From records that
I have acquired or had access to and my knowledge acquired while employed by
the department I can say the following which I believe to be true:
The Major
Facilities Program 2009 started
on 27 August 2008 with the calling of Expression
of Interest [EOI] submissions closing on 31 October
42 EOI submissions
were received by the closing date. In all 141 submissions were received, the
last being on 2 February 2009.
The EOI submissions
were ready
for assessment on the 31 October 2009 and assessments started on the 4 November
2008.
The EOI
applications were assessed by development officers
in the Facilities Development Unit of the Sport and Recreation Services Branch
of the Department of Local Government Sport and Recreation.
The intention of
running a two-stage process, (a preliminary EOI, and then advancement to a
grant application stage) was designed so that organisations, which had projects
for which they were seeking funding could provide information to the Department
in a cost-effective manner, which would then allow the department to determine
the potential viability of the
project without requiring that organisation to unduly invest a significant
amount of money, time and effort at that stage.
Submissions that
were premature or distant from program criteria would not be invited to
progress.
The EOI concept
was the result of a half day workshop conducted by the then existing staff of
the Facilities Development Unit in mid
2008
Officers
assessing the EOI applications were required to make
recommendations as a consequence of their assessment of a submission against
the criteria set out in section 4.0 of the Program
Guidelines.
Assessments
of 140 of the EOI submissions were
completed by 13 November 2008 ready for delivery to the executive
director by the 18 November 2009
IN HOUSE assessment guidelines documentation
I kept a record of the assessments
undertaken by me for EOI submissions
At the conclusion
of the EOI assessment process and prior to commencement of the grant
application assessments I circulated to colleagues including the Program
Development Officer Sarah Lovell, my thought on development of the assessment process
and I
suggested changes, which I believed would make the assessment process more
robust, more objective and provide a great order of clarity and certainty to
ensure that applicants were not disadvantaged and that our unit could
confidently accommodate any enquiry or complaint about the nature of the
assessment process.
My suggestions
fell on deaf ears
At the date set
by the Guidelines
for the announcement of the successful EOI submitters (1 December 2009) no decision had been conveyed to the assessment
team as to who were the successful submitters.
At this stage
were we receiving enquiries from eager submitters as to the outcome for their
submissions. We were advised
to tell the applicants that the assessment
process was still in progress and that the applicants would be advised in due
course.
My inquiries
indicate that it was probably not until on or about the 3 February
2009 that invitation and unsuccessful letters were sent out to
all EOI Submitters. The closing date for
submission of application by invitee was then set at 27 March 2009
While I have no
knowledge of the date on which the decision in relation to the EOI submissions
was made. It would be normal to assume
that the discussion was in close proximity to that date. This advice to EOI
submitters represented a delay of some two months in the previously advertised
program Guidelines
Having been
provided with a list of the successful EOI submitters I undertook to determine the rating of all the
successful submissions
My enquiries led
me to discover that successful submitters were drawn from submissions that had
been assessed at low, medium and high risks
I was puzzled as
to what process could be responsible for selection from such a wide spread of
ratings giving the rating were as a result of assessment against the Program Criteria set by the Guidelines
and I was not aware under the Guidelines of any other criteria other
than those set out in the Guidelines and the advice
to us was that only low risk projects were to be recommended for progression to invitation to lodge a grant
application.
In looking to
satisfy my curiosity I interrogated the data supplied to us from G2[1]
and noticed that one of the pieces of data that was inserted into G2 was a reference to the
“electorate” in which the proposed projects were to be located.
I must confess I
was somewhat curious as to how relevant this particular piece of information
should be, given that it was my understanding that the assessment process for
the awarding of government grants was an impartial affair.
However, be that
as it may, with the information in G2 and the use of Parliament's website I was
able to determine the political party for the local State member for the
electorates, of the promoted projects.
It was when I
concluded this exercise that real concerns started to take shape within my
consciousness.
The exercise
revealed that of the 44 successful EOI submissions, 37 of those were in electorates in which there was a current
sitting ALP party member.
I also took the
opportunity to explore the
relationship between Application’s overall assessment rating and the
selection for progression to Stage 2 of the process.
