Reminds me of the Brisbane politician who had six figures of sports funding to hand out so allocated all of it to his local suburban rugby club (which he was heavily involved in) despite calls for it to be used to help save the Bullets when they were going under. Only years later was he reprimanded for it. Too late.

Both parties do this same for infrastructure can't see what the problem is

If you live in a safe seat you get nothing

Typical political pointscoring. Trying to shame the other side when their party and themselves has done exactly the same thing. Are they going to ask for their own party members to be sacked for that? Don't think so which shows they are just hypocrites.

Tag in off topic.

To you partisan Liberals out there who act in hypocrisy saying it's partisan behaviour by the opposition, the inquiry is actually *bipartisan* in support. The inquiry has support of both Labor, Liberals (and other independents).

That makes it entirely NOT a witch hunt by opposition otherwise that same argument says Liberals are witch-hunting themselves. Herpderpness.

My only "political" take on this:

It's been going on for ages. It’s not even about “marginal” or “safe” seats, it’s about “bell weather” seats and other “special” seats.

A “bell weather” seat is one that all political pundits love. There are a small number (max 20) that regularly change hands, and that almost always vote with the party that wins government. Kingston in Adelaide and the Fleurieu is one.

Other “special” seats are those that have been lost to independents or minor parties, or had other weird stuff happen. Blue and red parties hate losing to independents more than they hate losing to each other. I am familiar with a couple of those seats. Manly Waringah fell to an independent last federal election. Mayo was considered to be the ancestral throne of the Downer family. Yankalilla is in Mayo, isn’t it? Unfortunately for the Downers, we live in a small l liberal democracy, without the ability to hold power by Divine Right.

The best thing to do is live in a “bell weather” seat, and agitate for services including sports facilities. If you’re really good at it and become a popular local figure, you could get elected as a local independent. Snout. In. Trough. The food and setting in The Great Hall in Parliament House is outstanding, and well worth it. (I’ve only dined there as a guest, not a pollie). If you win 3 elections you get the gold card travel and overly entitled pollie pension too.

Recently i came across some polling of Canadians, that asked Liberals and conservatives whether the approved or disapproved of various publjc figures.For instance when presented with the author margaret atwood, 90% of Liberals approve, 90% of conservatives disapproved. Similar results for same sex marriage, Justin Trudeau etc. Only on one subject did all canadians unite over - the national ice hockey team. So i have sympathy for those who don't want politics discussed in this forum. Because they understand the power of community sport in fostering social cohesion. But i think it is equally important not to standy idly by while certain politicians brazenly embroil sports funding in their patronage schemes. Because this practice not only betrays taxpayers, votrrs and the thousands of volunteers, it also contaminates one of the few forums in which Australians can come together. Just because the practice of using sports funding as a tool of politics may be inevitable as some have noted, it does not follow that it needs to be prevalent. We should always resist it and minimize its occurance.

Re posts above: it's 100% right that marginals/bell weathers get more attention and benefits than those where we know what the result will be through thick and thin.

To that extent, the sports funding thing doesn’t surprise. We see a lot of this stuff in campaigns on the key battle grounds "you get $x for your thing you badly need"

The problem with this particular scenario is there is a system in place for applying for grants and they’ve blatantly, by the looks of it, given those grants to marginal seats. That’s basic corrupt behaviour.

If you’re a Liberal MP in a less marginal seat you won’t be happy being screwed, and it makes it hard to justify to your own constituents. It puts them in a bad position.

I thought it was the most wealthy. Where's the most? Higgins because of Toorak?

"Mosman rowing club that very poor area of Sydney got five hundred thousand"

The Mosman Rowers is a very nice place to eat dinner overlooking the bay. It's a very underprivileged area. The ferry dockies earn less than million per year.

This happens at every level of government heading into elections and has done since elections began.

Certain projects get funding ahead of others due to swing seats/sitting members etc often ahead of the greater good of the community.

Think East West Link in Melbourne as the biggest one in recent memory...$900million to not build something to try and save a few inner city seats for Labour against the greens when those who'd use the link live in eastern generally Lib voting seats.

plenty of other examples of this type of thing happening with fund allocations being cancelled or moved to other project after an election on a small scale.

