ANAO performance audit of the Strengthening Basin Communities in5slides
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes228 views
The Australian government's $200 million Strengthening Basin Communities Program aimed to aid Murray-Darling Basin communities affected by reduced water for agriculture, but only $81 million was utilized for projects. An audit revealed inconsistencies in guidelines and assessment processes which compromised transparency and accountability. Recommendations were made for improved project performance reporting and a more effective management approach to enhance future outcomes.
ANAO performance audit of the Strengthening Basin Communities in5slides
- 1. ANAO performance audit of the Strengthening Basin Communities Program… The Australian Government’s $200M Strengthening Basin Communities Program aimed to help communities in the Murray Darling Basin cope with reductions to water available for irrigated agriculture. The Audit Office looked at how well the Department for the Environment administered the SBCP. MARCH 2014
- 2. The projects aimed to beef up community planning and to improve the efficiency of water use. The auditor considered that all of the projects funded achieved positive results. But, of the $200M allocated, this program only implemented projects worth $81M. The remaining funding was reapplied to Regional Development programs WHAT DOES IT SAY. MARCH 2014
- 3. It looks like the guidelines issued by the department weren’t coherent, making it difficult for applicants to understand the evaluation criteria. Then Environment departed from its own assessment processes, without documenting reasons for doing so. So the “transparency, accountability and, ultimately, the equity of the assessment and selection process was adversely affected’’. WHAT ELSE DOES IT SAY. MARCH 2014
- 4. There could have been a gap in communication between proposal assessment and project management. The auditor identified decisions to tailor scoping for some projects that didn’t tightly align with the merit assessment. Project performance reporting was mixed, and the auditor recommended a more consistent and transparent approach be adopted the future. WHAT ELSE DOES IT SAY. MARCH 2014
- 5. • These were very complex projects, with pressured politics, and it looks like the program didn’t get going fast enough, or corral the pragmatism necessary to get things moving. • If they can implement these ANAO recommendations, Environment staff could be the best grant managers in Canberra. • The pity is that the rest of the funding was given to Regional Development! The comments on these slides are the views of Tim Kirby, Sydney. You should always read the report itself before putting your reputation, or any money, on the line. WHAT DOES IT MEAN. Tim Kirby, Sydney CA, CIA, LA-EMS au.linkedin.com/in/timkirbysydney MARCH 2014