The relationship
is set out in the following table
TABLE 1
|
Assessment Type |
Number of Type |
Number selected
|
% Selected |
|
Low Risk |
57 |
29 |
51 |
|
Medium Risk |
33 |
7 |
21 |
|
High Risk |
37 |
8 |
22 |
|
Ineligible |
14 |
0 |
|
|
TOTALS |
141 |
44 |
Na |
At that time, I
simply noted, these facts.
In due course the
development officers were provided with a list of the
successful EOI submitters that were to proceed to formal application stage and
we were each assigned a number of clients, with which we were expected to make
contact and provide them with any assistance necessary in helping them in the
preparation of their grant application. I compiled a list of
clients that were assigned to me
I remember at the
time the list of successful submitters was provided, I was surprised to see
included in the list, the Gold Coast
Table Tennis Association Inc. I had personally assessed this submission
and whose potential had been assessed as high risk because of significant number of criteria
issues.
At that stage, I
remember discussing the situation with Kath McLeod, a development officer in
the unit with considerable experience and remember that she also expressed
surprise, because some of the EOI submissions she had likewise assessed as high risk was also included in
the list of successful submitters.
At that stage,
however, I did not take any particular action to pursue this matter but just
noted it with interest.
From my own personal records
that I kept I see that my first contact with a successful EOI submitter for the
purposes of assisting them
in the preparation of the grant application was 17 February 2009.
One of my
assigned clients was the Tingira Boat
Club Incorporated which I meet with
on the 27 February 2009.
In preparation
for that meeting I held discussion with the Sport and
Recreation Officer (from memory her first name was Kirsty) of the Redland Shire
Council (a nominated co funding partner for the project) to discuss the
application and invited her to attend the meeting.
Leigh Habner from
our Regional Office of the department and myself attended that meeting but the
Redland Shire Council Officer was unable to attend.
As a consequence
of that forthcoming meeting I sought advise
from my manager as the Redlands
Council Sports Officer had conveyed to me an opinion that this application was
premature and I was seeking some guidance as to how I might handle what was likely
to be a delicate matter–advising the Club that their prospects of success at
the Application Stage, under the Guidelines, would be extremely limited.
The Tingira Boat
Club Incorporated’s EOI submission
had been assesses by a colleague in the Unit, Kath McLeod, as High Risk.
As a consequence
of our meeting this organization did not proceed to exercise their invitation
to proceed to a formal application for grant funding.
The Warrigal Road State School was also a
client I had responsibly for and I can remember that on a number of occasions I
contacted the school to attempt to arrange a time when I could visit and
discuss their pending application with them.
Eventually, I was contacted by the Principal
and he declined my invitation to visit but conveyed to me on the phone that the
organisation was uncertain that they would continue with their
application.
I formed the
impression from my discussions with the Principal that
the proposed project was at a somewhat primitive stage of development and was
also advised the school was hopeful of attracting federal funding under the Stimulus Package which were under far
more favourable conditions.
The Warrigal Road
State School EOI application had been assessed by a colleague in the Unit, Kath
McLeod, as High Risk.
On the 23 February 2009 I was
instructed to contact Kenmore District Junior AFL regarding their
unsuccessful EOI as I
had conducted the assessment.
As soon as
possible after that instruction I contacted by phone a person who introduced
herself as Sally Johannsen. I sought to make a time to come and discuss with
her the Club’s EOI submission however she declined my invitation instead
electing to discuss the matter over the phone there and then.
I had no problem
with this request, and proceeded to acquire the file. I can clearly remember being asked by Sally as
to why their EOI submission was unsuccessful in being promoted to an invitation
to lodge an application for consideration of grant funding.
I clearly remember
that I consulted the file, and the only information that was contained within
the file was the EOI assessment report, that I had prepared using the G2
database facility.
I advised Sally that
I was unable to provide an answer to her question as the only information
available to me within the filing system was my EOI assessment report, which
had recommended that their EOI
submission be progressed to the invitation to lodge an application stage.
I clearly
remember Sally asking me, who had made the decision that their EOI submission
would not be invited to proceed to stage two.
I told Sally I had no knowledge of whom the decision maker had been.
I can clearly
remember Sally asking me, who in our organisation, could she turn to in order
to find out whom the decision maker, had been, so that she may approach that
person seeking to be provided with the reasons for the decision.
