Although DTF collects COVID-19 spend data from departments, it is not actively monitoring this. Without central oversight, it is difficult to understand how well the state is managing its overall COVID-19 spend.
Due to the speed with which they set up their COVID-19 grants programs, DJPR and DHHS did not implement effective fraud controls at the start. Although they made improvements over time, there is a risk that internal reviews have not uncovered all cases of suspected fraud. In contrast, DoT and DPC minimised the risk of fraud and waste by building controls into the grant application process and monitoring how grants were used. However, most departments could improve how they consider conflicts of interest in grants management.
Most departments had weaknesses in their COVID-19 procurements, such as incomplete and missing documentation, frequent use of quotes from single suppliers and inadequate consideration of conflicts of interest. This means these departments cannot be sure that material fraud, corruption and waste did not occur.
Departments needed to act quickly to respond to COVID-19, such as by buying essential medical supplies and setting up support programs. To fund these unexpected costs, the Victorian Government announced a range of new funding initiatives. These included extra funding for the health system and grants for businesses affected by public health restrictions.
FIGURE D1: FFG Act objectives
| Objectives (section 4(a)–(d)) |
|---|
|
(a) to guarantee that all taxa of Victoria's flora and fauna can persist and improve in the wild and retain their capacity to adapt to environmental change |
| Who we audited | What we assessed | What the audit cost |
|---|---|---|
|
DELWP |
| Acronyms | |
|---|---|
| BP3 | Budget Paper No. |
Click the link below to download a PDF copy of Appendix A. Submissions and comments.
DELWP’s limited use of legislative tools means that the inclusion of a species on the FFG Act Threatened List does not guarantee its protection. DELWP has better-practice tools to support its decision making to protect threatened species. However, gaps in data underpinning these tools limits confidence in their outputs.
DELWP lacks a transparent process to prioritise critically endangered species for protection. This is a critical gap in DELWP's approach to prevent further species extinctions.
DELWP cannot demonstrate that it is halting the decline of threatened species.
DELWP cannot determine if its prioritised Biodiversity 2037 management interventions have adequately controlled key threats and are halting further threatened species population declines. This is because of flaws in its KPIs and its lack of a targeted monitoring program to assess the on-ground impact of its prioritised management interventions on threatened species populations.