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

The auditor-general will consider probing a $560 million Commonwealth grants program after revelations that almost three-quarters of taxpayer funding went to Labor-held electorates, putting the distribution of public money under fresh scrutiny.

The Australian National Audit Office will also examine whether to audit a $170 million Albanese government program supporting multicultural communities, where about 85 per cent of funding went to government-held seats.

The decision comes after revelations about the distribution of grants sparked fresh scrutiny of Labor’s handling of Commonwealth funding and raised comparisons with the Morrison government’s controversial “sports rorts” scheme.

Auditor-General Caralee McLiesh wrote to the Coalition on Tuesday confirming both programs would be included in an initial assessment before determining whether to proceed to a full audit.

The Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program was an invitation-only scheme established before the 2025 election to fund projects including upgrades to sporting facilities, parks, playgrounds and swimming pools.

An analysis released by the Centre for Public Integrity found $409.1 million, or 73.2 per cent of the program’s funding, went to safe Labor seats and marginal electorates. Coalition-held seats received $126.3 million, or 22.6 per cent.

The centre found the disparity was greater when the political competitiveness of electorates was taken into account. 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.

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 Supporting Multicultural Communities program flowed at about 85 per cent to Labor seats.

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.”

The analysis found the funding was geographically concentrated, with Victoria alone receiving approximately $205.9 million.

Adjusted for electors, Tasmania received 9.1 per cent of funds despite holding only 2.3 per cent of electors, while Queensland received just 9.2 per cent despite holding 20.7 per cent of electors.

NSW and Queensland collectively received $104.6 million less than would be expected under a proportional distribution.

Opposition’s assistant infrastructure spokesman Ben Small said Labor ministers had “failed the standard they set in opposition”.

“Now the question is whether they have breached their own Commonwealth grant standards in doing so,” he said.

But Infrastructure Minister Catherine King said 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.

“What we’ve done very carefully is make sure that there’s a process by which we test, is the election commitment value for money? Is it deliverable? ” she told the ABC. “Ministers don’t make decisions. I don’t sign off on election commitments in my own seat. We’ve got a pretty clear process, and it’s a closed program.”

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

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.”

Naomi Beattie, the secretary of Rutherglen’s Barkly Park Precinct committee of management, said the town’s facilities were dilapidated and dangerous.

She said the town had lost its Australian rules women’s team because they had no change rooms while opposition netball teams had threatened not to play there because of the bad surface.

“As someone who has voted Labor in the past it’s upsetting to hear we are not being considered when we really need some help,” she said.

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.

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