1. Grant Management Accountability and Red Tape - Bob Herbert Section Manager, Agreements and Monitoring, Regional Partnerships Program

2. Regional Partnerships Grant Program The Regional Partnerships (RP) program commenced on 1 July 2003 RP combined nine regional programs into one consolidated regional funding package Through Regional Partnerships, the Australian Government partners projects that focus on: Strengthening growth and opportunities; Improving access to services; Supporting planning; and Assisting communities with structural adjustment As at 31 December 2005 a total of $209.7 million (GST exclusive) of public money has been expended by the program and new projects have attracted just over a further $500 million in cash and in-kind partnership support Over $360m is available for projects over the four years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 Envisaged that RP would be a model for good grants program management and evaluation

3. Red Tape vs Accountability What is Red Tape? Red tape seen to be anything that impedes ‘getting the job done’ Red tape will be different depending on your viewpoint: Applicant Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) Regional Office National Office Partners and other stakeholders Ministers and Local Members Defined obligations for grant management processes can be viewed as ‘red tape’ - Accountability

4. Accountability What does it mean? That we can demonstrate we know what our money is spent on? That it is spent in accordance with our requirements? That we have complied with all of our legislated responsibilities? That we have followed our own instructions and guidelines appropriately? It’s how we justify that we have done what we said we would. If we have rules have we followed them. Why do we need it? For Government: Legislation (we have to) Public scrutiny (it’s not our money) Grant not a loan - No collateral In general Good practice

5. Accountability How do we achieve it? What are our tools? Legislated obligations (eg FMA Act and Regulations) define operating framework for managing public monies ANAO Better Practice Guide provides guidance for managing grant programs Internal procedures, manuals etc Risk assessments Evaluations Communication between grant giving organisations An appreciation that the job is not done. What ‘was’ is not necessarily the best for what now ‘is’.

6. Accountability Pitfalls Poor Preparation Poor Data Management and Reporting Systems Poor Guidance Poor Processes If it goes wrong? Loss of money Political embarrassment Loss of community opportunity

7. Accountability What does it cost and is it worth it? For us Peace of mind but purchased with time and money For funding recipients Lost time that can jeopardise a project – perceived as Red Tape

8. What is the Answer? What is the balance? Is there a balance? Can we reduce the Red Tape without losing accountability? Is accountability a failsafe? Does it mean nothing will go wrong? How do you determine risk and where do you draw the line between risk and expediency? How do you manage risk? What level of accountability can you afford? What level of accountability do you require? Are you prepared to obligate yourself to maintaining a specific level of accountability?

9. ?