The Auditor General made six recommendations to the Department of the Environment to improve the transparency and performance of the grant. A spokeswoman for the foundation told Guardian Australia that there had been some donations in these categories, but that the organisation would not provide figures. “The department`s conclusion that the proposal represents reasonable value for money for public funds was reasonable and was based on a clear understanding of the desired objectives and outcomes that the government required of the grant,” the department said. He said the objectives of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant were too broad and broad. “None of the results or recommendations influence the conclusion that partnership is an effective way to improve the health of the reef,” she said. The Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 (CGRG) sets the policy framework for the Commonwealth Grants. The GMBCs contain the main legislative and policy requirements and explain the principles of best practice in grant management. The agreement on the granting of the reef trust partnership also requires that we be consulted when developing strategic planning documents as part of the partnership. “Liberals and nationals justified this backroom agreement because the foundation of the reef would be able to raise money from the private sector,” she said. “In the case of non-competitive grants, the evaluation criteria provide a transparent way to assess whether the proposal under consideration is a satisfactory standard, that approval of a grant would be a cheap value for money,” Auditor General Grant Hehir wrote in his report.
Today, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reviewed and opened a detailed investigation into the grant procedure. In-kind donations are in-kind donations, which, according to a spokeswoman for the foundation, includes a farmer who gives time to work on a water quality project or a project partner who provides equipment such as a boat. In the letter in which the Foundation was warned that funding could be withdrawn, Labor advised it not to spend a disproportionate amount before the election and found that the funds had been made available for a period of six years. But the Auditor General and his office found that the department was not complying with the government`s grant rules and supported the arguments of environmental lawyers reported by the CBA last August. The General Auditorium compared these objectives to smaller reef-related subsidies, which had led to very specific objectives, such as reducing a certain amount of water pollution.