I'm part of a bball club that had this thing happen to which delayed a venue expansion for a number of years when the Libs got back in as they allocated the funds elsewhere to a project that was more pressing! so it happens on both sides.

The difference is here, the funding was supposed to be assessed by an independent panel, but their recomendations were thrown out and changed by the minister.

The difference is here, the funding was supposed to be assessed by an independent panel, but their recomendations were thrown out and changed by the minister.

PM has asked for investigation, just then on breaking news...

#ProofThatScoMoIsADramaticLeftie

#TypialPointScoring

#ScoMoIsActingForLaborTryingToShameTheOtherParty

KET writes: "We don't have an expectation that parties run their campaign decisions past an independent panel, it's just ludicrous."

Not really "ludicrous" because of Australia's federal system of government and the fact that taxes are collected by the Feds from taxpayers based in the states and the state governments do the bulk of the spending.

Due to this arrangement - and the fact that taxpayers in NSW and Vic subsidize spending in Tas and SA - there is a raft of independent bodies who apply criteria assessing "need" and the quality of service provision in different regions. The old Commonwealth Grants Commission is probably the best known example.

The point is - without such bodies, federal-state relations will break down pretty quickly. As for this "sports rorts affair version 2", following the Roz Kelly resignation, a system had built up surrounding how need was assessed, and the criteria set for awarding projects. This system was not in existence when Roz Kelly was minister, but WAS in place when Bridget did her thing. Aside from the larger amounts of money involved, it was Bridget's obvious disregard for fiscal rules that makes her behaviour egregious.
She should resign forthwith. And Morrison and Murdoch should stop defending her.

Either you are trying to argue the Victorian state government disagreeing with federal government and deciding not to build the east-west link as a campaign policy is "corruption" - which is ludicrous, or you misunderstood what I said.

Situation for public road projects is very different than in case of funding community sports. Roads can generate $ from tolls so there is a wider array of funding options for road projects - including funding from the private sector as well as issuing debt. As such state govts can make political promises to get a freeway built because it can independently choose to tip in larger portions of state funds into the project or provide debt guarantees. Community sports don't generate income streams, which is why they are funded as grants. State/local members can make all the promises they want, it is just that they - too ften - are promising to spend funds of taxpayers located in other states. Hence the controls.

You didn't read what I posted! I think you’re replying to me just to spiel.

I agreed with Crams post.

KET
You fail to understand the difference between public roads vs community sporting facilities in terms of public finance. And that failure leads you to suggest that political discretion in one area can be replicated in another. It cannot.

You're doing a lot of writing and zero reading.

"leads you to suggest that political discretion in one area can be replicated in another."

No, I literally said the opposite.

IMO that's the clarity of the difference between a party deciding what their campaign/policies will be and where they will allocate funds vs corruption of a scheme.

A fund that is set aside for a particular purpose to be assessed by an independent panel and that independence is discarded? That's an entirely different proposition and this is where corruption starts to become an issue.

Think you'll see road projects getting completed, schools getting upgrades and the like in key seats all the time.

Pork Barreling is done by all sides/parties and has done since time began.

The sporting clubs that benefited are surely happy with the outcome and the communities are happy to get the grants/funding.

The need/want of communities is always subjective depending on a point of view so can;t really see how this is an issue seems like a blow up about nothing!

Lord Acton wrote:
"All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

True then. True now. Will remain true.

Hence the need for checks and balances politically, and an independent public service to give “frank and fearless advice... with neither fear nor favour... without bias”.

Unfortunately this encroaching politicisation of the public service (and the military too) risks corrupting our very democracy. No political party is above the democratic process itself.

We can all see the abuses of this system, by both red and blue sides. The only possible positive out of this comes from strong independent candidates driving a hard bargain for the needs of their electorates (or a whole state in the case of a certain Tasmanian).

In NSW, if funds were awarded on the basis of need rather than political utility, then in the metro area (i can't speak
of NSW country) the clubs of Liverpool, Bankstown, Penrith and even Sydney would get a lot more funds. This region has a large population and low involvement in the game - for BA it is "low hanging fruit" in developing the game.

As I mentioned earlier - the fact that top class facilities in Victoria lie in the sandbelt, where elections are won or lost, is not a coincidence.

These days they're won or lost in Queensland