View from The Hill: When what’s good for the goose is not okay for the gander
- Written by: Weekend Times
We see it often: political players insisting what’s good for the goose shouldn’t apply to the gander.
Back in the Morrison days, Labor relentlessly pursued then sports minister Bridget McKenzie over
grants found by an audit to be politically skewed. Eventually McKenzie was forced to quit cabinet – on the grounds she had undeclared membership of gun organisations.
Now the tables have been turned. A report from the independent Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) examined the government’s $560 million Local and Major Community Infrastructure Program. This revealed the “invitation only” program has had a decided political bent.
Gabrielle Appleby, from the centre, writing in The Conversation this week, said the analysis found “almost three-quarters of the funding going to the government’s own electorates. Even after accounting for Labor holding more seats, Labor-held electorates received substantially more funding than a proportional distribution would predict, while Coalition and other electorates received correspondingly less.”
Read more: Government must be more transparent about who gets community grants – and why
The ABC’s coverage highlighted a $6 million grant to a golf club in Anthony Albanese’s electorate. And, it turns out Albanese had honorary membership of the club, which he hadn’t declared.
Nearly as notable as the findings themselves was the PM’s reaction to the ABC story. He went ballistic.
“The ABC should do better,” he declared on Wednesday, during a media round that was supposed to be devoted to the government’s new push to curb the worst of social media.
The Marrickville golf course (where he used to walk Toto when he lived in the area and attended a dog event) was a “community facility” that had an issue of sewage from a septic tank flowing into a nearby river. “We’re funding it, we’re fixing it. That’s what good governments do.”
But what about the membership?
No, I don’t have a membership. Fifteen years ago they gave an honorary membership. You know how much membership costs? […] Apparently it costs five bucks [for two years] to join. I don’t play golf. I’m a tennis player rather than a golf player.
And like a lot of organisations in my seat, a lot of clubs, local community based things, they say, ‘oh, we’ll give the local member honorary membership’. Apparently that happened fifteen years ago or something. I haven’t been into the clubhouse for many, many years. And the ABC chose to do this. That’s up to them. But I make no apologies for the fact that this was fixed.
Albanese’s sensitivity is not just a glass jaw moment – it may also reflect some hangover from the unfortunate “Bush Deep” podcast affair, when he came under sustained attacks for bad taste comments and behaviour.
The opposition pursued the golf course grant in question time, saying membership of the golf club costs $1,100. Albanese referred to what he had received as “social” membership.
The overarching issue, however, is the grants program itself.
The government’s defence is that the program delivers on commitments made in the election.
That just highlights how election battles inevitably distort the spending of public money. It’s one thing for rich areas to receive less than needier places – you would expect that on ground of equity. It’s quite another if what your seat receives is heavily influenced by whether or not it is marginal – open to be won or having to be defended.
On Wednesday crossbenchers joined to call for the government to change the Commonwealth grants system. They said in a statement:
The CPI analysis raises serious questions about the way taxpayer money was spent, with funding heavily concentrated in a small number of Labor held or marginal electorates. The Government has failed to explain what criteria were used to issue invitations to the program.
Under the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, competitive, merit-based selection is the default because it delivers better outcomes and value for money. Where another approach is used, the reasons should be documented and, for closed processes, there should be transparency about how eligible applicants were identified. The crossbenchers agree that the MLCIP is not consistent with these best-practice principles.
The crossbenchers urged:
mandatory, enforceable standards for grants administration
greater transparency about how funding decisions are made against selection criteria, and
a non-government chaired parliamentary committee to oversee the administration of grants.
Crossbenchers signing the statement included Helen Haines (Indi), Senator David Pocock (ACT), Allegra Spender (Wentworth), Sophie Scamps (Mackellar), Monique Ryan (Kooyong), Dai Le (Fowler), Kate Chaney (Curtin), Zali Steggall (Warringah), Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo), Nicolette Boele (Bradfield), Senator Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania), Senator Lidia Thorpe, (Victoria), and Andrew Wilkie(Clark).
Haines, who has a private member’s bill relating to fairness and transparency in processes for grants, said:
Sports rorts was pork barrelling by deception, this is pork barrelling by design.
Australians are increasingly fed up with a self-serving political establishment, and pork barrelling only further undermines trust in government and our democracy.“
The crossbenchers declared "this must be a turning point”.
One wouldn’t be betting on that. Unfortunately history tells us “pork barrelling” is entrenched, whoever is in power.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
