Comments on: Rorts and spending

By: Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:45:57 +0000

Sinkers an honorable man would fess up say he didn’t read the Auditor’s report and relied on the OZ’s distortions.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:19:05 +0000

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.

By: Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:09:10 +0000

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.

By: Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:41:34 +0000

yeah Possum nails this well and proper.

Sinkers caught out again

By: Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:03:09 +0000

Sinkers you only read the OZ’s rubbish didn’t you.

A pity it is at odds with the report overall

By: Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:48:55 +0000

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

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:31:54 +0000

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.

By: Entropy

Entropy — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:13:18 +0000

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?

By: pete m

pete m — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:07:34 +0000

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.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:40:54 +0000

Fair use of information in the public domain and I’ve paid for it.