I can clearly
remember advising Sally that I felt a person who may be able to steer her in
the right direction, and who would certainly would have knowledge of who the
decision maker had been, would be Tracy
O Brian the Executive Director of our Service Area.
I believe that I
provided Sally with contact details for Tracy O'Brien.
That is the only
contact I have ever had with Sally Johannsen although Sally cc me an e-mail
she sent regarding funding for their project and I was aware of her public
campaign to have the decision reversed.
After Sally Johannsen
contacted Tracy O'Brien I was called to the Director (Ben
Klaassen) office and in the presence of my manager (Amanda Allen) was
interrogated as to why I had provided such information. I advised that
·
The
information I provided was drawn from material held on file and available under
FOI legislation; and was all I could offer the applicant under the
circumstances; and
·
As
I have never been acquainted with the full assessment process I had inadequate
knowledge to satisfy the applicant enquiry as to the reason for their rejection
and as their was no guidance from the material on file as to this process and I
had no knowledge as to whom had been responsible for final recommendation once
it had passed from my assessment and therefore I could not offer any real
satisfaction to the applicant and had nominated the Executive Director as the
person who would know details of the whole assessment process.
The Director instructed me in the presence of Amanda Allen that I could not in future cite to an applicant material held on file. All I could do was to advise the applicant of their rights to make a FOI application and that I was never to advise any other applicant who inquired, as to whether their application had been ‘recommended’ or not for progression to Stage 2 and I was to limit the information provided to an unsuccessful applicant to matters in their application that was inadequate or insufficient to meet guideline requirements but to avoid discussion of the decision making process. This instruction although verbally delivered was never confirmed in writing.
Subsequent to
this I was provided
with instruction as to the wording that I was to used in future to inform subsequent
unsuccessful enquirers
On 26 February
2009 a document bearing my name was instructed to be
filed on to the filing system for the Kenmore
District Junior AFL Club. I was not
the author of the document
and had taken no part in its production and the document never reflected my
assessment recommendation regarding funding.
Applications for grant
funding under the 2009 Majors Facilities Program closed on 27 March 2009.
The data provided
to development officers via spreadsheets contained no receipt date for
individual applications but according to information contained in the Brief to the Minister,
approved on the 2 or 3 of May 2009, 42
Application were received by that date.
Two days prior to
the closing date we were
asked to provide information regarding the status with EOI invitees that
may not be proceeding to lodge an application.
I remember at the
time, I found this rather strange because I could not understand why it should
be of significance to us, whether or not, an invitee actually exercise their option to proceed with an application and why
this should be a matter that exercised any attention.
I also remember
that I interrogated the G2 data base in July
2009 and believe that, on information contained in that data system, at that time, some applications were received after that 27 March 2009.
In the above
Brief, mention was made for the need to seek further information from some of
the Applicants. My belief is that a check should reveal that a number of those
applications for which further information was required, were received after the 27 March 2009.
The Brief
mentioned the $1.4 million Ballymore redevelopment as an existing project. It appears
in the data base as Majors 2009 Application without having an EOI submission history.
The G2 database indicated
an application from Queensland Rugby
Union Ltd was received for the Majors Facilities Program 2009 on the 8 July 2008, [Number F-034-00001] 50 days before the program was publicly opened.
The G2 file for
this project did not contain details of assessment of the project against the
Majors Program criteria as was required for other Majors grant funding
applications but does indicates an overall rating of “Medium Risk”.
In Judy Spencer’s
address to the house on 1 September 2009
Hansard indicates the former Minister advised the house (under the first
“claim:” on page 1710) that 39
projects were approved (under the Majors program) 26 in government and 13
in non government electorates.
This number coincides
with 39 project published on the Department web site.
However Hansard also indicates the former Minister also advised
the house (under the third “claim:” on page 1710) that 1 application was approved on 24 April,
35 on
the 2 May,
and from the text of the advice[2]
-that 4
of the 6 remaining application were approved at a later date – thus giving a total of
40 approvals.
This provided for
an anomaly because on the
information provided there was both 39
and 40 applications approved- but they
can’t both be true.
