More than 73 per cent of funding from a $560 million Australian community infrastructure scheme was allocated to Labor-held electorates, prompting allegations that the programme favoured the governing party’s political interests.
An analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity found that only 23 per cent of funding from the invitation-only Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program went to Coalition-held seats, while the remaining 4 per cent was allocated elsewhere.
The scheme was established after the 2025 federal election to fund upgrades to sporting facilities, parks, playgrounds, pools and other community infrastructure. Only organisations invited by the federal government were eligible to apply.
Community infrastructure grants under scrutiny
The centre said $493 million was directed to electorates where Labor was either safely placed or considered competitive, compared with $66 million for seats where the party was not competitive.
Its chair, former judge Anthony Whealy, said a more even distribution would have left Labor-held or targeted seats with about $66 million less, while non-Labor electorates would have received approximately $116 million more.
“These figures ring alarm bells. When approximately three-quarters of a $560 million community grants program goes to the government’s own electorates, serious questions have to be asked,” Mr Whealy said.
He said the closed application process made it difficult for the public to establish whether funding decisions had been based on merit or political considerations.
The centre also found no clear relationship between the allocation of grants and household income or measures of community connectedness. It said the poorest electorates received less than the average amount of funding.
Forty-five electorates were not invited to participate in the scheme and received no funding, according to the analysis.
Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino rejected the suggestion that the programme amounted to pork-barrelling, saying it was consistent with the established practice of governments delivering election commitments after taking office.
“This is about making sure that governments, when they make commitments during an election, have a process after the election for delivering those commitments in a timely way,” he told ABC Radio.
The government has said ministers do not decide applications relating to their own electorates, with those decisions handled by another cabinet minister. It has also pointed to $1.7 billion in separate competitive grants made available through the Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs fund.
Independent MP Helen Haines called for a fundamental overhaul of federal grants programmes, arguing that community need should take precedence over political advantage.
“Political parties should not be able to use taxpayers’ money to buy votes,” she said. “Community need should come before political need.”
Independent MP Kate Chaney said the findings echoed the Coalition’s controversial Community Sport Infrastructure Program, which became known as the sports rorts affair.
“This is pork barrelling, and we’ve seen it before,” Ms Chaney said. “The coalition had sports rorts, and now Labor is pork barrelling – money for parks and playgrounds, pools and sports ovals all promised during the election campaign.”
