Allocating 73 per cent of a $560 million community infrastructure program to government-held seats: approximately $409 million.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

Allocating 23 per cent to opposition-held seats: approximately $129 million.

Watching David Pocock stand in the Senate and call it out: priceless.

For everything else, apparently, there's the taxpayer.

This week, I watched David Pocock raise concerns in the Senate about government spending patterns that appear to favour marginal electorates over safer seats. The issue itself wasn't particularly surprising. Australians have been hearing allegations of pork barrelling for years. Governments change. The colours on the electoral map change. But the behaviour doesn't seem to.

What surprised me was something else.

It was the government's response.

Because the debate wasn't merely about whether taxpayer-funded projects were disproportionately benefiting politically advantageous electorates. It was also about transparency. About evidence. About accountability.

If a government demands evidence that a problem exists and a report is produced that supports the concern, surely the next step is scrutiny, discussion and public debate.

Instead, we increasingly seem to live in a political culture where transparency is embraced only when it is politically convenient.

That should concern every Australian, regardless of who they vote for.

Because this isn't really a story about Labor.

It wasn't exclusively a story about the Coalition when similar concerns were raised under previous governments either.

This is a story about power, and what happens when governments begin acting as though public money belongs to them.

Let's call pork barrelling what it is.

At its simplest, pork barrelling occurs when public resources are allocated according to political advantage rather than objective community need. Integrity experts have long argued that grants programs and election commitments can create significant risks when transparency and objective assessment criteria are absent.

The problem isn't that local sporting clubs receive........

© Canberra Times