The federal government has been described as being obstructive in avoiding handing over key evidence to an inquiry into the controversial so-called "sports rorts" program, with the inquiry finding significant flaws in the management of what it argued had become a "pre-election slush fund".
Key points:
- The inquiry found there was "overwhelming" evidence the program was used to gain political advantage
- Nine out of the 10 electorates that received the most funding were identified as marginal or targeted electorates, the report found
- The committee said it faced "significant obstruction" in attempts to gather evidence
A Senate inquiry, dominated by Labor and the Greens, tabled its final report into the Community Sports Infrastructure Grants program (CSIG) on Thursday evening, taking another opportunity to rip into the government over its management of the $100 million scheme.
In addition to recommending funding for all of the sporting clubs which missed out on grants in the initial allocation, the committee argued there was "overwhelming evidence" then sports minister Bridget McKenzie and the Prime Minister's Office used the fund as a means of "gaining political advantage for Coalition candidates in the 2019 federal election by favouring applicants located in marginal and 'targeted' electorates".
The pork-barrelling allegation has been a familiar argument for the opposition, ever since the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) released its report into the program in January 2020.
The ANAO found a disproportionate number of grants were awarded to clubs in marginal Coalition seats, or electorates the government was hoping to snatch at the May 2019 poll.
Colour-coded spreadsheets under scrutiny
At the heart of the argument grants were awarded with political bias rather than on the merit of applications are the now-infamous colour-coded spreadsheets, first revealed by the ABC last year, which highlighted projects based on what electorate they were in.
There were more than two dozen versions of the spreadsheet prepared during the course of the program, showing applications that scored highly on a merit-based ranking system regularly missed out on taxpayer funds because they were not in marginal seats.
Pexels: Bk Aguilar
)Some applications from clubs that ranked lower, after analysis by Sport Australia, were given cash.
"The evidence available to the committee indicates clearly that the Prime Minister's office, and likely the Prime Minister, were aware of the use of electorate information to identify projects in marginal and targeted electorates well before the first grant recipient was announced," the inquiry report stated.
"The minister's office made substantive changes to the list of approved projects during the course of the CSIG program, resulting in a shift from projects located in safe electorates to those located in Coalition-held electorates considered marginal or 'target' electorates held by the Australian Labor Party or Independent candidates.
"Nine of the 10 electorates that received the most funding were identified as marginal or targeted."
McKenzie's testimony fails to satisfy inquiry
Senator McKenzie had long refused to appear before the committee.
Last month, the Nationals Senator finally yielded to demands and testified she was proud of the way the program had been managed.
Senator McKenzie insisted that while the Prime Minister had been consulted about the allocation of grants, Scott Morrison had not made any decisions on successful clubs.
ABC News: Ian Cutmore
)That insistence did not do enough to satisfy the inquiry.
"The committee has faced significant obstruction in its attempts to gather evidence that would explain who was involved and responsible for grant decisions (including the extent of involvement of the Prime Minister and others), what were the reasons for decisions, and whether those decisions were made in accordance with the law," the inquiry report stated.
"Documents that go to these questions were sought on multiple occasions by the committee, and individual senators, through all available mechanisms within the Senate."
The inquiry recommended the Senate should again demand documents relating to the program be tabled in the Upper House.
It also called for proper funding for the ANAO to continue its scrutiny of government programs, and greater clarity in the guidelines for awarding community grants.
ABC News: Sean Davey
)Canavan and Abetz label program an 'outstanding success'
The two Coalition members of the inquiry, senators Matt Canavan and Eric Abetz, issued their own report — labelling the sports grants program as an "outstanding success" and criticised Labor members for pursuing the probe.
"In an exercise best described as lacking coherence, the committee has sought to champion those organisations that of necessity (because of limited funds) missed out on funding but were unable to advise one project from which they would have withheld funding," the pair said.
"Indeed the ALP celebrated announcement after announcement acknowledging the funding was secure irrespective of which party was to win the next election.
"Yet the government inexplicably stands accused of 'pork barrelling'."
Senators Canavan and Abetz labelled the inquiry a "highly politicised and weaponised exercise" and noted clubs that had been successful in their grant applications had not been called to give evidence.
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMibmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIxLTAzLTE4L3Nwb3J0cy1yb3J0cy1pbnF1aXJ5LWZhY2VkLW9ic3RydWN0aW9uLWZyb20tZmVkZXJhbC1nb3Zlcm5tZW50LzEzMjYwNjEw0gEnaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuYWJjLm5ldC5hdS9hcnRpY2xlLzEzMjYwNjEw?oc=5
2021-03-18 09:38:18Z
52781441740499
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "'Sports rorts' inquiry says federal government tried to avoid handing over evidence - ABC News"
Post a Comment