I suspect the
explanation is the anomaly of a missing approved project for Queensland Rugby Union Ltd [Number F-034-00001]
This project is not
cited on the web site as approved but as previous indicated was listed in G2 as
a Majors grant application
Also if the number of approved projects was 39 (option 1) there must be at least 3 projects that were not approved as
the above Brief
indicates that there were 42
Application received.
Also if the number of un approved projects is 2
then based on the Brief there must be 40
approved (option 2) and the statement – “26 in government and 13 in non
government” cannot be true.
The matter
becomes even more complex because my
records indicate that there were already 3 unapproved projects:-
And given the
unresolved status of Queensland Rugby Union Ltd, which was a Majors grant
Application (F-034-00001) if in fact unapproved, then this would make for 4 unapproved projects.
In any event this
is an un-reconciled statement by the former Minister.
Further the Brief
could also be construed to advise that there was 42 Majors Application received
plus the Ballymore (43) plus the Cairns PCYC giving 44 for
funding under the Majors program
The filing system
from which I extracted this Brief did not contain the Attachment 1 referred to in the Brief but on 6 May 2009 an e-mail
was forwarded to us that contained a spread sheet that set out the
applications that were recommended for approval of the Minister.
I believe that
this spreadsheet accurately reflected Attachment
1.
This spreadsheet indicated that Queensland Rugby
Union Ltd had been a successful applicant.
Also on the electronic file on the Network G Drive, under
which the Majors projects are managed, contained a spread sheet which
forms a sources for some of the data provided in this Overview
Details in one of those spread
sheets, in relation to Queensland Rugby
Union Ltd under the heading “Comments” states -7/07/2009- Project is still in planning phase as
Development Application is pending. Indication that the project is an approved project and
active.
Of interest also
was the information in the Brief regarding Cairns
PCYC referred to Community Renewal Funding and a comment that it had been “forwarded….. for separate approval” but I noticed that a Majors EOI assessment number F-033-00096
had been assigned to a project submission from Cairns PCYC seeking $1,186,500
in grant funds from that program and therefore it was one of the 42 application cited earlier in the
Brief and had already received a routine assessment by Michael Wright and
assigned the rating of “Low Risk”
If the funding
program under which it had previously been granted funding had expired and it
funding had vaporized accordingly, I would assume the applicant was entitled to
run the gauntlet of submitting an EOI submission, along with any other
applicant for funding under the Majors 2009 program and given the project
appeared in the spreadsheet of recommended projects (I assume a copy of Attachment
1) the citing of this project is this way is just another puzzling aspect of
the Majors 2009 program.
But I digress.
On the 30 April 2009 we commenced assessment
of the grant applications subsequently submitted by the successful EOI
submitters.
At the
commencement of the assessment process we were advised
that on this occasion, we were prohibited
from using the term “recommended” in
the context of the assessment. We were
required to simply make “comments” relevant to the application and program criteria
At the same time we were instructed that we were not to have contact
with any applicants.
As I had already
commenced assessing the applications I had encountered
a situation in one of the applications where a consultant’s report cited an
Appendix that was missing. I remember, I contacted the consultant to alert him
to the situation and the consultant duly forwarded to me by e-mail the missing
attachment.
I conveyed this situation to
my manager for confirmation that “contact with an applicant” necessary to
clarify obvious oversight or some minor anomalies, surely was not intended to
be prevented, especially in a situation where there was simply material that
was obviously missing or simply needed some further clarification.
The advice from
my manager clearly indicated that this certainly was not the case and that under no circumstances, for any reason
whatsoever, could an applicant be consulted during the assessment stage.
However, some
months later, when undertaking my duties I noticed in
the files of one of my clients, (Fraser Coast Regional Council) a letter from the director of a unit to the
council requesting that the council provide further information to allow
the assessment of an application to be completed.
I found this
disturbing that development officers should be prohibited from making contact
with clients under any circumstances necessary to effectively assess the
development application, while at a level above the development officers, other
departmental officers were contacting certain clients.
No explanation as
to this ambiguity was ever provided.
Further, it also raised
a significant concern in me relevant to the EOI submission process, because I
recall in that process we were also instructed that we
were not to seek additional information from submitters. It was explained to me that the assessment process
was to be based solely upon the material provided and that if a submitter or an
applicant had shortcomings in their application that this was to be reflected
in the assessment rating that was ascribed to that submission.
