The unfair treatment of applicants is one of several recurring problems with executive schemes managed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and administered by Centrelink, according to Commonwealth Ombudsman Professor John McMillan.

The Ombudsman today released his findings of an investigation into three DAFF grant schemes— the Murray-Darling Irrigation Management Grant (IMG); the Tobacco Grower Adjustment Assistance Package; and the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grant.

‘A particular worry is that grant guidelines, and amendments to those guidelines, have not been published in a timely manner,’ Professor McMillan said.

‘This is a concern because applications for government assistance have been rejected based on the application of rules not properly published.’

For example, the Ombudsman noted that after October 2007 the guidelines for the Murray-Darling IMG were amended at least five times to redefine terms such as ‘farmer’ and revise various criteria. The changed guidelines were not published on DAFF’s website until November 2008.

‘Similarly, some applicants under the Tobacco Grower Adjustment Assistance Package were disadvantaged by a rule that was announced some months after the package was accepted by growers.

‘Some deceased tobacco growers, if aware of this rule, might have arranged their affairs differently to avoid or minimise the effect of a cap on the amount that could be received by the beneficiaries of their estates,’ he said.

The Ombudsman also queried whether the design of DAFF’s Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grant would achieve its objective of assisting drought–affected farmers with significant long–term investments in farming to quit.

The findings of the DAFF investigation echo problems identified in an Ombudsman report on executive schemes released in August this year.

‘The Executive Schemes report highlighted that the design and administration of funding schemes set up by executive action, rather than under an act of parliament, are often not as clear or ascertainable as in a legislative scheme.

‘The policy documents that constitute an executive scheme are sometimes in a state of flux, or different versions of the scheme are applied by different decision makers, while the absence of formal review and appeal rights means that problems in drafting and administration are not identified and resolved at an early stage,’ Professor McMillan said.

Download the report: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Administration of various grant schemes—21 December 2009—19|2009

Media contact: Media 02 6276 3759

Date of release: 21 December 2009