EGEGazette
Live
Houthis Accuse Saudi Arabia of 28 Airstrikes in 24 Hours; U.S. Intelligence Chief Visits CairoWashington Warns Citizens of Unexpected Escalation in Middle EastIran Says Strait of Hormuz Will Stay Closed Until US Meets Its ConditionsTrump faces dual setback as U.S. courts block voting and immigration restrictionsLawsuit Filed Against Trump and His Company Over Paid Early Access Service to His PostsTrump Renews Bid to Restrict Birthright Citizenship Through Curbing "Birth Tourism"Trump Cuts Camp David Vacation Short Amid Middle East Escalation WarningsTrump Cuts Short Vacation, Returns to White House as US Issues "Possible Escalation" Warning in Middle EastU.S. Military Announces Four Killed in Strike on Boat in Caribbean4 killed in US military strike on suspected drug-trafficking vessel in Caribbean SeaReporters From CNN, MS NOW and Politico Denied White House Access After Trump BanTrump Cuts Short Camp David Stay Amid Rising Middle East Tensions
politicsReported

Analysis Finds Labor Electorates Received Over 90% of Funds in Disputed Grants Scheme

A Guardian Australia analysis has found federal Labor-held seats received the vast majority of funding distributed in the early months of a $568m community grants program, ahead of a planned Senate inquiry.

· 1 min read · language: en

Federal Labor-held electorates have received more than 90% of the funds already awarded in the first five months of a $568m community grants scheme, according to an analysis by Guardian Australia, adding to concerns over how the program's funding has been distributed.

The analysis comes as the scheme faces scrutiny following a report last week by the Centre for Public Integrity, which found that the program favoured projects in notionally Labor-held electorates. That report highlighted a $6m grant awarded to a golf club located in the electorate held by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, according to the source.

The grants program is set to be examined by a Senate inquiry, according to the Guardian, following the concerns raised over its selection process.

Details of the criteria used to allocate funding, and responses from the government or the bodies administering the scheme, were not included in the available source material.

Sources

EGazette summarizes reporting from multiple sources; follow the links for the originals.

Related articles

Comments

Sign in to join the conversation.

Forgot password?

No account?

Loading comments…