NSW Labor grants scheme inquiry calls it an election slush fund
Consensus Summary
A parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales concluded that the Minns Labor government’s $37 million Local Small Commitments Allocation (LSCA) program was an 'election slush fund' designed to influence voters rather than serve public purpose. The inquiry, led by Greens MLC Abigail Boyd, found the program allowed Labor candidates to nominate $400,000 in projects per electorate before the 2023 election, with funding approved regardless of election outcomes. It accused the premier’s office of unlawfully redirecting $6.4 million from promised projects and alleged that Special Minister of State John Graham misled parliament. The report also suggested prosecutions for false statements by former MP Cherie Burton and staffer Paul Mills, who were accused of obstructing the inquiry. Both the ABC and the Guardian confirmed these findings, though the ABC included additional details about the government’s use of encrypted messaging apps to evade document requests and Minns’ public mockery of the inquiry. The NSW government rejected the report entirely, calling it a partisan attack, while dissenting committee members accused the inquiry of bias. The audit office had previously found the program was 'effectively administered' but noted conflicts of interest processes were inadequate. The inquiry recommended legal reforms to prevent similar schemes in the future.
✓ Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- The Local Small Commitments Allocation (LSCA) program allocated $400,000 per electorate for community projects, totaling $37 million across 93 electorates.
- Greens MLC Abigail Boyd, chair of the Public Accountability and Works Committee, described the LSCA program as a 'publicly-funded Labor party election slush fund' in the report released May 13, 2026.
- The inquiry found the NSW Premier’s Department unlawfully redirected $6.4 million from originally promised projects, breaching program guidelines.
- The inquiry accused Special Minister of State John Graham of misleading parliament and breaching ministerial obligations, including claims that all commitments were made before the 2023 election.
- The inquiry alleged former Kogarah MP Cherie Burton and staffer Paul Mills made false statements under oath and should be considered for prosecution.
- The NSW Audit Office’s 2025 report found the LSCA program was 'effectively administered' but noted only 17 of 93 candidates were assessed for conflicts of interest.
- The inquiry recommended amending the NSW Electoral Act to prevent 'unethical election campaign promises and pork-barrelling'.
- The NSW government rejected the entire report, calling it a 'partisan political hatchet job' and 'conspiracy theories'.
- The inquiry was established in November 2024 and released its report on May 13, 2026.
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- NSW Premier Chris Minns mocked the inquiry, saying 'Scooby-Doo's Mystery Incorporated has more credibility than Abigail Boyd's upper house committee'.
- The committee includes Coalition members Chris Rath, Sarah Mitchell, and independent Mark Latham, with Labor members Mark Buttigieg, Sarah Kaine, and Peter Primrose dissenting.
- The report criticized the 'race to the bottom' approach of major parties regarding pork-barrelling.
- The inquiry found the government used disappearing messaging apps like Signal to avoid compliance with document requests.
- The dissenting government members called the report a 'blatant abuse' of committee process and accused the former government of 'systematic direction of public grant funding to politically favoured electorates'.
- The Sydney Morning Herald reported that MPs allocated a combined $100,000 to sporting clubs that had supported their election campaigns.
- Independent MP Alex Greenwich was consulted on funding changes for the Sydney electorate, advocating for homelessness services, though he was not accused of wrongdoing.
- The report alleged Cherie Burton 'coached' Paul Mills to give non-answers and take questions on notice with no intention of answering them.
- The inquiry found that agency advice suggested conflicts of interest assessments could be done, but Graham directed against it.
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- The ABC states the inquiry found the premier's office 'unlawfully moved $6.4 million of project funding', while the Guardian frames it as 'unlawfully redirected $6.4 million away from projects originally nominated'—both align but differ slightly in phrasing.
- The ABC notes the dissenting government members called the report a 'blatant abuse' of committee process, while the Guardian does not explicitly quote this phrase but includes their broader criticism of the inquiry's methods.
- The ABC mentions the use of Signal and other disappearing apps to 'avoid compliance with orders for documents', while the Guardian does not explicitly mention Signal but focuses on the broader allegations of obstruction.
- The ABC includes a direct quote from Minns mocking the inquiry as 'Scooby-Doo's Mystery Incorporated', which the Guardian does not reproduce.
- The Guardian specifies that the audit office's scope was limited to administration after the 2023 election, while the ABC does not emphasize this limitation.
Source Articles
NSW premier attacks 'kangaroo court' after report into $37m grants scheme
Chris Minns responds to claims from a parliamentary inquiry that the government "unlawfully redirected" millions of dollars of public money and accused witnesses of lying under oath.
Inquiry calls Minns government grants scheme for Labor candidates an ‘election slush fund’
Parliamentary committee into 2023 electorate funding allocation program finds MP John Graham misled parliament Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast A Minns government scheme that allowed Labor candidates running in the 2023 election to allocate $400,000 to projects in their potential seats has been described as an “election slush fund” by a parliamentary inquiry. The inquiry into the local small commitments allocation