TICK TOCK goes the McDonaught CLOCK?? - 
Not aviation related but the following does ask the question on whether the worm is finally turning on miniscule McDonaught?
Via the (Oh so WOKE) ABC -
:
Michael McCormack and secret group of ministers funded projects against department recommendations
![[Image: ad265ced374e5a2b2f7835337a5c844d?impolic...height=485]](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/ad265ced374e5a2b2f7835337a5c844d?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1689&cropW=3000&xPos=0&yPos=25&width=862&height=485)
In the weeks leading up to the start of the 2019 election, Michael McCormack announced $200 million in spending under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) for 330 projects across Australia.(ABC News: Adam Kennedy)
Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and a secret group of government ministers intervened in the selection of more than a third of the projects funded from a $200m regional grant fund.
Key points:
The scale of projects chosen by the ministerial panel — which were eligible for funding but not among those recommended by department officials for funding — raises further questions about ministerial intervention in government grant schemes.
In the weeks leading up to the start of the 2019 election, Mr McCormack announced $200 million in spending under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) for 330 projects across Australia.
A number of projects that received funding were publicly championed by Mr McCormack and other Nationals members of parliament in a series of press conferences and announcements at the time.
The scheme was enormously popular, with organisations seeking grant applications of up to $10 million, and with 915 applications within the third round alone.
Under the Commonwealth Grant Rules, ministers must disclose to the Finance Minister when they approve grants against the recommendations of their department. Ministers must give a brief statement of reasons for departing from funding decisions.
A letter from Mr McCormack to the then finance minister Mathias Cormann sets out: "Of the 330 projects approved under round three of the BBRF, a total of 112 as listed … were chosen by the ministerial panel against the department's recommendations."
The explanation provided by the panel said it took into account the regional spread of projects relating to current and future government investments and that this was "a key factor in the selection process".
It said the selected projects "address key infrastructure priorities in each region, taking into account Australian government properties that align with the government's intent of supporting regional Australia."
The letter from Mr McCormack continues: "Please note that although not recommended by the Department, all the projects were assessed as value with relevant money."
![[Image: 08331d40e8bbebd6fad9d024b2717adb?impolic...height=575]](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/08331d40e8bbebd6fad9d024b2717adb?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1534&cropW=2305&xPos=360&yPos=308&width=862&height=575)
A number of projects that received funding under the BBRF scheme were publicly championed by Mr McCormack and other Nationals. (ABC News: Sean Davey)
Under the grant guidelines for round three of the program, the ministerial panel can depart from the recommendations of the department, and 7.30 is not suggesting that the grant recipients were not eligible for funding.
Ordinarily, ministerial briefings provide a list of the highest-scoring projects they recommend for funding, and a separate reserve list of lower-scoring but eligible projects.
It appears the ministerial panel selected the 112 projects from this reserve list.
A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure told 7.30 it provided an "initial ranking of projects" to the ministerial panel.
The spokesman said those rankings included projects that were eligible and represented value for money, and the department recommended as suitable for funding, based on the funding allocation available.
They said it included projects that were eligible and represented value for money, but if projects were chosen in order of the initial ranking only there would not be enough funding available to fund.
Concerns other higher-scoring projects were overlooked
Legal experts 7.30 has spoken with are alarmed at the scale of ministerial intervention in the scheme, and the possibility that higher-scoring projects may have been overlooked for funding.
"The problem may well be that there were other community projects that were equally needed or even needed more that weren't being funded," University of Sydney law professor Anne Twomey told 7.30.
The ministerial panel also selected a number of grant recipients not recommended by the department in the fourth round of funding under the Building Better Regions Fund, which was specifically focused on drought recovery.
Forty-nine out of the 163 projects approved for funding "were not recommend [sic] for funding by the Department", according to a further letter from Mr McCormack.
In that letter Mr McMormack also said: "It should be noted that the Department did not specifically recommend that these projects be rejected, however for transparency these projects are listed."
He wrote in that letter that all projects met value for money, and the ministerial panel differed in its assessments because "they are in areas significantly impacted by drought and those projects listed demonstrated value for the broader region."
A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister told 7.30:
The finance department has withheld the details of the 112 projects not recommended for funding — including their total value — on the grounds that they "contain the outcome of Cabinet deliberations".
It has also withheld the names of the other ministers who sat on the ministerial panel along with Mr McCormack...
MTF...P2
Not aviation related but the following does ask the question on whether the worm is finally turning on miniscule McDonaught?
