Taxpayer Money, Party Dividends

Few political rituals are as predictable as the sudden discovery of deep community need in electorates holding upcoming elections. When public money flows through non-competitive grant programs, the magic of distribution almost invariably aligns with party boundaries. Australia’s governing Labor Party has demonstrated this ancient art with impressive efficiency, directing 92 percent of approved funds from a $568 million federal infrastructure scheme into its own electorates.

Out of $248 million approved since March under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure program, the vast majority has landed safely in red-shaded districts on the electoral map. The program—a closed, non-competitive arrangement designed to fulfill Labor’s campaign promises—has predictably drawn scrutiny. Earlier analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity already highlighted curious choices, such as a $6 million allocation for a golf club in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s own seat. Fresh analysis reveals that the pattern is not an anomaly, but the blueprint.

Nowhere is this targeted benevolence clearer than in Victoria, where a state election looms in November. Victorian councils have already secured $99 million from the program, with $92 million directed straight into seats represented by state Labor MPs—several of whom face stiff challenges at the polls. The largest single grant distributed under the scheme, a cool $25 million for an aquatic centre in Bacchus Marsh, conveniently lands in electorates where Labor faces pressure from One Nation. This federal influx arrives just as the Victorian state government finds itself constrained by a looming state debt forecast to hit $199 billion by 2030, forcing state Labor MPs to trim their local campaign wishlists.

When challenged on how non-competitive grants managed to achieve such remarkable partisan precision, the Albanese government retreated into bureaucratic tautology. Infrastructure Minister Catherine King defended the program’s design as sound, emphasizing that final decisions rested with her rather than local advocates, noting that the scheme simply delivers the election commitments made by the Australian Labor Party through a one-off, closed, non-competitive grant program, in line with longstanding practice.

Naturally, opposition parties and crossbenchers view the arrangement less as sound governance and more as federal subsidisation of endangered state colleagues. An incoming Senate inquiry, forced through by a coalition of the Greens, the Coalition, and crossbench senators over Labor’s objections, will examine project selection and conflict declarations over the coming months. Independent MP Helen Haines summarized the issue, pointing out that public money ought to target genuine merit rather than electoral advantage. Yet as long as ministers retain absolute discretion to rubber-stamp party promises under the guise of local infrastructure, taxpayers will continue funding their leaders' political self-preservation.

Written by Freya Stensrud freya.stensrud@alpineweekly.com