The Claim
“Lied during an election ad, claiming 6 councils would be eligible for $1 million drought relief grants, when they weren't.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual claim is substantially accurate. During the 2013-2022 Coalition period, specifically in April 2019 (before the May 2019 election), Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, and then-agriculture minister David Littleproud announced that if the Coalition was elected, it would add 14 local government areas to the Drought Communities Program [1].
According to an ABC News investigation published on 28 January 2020, six of these 14 councils did not meet the program's own publicly stated eligibility criteria requiring that at least 17 percent of workers in each local government area be employed in the agricultural sector [1]. Specifically:
Victoria:
- Latrobe: 2.92% of workforce in agriculture (needed 17%) [1]
- Mildura: 11.28% of workforce in agriculture (needed 17%) [1]
South Australia:
- Adelaide Plains: 10.15% of workforce in agriculture (needed 17%) [1]
- Alexandrina: 9.05% of workforce in agriculture (needed 17%) [1]
- Copper Coast: 7.96% of workforce in agriculture (needed 17%) [1]
- Port Pirie and District: 4.24% of workforce in agriculture (needed 17%) [1]
These six councils were nonetheless made eligible for the grant program despite not meeting the stated criteria [1].
Missing Context
While the claim characterizes this as the Coalition "lying," the reality is more nuanced. The claim omits several critical contextual factors:
1. Criteria were changed after the election promise: The government did not arbitrarily award grants in violation of permanent criteria. Rather, as ABC reported, in January 2020 (after election victory), the government announced revised criteria following advice from consultants EY [1]. The new criteria changed the agricultural employment requirement from 17% to 12%, and allowed the Minister discretion to approve projects down to 7% [1]. The government also broadened the definition to include "downstream employment" in processing sectors like abattoirs [1].
2. Stated rationale for councils: Agriculture Minister David Littleproud stated that the program's "aim... was to get support to where it was needed" [1]. While this is somewhat vague, it suggests the government viewed the program as addressing drought impact rather than strictly adhering to a fixed employment percentage formula. The councils in question, while not meeting the strict agricultural employment threshold, may still have experienced drought conditions warranting assistance.
3. Program criteria were contentious from the start: The 17% employment threshold was controversial even before the election announcement. The ABC noted that drought-stricken Moira Shire in Victoria was deemed ineligible because only 16.9% of its workforce was in primary industry—despite being in severe drought—while non-drought affected Moyne Shire (with higher agricultural employment but experiencing "one of its best springs in years") was deemed eligible [1]. This suggests the original criteria were poorly designed and the government recognized this problem.
4. Broader expansion of eligible councils: The government ultimately expanded the program significantly. By January 2020, it added 52 councils to the list of those invited to apply, bringing the total to 163 councils eligible for the Drought Communities Program [1]. This expansion appears to have been a deliberate policy shift rather than corrupt favoritism.
5. Program had political overlay: The ABC noted that of the 14 councils announced as eligible during the election campaign, 13 were in Coalition-held electorates and only one (Alexandrina) was Independent-held [1]. However, this observation, while relevant to questions about political judgment, does not necessarily indicate "lying" if the councils did experience drought conditions.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), which is Australia's primary public broadcaster and is widely regarded as having strong editorial standards and fact-checking processes [1]. The article was produced by national rural reporters Kath Sullivan and Lucy Barbour and was based on official Senate estimates documents released by the government, making it a well-sourced investigation [1]. The ABC is generally considered a credible mainstream news source without significant partisan bias, though it does occasionally attract criticism from both left and right of Australian politics.
The article directly cited Senate estimates documentation and official government statements, strengthening its factual basis [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor implement similar contested drought or regional relief programs?
Search conducted: "Labor government drought relief program councils eligibility controversy"
While the search results did not return specific comparable programs, Labor's historical record on rural/regional funding shows that all governments have faced criticism over program design and beneficiary selection. Labor governments have similarly had to manage contentious regional development programs where eligibility criteria become politically fraught (though specific drought relief controversies comparable to this one could not be verified through searches in this session).
The broader pattern suggests that targeted rural funding programs—which attempt to balance need against bureaucratic eligibility criteria—have historically been a source of political tension across multiple governments, not unique to the Coalition.
Balanced Perspective
The criticism: The government promised to add 14 councils to the drought relief program during the election campaign, but six of them did not meet the program's stated eligibility requirement of 17% agricultural employment. This appears to be political favoritism dressed up as drought relief, particularly given that 13 of the 14 councils were in Coalition-held electorates.
The government's perspective: The government stated the program's aim was "to get support to where it was needed," suggesting a pragmatic approach to drought relief rather than strict adherence to an employment percentage metric. Additionally, the original 17% criterion was demonstrably flawed—it excluded drought-stricken Moira Shire while including non-drought affected areas—and the government rectified this by revising criteria [1]. The broader expansion to 163 eligible councils suggests the government recognized the original framework was inadequate [1].
Key context: While the announcement of ineligible councils during an election campaign was politically poor judgment, it appears the government's course of action was not so much "lying" as making an election promise based on incomplete analysis, then correcting course once in office by:
- Revising criteria to be more inclusive and better targeted [1]
- Expanding the program to 163 councils total [1]
- Allowing ministerial discretion for cases between 7-12% agricultural employment [1]
This is distinguishable from deliberately deceiving voters about a fixed program, though reasonable observers can debate whether campaign commitments to specific councils that didn't meet stated criteria amounted to misleading voters.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual core is accurate: the government did promise 14 councils eligibility for the drought program, and six of them did not meet the 17% agricultural employment criterion that was the stated basis for eligibility at the time. However, characterizing this as the government "lying" oversimplifies what appears to have been a case of poor initial program design and incomplete analysis that the government subsequently corrected through criteria revision and program expansion.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The factual core is accurate: the government did promise 14 councils eligibility for the drought program, and six of them did not meet the 17% agricultural employment criterion that was the stated basis for eligibility at the time. However, characterizing this as the government "lying" oversimplifies what appears to have been a case of poor initial program design and incomplete analysis that the government subsequently corrected through criteria revision and program expansion.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (1)
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.