Via the (Oh so WOKE) ABC -
: Michael McCormack and secret group of ministers funded projects against department recommendations
In the weeks leading up to the start of the 2019 election, Michael McCormack announced $200 million in spending under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) for 330 projects across Australia.(ABC News: Adam Kennedy)
Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and a secret group of government ministers intervened in the selection of more than a third of the projects funded from a $200m regional grant fund.
Key points:
- Michael McCormack announced $200m in funding under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund
- A third of the projects selected by Mr McCormack and a ministerial panel he chairs were not recommended for funding by departmental officials
- A series of other letters reveal at least $44m in grants have been approved by ministers contrary to their department's recommendations since 2017
The scale of projects chosen by the ministerial panel — which were eligible for funding but not among those recommended by department officials for funding — raises further questions about ministerial intervention in government grant schemes.
In the weeks leading up to the start of the 2019 election, Mr McCormack announced $200 million in spending under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) for 330 projects across Australia.
A number of projects that received funding were publicly championed by Mr McCormack and other Nationals members of parliament in a series of press conferences and announcements at the time.
The scheme was enormously popular, with organisations seeking grant applications of up to $10 million, and with 915 applications within the third round alone.
Under the Commonwealth Grant Rules, ministers must disclose to the Finance Minister when they approve grants against the recommendations of their department. Ministers must give a brief statement of reasons for departing from funding decisions.
A letter from Mr McCormack to the then finance minister Mathias Cormann sets out: "Of the 330 projects approved under round three of the BBRF, a total of 112 as listed … were chosen by the ministerial panel against the department's recommendations."
The explanation provided by the panel said it took into account the regional spread of projects relating to current and future government investments and that this was "a key factor in the selection process".
It said the selected projects "address key infrastructure priorities in each region, taking into account Australian government properties that align with the government's intent of supporting regional Australia."
The letter from Mr McCormack continues: "Please note that although not recommended by the Department, all the projects were assessed as value with relevant money."
A number of projects that received funding under the BBRF scheme were publicly championed by Mr McCormack and other Nationals. (ABC News: Sean Davey)
Under the grant guidelines for round three of the program, the ministerial panel can depart from the recommendations of the department, and 7.30 is not suggesting that the grant recipients were not eligible for funding.
Ordinarily, ministerial briefings provide a list of the highest-scoring projects they recommend for funding, and a separate reserve list of lower-scoring but eligible projects.
It appears the ministerial panel selected the 112 projects from this reserve list.
A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure told 7.30 it provided an "initial ranking of projects" to the ministerial panel.
The spokesman said those rankings included projects that were eligible and represented value for money, and the department recommended as suitable for funding, based on the funding allocation available.
They said it included projects that were eligible and represented value for money, but if projects were chosen in order of the initial ranking only there would not be enough funding available to fund.
Concerns other higher-scoring projects were overlooked
Legal experts 7.30 has spoken with are alarmed at the scale of ministerial intervention in the scheme, and the possibility that higher-scoring projects may have been overlooked for funding.
"The problem may well be that there were other community projects that were equally needed or even needed more that weren't being funded," University of Sydney law professor Anne Twomey told 7.30.
Quote:"It just seems completely unfair. And it's contemptuous of the people who have made the effort to make these applications."
The ministerial panel also selected a number of grant recipients not recommended by the department in the fourth round of funding under the Building Better Regions Fund, which was specifically focused on drought recovery.
Forty-nine out of the 163 projects approved for funding "were not recommend [sic] for funding by the Department", according to a further letter from Mr McCormack.
In that letter Mr McMormack also said: "It should be noted that the Department did not specifically recommend that these projects be rejected, however for transparency these projects are listed."
He wrote in that letter that all projects met value for money, and the ministerial panel differed in its assessments because "they are in areas significantly impacted by drought and those projects listed demonstrated value for the broader region."
A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister told 7.30:
Quote:"The Department provides recommendations on which projects to fund to the ministerial panel, which in consultation with Cabinet makes the final decision and may consider other factors including the spread of projects, funding across regions and the regional impact of each project.
"Not a single project that was 'not recommended' by the department received approval. All projects approved were assessed by the Business Grants Hub as eligible and representing value with relevant money.
"The Australian people elect governments to make decisions and it is entirely appropriate that the ministerial panel and the Cabinet continue to have final oversight in decision-making."
The finance department has withheld the details of the 112 projects not recommended for funding — including their total value — on the grounds that they "contain the outcome of Cabinet deliberations".
It has also withheld the names of the other ministers who sat on the ministerial panel along with Mr McCormack...
MTF...P2