Federal ICAC now

Jobs scheme targeted marginal electorate, ignored recommendations

Case for Federal ICAC
Conflicts of Interest | QED | The Nationals

Jobs scheme targeted marginal electorate, ignored recommendations

November 2019

The Regional Jobs and Investment Packages was a $220 million Coalition promise rolled out after the 2016 election. The Auditor-General found conflicts of interest were not managed properly.

The Auditor-General criticised the Coalition Government’s management of the $220 million regional jobs scheme, finding conflicts of interest were not managed properly. The Regional Jobs and Investment Packages was a Coalition promise rolled out after the 2016 election.

According to the ABC, the Auditor General’s report found the decisions made by the ministerial panel were not always consistent with advice received from the Department of Infrastructure. Two projects in the NSW electorate of Gilmore received funding, despite not being backed by the department process. Liberal-held Gilmore was one of the most marginal electorates following the 2016 election and the Coalition ultimately lost it to Labor in the 2019 poll.

Four projects in the Labor electorate of Eden-Monaro were recommended for funding, but the panel did not approve them. Overall, the panel did not fund 28% of recommended grant applications and approved 17% that had not been recommended.

The Coalition released the report on November 5, 2019, Melbourne Cup Day public holiday, leading Labor to accuse the Coalition of trying to bury the release of the report.

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