Sports grants were listed on a spreadsheet colour-coded according to which party held the seat the project was in, the ABC has reported

This article is more than 7 months old

This article is more than 7 months old

Sport Australia reportedly raised concerns about the controversial $100m sports grant program, warning the Morrison government’s administration was compromising its independence.

In an explosive report, published on Tuesday, the ABC said Sports Australia executives complained about the program in March 2019, and revealed that the three lowest scored projects that nevertheless received funding were all in Coalition-held seats.

The report is based on a leaked spreadsheet containing the merit scores of projects in the community sport infrastructure grant program, colour-coded by which party held the seat in which they were located.

The program was the subject of a scathing auditor general’s report which found the office of the former sports minister, Bridget McKenzie, conducted a parallel process, departing from Sport Australia’s assessment of projects to skew grants towards target marginal seats.

The adventures of Bridget McKenzie have left Scott Morrison with a ghastly choice | Sarah Martin Read more

The government has so far weathered a storm of criticism and calls for McKenzie’s resignation from Labor and the crossbench, but McKenzie’s fate now rests with an investigation into whether she breached ministerial standards through her handling of the program.

The ABC report for the first time provides examples of applications judged meritorious by Sport Australia but rejected by the minister, including a roller derby upgrade in the safe Nationals seat of Gippsland, which did not receive a grant despite a rating of 98%.

Full Story Explaining the sports grants scandal that could bring down a minister Sorry your browser does not support audio - but you can download here and listen https://audio.guim.co.uk/2020/01/23-50008-FS__Sportsgrants.mp3 00:00:00 00:27:51

The report said the Pakenham Football Club in the Victorian Liberal-held marginal seat of La Trobe received a $500,000 grant despite having an assessment score of 50%.

According to the auditor general’s report, if Sport Australia’s recommendations had been followed, projects would have required a score of 74% or more to receive funding.

The Wangaratta Clay Target Club reportedly received a score of 69%, below the threshold. The club received a $36,000 grant after gifting McKenzie a membership, a fact she failed to disclose on her senator’s register of interests.

Two projects in Scott Morrison’s electorate of Cook were also below the threshold: the St George and Sutherland Shire Giants baseball club, with a score of 67, and Sans Souci Football Club, with a score of 59.

Bridget McKenzie’s office told ‘not appropriate’ to approve sports grants after applications closed Read more

The Applecross tennis club, which Guardian Australia revealed had received a $500,000 grant, was reportedly given a score of 54; while the Hawthorn-Malvern hockey centre in Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong was granted $500,000 with a score of 62.

The ABC reported that Sport Australia’s executive director of sport partnerships, Robin O’Neill, emailed McKenzie’s then chief of staff, Richard Hyett, on 6 March, asking that he note the concerns of Sport Australia detailed in an email the day before.

“Our actions have been driven by our responsibility to provide the best advice to the Minister,” O’Neill reportedly wrote.

Before the explosive report, Morrison told reporters in Blayney that “all of these matters are being reviewed by the secretary [of the department of prime minister and cabinet]”.

“Well, we have a process which I’m following and she [McKenzie] remains in the cabinet,” he said. “I will wait to receive the report.”

McKenzie has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, arguing all the projects funded were eligible and no rules were broken.

Nevertheless concerns have been raised about projects funded despite construction already being under way, the auditor general’s finding that McKenzie may have lacked legal authority to approve grants and that the program itself may not have been constitutional.