Procurement Controversy de jure (Australia): No solicitation, no barrier?

Scientists, conservation groups welcome senators' call for Great Barrier Reef cash to be returned Evidently, in this story, the Australian Government entered into a Foundation Partnership Agreement with privately run not-for-profit Great Barrier Reef Foundation, granting it approximately A$$444 million.

Perhaps this was not a unique government grant.

"The Queensland Government today (Sunday) announced it would provide $3 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation over the next three years, provided the private sector and philanthropists match it dollar for dollar to fund projects that will boost the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.

Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, National Parks and the Great Barrier Reef Dr Steven Miles said the Great Barrier Reef Foundation had been working with the private sector for many years to boost investment into Reef science and management and has plans to increase its fundraising efforts, including through a number of new philanthropic programs."

Nor was government the only, or necessarily largest, donor:

BHP Billiton and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation today announced a new $7 million partnership to support critical marine research and rehabilitation works at remote Raine Island, and the development of an overarching reef-wide ‘Reef Resilience Framework.’ The partnership was announced by BHP Billiton’s President, Coal, Mr Mike Henry and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s Managing Director, Ms Claire Hanratty.

This research investment will enable the development of an overarching ‘Reef Resilience Framework’ to direct critical research that bolsters the Reef’s ability to adapt to all the threats it faces, including climate change risks. Mr Henry said BHP Billion was extraordinarily proud of the partnership because it would underpin critical research into environmental sustainability and biodiversity.

Nevertheless, the Australian government's grant has stirred up a bit dust-up over the Great Barrier Reef. As the lead story above (see link) reported,

"an inquiry led by Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson zeroed in on the controversial funding arrangement which was made without the foundation soliciting it or going through a competitive tender process. As a result, the committee recommended that the money be returned to the federal government. Senator Whish-Wilson said there was significant shortcomings with the intent, design and proposed implementation of the Foundation Partnership Agreement. "The granting of $444 million to the Foundation was a highly irresponsible decision, hastily concocted by relevant ministers, without proper consideration of risks and potential effectiveness, no consultation with key stakeholders, and without having undertaken due diligence,"

The story also reported,

"Australian Marine Conservation Society campaigner David Cazzulino said the government had made a "big mistake" when it gave the funds to the private foundation. “We support the money being handed back but want it to go to a transparent, open and accountable special purpose fund," he said. "The new fund should be in public hands and provide a long term commitment to invest in the health of the Reef in the face of escalating climate change."

As is so often the case, the processes by which this decision was made can get wrapped around the axle of procurement requirements, whatever the altruistic (or other) motive may be.

'Highly irresponsible': Senate calls for Great Barrier Reef Foundation to return money

A Senate committee examining the government’s decision to award $443.3m to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has recommended unspent funds from the controversial grant be returned to the commonwealth and reserved for future reef projects; at the very least, if the government decides to maintain the funding arrangement, it should take all necessary steps to ensure the foundation can't invest in anything that directly or indirectly contributes to climate change.. The final report, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, calls the awarding of the grant last year “a highly irresponsible decision, hastily concocted by relevant ministers” and calls for a fresh review of the structure of all government funding meant to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

This grant was a desperate attempt to cover up this government’s legacy of reef mismanagement, years of chronic underfunding and disregard for climate change, in the context of an imminent world heritage ‘in danger’ listing,” the committee’s chair, Peter Whish-Wilson, said.
Great Barrier Reef Foundation awards first funding – to a government agency “It was clearly a political decision made with no consultation, due diligence or regard for proper process.”

The report also noted "that the “‘off-the-cuff decision has caused massive disruption to existing policy and program delivery, including by existing government agencies" and recommended that "the most appropriate action would be to “terminate the foundation partnership”. “The committee believes this is necessary to help restore trust in the process of commonwealth funding for the reef, if not the entire commonwealth grants process,” the report says.

Coalition senators issued a dissenting report, saying there had been "exceptional transparency" around the grant and rejected the majority of the Senate report's findings.

Marine Biologist and director of science at the Great Barrier Reef Legacy Dean Miller said "they were super keen to see some action take place".

Going back to that first article above, "What needs to happen is a very quick response into what is going on, especially leading into another bleaching year."