The existence of
the letter to the Fraser Coast Regional Council, (which I understand was only
one of several sent out) provided a huge question mark in my mind in relation to
fairness and equity in the process.
I cannot remember
and do not now have access to files to advise the exact date that grant
applicant were advised of their success but I do remember we had been provided
with our list of grant clients and I had heard information that the grant were
approved so I asked my Manager if I could contact my client to discuss roll out
their projects I
remember I was told I was not to contact client until the letter to
the MLA had been sent.
I remember that
my concerns led me to make a few more enquiries about the grant application
that were deemed to be insufficient and requiring more information and noticed
that some information was missing from the G2 database. For example the G2 database contained no
records for the Morningside Australian Football Club Limited - grant application number F-034-00009
Further, of the
original 44 EOI submission invited
to proceed to lodge a grant application for funding, 2 were so premature that they could not have possibly been able to
satisfy the Guidelines criteria in the time available to them and I believes
that this was the reason why these successful EOI submitters elected not to proceed
to lodge an application and the 3 grant
application that were unable to be approved despite having been afforded 3 opportunities to make submissions
(EOI; Application; additional request) I believes suffered from the same
condition.
All 5 projects were in
electorates held by the ALP when they were selected for progression.
Of the 6 applicants that were requested to
provide further information, according to my investigations
development officer’s assessment of at least 4 of these grant applications was High Risk and
all 6 of them were in ALP held electorates when selected for progression to
Stage 2.
The reason I
cannot advise the rating for the other 2 is that one, the Morningside
Australian Football Club Limited application did not proceed so was not
included in the spread sheet and the file in G2 was missing
and the other the Fraser Coast application
had no rating identified in the data
spread sheet I acquired and I have
no information on its G2 statue in my files.
However I believe
the fact that 6 grant applicant were
requested to provide further information after submitted both their EOI submissions and their grant application is prime facie
evidence of the failure of the EOI process to select project that demonstrated
appropriate prospects of being performance
ready.
I remember that
in about May\June 2009 I visited the
Crime and Misconduct Commission's website and I completed a request form,
seeking some advice and guidance about approaching the Commission to discussing
an issue of concern. I remember that I did not receive a response to that
enquiry.
On 30 June 2000 I
noticed that in the management database two new projects had been assigned to my project management list by
my manager these projects were the Fraser
Coast Regional Council and the Diggers
Bowls Club in Rockhampton.
It had taken
these two projects some 3 months after application closed to reach the stage
where they were finally approved.
I remember that
in mid-July, I was prompted to again
make contact with the Commission after I became aware that a Member of
Parliament, Dr. Bruce Flegg had made public comments in support of issues
raised by Sally Johannsen about the funding process under the Majors program
On this occasion
I received an e-mail from the Commission, providing me with the name of an
officer, Ms Melanie Mundy of the CMC's Integrity Services on 3360 6060 that I
could call to discuss my concerns in more detail.
I accepted this
invitation and had discussions with Melanie on a few occasions, expressing concerns
I held for the process by which the Majors Facilities Program 2009 was handled
by our department.
After holding
discussions with Melanie, I drafted a submission to the commission. However I felt apprehensive about proceeding
with the lodgement of the submission, because I understood from our discussions
that the Commission's position was that the Commission would refer my concerns
to the Department for some appropriate course of action, and I knew that
because I worked in a very small and intimate Unit within the Department that
it would instantly become known, in the organisation, who the person was they
had approached the CMC and I understood all too well, the ramifications of that
circumstance would be a bad outcome for me.
However, because
I still held a deep and firm conviction that a proper investigation should be
carried out in relation to the conduct of the department in the administration
of the Majors funding program, [because of a number of anomalies that remained
unexplained], I determined that I would approach the member of Parliament, Dr
Bruce Flegg who had raised the Kenmore issue and provide him with the
information that I had, which had raised my concerns, and a copy of my drafted submission
to the CMC.
I asked for him to
assess and determined, if he felt the matter should be pursued further, with
the intention that he would pursue the matter based on the information that I
had provided him with, which I believed would steer him in the direction in
which he should seek to find the answers and that when he felt he had
sufficient information, refer the matter to the CMC thus providing some greater
degree of remoteness for myself in the event that the CMC, should proceed to
investigate the matter based on the material provided.
