Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith said the ACF complaint about ABARE raised important issues about how government agencies developed and consulted on public policy.

In June 1997, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) complained to the Ombudsman because the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) refused to waive the $50,000 per annum fee required to join a steering committee it convened to provide a ‘sounding board’ and data and technical advice for its GIGABARE climate change model.

GIGABARE and MEGABARE are climate change economic models which analyse the economic effects of greenhouse gas emission policy.

Ms Smith said: ‘In my opinion ABARE’s climate change modelling is best characterised as a public good and relates to important public policy issues.

‘Any Steering Committee or consultative process with these responsibilities should strive for a balance of interests and technical skills rather than being a mechanism for fund raising.’

Ms Smith said the case also highlighted the importance of planning and protocols in the receipt, acknowledgment and use of external funding or sponsorship by agencies allowing outside involvement in developing important public policy issues.

‘Recent Commonwealth Governments have set external funding targets for some public sector agencies, with only limited guidance to ensure transparency and avoid conflicts of interest,’ Ms Smith said.

‘This case clearly demonstrates the need for better across government and agency specific guidelines for agencies administering externally funded projects like MEGABARE and GIGABARE.’

The ACF complained to the Ombudsman that:

• ABARE had not disclosed the source of its research funding in key documents, public statements and where it was clearly appropriate to do so.
• ABARE had no guidelines and protocols for the use of private sector funds, and in particular those privately funded projects used to advise the Government.
• The MEGABARE and GIGABARE steering committees were not accessible to organisations without significant financial resources. And therefore it would be reasonable to perceive that ABARE’s role in assisting and advising on Government policy could be weighted in favour of business interests.

The findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that ABARE primarily constituted the steering committees to raise additional revenue for the projects, and that this fund raising focus largely explained ABARE’s limited efforts to involve environmental and other non government organisations in the committees.

The Ombudsman’s investigation also concluded that:

• The composition of the MEGABARE and GIGABARE committees did not adequately conform to the characteristics of a government steering committee dealing with an important – and controversial – public policy matter. In particular that the development of the steering committee did not ensure a balance of views and technical skills.
• The membership fees were exclusionary in their effect.
• It was not appropriate for ABARE to use the term ‘steering committee’ to describe the MEGABARE and GIGABARE committees.
• ABARE’s intentions for the MEGABARE and GIGABARE committees would have been more appropriately characterised at the outset as ‘sponsors committees for funding representatives’. However, the use of the term ‘Steering Committee’, and the associated explanation as to its role allowed an ambiguity and the possible creation of an expectation of membership influence on issues affecting public policy.
• The greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies are an important matter of public policy and any steering committee or consultative process should include a balance of community interests.

Ms Smith said: ‘ABARE now concedes that it should not have used this fund raising mechanism if it had known the ‘misunderstandings’ and ‘political use’ that would be made of the funding arrangements.

‘ABARE has told us that the GIGABARE steering committee will cease and be renamed as a ‘Sponsors Advisory Committee’ and acknowledge that such an approach to its research projects needs to be carefully considered in the future.’

Ms Smith said: ‘I accept ABARE’s response as being one of a range of steps necessary to ensure greater transparency of process. I also understand that the Bureau took these actions within the context of the Government’s 40 per cent target for research funds from external sources. But the use of the ‘steering committee’ as a funding mechanism, in my opinion, represented poor judgement and planning for the development of government policy.’

Our review did not address the technical aspects or the professional integrity of ABARE’s economic modelling, however, ABARE did not fulfil normal expectations for a public sector steering committee when establishing its committees for MEGABARE and GIGABARE.

But by not allowing adequate and balanced community input, and by not accurately declaring the sources of its funding in its climate change report, the Bureau has compromised the credibility of this work,’ Ms Smith said.

In my opinion, given the nature of the ‘steering committees’, ABARE’s distinction between model building and policy research does not reasonably remove its obligation to acknowledge industry funding in its research publications, and the contributions of industry and other government agencies in the development of the MEGABARE model.

In particular, given the significant role Australian industry played in supporting and funding the development of the MEGABARE model, I have recommended that ABARE should disclose all sources of external funding in those research publications based on its climate change models.’

The Ombudsman also recommended that ABARE should retract their citation of Professor Dixon and his staff as external reviewers.

Media Contact

Media 02 6276 3759
Email – Media@ombudsman.gov.au

Date of release: 4 February 1998