Officials from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) appeared before a Senate inquiry last night, revealing further details about the sports rorts scandal.
We’ve pulled out some of the highlights from the evidence.
‘Deficient in a number of important areas’
GRANT HEHIR (auditor-general): “Overall we concluded that the design of the program was deficient in a number of important areas, including: greater analysis was needed of the likely demand for grant funding and strategies developed for the managing of high-level demand; strategies to manage risk to the quality of the assessment process set out in the Sport Australia grants management framework were not implemented; and conflict-of-interest management arrangements were not to a consistently high standard.
“A further significant shortcoming was that, while the program guidelines identified that the minister for sport would approve the grants, and despite both the Department of Health and Sport Australia identifying doubts about the minister’s legal authority, there are no records evidencing that the minister was advised of the legal basis on which the minister could undertake an approval role, and it is not evident to the ANAO what the legal authority was.”
SENATOR JANE RICE (Greens Senator for Victoria): “OK. Based on the evidence available to you what parties did the prime minister’s office make representations on behalf of?”
BRIAN BOYD (ANAO executive director): “The only ones we saw were Coalition.”
SENATOR RICE: “And were they all on behalf of MPs?”
BRIAN BOYD: “Some were from candidates or, you know, as in people that were hoping to be elected to parliament and weren’t in parliament.”
SENATOR RICE: “Okay, and how about the Liberal Party or campaign teams or state bodies? Were there representations from those by the PM?”
BRIAN BOYD: “I recall at least one where it was the state body who was because, there was, I understand, who were pulling together the list for that electorate and then provided that to the minister’s office.
“The process, we understand, initially they were called wish lists and became what was called ‘Fighting For’, which are ‘these are the projects I’m fighting for’. And those lists were identifying — and it wasn’t just for this program, it was broadly that these are the projects in this electorate that we’re looking to secure funding for.
“And so those were being put together and some of those were coming through the minister’s office saying, ‘Can this be accommodated within CSIG’. Some of those would be an existing application. Some of them were not an application and so never became an application.”
SENATOR RICE: “Where there representations other than from Coalition-aligned members of parliament or the Liberal Party or their campaign bodies?”
BRIAN BOYD: “If they were, they weren’t in the records.”
No, senator, that’s not what we found
SENATOR ERIC ABETZ (Liberal Senator for Tasmania): ” … I seek to clarify, you did find that no ineligible project or application was funded?”
BRIAN BOYD: “No Senator that’s not what we found. So if you go to the start of chapter three, which is the chapter on assessment, the finding there was ‘ineligible applications were identified and no applications assessed as ineligible were awarded grant funding’.
“So that’s the Sport Australia eligibility assessment process. What then happened subsequently was there’s applications, late applications were taken on board, which were ineligible under the guidelines.
“Amendments were made for existing applications which were ineligible under the guidelines and they were funded.
“But at the time — this relates to the Sport Australia assessment process. Sport Australia removed from its list those assessed as ineligible — that’s what that finding is.
“Subsequent to that there were the five new applications, the four amended applications. And then because things took longer — because you are now running two rounds, rather than three, and funding agreements are in place — you had eight projects where, according to the details provided by the proponent, the project had been completed before the funding grant was signed. They’re ineligible under the program.
“And there were 270 something where the project had started before the funding agreement was signed, which is also ineligible under the program. So we get to around 43% of those which were awarded funding, by the time the funding agreement signed, were ineligible.”
And the colour-coded spreadsheet(s)
BRIAN BOYD: “There isn’t a single spreadsheet, there’s dozens of versions of a spreadsheet. And for each round there were various iterations indicating on different days — and sometimes different hours of the day — which are the projects which the minister’s office were indicating were going be approved for funding.”
The question here is: Do enough Australians want their government to behave ethically, lawfully? I fear not. Scottyfrommarketing could sell children petrol to sniff without losing any votes. Nobody, it seems, is disadvantaged by encouraging greed in the electorate.
Sadly I think you are so right. Very sadly. What has Australia come to. No ethics or morals and run the religion card all the time. BULLSHIT
A question – has Scomo actually lied to the Parliament in defending his minister and his government on the sports grants process? Or has it all been during press conferences?
I recall repeated insistence by Scotty from Marketing (& other ministers/Coalition also-rans) that all the successful recipients were ‘eligible’. Check Hansard for Scotty’s contribution, I reckon it’s there.
All sing along now – The Ad-Ventures of Brid-Get Mc-Kenzie! Dinki-di girl of the Sports, Rorts, shame.
This article shows the Auditor General finds there is no legal evidence that Minister McKenzie had the (LEGAL) authority to intervene and allocate funding differently to what Sports Australia (ASC) assessed and recommended.
McKenzie’s interference in the funding of the grants was ILLEGAL, let alone ethically wrong. No media seems willing to go near the “Illegal” word!
She should be subject to criminal proceedings.
I eml’d my local LNP member, and all I got was a very brief, glib waffle about ministerial discretion, and his preference for ministers to allocate funding rather than public servants! Sentiment that contradicts the ASC Act that defines the role/responsibilities of the independent (of the minister) ASC.
The Ex Vic Auditor General, Tony Harris, believes her actions to be illegal as well, and believes there is grounds for a case of corruption. But Porter’s initial attempt at presenting a pathetic, window dressing for a Federal ICAC style authority drew so much criticism, he has been dragging his heels releasing his next version.
Hell, we need it desperately. I agree with Rumty, the public don’t care enough about this. She’s gone, next please. They even voted against Shorten who proposed a Federal ICAC body within the first 100 days of Government. Lucky Bridget.
Gotta love Brian Boyd.
I had the impression that he might not have much liked Ministers and other sneering at his report and was only too willing to set the record straight.
Good to know there are people still doing their job to keep the government accountable.
Good ole Eric abetz trys to lob in a grenade only to have it blow up in his hand, bah hah!
Erica should learn to keep his own counsel.
I have never enjoyed a better day of watching Senate Estimates since Sen Doug Cameron was giving it to either Michaelia Cash or to members of the ABCC.
Boy Canavan and Herr Abetz. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum.
Great viewing and more to come next week. Can’t wait.
https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament