Audit office to take a look after Labor accused of ‘sports rorts’ pork-barrelling

More than $400 million in taxpayer-funded community grants has flowed into Labor-held electorates under a $560 million Commonwealth infrastructure program, prompting questions over whether public money was allocated on merit or political advantage.

A study by the Centre for Public Integrity found 73.2 per cent – $409.1 million – of funding under the “invite-only” grants program went to safe Labor seats and marginal seats. Coalition-held seats received $126.3 million, or 22.6 per cent, while the remainder went to other electorates.

The centre said the disparity became even more pronounced when the political competitiveness of electorates was considered, in what has been compared to the Morrison government’s controversial $100 million sports grants program, dubbed “sports rorts”.

The analysis found Labor-competitive marginal seats received $66.5 million more than a proportional distribution would have suggested, while seats where Labor was not competitive and safe or fairly safe non-Labor seats received $116.6 million less.

The Major and Local Community Infrastructure program was established to allocate grants heading into the 2025 election from Labor’s election campaign, including upgrades to sporting facilities, parks, playgrounds and swimming pools.

But the program was invitation-only, meaning community groups first had to be selected by the Commonwealth before they could nominate a project.

The Centre for Public Integrity’s research strategy director, Professor Gabrielle Appleby, said the government had not adequately explained how those organisations were chosen, despite repeated questions in parliament.

“When questions were raised about who was invited and why, they were never sufficiently answered by the government,” she said. “Now analysis shows us where the money went, and the pattern raises serious questions that need to be answered.”

Infrastructure Minister Catherine King told ABC’s 7.30, which first reported the story, the program was consistent with longstanding government practice and Commonwealth grants rules.

She said ministers did not make funding decisions on applications in their own electorates, while successful projects were assessed against criteria including value for money, community amenity and economic benefits.

But the closed nature of the program has become a central point of attack with allegations of blatant pork-barelling.

Independent MP Helen Haines, whose electorate of Indi was among 45 divisions not invited to participate, said community organisations had been denied the chance to compete for funding.
She said the issue was highlighted by the contrasting treatment of golf clubs.

Marrickville Golf Club, in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s electorate of Grayndler, received $6 million for upgrades, while the Rutherglen Golf Club in Indi was not given an opportunity to apply.

Haines questioned why the Marrickville club was selected when sporting organisations across the country were seeking infrastructure funding.

“This isn’t about whether these projects are worthwhile, it’s about whether every community gets a fair shot at funding for projects that matter locally,” she said. “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to wonder whether their local sporting club, community organisation or council misses out because their electorate wasn’t politically useful.”

In 2020, the Australian National Audit Office found evidence of distribution bias in the scheme and that the then-sports minister, Bridget McKenzie, had departed from Sport Australia’s recommendations in some funding decisions.

McKenzie ultimately resigned after failing to declare her honorary membership of a gun club that received a $36,000 grant.

Labor spent years attacking the Coalition over sports rorts and demanding greater transparency in the distribution of taxpayer-funded grants.

McKenzie, the Coalition’s infrastructure spokeswoman, turned the comparison back on the Albanese government, arguing the current program was even more opaque because it was not subject to a competitive application process.

She has questioned who selected the projects and whether adequate conflict-of-interest safeguards were applied, including in relation to the Marrickville grant.

“Delivering on election promises is an important part of trust in a democracy. However, I think it is concerning that this is a closed program where there were no other invitees other than those who were selected by it seems the Labor Party,” she told the ABC.

Last month this masthead reported that the Coalition also accused the government of exploiting a $171 million multicultural fund to bankroll its own seats and entrench “ghettoisation” of migrant communities. The $170 million Supporting Multicultural Communities program flowed at about 85 per cent to Labor seats.

Appleby said the flow of grants was “bigger than one program or one government”.

“Public money should be allocated through a system Australians can trust – with decisions made transparently, on merit, and subject to meaningful scrutiny,” she said.

Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino repeatedly insisted on ABC radio on Tuesday morning that the grant allocation was a “longstanding practice” but did not explain why the money was concentrated in Labor electorates.

“It is a specific kind of grants program which is designed to deliver election commitments and that’s something which is specifically set up after an election in order to allow governments to basically follow through on what they’ve promised to do,” he said.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.