Corruption watchdog’s interest ‘piqued’ by Labor’s invite-only grants

Labor’s invite-only election grant program has “piqued” the interest of the acting head of Australia’s corruption watchdog, as departmental staff were grilled over the funding promises one legal expert says amounts to “grey corruption”.

As a Senate inquiry investigates the program, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been forced to defend a “dirt file” his office disseminated about independent MP Helen Haines several weeks ago, saying it was not designed to be critical of the politician, but rather showed that “people of integrity stand up for their electorate”.

The victim of a violent car attack on Monday, Haines has had both legs amputated and remains in a critical condition. The regional Victorian MP was a vocal critic of Labor’s use of the grant program and campaigned to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate federal and Commonwealth agencies, programs, employees and MPs.

Addressing senators on Thursday, acting NACC commissioner Kylie Kilgour said it was “impossible” to express an opinion at this time over whether corrupt conduct had occurred in the grant program, but a number of aspects had “piqued” her interest, including alterations regarding its constitutionality.

“We would not [make a determination] unless we conducted a thorough, proper investigation under the NACC Act,” Kilgour told the inquiry.

Haines was critical of the Albanese government’s $560.9 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, in which nearly three-quarters of grants were allocated to notionally Labor-held or competitive seats, according to analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity.

The Marrickville Golf Club, in Albanese’s electorate of Grayndler became the centre of debate over the grant program, as it had already received five federal grants totalling almost $58,000 before Albanese promised it a $6 million grant through the program during the 2025 election campaign.

Kilgour said she had yet to hear evidence that would suggest the program should fall under the jurisdiction of the NACC and, until such point, would defer to a potential investigation by the Australian National Audit Office.

She became emotional when reading the commission’s opening statement as she shared her message of support for Haines, saying the MP was “instrumental” in the establishment of the NACC.

“We are deeply appalled by what has transpired, and I sent a message conveying that to her office,” Kilgour said.

Following the last election, guidelines for the grants program were republished on October 2, 2025, but they prompted by concerns that the original design released a month earlier was constitutionally invalid.

The Commonwealth does not have the power to directly fund local sporting and community facilities. The scheme was subsequently changed so grants could flow through state or local governments under section 96 of the Constitution.

In a submission to the inquiry, constitutional expert Anne Twomey said politically directed grants did not necessarily deliver electoral rewards.

“No, this is not about ‘being a good local member’,” she wrote. “It is about indulging in grey corruption and the misuse of public money at the public’s expense.”

The inquiry will continue, with dozens of senators’ questions to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet deferred.

Questions over which ministers allocated grant funding, the specifics of funding to the Marrickville Golf Club, and the administration of the ministerial code of conduct regarding conflicts of interest were taken “on notice”.

Following the attack on Haines, some media outlets took the rare action of discussing and publishing a background file distributed by the prime minister’s media office regarding funding requests by Haines’ office.

Sent to journalists during public debate over the grant program, the file encourages questioning of Haines over whether “$1.8 billion worth of funding for projects she’s selected” represented value for money.

The five-page file was sent to federal politics journalists in September, suggesting questions about the due diligence Haines had performed making project funding requests, and the interests she had in organisations for whom she was petitioning.

Asked to respond to the claims at the time, Haines said “the issue isn’t whether MPs advocate for their communities. Of course, we do. What I’m asking for is that all communities get a fair go.”

Political parties across the spectrum regularly provide “dirt files” of damaging information collected about their political opponents to journalists. The sheets are typically provided on a “background” basis, with journalists able to test the claims but not revealing the original source.

Asked on News24 on Wednesday whether he was aware or had ordered the release of the file, Albanese said: “Helen Haines is a good local member. She put forward applications like other members do for grants, and that’s what good local members do. And Helen Haines is a very strong advocate for her community”.

Facing further questioning on Thursday morning, Albanese told ABC Sydney radio the document was “a list of funding asks … just showing that people of integrity stand up for their electorate. No personal criticism of Helen”.

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