The opposition says 80% of the grants have gone to marginal Coalition electorates to fulfil promises from 2013 election

This article is more than 6 years old

This article is more than 6 years old

A $300m “community development grants program” is actually a government “slush fund” because 80% of the grants have gone to marginal electorates that the Coalition was targeting in the 2013 poll, the Labor party claims.

$257m of the $307m fund went to Coalition electorates, including 230 projects in the 15 most marginal seats at the centre of last year’s election battle. Only $30m went to Labor-held seats.

The funding was redirected from the former government’s regional development Australia fund to election announcements, mostly in city electorates.

The opposition spokeswoman for regional development, Julie Collins, demanded the government explain the disparity, saying the scheme looked like the “regional rorts” scheme run by the former Howard government.

In a report released shortly before the 2007 election the auditor general found that 77% of grants in that scheme’s first three years had gone to Coalition electorates, and that negative department assessments of funding promised during election campaigns had regularly been overturned, most often when they were in Coalition-held electorates.

Labor then set up its own “Better Regions” program and wrote new guidelines that allowed ministers to overturn negative departmental assessments, if they justified the decision in writing to the finance minister. Most of its funding then went to Labor-held marginals.

The new Coalition government’s community infrastructure grant program was set up specifically to fund the government’s election promises, and also a few selected projects that had been promised by the former government.

Among the projects funded are sporting grounds, footpaths, recreation centres, surf lifesaving clubs, museums, airport upgrades, canteens, new lighting and parklands.

Guidelines for the program say funding will be subject to a value with public money assessment by the department of infrastructure and regional development.

“An assessment against this appraisal criterion is intended to identify and consider the complexity of the project, risks associated with its delivery and ongoing management and the capability of the funding proponent to deliver and maintain the project,” the guidelines state.

“Community infrastructure that stacks up should be considered for government funding, but the key criteria for funding should not be the political affiliation of the local member,” Collins said.

“Tony Abbott is telling the communities of Australia he will support them only if they return Coalition MPs … this is hypocrisy at the highest level given the harsh and severe cuts the Abbott government has made in its budget.”