I approached
Bruce and he agreed to meet with me. At
that meeting only myself and he was present.
I provided Bruce with information that indicated the situation, as set
out above, and I explained to Bruce that I had already held discussions with an
officer in the CMC and I had real concerns that my future employment within the
Department will be significantly compromised if the department become aware
that I had approached the Commission.
I gave him a
commitment that I would be prepared to continue to provide him with information
so that he could pursue this matter and determine whether or not there were
significant substance, to my concerns, and if he felt it warranted, refer the material
the CMC thus affording me some distance from the fallout that was likely to
follow.
I remember that
not long after it was announced that the Commission was conducting and
investigation into aspect of the grant funding, associated with a staff member
of the then Minister Spence office, that documents were placed on our desks with a note requiring us to remove from the
file the original assessment report generated from the G2 database used as part
of the assessment process and to replace it with another report.
The notes were
written my Melanie Toye the Project Coordinator
Another matter
that is related and should be of concern to the Commission in relation to open
government in
While it is acknowledge that it is appropriate for policy and
instruction to be issued to public servant regarding the way they perform their
duties and how they behave, such instruction should not be delivered in such
frame work as to intimidate, constrain or misinform public servant about their
rights, especially under whistle blower legislation, and to mitigate against
public servants developing a culture of transparent and open government
At present this principal,
aspired to by the majority of the community, is promoted more as a fanciful
concept, than a genuine commitment by both the Government and the Public
Service system.
CONCLUSION
Decision Makers
For the Majors Program
2009 I do know Craig
Matheson recommended approval to the Minister for grant application and
therefore must be the decision maker however for the EOI process I do not know
nor have I been able to find out who actually made the decision as to which
applicant would be invited to proceed to Stage 2. I do know that if a person was unhappy with
the EOI decision I was told to refer the person to the Minister.
Administration of the Majors Program 2009
The
administration of this program has unanswered peculiarities, irregularities,
inconsistencies and inequities that all point to maladministration of the
program by some person or persons
The Expression of Interest Process
The EOI process was not rolled out as the process was
designed or as the guideline
suggested that it should, a method of first review.
This is evidenced
by the fact that $30million dollars was assigned to the program and while $97million
was sought by organization at the EOI stage, the successful first stage
applicants amounted to only $32 million (roughly program target) and that 97 submission were
judged to be incapable of
proceeding to stage 2 of the process PLUS the Deputy Director General
advised the Minister the Department had budgeted to accommodate ALL the invited applicants (successful EOI Submitters)
The evidence
suggests that all selected EOI submission were expected to succeed and thus shepherded by the
department in the application process even to the stage of extending to
applicant the opportunity to submit further material once the applications had
closed.
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the EOI was in fact the de facto grant approval process.
Then given there
were 141 submissions, with 57 submissions being assed by competent officers
of the department as low risk what can be the explanation for an
outcome were 3 successfully chosen
submissions failed to produce applications capable of being approved[4]
and 2 chosen submissions were so
immature in their development as to be incapable of progression.
What can be the
explanation for the selection of only 29 submissions out of 57 with low risk, then the selection of 7
submissions from 33 rated as medium risk
together with the selection of 8 submissions from the 37 rated as high risk which in no way is consistent with a
selection system based on application merit, applying the criteria prescribed
in the Program Guidelines as the Standard.
Grant applications
Then the practice
of inviting grant applicants the opportunity to submit further information
necessary to allow for a positive consideration of their application is not
only presumptive evidence that the selection of these project at the EOI stage
was flawed but was discriminative against other EOI submitters whose
applications either had no such shortfall and were passed over (the other 28 low risk submissions) or
may have, if likewise asked, been able to supply additional information to
elevate the status of their submissions.(i.e. high risk to medium or medium to
low)
The Kenmore
District Junior AFL was a high profile unsuccessful EOI submitter. In advice
provided by the Minister to the Club, short
fall in funding
was the only outstanding issue
identified as the reason for their failure to be promoted. In the brief prepared by
Craig Matheson to the Minister it clearly identified
This demonstrates
that these circumstances still existed after these organizations had
been invited to submit a grant application.
