The Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program (the program) funded 363 projects from January 2020 to July 2023, delivered through 239 grants, 64 procurements and agreements with states and territories. In 2023, the ANAO examined whether the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s (the department) funding priorities for the program were supported by appropriate planning arrangements. The ANAO found that planning arrangements were appropriate.

A panel of experts provided scientific input and identified priority natural assets and recovery actions during the design and implementation of the program. The department used the expert panel’s advice to inform $145.4 million worth of projects. The department, in consultation with the expert panel, developed and used mapping and analysis tools to inform planning decisions.

The department put in place arrangements to facilitate stakeholder engagement and used stakeholder recommendations to inform program planning.

To read more, see Chapter 2 of Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program.

The objectives of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) are to drive economic growth and build stronger regional communities. BBRF is administered by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts (Infrastructure). A total of $1.38 billion was allocated to 2024–25.

A 2022 ANAO audit found that grant opportunity guidelines were developed, approved and published for six rounds of the BBRF.

The BBRF guidelines reflected the minimum content requirements set out in the CGRGs. Revisions were made to the guidelines before each new round from lessons learned from previous rounds.

The guidelines for each round clearly outlined the way in which funding candidates would be identified, the application process, eligibility requirements, the assessment process (which was to be open competitive), and the assessment criteria.

However, there was room for improvement in the published guidelines.

The guidelines did not transparently set out the membership of the panel that was to make decisions about which applications would receive grant funding.

The guidelines stated that the decision-making panel may use at its discretion the consideration of a non-exhaustive list of ‘other factors’ to override the results of the merit assessment process, with applicants not asked to specifically address those other factors in their applications for grant funding.

Where the panel indicated disagreement with departmental scoring in the first two rounds, it did not revise scores. By the third round, the panel’s written basis for funding decisions made no reference to the merit assessment results, instead focusing on the ‘other factors’ mentioned in the guidelines for the program.

To read more, see paragraphs 2.2 to 2.14 and 4.42 to 4.48 of Award of Funding under the Building Better Regions Fund.

The Community Health and Hospitals Program is a $2 billion grant program that aims to ‘fund projects and services in every state and territory, supporting patient care while reducing pressure on community and hospital services’. The program was announced in December 2018. A 2023 ANAO audit identified that the Department of Health and Aged Care (Health) did not effectively manage probity for the Community Health and Hospitals Program, including key ethical requirements in the CGRGs. Key shortcomings included:

Health did not establish grant opportunity guidelines for CHHP grants in all instances, and the decision to not develop grant opportunity guidelines in contravention of finance law was made consciously and deliberately by senior officials.

In describing the outcomes of the Australian Government Solicitor’s legal risk assessments to the minister, Health did not clearly state that, for several grants, the Australian Government Solicitor had indicated that there was no legislation that could reasonably be relied on to authorise expenditure on the proposal.

Health failed to correct known inaccuracies in GrantConnect reporting.

To read more, see Appendix 4 of Administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) administers the Indigenous Advancement Strategy’s (IAS) ‘Children and Schooling’ and ‘Safety and Well-being’ programs.

A 2020 ANAO audit found that the NIAA used both application based and direct approaches (where an organisation is approached by the granting agency) to allocate funding under the IAS. A direct approach is not competitive and does not assess the relative merits of the applicant. IAS grant guidelines stated that NIAA may use a simplified assessment process in the case of a direct approach. However, NIAA policy specified that the simplified process was to be used on an exception basis and needed a strong business justification.

The ANAO audit found that despite this guidance, between July 2016 and June 2019, the non-competitive direct approach was used to allocate 90 per cent of ‘Children and Schooling’ and 95 per cent of ‘Safety and Wellbeing’ grant funding.

Further, 80 per cent of the children and schooling program funding and 87 per cent of the safety and wellbeing program funding was reallocated to the same providers after assessment to determine whether to continue activities already funded. This was inconsistent with the principles of the CGRGs and with NIAA’s internal guidance.

The audit found that the use of a non-competitive approach, in addition to allocation of funding to the same providers, restricted the opportunity for new providers to compete for funding and limited NIAA’s ability to demonstrate that value for money was being achieved.

To read more, see paragraphs 3.3 to 3.16 of Indigenous Advancement Strategy — Children and Schooling Program and Safety and Wellbeing Program.

The Department of Health and Aged Care (Health) advised the ANAO that it had classified 64 per cent of the Community Health and Hospital Program (CHHP) and associated grants as ‘ad hoc/one-off’.

