Dissenting Report of Coalition Committee Members

1.1This is a significant report for all departments and agencies that administer Federal Government grants. Coalition members of the Committee agree with the recommendations in the report. We agree urgent action is needed across the public service to reform how grants are administered.

1.2However, Coalition Members of the Committee are of the view that the politically charged rhetoric in the report, not backed up by ANAO findings or witness evidence, has the potential to compromise the seriousness with which the findings will be received and implemented by the public sector.

1.3Coalition Members agree the inquiry has demonstrated that Commonwealth Departments and Agencies must strengthen the integrity and administration of Commonwealth grants and ensure that Ministers are better advised and supported. The Coalition is committed to ensuring the highest standards are maintained in grant allocation processes, including for election commitments.

1.4From the Coalition Members perspective, the two key findings by the Auditor-General, supported by witness evidence, have been downplayed in the report. They are discussed below.

1.5The first key observation by the ANAO, confirmed in paragraph 2.35 is that there were no findings of illegality by Ministers or public officials by the ANAO or in evidence received by the Committee.

1.6The second key observation from the evidence provided to the Committee is that Ministers had been let down in the advice and support they received from public sector officials on the administration of grants.The Auditor General was clear in his evidence that Departments and Agency heads have a positive responsibility to ensure they accurately advise their ministers of the requirements of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines. The framework provides they should support the minister in understanding the guidelines, policies, and processes governing the administration and management of grants.

Coalition members note the following evidence by the Auditor-General:

“Mr Hehir: They have a responsibility to tell the minister that the minister is responsible for documenting the decision, and if they don't do that the department is not carrying out its responsibility to support the minister appropriately.”[1]

“Mr Hehir:That’s the role of the Public Service, to ensure that the minister is informed about what their responsibilities are.”[2]

“Senator Reynolds:… I understand the Auditor-General has said that there is a responsibility on behalf of the APS staff who are managing this to make sure that the minister is properly informed about what has to occur in that process? Is that a fair summation?

Mr Hehir: That's correct.”[3]

1.7The Coalition Members of the Committee note that despite the absence of any findings against ministers, the Chair has used emotive and inflammatory language to describe grant allocation throughout the report, for example describing administration of grant funds as “sloppy” and “egregious”.

1.8Coalition Committee Members note in the section on election commitments, the Chair has made a deliberate choice to selectively include quotes that emphasize instances of grant allocation to Coalition seats while omitting other instances of funding allocation.

For example, section 2.27 quotes from the ANAO of the Safer Communities Fund: ‘the majority of the projects, involving the majority of funding, was for electorates held by the Coalition, or Marginal electorates… not held by the Coalition’. It is Coalition member’s view that the Chair has failed to provide specific details, such as the exact numbers that underpin the term “majority”, rendering the representation lacking transparency.

Despite the selective use of quotes, the Coalition Members of the Committee agree with the evidence of the Auditor-General that election commitments need clearer guidelines and more effective advice to Ministers.

1.9Coalition Members also note the use of repetitive quotes with the same message, for example in sections 2.54 and 2.55, suggesting an attempt to drive a particular narrative rather than presenting a balanced analysis on this matter.

1.10Coalition members specifically reject committee comments 2.69, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73 and 2.125 and are of the view these comments should be included as Government comments, not committee comments.

1.11Recommendation 1 notes that the ‘Australian Government implement the Recommendation from JCPAA Report 484 to add an eighth principle to the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines that decision makers should adhere to the guidelines, which the previous Government agreed to but failed to actually implement’. The inclusion of the reference to the previous Government in the final part of the recommendation is deemed by Coalition Members of the Committee as unnecessary, politically motivated, and not in line with the purpose of the report.

1.12Recommendation 3 includes an adverse finding on the pooling of eligible recommendations. The Coalition considers that pooling would still be acceptable if accompanied with appropriate transparency.

Footnotes

[1] Mr Grant Hehir, Auditor-General, Page 4 of Committee Hansard, Friday 3 March 2023 Public Hearing

[2] Mr Grant Hehir, Auditor-General, Page 4 of Committee Hansard, Friday 3 March 2023 Public Hearing

[3] Mr Grant Hehir, Auditor-General, Page 4 of Committee Hansard, Friday 3 March 2023 Public Hearing