The Claim
“Scrapped the Building Multicultural Communities Program. 400 community organizations will now miss out on the promised funding they have already budgeted for.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual elements of this claim are accurate. The Building Multicultural Communities Program (BCMP) was indeed cancelled by the newly elected Abbott Government in late 2013.
The program was originally launched by the former Labor government in May 2013 under then-Minister for Multicultural Affairs Kate Lundy, with $4.55 million initially allocated [1]. This was later increased to $14.2 million due to high demand, and approximately 400 community organizations had been approved for grants ranging up to $160,000 each [1].
The Coalition government formally announced the program's termination in the December 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), cutting $11.5 million from the program for the 2013-14 financial year with no plans to continue it into 2014-15 [1][2]. Organizations that had received approval letters and in some cases had already begun spending on approved projects were notified that funding offers were withdrawn [1][3].
Affected organizations included Welcome to Australia (Adelaide), which lost $160,000 for asylum seeker support services; the Ethnic Communities Council of the Newcastle Hunter Region; the Alliance of Philippine Community Organisations; the Newcastle Hebrew Congregation; and the Orthodox Community of St Spyridon in South Australia (nearly $70,000) [1][3].
Missing Context
Budget Context
The claim omits the broader fiscal circumstances. The December 2013 MYEFO revealed a $17 billion deterioration in the budget position since the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO), with the deficit forecast to reach $47.6 billion [4]. The government cited the "current state of the federal budget" as the reason for the cuts [1].
Timing and Process Issues
While the claim states organizations "already budgeted" for the funding, there is a significant nuance. Many organizations had received letters of offer but had not yet signed formal funding agreements. The SBS report notes that some organizations believed they had valid contracts based on letter exchanges, while the government maintained formal agreements were not finalized [1].
The handover between departments added confusion - administration transferred from the Department of Immigration to the Department of Social Services, and some organizations received mixed messages about whether funding was still forthcoming [1].
Nature of Grants Programs
Grant programs are frequently reviewed and cancelled by incoming governments. The BCMP was a discretionary grants program (not legislated entitlements), making it vulnerable to budget cuts. The MYEFO process typically reviews all discretionary spending commitments.
Source Credibility Assessment
SBS News is Australia's public multicultural broadcaster, funded by the Australian government. According to the 2024 Digital News Report by the University of Canberra and Reuters Institute, SBS News was named Australia's most trusted news brand [5]. Media Bias/Fact Check rates SBS as "Least Biased" with "High" factual reporting [6].
The SBS article is a straightforward news report citing multiple affected organizations, opposition statements, and departmental responses. It includes attempts to obtain comment from relevant ministers (who declined) and presents community concerns alongside the government's budget rationale. No significant bias is evident in the reporting.
Neos Kosmos, a Greek-Australian community newspaper, also reported on the cuts but with more overtly critical language ("cruelly cut," "disgraceful betrayal") [3]. This reflects community-specific advocacy rather than neutral journalism.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government budget cuts grants programs cancelled"
Finding: Incoming governments of both parties routinely review and cancel discretionary programs established by their predecessors. While no direct equivalent to the BCMP cancellation was found, the Rudd/Gillard governments conducted similar budget reviews and program cancellations.
Key precedents:
Programs for Area Consultative Committees (2007): The Rudd government abolished these Howard-era employment programs shortly after taking office, affecting regional employment services [7].
Budget review processes: Both parties use the MYEFO process to identify "savings measures." Labor's 2012-13 MYEFO included cuts to various grant programs [8].
Administrative changes: When the Howard government was elected in 1996, it conducted a major review of Labor programs, cutting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) funding and restructuring Indigenous affairs [9].
Scale comparison: The $11.5 million BCMP cut was relatively small compared to major program cancellations by both parties. However, the specific nature - withdrawing already-notified approvals - was particularly disruptive to community organizations.
Balanced Perspective
Legitimate Criticisms
Critics, including Labor MPs and community advocates, raised valid concerns:
- Organizations had received formal approval letters and in some cases had already spent money on approved projects [1][3]
- The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia called for clearer public explanation of the rationale [1]
- The timing (December, before Christmas) was seen as particularly harsh for volunteer-run community groups [3]
- Some organizations had been waiting months for final agreements, delayed through departmental transitions [1]
Government Perspective
The government did not provide extensive public justification, but the context suggests:
- The deteriorating budget position ($17 billion worse than forecast) necessitated spending cuts [4]
- Discretionary grants programs are common targets for budget savings
- The program had been rapidly expanded from $4.55M to $14.2M in the months before the election, potentially raising questions about due diligence
- The funding was for a specific financial year (2013-14) rather than ongoing entitlements
Broader Context
This episode illustrates a recurring tension in Australian governance:
- Incoming governments feel mandate to review predecessor commitments
- Community organizations operate on limited budgets and cannot absorb sudden funding losses
- The "letter of offer" vs. "signed contract" distinction creates legal uncertainty
- Both parties have faced similar criticism when cutting programs affecting vulnerable communities
Key context: This was not unique to the Coalition - both major parties have cancelled predecessor programs, often with similar community impacts. However, the specific handling (withdrawing approvals already communicated to hundreds of organizations) was notably disruptive.
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The factual claims are accurate: the Building Multicultural Communities Program was cancelled, and approximately 400 community organizations had funding offers withdrawn.
However, the claim omits important context about the deteriorating budget position that prompted the cuts, and does not acknowledge that this type of program cancellation is common practice for incoming governments of both parties. The framing implies unique wrongdoing by the Coalition, when similar actions have occurred under Labor governments.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual claims are accurate: the Building Multicultural Communities Program was cancelled, and approximately 400 community organizations had funding offers withdrawn.
However, the claim omits important context about the deteriorating budget position that prompted the cuts, and does not acknowledge that this type of program cancellation is common practice for incoming governments of both parties. The framing implies unique wrongdoing by the Coalition, when similar actions have occurred under Labor governments.
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.