Federal ICAC now

Roads funding directed to Coalition, marginal seats

Case for Federal ICAC
Election Rorts | Liberal Party | QED

Roads funding directed to Coalition, marginal seats


According to a Labor Party analysis, the vast majority of the $3 billion Urban Congestion Fund went to Coalition and marginal seats in the lead-up to the federal election. The ABC reported that Labor’s Catherine King says 28% of the cash was spent in four Liberal seats – the Victorian seats of Higgins, Deakin and La Trobe and the South Australian seat of Boothby.

Labor claims the only regional Victorian seat to get funding was Corangamite and safe opposition seats were overlooked.

A spokesman for Infrastructure Minister Alan Tudge said the funding went to “crucial projects” and accused Labor of making similar decisions targeted for political purposes. “Federal Labor made election promises for close to 60 urban projects, all of which to our knowledge were in Labor or target seats,” the spokesman said.

The government maintains that many Urban Congestion Fund projects were funded in Labor seats and only one direct representation for funding came from a Labor MP.

The ABC also reported that Ms King has faced questions of her own about grant allocations when she was regional services minister. The Australian National Audit Office found she provided more than $90 million for projects that were not recommended by an independent panel, as part of the Regional Development Australia Fund.

Read more

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