Health’s classification of grants as ‘ad hoc/one-off’ did not align with guidance for ad hoc/one-off grants. The CHHP was not responding to an urgent or unforeseen circumstance and the program need was not specific. Health advised the ANAO that ‘CHHP and associated grants were government decisions therefore ad/hoc one-off grants were an appropriate classification’. The ANAO notes that the CGRGs (paragraph 13.11) state that one-off grants are made ‘usually by Ministerial decision’; however, the CGRGs do not state that grants that are the result of ministerial decisions should be classified as ad hoc.

Health did not document the rationale for using ad hoc/one-off or non-competitive grants, as required by the CGRGs.

Health sought and received advice from the Department of Finance (Finance) for some grants. Finance noted that the grant opportunity (which was classified as an ad hoc grant) would be more appropriately classified as a ‘closed non-competitive’ grant on the grounds that the opportunity was only available to those listed in the guidelines. Health noted this, but did not amend its classification of the grant opportunity in line with the advice or explain the rationale for its decision.

To read more, see paragraphs 2.45 to 2.52 of Administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program.

The Regional Jobs and Investment Packages was a competitive grants program that was established to drive economic growth and create jobs in 10 regions of Australia. Over $220 million was awarded to 233 projects.

A 2019 ANAO audit found that grant assessment processes were not to the standard required by the grants administration framework.

Appropriate checks and controls were not in place for eligibility and merit assessments.

The records of eligibility checking were not complete for each application.

There were internal inconsistencies for some applications.

An assurance review contracted by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development identified that applicant claims were being taken at face value without appropriate scrutiny. A ministerial panel recorded that more than 20 per cent of applications had been incorrectly scored by the assessors.

To read more, see paragraphs 2.33 to 2.57 of Award of Funding Under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages.

A 2021 ANAO audit examined the advice provided to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to inform the minister’s decision-making over the Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure Program. Grant funding of $3.3 million and $2 million was awarded to Shine Energy and Blue Hydro, respectively.

While the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources’ advice on the Blue Hydro grant was largely appropriate, the advice on the Shine Energy grant was partially appropriate.

The two funding recommendations briefings met the requirement for advice to be provided in writing, included clear recommendations that funding be awarded to each applicant and provided a record of the basis for the minister’s decisions to award funding.

The written briefings recommending that grant funding be approved did not clearly identify the extent to which each grant application had met the selection criteria (material attached to the briefings identified that one application fully met the criteria whereas the other application partially met the criteria).

To read more, see Chapter 4 of Award of Funding under the Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure Program.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) administers the ‘Children and Schooling’ and ‘Safety and Wellbeing’ programs under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.

The NIAA had mechanisms for monitoring the progress of grant activities, including provider performance reports and site visits.

However, the ANAO found that the effectiveness of these mechanisms was limited by poor record-keeping practices and insufficient validation of self-reported provider data. The data reported in providers’ performance reports was self-reported for at least 90 per cent of ‘Children and Schooling’ and 80 per cent of ‘Safety and Wellbeing’ program performance measures. The NIAA did not validate the integrity of providers’ records.

The ANAO also noted limited effectiveness of established performance indicators in measuring progress against a grant activity’s objectives. A set of identical performance indicators across programs and sub-programs was developed, which enabled the aggregation of performance data at program level and reporting against program performance measures. However, the indicators were not always relevant to the specific objectives of individual activities and, as a result, were not always effective in measuring outcomes at activity level.

Many performance indicators relied on surveys or client feedback forms. Surveys or feedback forms are not always an appropriate data collection tool when administered by a provider due to risks associated with independence and capability.

To read more, see paragraphs 4.18 to 4.33 of Indigenous Advancement Strategy — Children and Schooling Program and Safety and Wellbeing Program.

As part of the Australian Government’s response to the 2019–20 bushfires, $200 million was provided for Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the department) administered the program.

A 2023 ANAO audit found that the department had developed a program logic and an evaluation plan for the program. The evaluation plan: identified key elements that would be used to assess and measure achievement and progress against identified outcomes and key activities; and outlined a mid-term assessment to assess progress on shorter term outcomes and identify improvements for the remainder of the program and an end-of-program assessment.

The department completed a mid-term review in accordance with the evaluation plan.

The department had established a tool for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement. The majority (352 of 363) of the program’s projects were recorded in this tool.

The ANAO audit found that project progress was not recorded consistently across the program, with many of the projects not reporting against targets or outcomes. This meant that progress data could not be compared or aggregated to provide a program level measurement of progress and performance.

To read more, see paragraphs 4.20 to 4.46 of Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program.