Letter to Anthony Albanese 20 Jan 2023    Terms and Documents     Discussion Paper    Annexure A    Annexure B  

Pork-barrelling - Adverse Consequences

a)     the allocation by elected governments of public funds and resources to target electors for partisan political purposes,  

b)      using public money to target certain voters for political gain is wasteful and undermines trust in governments.

Pork-barrelling is governments spending the Public Purse to win votes to retain office and thereby corrupts electoral politics.

"Hoare defines pork barrelling as the ‘selective geographical allocation of publicly- controlled funds and resources for the purpose of gaining votes from electors in the locations so advantaged’. Leigh similarly defines pork barrelling as ‘the practice of targeting expenditure to particular districts based on political considerations’. This paper defines pork barrelling as the distribution of public resources to targeted electors for partisan purposes."

Refer the following articles drawn from Attachment A, in particular the findings of ICAC NSW.

 56.  There’s every reason politicians’ pork-barrelling should be made illegal - The Age -  5 July 2021 includes:

               "There is a long history of such pork-barrelling by both sides of politics. The most recent high-profile case involved Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie. She approved $100 million in grants for community sporting facilities shortly before the last election. The Auditor-General found that the senator’s office ran a parallel selection process – focused, again unsurprisingly, on marginal electorates – to the merit-based process run by Sport Australia."
"With the Auditor-General and the parliamentary committee system in place to catch such blatant abuses of taxpayer money for political advantage, it has to be asked what more can be done to dissuade politicians from misusing taxpayer funds."

     But Australians are rightly disgusted by this practice. The ABC’s recent Australia Talks survey showed 77 per cent of us believe politicians should resign over pork-barrelling. It is a practice by which politicians mis-spend public money for their own private political benefit. The Age is happy to call this for what it is: corruption. It should be illegal and come under the purview of an anti-corruption commission.

 57.  ‘It could never have been built’: Labor pinpoints holes in the pork barrel   Tom Cowie  -  SMH - July 3, 2021

130. A ‘cancer on our democracy’: How to fix Australia’s pork-barrelling crisis - SMH  -  Jessica Irvine  April 26, 2022

               "Legislation should require both major parties to submit complete lists of their election policy and spending proposals to the PBO prior to the start of the election campaign. The PBO should publish these lists – along with full costings – as soon as possible during the campaign so that voters and journalists alike can thoroughly investigate and analyse the proposals on offer.

               Not only would voters be more informed, such a process of public scrutiny – facilitated by the parliament – would drive the development of better policy proposals in the first place – or, at least, ones less blatantly skewed to marginal electorates."

143. Bridget McKenzie's sport grant cash splash is a particularly brazen example of pork-barrelling - ABC News - 16 Jan 2020

"There's no hiding what was going on

First is the scale of ministerial intervention. The Minister ignored the recommendations of the independent experts at a far higher rate.

In round 3 of this program, the auditor-general found "73 per cent of the approved projects had not been recommended by Sport Australia".

Second is the frank admission by the Minister's office of what went on. According to the auditor-general, "the award of funding reflected the approach documented by the Minister's Office of focusing on 'marginal' electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates held by other parties or independent members that were to be 'targeted' by the Coalition".

144. Bridget McKenzie facing calls to quit after auditors condemn 'biased' sports cash splash  - ABC News -  16 Jan 2020

145. $100m sport grant scheme 'illegal' according to former senior government lawyer – ABC News - 22 Nov 2019

·         A former senior government legal advisor claims the controversial sport grant scheme is "illegal"

·         He argues the Sports Commission Act does not allow the minister to be delegated the power to approve grants

Ian Cunliffe, who worked for more than a decade in government (as a lawyer) and now advises a constitutional law centre at the University of Melbourne, argues the Community Sport Infrastructure scheme "pretty clearly was illegal" because the relevant legislation does not allow the minister to be given Sport Australia's power to choose grants.

Upon hearing this, Mr Cunliffe — with decades of providing advice establishing schemes and applying for grants — thought such an arrangement was unusual.

