What the ANAO Found Wrong with Grants Administration

October 1, 2026

Blogs

What the ANAO Found Wrong with Grants Administration

Thursday, 1 October 2026

Key takeaways

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has conducted a series of high-profile grants audits that exposed systemic weaknesses in how Commonwealth entities administer grant programs
Recurring findings include ministerial intervention overriding departmental assessments, absence of documented merit based selection, inadequate record keeping and failure to publish grants on GrantConnect within required timeframes
The Community Sport Infrastructure Program audit (“sports rorts”) found that 41 per cent of approved projects in round one were not on the preliminary list endorsed by the assessment body
The Commuter Car Parks audit found that none of the 47 project sites selected were proposed by the administering department
The CGRPs introduced in October 2024 respond directly to these findings by adding merit based processes and consistency with guidelines as mandatory principles

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) is the independent auditor of Commonwealth entities. Its performance audits of grants programs have produced some of the most consequential findings in Australian public administration, exposing patterns of weakness that recur across programs, portfolios and governments. The ANAO’s grants reporting information report provides transparency on how entities self-report grants on GrantConnect. But it is the performance audits of individual programs that have driven the most significant reforms, because they document exactly what went wrong and why.

What did the sports rorts audit find?

The ANAO’s 2020 audit of the Community Sport Infrastructure Program (CSIP) found that the $100 million program was not informed by an appropriate assessment process. Sport Australia assessed applications against published criteria and produced ranked shortlists. The Minister’s office then produced its own lists, informed by a colour-coded spreadsheet that identified electorate types. The ANAO’s CSIP audit report found that in round one, 91 of the approved projects (41 per cent) were not on the preliminary list endorsed by the Sport Australia board. The ministerial office’s selection process was not consistent with the program’s published guidelines.

The audit exposed a structural problem: when ministerial discretion operates without documented criteria, without reference to the departmental assessment and without adequate record keeping, the grants process cannot demonstrate that awards were made on merit. The Minister subsequently stood down as deputy leader of the National Party after a separate finding of a breach of ministerial standards.

What did the commuter car parks audit find?

The ANAO’s 2021 audit of Commuter Car Park Projects within the Urban Congestion Fund was equally critical. The ANAO’s commuter car parks audit report found that none of the 47 project sites selected for funding commitment were proposed by the department responsible for administration. The approach to identifying and selecting projects for funding was “not appropriate” and “was not designed to be open or transparent.” 77 per cent of selected sites were in Coalition held electorates.

The audit revealed that there were no published guidelines, no eligibility criteria and no merit criteria for the fund. Funding was allocated using a non-competitive, non-application based process. The department agreed to implement all the ANAO’s recommendations, including updating its assessment and record keeping processes.

What patterns recur across ANAO grants audits?

Five patterns appear consistently. The first is ministerial intervention that overrides or bypasses departmental assessment processes. The second is absence of documented merit based selection criteria. Without documentation, it is impossible to demonstrate that awards were made on merit. The third is inadequate record keeping, particularly around the reasons for selecting or rejecting applications. The fourth is failure to publish grants on GrantConnect within the required timeframe, reducing transparency. The fifth is weak acquittal and monitoring processes that do not track whether grant outcomes were achieved.

The Australian Public Law analysis of the car park rorts affair asks the fundamental question: why do rorts keep happening? The answer lies in the tension between ministerial discretion (which is legitimate) and the accountability framework that should constrain it (which has historically been insufficient).

How have the reforms responded?

The Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles 2024 (CGRPs), which replaced the CGRGs from 1 October 2024, respond directly to these findings. The Omnistar analysis of the CGRPs notes that two new principles were added: merit based processes and consistency with grant guidelines. These were not in the previous framework. Their addition reflects a deliberate push toward more defensible, better documented grant decisions. The CGRPs also strengthened the mandatory requirement to publish grant awards on GrantConnect within 21 days and to maintain complete records of assessment and decision making.

For grants administrators, the practical implication is clear: every grant decision must now be documented to a standard that can withstand ANAO scrutiny. The assessment process must be consistent with the published guidelines. Ministerial discretion is not eliminated, but it must be exercised transparently and documented in the record.

How can professionals build grants management capability?

AcademyGlobal (AG), the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply (CIPS) Centre of Excellence for Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia, delivers programs that build the governance and compliance skills grants administration demands. AG’s Grant Management program covers the full grants lifecycle including program design, assessment processes, decision documentation, monitoring and acquittal. For officials who need to strengthen the financial dimensions of grants work, AG’s Financial Literacy for Grants Administration and Management builds the capability to manage grant budgets, track expenditure and prepare acquittal reports that meet CGRPs requirements.

The ANAO’s findings are not about isolated failures. They describe systemic weaknesses that recur wherever grants governance is treated as a formality rather than a discipline. The professionals who understand what the auditors look for are the ones who build processes that survive scrutiny.

Frequently asked questions

What has the ANAO found wrong with grants administration?
Recurring findings include ministerial intervention overriding departmental assessments, absence of merit based selection criteria, inadequate record keeping, failure to publish on GrantConnect and weak acquittal processes.
What was the sports rorts affair?
The ANAO’s 2020 audit of the Community Sport Infrastructure Program found that the program was not informed by an appropriate assessment process. 41 per cent of round one approvals were not on the departmental shortlist. The Minister’s office used a colour-coded spreadsheet identifying electorate types.
What was the commuter car parks audit?
The ANAO found that none of the 47 project sites were proposed by the administering department. There were no published guidelines, no eligibility criteria and no merit criteria. 77 per cent of sites were in Coalition held electorates.
What changed with the CGRPs?
The CGRPs added merit based processes and consistency with grant guidelines as mandatory principles. They strengthened GrantConnect publication requirements and emphasised complete records of assessment and decision making.
Where can I build grants management capability?
AcademyGlobal’s Grant Management program covers the full grants lifecycle from program design through to evaluation and acquittal.

References

Audit Commonwealth Compliance Governance Grants Public Sector