The former federal government has been roundly criticised over its handling of another billion-dollar taxpayer fund, with the auditor-general finding it funnelled an extra $100 million to Nationals electorates against the advice of the Infrastructure Department.
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has investigated the management of the $1.38 billion Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF), which has, so far, spent $1.15 billion on almost 1,300 projects across the country.
Labor had accused the Coalition, and particularly the Nationals, of using the fund as a vehicle for pork barrelling, citing a pattern of behaviour with other funds, including the so-called "sports rorts" saga.
While noting there were guidelines about how grants should be assessed and funding awarded as part of the BBRF, the ANAO said departmental advice on projects most worthy of support was routinely ignored by ministers.
"The decisions about the award of grant funding across each of the five funding rounds were not appropriately informed by departmental advice," the report said.
"As the program has progressed through the first five rounds, there has been an increasing disconnect between the assessment results against the published merit criteria and the applications approved for funding under the infrastructure projects stream (which comprised the majority of approved projects and funding).
"This reflects the extent to which the ministerial panel has increasingly relied upon the 'other factors' outlined in the published program guidelines when making funding decisions."
The ANAO found Nationals-held electorates were the big winners as a result.
"Specifically, applications located in electorates held by The Nationals were awarded $104 million (or 29 per cent) more grant funding than would have been the case had funding been awarded to those applications assessed as the most meritorious in each round," the report said.
"Applications located in electorates held by all other political parties were awarded less grant funding than would have been the case had funding been awarded based on the results of the merit assessment process.
"The most significant reductions were to electorates held by the Liberal Party ($73.5 million less grant funding awarded) and the Australian Labor Party ($26.1 million less grant funding awarded)."
Nationals members chaired the ministerial panel through four of the five funding rounds, with Fiona Nash, Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce holding the position at various stages.
'Choose-your-own-adventure criteria'
The ANAO found that 179 funding decisions were also not properly documented.
There were 164 times where the ministerial panel decided not to approve applications recommended by the department.
Meanwhile, 65 per cent of infrastructure projects awarded cash were not considered most meritorious.
"[ANAO's report] confirms what we already suspected: that the former government actively ignored grant guidelines and, in the process, dudded hardworking regional Australians," new Infrastructure Minister Catherine King said in a statement.
"Former Coalition ministers made decisions on the basis of 'choose-your-own-adventure' criteria that weren't fully explained to those applying for grants.
"They did not keep proper records of decisions."
The ANAO has lashed the Coalition for its management of other grants programs in the past, including the colour-coded spreadsheets used as part of the "sports rorts" saga presided over by then-minister Bridget McKenzie.
The Coalition's $660 million commuter car parks fund was also targeted for criticism.
Former minister Michael McCormack responded to the auditor-general's report on the BBRF, telling the auditor-general "all grants were allocated within the Ministerial and Programme guidelines at the time".
City-regional divide blamed for ANAO finding
His former Nationals colleague, Fiona Nash, provided a more-detailed response to the ANAO.
"While the departmental processes for assessing and scoring applications are, in my view, sound, it must be recognised that the departmental decision-makers in that process are located in the cities," she said.
"They do not have the benefit of an on-the-ground understanding of the regional communities, and their circumstances, where projects are proposed to be located, and the potential impact and benefit of those projects.
"One of the intentions of the Ministerial Panel was to bring local community knowledge to the decision-making process regarding the most appropriate and worthy projects and, on that basis, strengthen the robustness of funding decisions."
The ANAO was more critical of decisions made in later funding rounds for the BBRF than when Ms Nash was chair of the ministerial panel.
