5. Program outcomes
The department’s monitoring and evaluation arrangements show program activity, such as payments made and number of participants.
But they do not always provide reliable information. Data gaps, manual entry and inconsistent verification reduce confidence in the accuracy and completeness of reported results.
4. Program delivery
The department designed worker and business support packages in line with the government’s Better Grants by Design guide. The department made most support payments according to program rules and followed the required formulas for calculating compensation.
But the department cannot provide sufficient assurance for over $1.61 million in worker and business support payments. This is because the department has not consistently applied administrative, record keeping or quality assurance processes when assessing eligibility and making payments.
3. Support for workers and businesses
The program is helping eligible workers and their families with support services, financial support and training and employment funding.
But many workers have moved from full-time employment to less secure positions. The department cannot demonstrate if workers’ new jobs are meeting their needs or employment outcomes are sustainable.
The program’s business grants and support packages have helped businesses to stay open and compensate for lost income. But the department has not yet verified job creation or retention outcomes arising from this support.
2. Our recommendations
We made 4 recommendations to address our findings. The department accepted all recommendations in full.
1. Our key findings
What we examined
Our audit followed 2 lines of enquiry:
1. Are the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action's (the department) processes to administer forestry transition grants and support payments in line with relevant guidelines?
2. Is the Forestry Transition Program (the program) supporting eligible workers and businesses that need assistance to transition from reliance on native timber harvesting?
To answer these questions, we examined:
