MEDIA RELEASE
Monday, 21 December 2009
DAFF grant schemes not fair
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.
The Ombudsman’s report, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—
__________________________________
Media contact:
Fiona Skivington, Director Public Affairs
0408 861 803
NEWS 
