She was 'found' to have acted outside the SPIRIT. Nothing to do with legalities then.

Sporting bodies should be raising their own funds; taxpayers' money should never be involved. But this witch-hunt against McKenzie is purely political: engineered by hypocrites who can't get their own hands on public funds from opposition or the irrelevance of Greenery and other embittered minorities

So much wrong with your response, ttbn. Found out by the Auditor General, no less. So definitely no whiff of legals there. "Spirit" was too soft, I agree. Rorting is more than against the spirit. The funds are granted from Commonwealth funds, authorised by the Parliament, so probably ok. It's just supposed to be fair. And I am not sure if the objections have come from those who want funds for themselves, and I suspect the only "embittered minorities" are those defending her. Sometimes you just have to look at the facts, and when you don't like them, put your sword back in its scabbard, and suck it up.

I'm very surprised that you are surprised by this sort of pork-barrel behaviour or the fact that integrity is as rare as hen's teeth in almost all our parliaments!

I'm not surprised that this reeks of cronyism or that some of the clubs that received the grants were in seats the coalition wants to hold or win.

I'm not surprised that some of our voters can be bought for so little in real terms when what is required is a massive investment on a monumental scale!

To be sure we need a Federal ICAC with teeth and an incorruptible independent head! And needs to be equipped with covertly deployed space age lie detection equipment.

So that those lying through their teeth most of the time? Most of them? Can be charged with perjury and are sentenced to jail time and carry with them a criminal conviction that automatically eliminates them as ever being able to hold a public office or receive a publicly funded salary!

These folk "earn" huge salaries and self-granted entitlements, plus, pensions, aged pensioners can only dream about!

If it were all on the line? How many of them would continue with corrupt or unethical behaviour? Or rank self-service? Or seek to simply cover it up for a perceived political outcome!? Or instead, grow a backbone and a conscience?

WE NEED A FEDERAL ICAC WITH TEETH AND AN INCORRUTABLE, INDEPENDENT, NON-PARTISAN CHEIF!
Alan B,

Graham Richardson said on TV last night that he did exactly the same
himself and no one complained.
The complaints it would seem are politically driven.
It is OK for Labour to do it but oh dear not Liberal or Nationals.
So don't be hypocritical. Did you complain when Labour did the same ?

Dear Bazz,

Ros Kelly resigned as a minister for Sport and Recreation for this very thing and the bloke you have quoted was in the very thick of it;

"In December 1993, the Auditor-General complained about the manner in which the Department had administered A$30 million of grants under the Community Cultural, Recreational and Sporting Facilities Program, which had been initiated by Graham Richardson in 1988. The Auditor-General reported that he could not find any documentation explaining the rationale for grants made by Kelly's department, and therefore could not assess her decision-making procedures. The opposition, led by John Hewson and Peter Costello, claimed in Parliament that the money had been directed into marginal Labor-held electorates before the 1993 federal election as a pork barrelling exercise. Initially, she avoided answering questions on the matter, but she relented following threats by the Australian Democrats to vote for a Liberal proposition establishing a Senate inquiry if she did not give evidence to a House of Representatives committee. During the enquiry, she said that she had assessed 2,800 submissions for funding on the sole basis of verbal advice from her staff, and that decisions on short-listed applications had been made on a "great big whiteboard" in her office, having been erased without permanent record once the decisions were made.[1] The 12-person committee, despite having a Labor majority, ultimately found in February 1994 that her actions were "not illegal" but her administration was "deficient".[2]"

Wikipedia

So contrary to what you assert what you are really saying is that it is okay for the Liberals to do it but not Labour.

Sanctimonious hypocrite is probably the phrase to insert here.

Bazz: It is not OK for anyone receiving a publicly funded salary or stipend! Regardless of which side of the aisle they sit or what the colour of their partisan politics is! Blue, black red or green or YELLOW!

And needs to be exposed and removed permanently!

WE NEED A FEDERAL ICAC WITH TEETH AND AN INCORUPTALE COMMISSIONER ALSO SUBJECTED TO LIE DETECTOR ASSISTED INTEGRITY TESTING!

SO WE CAN REST ASSURED HE OR SHE IS ONLY GUIDED BY THE FACTS NOT ANY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE OR (UN)SOLICITED SECRET FINANCIAL REWARD!
Alan B.