The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) confirmed that $104 million was diverted from merit-based assessments to Nationals-held electorates in the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) [1].
The ANAO's investigation of the $1.38 billion BBRF found that applications located in Nationals-held electorates were awarded $104 million (29%) more grant funding than would have occurred if funding had been distributed based on merit assessment results [1].
The decision documentation issue is confirmed: the ANAO found that departmental advice on merit-based assessments was "routinely ignored by ministers" and decisions were not "appropriately informed by departmental advice" [1].
Former Infrastructure Minister Catherine King stated that "former Coalition ministers made decisions on the basis of 'choose-your-own-adventure' criteria that weren't fully explained to those applying for grants" and "did not keep proper records of decisions" [1].
The funds were distributed according to published program guidelines:**
Former Minister Michael McCormack stated that "all grants were allocated within the Ministerial and Programme guidelines at the time" [1].
While this doesn't resolve the issue of merit-based assessment being ignored, it indicates the decisions operated within a framework that gave ministers discretionary authority.
**2.
There was a ministerial panel with regional representation:**
The program guidelines specifically included "other factors" beyond merit assessment that the ministerial panel could consider [1].
The Coalition's defense was that the panel brought "local community knowledge to the decision-making process" that department decision-makers lacked [1].
**3.
The document retention issue was found in 179 cases, not universally:**
While 179 decisions lacked proper documentation, the BBRF involved approximately 1,300 projects across five funding rounds [1].
The claim conflates "less value" with "non-merit-based":**
The ANAO found that approved projects were not assessed as most meritorious, but the audit did not provide a systematic analysis of actual project quality or value-for-money outcomes delivered.
**Michael West Media:** Michael West Media (the original source) is a left-leaning, Labor-aligned advocacy organization founded by investigative journalist Michael West.
While MWM has produced genuinely important investigations, the organization is explicitly partisan in its coverage and explicitly opposes Coalition policy [2].
MWM's findings in this case align with independent ANAO findings, increasing credibility, but the framing is decidedly adversarial rather than neutral.
**Supporting mainstream sources:** The ABC News reporting is factual and comprehensive, presenting both the ANAO findings and Coalition responses [1].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government regional grants discretionary allocation electoral advantage"
Labor's track record on grants allocation reveals a similar pattern.
* * * *
Analysis from the Australia Institute found that across three regional grants programs, marginal Coalition seats received almost four times as much funding ($194 per person) compared to safe Labor seats ($51 per person) [3].
More directly: Labor's Mobile Black Spot Program has come under scrutiny for allocating $40 million worth of grants with preference toward Labor-held seats [4].
The SMH's analysis of $2.8 billion in discretionary grants found that "Liberal electorates received three times more taxpayer money than Labor-held seats," but this analysis covered the Coalition period and would not directly measure Labor's equivalent grants distribution [5].
The Nine Publishing analysis of discretionary grants found Coalition-held seats received $1.9 billion over three years while Labor electorates got $530 million—but this reflects both the Coalition's greater number of regional seats and similar targeting practices [6].
**Precedent finding:** Both parties have used regional discretionary grants programs to advantage their electorates.
The pattern is systemic to Australian politics, though the Coalition's magnitude under Morrison was particularly large due to their regional seat holdings and the size of the BBRF program.
While the facts of political allocation are clear, the characterization as "corruption" or pure "pork barrelling" requires context.
**The case against the Coalition:**
The ANAO audit is unambiguous: departmental merit-based advice was systematically ignored, 65% of approved infrastructure projects were not assessed as most meritorious, and documentation was lacking in 179 cases [1].
The Infrastructure Department provided professional assessments of project merit that were overridden politically [1].
**The Coalition's justification:**
The government argued that merit assessment was not the sole criterion—program guidelines explicitly included "other factors" like local knowledge, regional need, and community priorities [1].
Former Ministers Nash and McCormack contended that bureaucratic urban-based decision-makers lacked understanding of regional circumstances and needs [1].
This represents a philosophical difference about how to allocate regional development funds: merit-based technical assessment vs. local political knowledge.
**The systemic context:**
Both major parties have targeted regional grants to their electorates when in government.
This is not unique to the Coalition—it's a feature of Australian political practice that deserves scrutiny regardless of which party is in government.
**The document issue:**
The lack of documentation in 179 cases is the most objectively problematic aspect—it removes accountability and prevents public understanding of reasoning.
This appears to be a genuine failure of governance practice rather than a defensible policy choice.
**Key context:** This reflects a design flaw in the BBRF structure itself—creating a program with large ministerial discretion and vague "other factors" criteria invites this outcome regardless of which party implements it.
However, the characterization as "corruption" overstates the case—this was political allocation within discretionary guidelines, not proven corrupt practice.
However, the characterization as "corruption" overstates the case—this was political allocation within discretionary guidelines, not proven corrupt practice.