The ANAO Report into the Strategic Projects Component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is a gift that keeps giving. It seems the spending allocations were biased. Here is the table from the Report.
It also seems that the money hasn’t been expended as quickly as it should have been.
Many of the so-called shovel ready projects were not ready at all.
The relatively low level of program expenditure to date reflects the situation that a large proportion of the projects approved for funding were not ready to proceed; were planned to be delivered over a longer timeframe than that necessary to provide timely stimulus; and/or involved high project delivery risks which have been realised. The consequence has been that, whereas the Strategic Projects component was budgeted to have paid out $300 million in 2008–09 and the remaining $250 million in 2009–10 and each of the 137 Funding Agreements (as originally signed) required that projects would have proceeded sufficiently so as to allow all Commonwealth funding be paid on or before 30 June 2010, a significant rephasing of funds ($112 million) from 2009–10 to 2010–11 has been necessary.
All up as a pork-barrelling exercise the package was a success.
hey, breach of copyright you criminal!
pedro
27 Jul 10 at 5:37 pm
Fair use of information in the public domain
and I’ve paid for it.
Sinclair Davidson
27 Jul 10 at 5:40 pm
Gillard had the gaul to say labor seats got $ in the same proportion as numbers in parliament.
What a crock.
She better be careful or her nose will outrun her lobes.
pete m
27 Jul 10 at 7:07 pm
That certainly looks suspicious. I recall the coalition getting curry over a regional grants scheme when the dairy industry was deregulated. The mud didn’t stick though, as let’s face it, dairy farmers vote national.
But it a bit hard to argue that most projects were in labor seats, or schools or councils in labor seats were quickest off the mark with projects. Or if they were in labor seats, that the ratio was THAT much higher.
Was there a whiteboard in the Minister’s office?
Entropy
27 Jul 10 at 7:13 pm
Conspiracy is not required, IMO. Local MPs are lobbied and intercede for their projects. The minister only hears from his or her own side of politics. Safe seats are usually held by more influential MPs who will get preferential treatment.
So there’s a bias, but it’s systemic rather than premeditated.
Alternatively it was premeditated, but difficult to prove.
Jacques Chester
28 Jul 10 at 10:31 am
biased?
Labor holds 55.3% of all seats in Parliament and those seats received 56.7% of all funding
really biased
ALP marginal seats make up 16.7% of the Parliament but received only 13.5% of funding in this program.
Coalition held marginal seats make up 21.3% of the electorate but only received 16.4% of the funding.
very strange bias and rorting
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
28 Jul 10 at 11:48 am
Sinkers you only read the OZ’s rubbish didn’t you.
A pity it is at odds with the report overall
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
28 Jul 10 at 12:03 pm
yeah Possum nails this well and proper.
Sinkers caught out again
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
28 Jul 10 at 1:41 pm
this quote is a beauty
Before we get to that application data, it’s worth providing some context on what the government was keeping an eye on in regards to the distribution of this funding. Point 86 on page 46 states the key point:
In April 2009, prior to Cabinet being provided with recommendations as to which projects should be approved for funding, analysis of the proposed funding distribution was undertaken on a geographic and electorate basis. In addition to providing what was considered to be a reasonable geographical spread of approved funding, the proportion of total funding awarded on an electorate basis was consistent with the proportion of seats held in the House of Representatives.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
28 Jul 10 at 6:09 pm
Jacques;
I don’t really buy that. These guys are too self aware when it comes to votes and how to skulk around for them.
They know exactly what the geographical spread of these projects will end up looking like and the possible effect it may have on voter intentions.
We also have some good evidence they are well aware what the spending does because we saw Gillrudd pushing against the pension increase because she thought it wasn’t going to the ALP’s natural constituency.
JC
28 Jul 10 at 6:19 pm
Sinkers an honorable man would fess up say he didn’t read the Auditor’s report and relied on the OZ’s distortions.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
29 Jul 10 at 8:45 am