Federal ICAC now

Coalition awarding non-compliant drought grants

Case for Federal ICAC
Election Rorts | Liberal Party | QED

Coalition awarding non-compliant drought grants

January 2020

The Coalition Government ignored its own criteria in awarding $1 million drought grants, with six of the 14 councils not meeting the requirement that at least 17% of its workers be employed in agriculture. Of the 14 councils, 13 were in Coalition-held electorates.

The Coalition Government ignored its own criteria in awarding $1 million drought grants. According to the ABC, almost half the councils the government announced would be eligible for grants during the 2019 election did not meet the funding criteria. Six of the councils did not meet the requirement that at least 17 per cent of workers in the local government authority be employed in agriculture. In Victoria, Latrobe had 2.92% of its workforce in agriculture and Mildura 11.28%. Of the 14 councils announced eligible as an election commitment in April last year, 13 were in Coalition-held electorates and just one — Alexandrina in South Australia’s Mayo — was Independent.

Read more about this scandal


The Case for a Federal ICAC

What's a rort?

Conflicts of Interest

Redirecting funding to pet hobbies; offering jobs to the boys without a proper tender process; secretly bankrolling candidates in elections; taking up private sector jobs in apparent breach of parliament’s code of ethics, the list goes on.

Deceptive Conduct

Claiming that greenhouse gas emissions have gone down when the facts clearly show otherwise; breaking the law on responding to FoI requests; reneging on promised legislation; claiming credit for legislation that doesn’t exist; accepting donations that breach rules. You get the drift of what behaviour this category captures.

Election Rorts

In the months before the last election, the Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money on grants for sports, community safety, rural development programs and more. Many of these grants were disproportionally awarded to marginal seats, with limited oversight and even less accountability.

Dubious Travel Claims

Ministerial business that just happens to coincide with a grand final or a concert; electorate business that must be conducted in prime tourist locations, or at the same time as party fundraisers. All above board, maybe, but does it really pass the pub test? Or does it just reinforce the fact that politicians take the public for mugs?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This