It is
inconceivable that these circumstances were not in existence when the
organization were successfully invited to proceed their EOI submissions to
stage 2 and compromised the same circumstance encountered by Kenmore District
Junior AFL a project rejected.
And finally the success of EOI submission for project located in
electorates currently help by members of the legislative assembly that belonged
to the Australian Labour
Party was greatly disproportional (37 of the 44) to what would be expected under
normal distributive laws.
All this material
must surely deserve an investigation to explain the differentiation in the selection
process.
Specific Grant Applications
The presence of
the application for Queensland Rugby
Union Ltd as a grant applicant in the absence of a submission of an EOI is not inconformity
with the Program Guidelines
The G2 data base
used to store assessment reports reveals that grant application F-034-00001 for
Queensland Rugby Union Ltd was submitted on the 8 July 2009, approximately 50 days prior to the
program being opened to the public.
The data base
file F-034-00001 contains no details of assessment comments relevant to program criteria
The list of
successful grant applicants for the Majors 2009 program published on the
Department web site does not include Queensland Rugby Union Ltd but
departmental operation material indicates the project active and thus approved as
at 7 July 2009 - “Project is still in planning phase as
Development Application is pending”
The Designed Majors 2009 Program
Had the Program been
delivered as designed then, at the EOI
Stage the 14 Ineligible, the 37 high risk and the 33 medium risk submission
would have been eliminated leaving the 57 low risk to be invited to progress and prepare full blown grant
applications.
The portion of
the 57 grant application received would have then been
assessed against only the declared
program criteria in the Guidelines
and using an objective based weighting system (similar to that detailed in this
submissions) which assigned a numeric
value.
The program
budget announced by the Minister of $30 million would have then been allocated in ranking order until the budget was
exhausted.
The ranking could
only be assigned by the development officers who were trained to make
assessments and required to declare any conflict of interest
at the beginning of the assessment process. Ranking could only be modified by
an independent officer of the Unit and then only for the purpose of overlaying
standardization to accommodate individual difference between assessors in the
Unit.
Applications
would be assessed against only the original submission material and late application would not be considered.
File security
Until I left the
Department employment (Thursday 3 September 2009) I was responsible to manage
12 of the 40 approved Majors 2009 projects.
The development
files for these projects always sat on my desk top.
When I attended
work on Monday 31 August 2009, the Monday after the publication in the Courier
Mail of the article on the Majors Program, I noted that the file for the Digger Bowls Club was missing. It was the only file for the 12 Majors 2009 projects I handle that was
missing.
The Digger Bowls
Club was one of the projects that required additional material to be lodged to
secure approval and was the only project that I was handling that was rated as High Risk at the initial
assessment stage.
No details were
left advising me as to where the file was or who had taken it.
Other anomalies
The conduct of
the Majors 2009 Facilities grants program was not the only inconsistencies I
encountered during my employment with the Unit.
The first project
I was assigned when I joined the unit in February 2008 was a project for the
expansion of the Toowoomba Sport Ground Managed by the Toowoomba
Sports Ground Trust Inc. This project involved development of the facilities
with the total project cost of $2 million.
The general
history of the project was that initially, an application was made in a former
Majors program for a project involving the expenditure in excess of $5
million. The applicant on that occasion
was seeking 100% funding. The applicant,
however, had inadequate funds to contribute the required 50% and at one stage advised Business
Management Sector of our Service Area, that they Trust faced possible bankruptcy if not assisted
with government funding.
It consequently
transpired that the trust was awarded $2 million, to be spent virtually as the trust
determined. Not only was the $2 million allocated to the organisation 100% of the total project
cost, but the funds were to be paid in advance.
My understand is
that the current Majors program is not to dissimilar
from the previous program which provided for only a maximum of 50% funding of
total eligible project costs up to $1.5 million and payment over $1.5 million are eligible only for project for special venues and designed to be rolled out over multiple financial years and grant
funds have historically
only been paid as a reimbursement
of expenditure.
.
One of the first
undertakings, I did when I was handed this project was to redraft a new funding
agreement, because the original funding agreement, which had been entered into
by the organisation and the department provided for only 50% funding of eligible
project expenditure and made no
provision for the payment of funds in advance.
