National Commission of Audit

What grants might get the chop? National Commission of Audit


The Commonwealth spent about $22 billion on around 500 grants programs in 2012 13. The Commission recommends significant changes be made to the administration of the Commonwealth’s grant programs including by:

  1. establishing a central register within the Department of Finance of all grants programs with complete transparency on all grants awarded;
  2. reducing red tape for grant recipients by applying contemporary risk-based approaches to grant management;
  3. decreasing the number of existing grant programs by abolishing, merging or consolidating existing grants programs;
  4. addressing the proliferation of new grant programs by introducing a rigorous grant assessment process at the approval stage; and
  5. ensuring all grants have measurable outcomes which are regularly assessed.


Grant Programs Recommended for Abolishing or Merging


Asian Century Business Engagement Plan
Collaborative Research Networks
Commercialisation Australia
Community Broadcasting Program
Creative Young Stars Program
Enterprise Connect Innovation Centres
Enterprise Solutions Program – Establishment
Export Market Development Grants
Industry Collaboration Fund
Industry Innovation Precincts
Innovation Investment Fund
National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program
Parliament and Civics Education Rebate
Rural Financial Counselling Service
Small Business Advisory Services Program
Suburban Jobs Program
Tourism Quality Grants
Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations



National Environmental Research Program
Australian Biological Resources Study National Taxonomy Research Grant



The Commonwealth spent about $22 billion on grants in 2012-13, across more than 500 programs. This total — which excludes grants for foreign aid, grants to the States and local governments, and other scholarship grants — represented approximately 6 per cent of total Commonwealth expenditure. It is also double the amount of grants expenditure in 2002-03.

Grants are used to achieve the government’s policy objectives in different ways. Grant activities involve individuals, small businesses or the not for profit sector, while others involve large corporations, primary producers or whole industry sectors. Some grants support ongoing delivery of services, infrastructure or research over a number of years, while others provide short-term or one-off assistance.

While the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines exist to provide a guide on the overarching requirements for grants administration, agencies largely determine their own practices including advertising, application, agreement and reporting processes.

Disparate grant administration practices within and across agencies can generate red tape and costs for recipients and government. While a single approach is unlikely to suit all grants, there is capacity to improve consistency according to types or categories of grants.

There is also no comprehensive whole-of-government repository of information about grant activity across the Commonwealth at present. This reduces transparency and the quality of information available to government in its decision-making.

Grant assessment and payments processes can be improved by enhancing transparency, raising the capability of staff involved in grant administration and improving the quality and consistency of grants guidelines and application processes.

The Commission considers that significant changes are required to both grants administration and the composition of grants programs. Better alignment of grants programs and government priorities is needed. All grant programs should have measurable outcomes and outcomes achieved should be regularly assessed.

New models of grant development and management should also be considered. For example, ‘payment for results’ models involve the government paying only for effective interventions. Participatory grant models provide a mechanism for engaging communities and stakeholders in deciding the structure of the grant and the allocation of funding.

Red tape also can be reduced for grant recipients by applying contemporary risk-based approaches to grant management, balancing the need for responsible financial reporting and accountability against reporting burdens placed on grant recipients.

There is also potential to reduce administrative burden and compliance costs, through the use of broad-banding grants programs (for example in research, Indigenous, family and community support programs or the arts).

Given the large number of grants programs, the Commission has identified a sample of grants for abolishing or merging. In addition to the grants identified for abolition elsewhere in this Report, the following eight specific grant programs are identified for abolition or merging:

  • in the Environment Portfolio: the Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations program; the National Environmental Research programs; the Suburban Jobs Program; and the Australian Biological Resources Study National Taxonomy Research Grant;
  • in the Communications Portfolio the Community Broadcasting program; and
  • in the Education Portfolio the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare program; the Parliament and Civics Education Rebate; and the Creative Young Stars program.

The complete list of grants proposed for abolition or merging is at Annex D.

The Commission further proposes that, for each portfolio, all grants programs with a value of less than $5 million across the forward estimates should be consolidated. Funding for these grant programs should also be reduced by 15 per cent by 2015-16.

The Commission understands that the United Kingdom, as part of a broader package of reform, reduced grant budgets by up to 28 per cent over four years as programs were consolidated and financial control devolved to lower levels of government.

To reduce the proliferation of new Commonwealth grant programs the Commission recommends that a more rigorous assessment process be adopted at the approval stage, which requires the proposing minister to demonstrate:

  • the need for the new grant;
  • that a grant is the most appropriate mechanism;
  • its relationship with existing programs;
  • why it cannot be accommodated within existing programs; and
  • whether a new model of grant development or management is appropriate or could be trialled.

This would focus consideration on whether a grant is the most appropriate vehicle and, if so, whether an existing program could be used or augmented to achieve the desired objective.

What is the #1 grant for start-ups?

12,000+ companies access the R&D tax incentive per year that yields a CASH REBATE of up to 43.5%.
This might be perfect your start up.
Do you want to know more?

Scroll to Top
R&D Top 10 Consultant Tips

Top 10 Consultant Tips to Maximise the R&D Tax Incentive