings.
5.5 Given
that a large majority of applications were approved for funding, the
absence of recorded reasons for recommending applications has led to a lack
of transparency regarding the factors that were considered important in forming
individual funding recommendations.
126
ANAO therefore examined the
content of CTIC and CTFFIC meeting notes taken by departmental officers.
127
During the audit, the department had advised ANAO that these notes
‘were used to prepare the minutes and decisions which were cleared by the
committee’, but subsequently advised ANAO that they do not ‘reflect a complete
and accurate record of the meetings’. Notwithstanding any limitations
of the notes, they are the only records available to evidence
125 Except for committee members that had advised of a conflict of interest. 126 For example, the reported score for merit criterion one in the departmental assessment report was
different to the reported score after the application was considered by the:
departmental committee in eight per cent of applications 22 applications; and
CTIC or the CTFFIC in 44 per cent of applications 206 applications. 127 Notes were available for 455 of the 488 applications considered by the IA committees.
ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
112
committee discussions.
128
The notes indicate that the deliberations of the IA committees
focussed on particular issues raised by committee members rather than
the merits of each application against each criterion with:
grant dollars per tonne of carbon abated discussed in 31 per cent of
applications; and
the
reduction in carbon emissions intensity mentioned in respect to 15
per cent of applications.
129
Calculation of the total merit score
5.6 The
department advised ANAO in October 2014 that the IA committees provided
a total average score for their final decision in relation to each application.
To generate the average score, two
130
spokespersons were nominated
by the respective committees to score the application, based on the information
provided in the departmental assessment report. The average score
was then ‘moderated’ during the IA committee meeting, as stated in paragraph
5.3. A simplified version of this scoring process is provided in Table
5.1.
Table 5.1: Calculation of merit score by the CTIC
Merit criterion Spokesperson 1
Spokesperson 2 Average score
1 32.2 45 38.6 2 12 12 12
3 4 11 7.5
Total score 58.1
Source: ANAO analysis of departmental records.
5.7 The
IA committee members’ scores in Table 5.1 reflected a consistent score
for merit criterion two, but significant differences in scoring for the other criteria.
In this context, the calculation of average scores for merit criterion one
128 A similar approach to using notes taken by officials at panel meetings where the minutes provided insufficient visibility was taken by ANAO in Audit Report No.3 2012–13, The Design and Conduct of
the First Application Round for the Regional Development Australia Fund, Canberra, 19 September 2012.
129 The meeting notes related to the CTIC and CTFFIC meeting deliberations only. 130 All committee members without a conflict of interest could be nominated as a spokesperson, but in
practice it was common for only two spokespersons to be appointed. Of the 433 applications for which scores were available, 431 had scores for at least two spokespersons and 64 had scores for three or
more spokespersons.