The special
approval by the then Minister Judy Spence to allocate $2 million for 100%
funding and paid in advance, required redrafting of the funding agreement in existence ,so the organisation and the department could operate without breaching
that previously signed agreement.
To the best of my
understanding this project did
not conform with the guidelines for major grant funding when the funding
was allocated by the former sports Minister Judy Spence.
The project I
understand in is located in Toowoomba North electorate held by Kerry Shine a
member of the ALP
Another project,
I was assigned was the redevelopment of the
The State
government's contribution to this project, made under an election commitment by
the former Premier, Peter Beattie was $10 million.
When the project
was transferred to me, the Townsville City Council had already received an advance payment of
$5 million. From memory, I
believe that payment was made on about July 2007.
At the time I
assumed responsibility (March 2008) for the project records indicated that very
little work had been undertaken in relation to this project, and as a
consequence of the State government's initiatives in March 2008 to amalgamate
local governments very little work on this project actually occurred until late 2008.
From memory, when
I left the department in September 2009 the expenditure of grant money provided
by the State government was under $2 million.
In essence, the
department had transferred $5 million in July 2007 to the Townsville City
Council of which very little was expended by the Council until the end of 2008.
Also, as with the
Toowoomba project, the funding agreement entered into between the Council and
the Department was
hopelessly inadequate to cover the complexity of this particular type of
project and one of the first activities I undertook was to read draft a new
funding agreement.
In the
preparation of this funding agreement I brought to my
manager's attention, Amanda Alan, the quite significant sum of money that had
been allocated to the Council in advance and made reference to the windfall to Council in interest as a result of
this occurring. Possibly something like
$400,000 in interest over the period since the original advance and requested
permission to insert clauses in the new funding agreement that would require
the interest earned on the advance to be spent on the nominated project.
This request was
denied.
The project I
understand is located in Townsville electorate held by ALP at the time of the
allocation funding and I understand is still an ALP seat.
Another project
which I was involved with was the development of a multipurpose and cyclone
shelter facility at Kowanyama. From the records available to me it would
appear that when the project application was originally lodged this project was
assessed as high risk. The original project cost of this project was
in the vicinity of $6 million and at the time of my departure from the unit,
project costs have blown out to a roundabout $7.6 million.
My general
experience in relation to projects funded under the Majors program, is that
once the initial grant funding is allocated, the funding agreement requires
that the applicant to be
responsible for any cost blowouts or overruns in the roll-out the
project.
The total amount
of the cost increase in this project is being funded from government sources of
which the State is the major contributor.
The project I
understand in is located in Cook electorate held by ALP at the time of the
allocation funding and I understand is still an ALP seat.
UNIT’S OPERATIONAL PROCESS AND CORPORATE STRUCTURE
The unit in which
I worked and which when part of the Department Of
Local Government, Sport and Recreation was called Facilities Development Unit.
Files associated
with projects administered by the Unit are stored in a number of
locations. They are:-
Not all files are
held on the paper filing system, particularly e-mails, but also material
received by e-mails and in house generated reports etc which are not always
converted across into paper.
Information about
particular projects is also held within the Venues or G2 databases, which
naturally enough have no reflection within the paper filing system itself unless
specific items are converted to print and stored in that system.
Development
officers have assigned to them individual projects, which they monitor for
compliance with funding agreements that have been entered into by successful
grant applicants and the department.
It is not unusual
practice, however, for development officers to be exchanged between projects.
The corporate
structure of this unit, at the time I terminated my employment (2 September
2009) was under review but the structure at time of assessment of the Major’s
applications were as follows.
Besides myself
there were 3 other Development Officers
The staff
reported to a Manager, Amanda Allen who reported to a Director, Ben Klaassen
who reported to an Executive Director, Tracy O Brian who reported to Deputy
Director General, Craig Matheson and Director General, Michael Kinnane.
Judy Spence was
Minister for the EOI but changed after the 21 March 2009 election to Phil Reeves.
[1] G2 is the Department grant funding administration database
[2] “six applicants …..were advised….to supply the necessary information. …..two of these –both in Labor electorates-were not approved”
[3] Identified by Judy Spence in her advice to the house
[4] These
application were not unsuccessful because the allocation for the program
funding was exhausted but as advised by
Judy Spence to the House on the 1 September 2009 “two of these….were not
approved”
