Ad Hoc grants to Calare

Ad Hoc grants to Other Electorates

Demographics

2019	2022	Change	Direction
63	61
Andrew Gee	Andrew Gee	-2		Calare

Calare is a SAFE, Rural NSW seat with a privilege score at the 31 %ile, held by Andrew Gee for NATS with 63% of the Vote

Age distribution within Calare

Socio-Economic Data for Calare

This data represents the ABS data from the 2016 census for the Index of Economic Resources. 'The IER summarises variables relating to the financial aspects of relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. These include indicators of high and low income, as well as variables that correlate with high or low wealth. Areas with higher scores have relatively greater access to economic resources than areas with lower scores.' SEIFA Technical Paper

Census data is used to distributed neighbourhoods into bands (deciles) ranging from the poorest in Decile 1 to the wealthiest in Decile 10. The higher the number and column, the more neighbourhoods are in that decile.

The shape of the columns shows which way the electorate skews in wealth.

About

Grants can be filtered within each electorate by confidentiality contract (larger screens only) or selection process (all devices). Click on the icons to filter grants. Mouse over icons or links for details.

Members get access to all grants data and all analysis. Guests get access to grant data except the most recent three months. Grant data will be updated regularly while funding continues for this work.

Full details for each grant can be found by clicking on the publication date which links to the government version.

Commonwealth Grants are awarded according to one of the following processes:

• open competitive funding rounds which have open and closed nominated dates, with eligible applications being assessed against the nominated selection criteria;
• targeted or restricted competitive funding rounds, which are open to a small number of potential grantees based on the specialised requirements of the grant activity under consideration;
• non-competitive, open processes, under which applications may be submitted at any time over the life of the grant opportunity and are assessed individually against the selection criteria, with funding decisions in relation to each application being determined without reference to the comparative merits of other applications;
• demand-driven or ‘first-in first-served’ processes, where applications that satisfy stated eligibility criteria receive funding, up to the limit of available appropriations and subject to revision, suspension or abolition of the grant opportunity;
• closed non-competitive processes, where, for example, applicants are invited by the entity to submit applications for a particular grant and the applications or proposals are not assessed against other applicants’ submissions but assessed individually against other criteria; or
• one-off grants, which are determined on an ad hoc basis, usually by Ministerial decision.

Grants can be advertised according to one of the above selection processes but this process can be over-ridden by Ministers or Cabinet. Since Jan 2018 over 130,000 individual grants across over 1,900 programs have been made. A minority of grants are awarded in an Ad Hoc manner.

The Australia Institute, which analysed grants across a small number of programs (2021), found that Ministerial Discretion had been biased toward marginal Liberal seats and has this to say about Ad Hoc grants.

The Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines (CGRG) permits the allocation of grants in certain exigencies: A one-off or ad hoc grant generally does not involve planned selection processes, but is instead designed to meet a specific need, often due to urgency or other circumstances. These grants are generally not available to a range of potential grantees or on an ongoing basis.

In the cases considered, promises made in an election campaign have been construed as circumstances that warrant an invitation only grants process rather than a planned, competitive selection process. This seems prima facie at odds with the CGRG, which require grant administrators to consider seven key principles:

• 1. robust planning and design 

• 2. collaboration and partnership 

• 3. proportionality 

• 4. an outcomes orientation 

• 5. achieving value with relevant money 

• 6. governance and accountability

The Australian Govt Soliciter summarises requirements for Ministers of the Commonwealth in awarding grants:

• -a minister must not approve proposed expenditure under s 71 of the PGPA Act before officials have given the minister written advice, which meets the requirements of the CGRGs, on the merits of the proposed grant
• -a minister must record, in writing, the basis for the approval of a grant relative to the grant opportunity guidelines and the key consideration of achieving value with relevant money
• -where a minister approves a grant within their own electorate, the minister must write to the Finance Minister advising of the details (para 4.11 of the CGRGs), except where:
• -the minister is a senator or the grant is part of a group of grants awarded across a geographic region based on a formula where a minister approves a grant that the relevant official has recommended be rejected, the minister must report to the Finance Minister by 31 March each year setting out a brief statement of reasons (the basis of the approval) for approving the grant in the preceding calendar year. If the approval is for a grant within the minister's own electorate (House of Representatives members only) then the minister must also include this information when writing to the Finance Minister (para 4.11 of the CGRGs).