In its response to Auditor-General Martin Thompson, TCF’s Board rejected his claim that relevant matters were not considered. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
The Tasmanian Community Fund (TCF) has been criticised by the Audit Office for its handling of a grant to an organisation supporting the Voice to Parliament.
Funded by the State Government, TCF’s primary purpose is to provide grant funds for community purposes. However, as a state entity with an independent board and custody of public funds, its grant processes must meet high standards of accountability and transparency.
Last year, the TCF decided to publicly support a yes vote in the Commonwealth referendum on a Voice to Parliament (Voice Referendum). Subsequently, the TCF provided a grant of about $557,800 to Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AICR).
This move generated public interest and led to Auditor-General Martin Thompson’s report on TCF’s referendum support and an assessment of its grant funding to AICR.
In his review, the Auditor-General claimed “no view on merits of either the Yes or No case” but that he had “identified significant recordkeeping shortcomings”.
Put simply, the review found TCF’s decision process to support the yes vote and AICR grant assessment “inadequate”.
“It did not consider the available guidance or seek advice as to whether it was prudent for a state entity to support a particular outcome of a Commonwealth referendum,” Mr Thompson said.
“It was not able to demonstrate that it identified, documented, and implemented controls in relation to any risks associated with this decision in accordance with its risk management framework.
“The TCF’s processes for declaring and managing conflicts of interests were also not documented in relation to this decision.
“However, a reasonable person knowing that the Board had decided to support the yes case in the February meeting may form the perception that the Board’s decision to grant funds in June was not objective.”
Regarding the AICR grant, Mr Thompson reported that no documentation was available to demonstrate how it aligned with the TCF’s strategic plan – a condition requiring ministerial approval.
“While the TCF advised the grant aligned with the defined ‘educational purpose’, this was not clear given the project description and the use of the funds,” he stated.
The review makes four recommendations to the TCF on improving its recordkeeping, grants management and regular impartiality training.
In response, the TCF Board all signed a statement that “strongly disagrees with and refutes the majority of the findings” in Mr Thompson’s report.
“While the Board accepts that its documentation could have been better, and has already introduced improvements, it does not accept that appropriate rigour was not applied to its decision-making.
“The TCF Board sought an opinion from Tasmania’s previous Solicitor-General, Michael O’Farrell SC, as to the TAO’s process, conclusions and recommendations.
“Further, the TCF Board is critical of the fact that much of the contextual information provided to the Tasmanian Audit Office was not accepted as evidence or even considered relevant to the review.”
