Ffr Agreements

2.28 Throughout the investigation, the Committee heard that there was general support for the FFR IGA. While the basic principles and intent of the framework are considered positive, there have been difficulties in putting the theory of national funding conventions into practice. Most NPNs (or associated implementation plans) require line agencies to submit progress reports and/or progress reports to the Commonwealth Line Agency. These may or may not be related to the release of stage/progress payments to the states. The frequency of reporting varies from year to year. There are also ad hoc Commonwealth requests that may be difficult to meet, especially when the requested information is detailed, is not collected by other means and/or requested in the short term. In some areas, there are also separate reporting requirements on related issues in different locations. [54] 2.49 The IGA FFR reduced the existing 92 payments to six years. The Committee heard that, despite the reduction in SPPs and contrary to the original intent of the FFR IGA, the NPPs and the more proscriptive payments they received increased to 51. [45] Both the Tasmanian government and the NSW government expressed disappointment at the subsequent release of the funding agreements. [46] It is difficult to assess the compatibility of human rights between setting or paying for national partnership payments in general. The amounts paid to each state vary each month when each state meets milestones and benchmarks under various national partnership agreements.

However, in general, payments made by the national partnership support several human rights by funding the provision of services in a wide range of policy areas. Therefore, neither this determination nor the payment of the national partnership in general could be said to be detrimental to human rights. 2.18 Although the survey results have affected national funding agreements under both NPs and NPNs, the focus has generally been on NPN funding agreements. 2.22 COAG negotiates and signs intergovernmental agreements after the various legal systems have committed to implementing the decisions taken by COAG. [18] The FFR IGA was approved by COAG in November 2008 and came into effect on January 1, 2009. 2.48 While the witnesses of the IGA FFR received comprehensive support, a number of problems have also been identified with national funding agreements, of which 2.15 NP agreements “define the objectives, outcomes and performance criteria for the implementation of certain projects, in order to facilitate reforms or reward jurisdictions that implement national reforms or make improvements in service delivery.” [13] 2.1 This chapter will contain the details of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (FFR IGA) before discussing responses to general reforms in federal financial relations. The importance of reforms is seen in the context of the changing dynamics of financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The benefits of the FFR IGA will be assessed before specific issues are addressed through national funding agreements. Finally, the chapter examines some of the Committee`s proposals to improve the existing framework. 2.61 The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has proposed that another area requiring special attention is the interaction between the FFR IGA and the recently improved framework for the management of grant programs. [64] ANAO stated that under the legislation, “GGs” do not apply to national funding agreements.

[65] ANAO believes that the exemption from these GGC agreements could lead to a number of contradictions, including: the IGA was the subject of extensive consultation with the States and was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments on 29 November 2008.