The bureaucratic implications of this number of audits are obvious and the Working Group felt that there was no fundamental reason why the confidence gained by a review process, particularly when linked to a pre-qualification process, could not be distributed among the various funding agencies that have a relationship with this community sector organization. In particular, such a recommendation would support the 30 or so major ACT community sector organizations, which together account for about 77% of total funding. Public hospitals across the country will be funded in record terms for the next five years, after all states and territories signed the Morrison government`s new health system reform agreement. This record-breaking funding agreement will provide more doctors, more nurses and more services in public hospitals in all states and territories. There is anecdotal evidence from the Community sector that there are some Community sector organisations that prefer the use of this unique, universally used instrument on the basis of greater security in their funding than other instruments. In practice, this is unlikely and both the Community sector and the government must make substantial savings if the current universal instrument is replaced by a small number of instruments better suited to the needs of the funding regime. This principle applies to both non-borrowing and purchase agreements, and both are discussed below. The next instrument in the hierarchy is a risk allocation instrument. The difference between this instrument and the low-risk subsidy is only greater attention to dealing with risk issues that may relate to the proposed funding agreement. The working group estimated that a fictitious threshold of USD 400,000 could be set for this instrument, taking into account the risks that may relate to the award on a case-by-case basis.
One of the problems with the bureaucracy forum has been the overlapping audit requirements of the regulator and the various aid programmes. These overlapping requirements mean that an organization with funding for six or seven ACT government funding programs is required to conduct this number of audits, as well as the regulatory authority`s audit requirements and the audit requirements of an Australian government funding program. There are currently 54 organizations funded between $100,000 and $400,000 per year for a total value of $11.2 million, or about 8% of total sector funding. However, many of the funding agreements between $100,000 and $400,000 are a contracting agreement, so a low-risk instrument would not be applicable. In practice, it is likely that no more than fifteen to twenty organizations in this funding sector would be eligible for non-supply support. Given the value of the pre-qualification process, which is carried out in conjunction with other proposed reforms for contracting, the use of community sector consultations and co-development for purchase amounts in excess of, say, $500,000, there does not appear to be a significant increase in the risk for the territory to increase the maximum duration of a service funding agreement to five years. Management works with non-governmental organizations to provide a number of services to individuals and community groups in the ACT. These cooperations with non-governmental organizations are managed by service funding agreements that define key liability obligations, performance requirements, results and financial resources to be paid by management.