Section 54 of the Sports Commission Act sets out to whom Sport Australia can delegate its powers, such as choosing grants. The Sports Minister is not listed.

146.  Pork-barrelling is unfair and wasteful. Here’s a plan to end it  The Conversation -  Aug 22, 2022

"So how can we put a stop to the seemingly irresistible temptation to roll out ever more grants? Let’s start with an open, competitive, merit-based process for allocating government grants that establishes clear guardrails around ministerial discretion.

A better process for allocation and oversight of grants

Ministers should be able to establish grant programs and define the selection criteria, but they should not be involved in choosing grant recipients. Shortlisting and selecting grant recipients is an administrative function for the relevant department or agency.

A multi-party standing parliamentary committee should oversee compliance and interrogate any minister or public official who deviates from the rules. And funding for federal and state auditors-general should be increased to enable wider and more frequent auditing of grant programs.

A strong and well-resourced integrity commission is the last line of defence against pork-barrelling. Better processes and oversight should significantly reduce the opportunities and incentives for governments to engage in pork-barrelling in the first place.

If pork-barrelling continues, an integrity commission may choose to investigate. A recent report from the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption concluded that pork-barrelling “can under certain circumstances involve serious breaches of public trust and conduct that amounts to corrupt conduct”.

Better processes and oversight of grant funding, alongside the other recommendations in our New Politics series of reports, would lay the foundations for a new way of doing politics in Australia – one that safeguards the public interest from political interests."

154. "ICAC finds pork barrelling could be corrupt, recommends grant funding guidelines be subject to statutory regulation."

155. Costs blow out on Coalition parking projects funded without full scoping - SMH - Farrah Tomazin  July 1, 2021

156. New politics Preventing pork-barrelling - Grattan institute - Aug 2022 - Danielle Wood, Kate Griffiths, and Anika Stobart

159. Pork barrelling can constitute corrupt conduct and could lead to criminal charges, ICAC says – The Guardian - Anne Davies  Mon 1 Aug 2022

               "Pork barrelling – the practice of allocating government grants for partisan political purposes – can constitute corrupt conduct, the New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption has warned, calling for much stricter rules on grants.

               In its report on pork barrelling in NSW, ICAC said a minister could be engaging in corrupt conduct and open to criminal charges if they engage in pork barrelling."

               “In circumstances where pork barrelling is serious and willful, it may constitute conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, such that criminal punishment is warranted,” ICAC said.

163. A battle to provide suburban railway station car parks has left taxpayers with a $660 million bill and precious little extra parking - SMH - Shane Wright - 3 July 2021

     "A few hours later, the Auditor-General’s office released its report into the administration of commuter car park projects within the Urban Congestion Fund, revealing huge problems in the $660 million program. 
A nationwide program to reduce “congestion” across suburban Australia managed to channel most of its cash into a handful of Liberal Party seats that were more at risk of being won by Labor than overwhelmed by parked cars.

     That single report, plus others over recent months from the Auditor-General, highlight the widening gap between the rhetoric of restrained spending and the practices of the federal government."

164. Factsheet: Pork Barrelling -  The Institute of Internal Auditors - Australia - 2018

165. $252 million fund designed to win seats and punish councils, inquiry finds - SMH  -  Angus Thompson - 30 March 2021

     "A $252 million grants fund handled by the Berejiklian government was deliberately devised to accommodate pork-barrelling, punish councils who objected to forced amalgamations, and win seats ahead of the 2019 state election, an inquiry has found."

166. Multibillion-dollar federal fund didn’t award money on merit, audit finds - The Age - Tina Jacks - 28 June 2021

167. What is the Bridget McKenzie scandal about?  Bridget McKenzie might have to quit federal cabinet and her deputy leadership of the Nationals over her handling of a sports grants program.  Here's why.

168. The Regulation of Pork Barrelling in Australia - Susanna Connolly - BA/LLB (Hons), TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland