Official disclosures and public analyses indicate that over 90% of funds distributed during the first five months of a contentious multimillion-dollar grants program have gone to Labor seats, sparking federal lawmaker scrutiny and increasing worries regarding the process used for selection.
Senate Inquiry Set Over $568m Community Grants Scheme
A Senate inquiry will examine the $568m community grants scheme following a Centre for Public Integrity report which found that projects in electorates notionally held by Labor were favored. That review highlighted allocations such as a $6m grant for a golf club in Anthony Albanese’s electorate. While that initial report dealt broadly with the allocation of funds, subsequent Guardian Australia analysis showed the money distributed so far has been even more heavily skewed toward Labor seats, which have received 92% of approved funding.
Labor invited councils to formally apply for the Major and Local Community Infrastructure program late last year. Since March, the infrastructure department has approved $248m worth of projects. Data reveals that New South Wales and Victoria were the primary state beneficiaries of the non-competitive grants program, together receiving $189.7m.
Did You Know? The single biggest grant delivered by the Albanese government’s program was $25m earmarked for the new Bacchus Marsh aquatic centre, located in the respective federal and state Labor seats of Hawke and Eureka.
Victoria Approvals Outpace Overall Allocations
Victoria’s proportion of approvals surpassed its proportion of total allocations, indicating that the federal government is distributing funds to Victoria more rapidly than to other states. Councils in Victoria—where a state election is fast approaching—have received $99m so far, with $92m of those projects located in seats held by state Labor MPs, including several at risk of defeat at the polls in November. Bendigo West, which has been approved for nearly $7m from the same scheme, and Eureka are both under threat from One Nation. An additional $106m was pledged to Victoria before the 2025 federal election, though formal approval is still pending.
In contrast, the Lake Macquarie council in New South Wales was granted the highest number of individual grants, with 13 approved upgrades for lighting and sports fields totaling $8.8m. That council covers NSW state Labor seats and an independent seat, with NSW Labor up for re-election in March 2027. Meanwhile, Western Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland have been approved for less than $25m, $15m, and $8m respectively to date, though each has been promised close to $50m.
Expert Insight: The concentration of infrastructure funds in politically sensitive electorates highlights the acute friction between regional equity and partisan electoral strategy, forcing transparency advocates to question whether public merit criteria are being subordinated to political outcomes.
Political Backlash and Government Defense
Independent MP for the federal seat of Indi in rural Victoria, Helen Haines, criticized the distribution pattern, stating that public money should go where there is genuine community need and demonstrated merit rather than where it delivers political advantage. “Elections should not be the selection,” Haines said.
The government has been accused by the opposition of attempting to save political furniture by supporting its state Labor counterparts. Federal Victorian senator James Paterson asserted that taxpayer money was being used in a nakedly partisan way for electoral benefit, specifically targeting the leadership of the new premier, Ben Carroll. “It was bad enough already that federal Labor was prepared to use public money in such a nakedly partisan way for their own electoral benefit,” Paterson said.
The Albanese government maintained that the grants program’s structure is sound, asserting that no conflicts of interest existed since the infrastructure minister, not proponents or local MPs, made the final determinations. Infrastructure Minister Catherine King defended the process, stating that the Major and Local Community Infrastructure program delivers election commitments made by the Australian Labor Party through a one-off, closed, non-competitive grant program in line with longstanding practice. When asked how projects were selected or whether their location in Labor seats was considered, King did not answer directly, noting that guidelines explicitly state applications failing to meet specific benchmarks are not considered value for money.
Upcoming Senate Investigation
The Senate will hold an inquiry into the scheme over the next two months after the proposal was put forward by the Greens and the Coalition with crossbench support. Labor voted against the inquiry on Monday. Senator Steph Hodgins-May, the Greens’ spokesperson for democracy, stated that the inquiry would look into the selection of projects, who was excluded, and if conflicts of interest were correctly declared. “The public deserves to know how their money was allocated, who made the decisions and whether everyone got a fair go,” Hodgins-May said. “I expect Labor to stop hiding behind their talking points and front up to this inquiry.”
Meanwhile, the Victorian state government faces its own fiscal constraints ahead of the poll, with state debt forecast to soar to $199bn in 2029/2030. Victorian Labor sources confirmed that MPs were told to be realistic with their campaign wishlists and include price points, though sources stressed the state government had no influence or involvement in the grants being distributed at a federal level.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the total value of the community grants scheme?
The community grants scheme is valued at $568m, with the infrastructure department having approved $248m of projects since March.
Which state received the highest share of approved funding so far?
Victoria and New South Wales were the biggest state recipients, receiving a combined $189.7m, with Victorian councils alone receiving $99m.
Who will investigate the grants scheme?
The Senate will hold an inquiry into the scheme over the next two months, following a proposal by the Greens and the Coalition with crossbench support.
What aspects of the grant distribution process do you think require the most rigorous oversight by the upcoming Senate inquiry?
Related reading