Coalition MPs were given access to colour-coded spreadsheets to lobby for projects that were set to miss out on regional grant funding, the Nationals MP Anne Webster has revealed.
The Victorian MP revealed in an interview on Flow FM that MPs were able to push for projects that “don’t quite” make the infrastructure department’s cut for the $300m fifth round of the building better regions fund.
Labor’s shadow infrastructure minister, Catherine King, has seized on the comments, saying it was an “absolute scandal” that “Coalition MPs were given the opportunity to lobby for projects … while other parts of the country were left in the dark”.
The deputy prime minister and infrastructure minister, Barnaby Joyce, shrugged off the criticism, with a spokesperson saying that “no projects were selected that the department did not categorise as eligible and being value for money”.
“MPs of all political persuasions have the ability to advocate for projects in their communities,” the spokesperson said, declining to answer why Labor MPs were not shown the spreadsheets.
Webster told Flow FM that the BBRF had been “five times oversubscribed”, with applications requesting a total of $1.7bn.
Asked how the government could guard against accusations of pork-barrelling, Webster replied it was “a very good question and people certainly have a right to know”.
“The government actually gets very little say,” she said. “So, the Department of Infrastructure goes through every project application, they make a list and they do colour code them in green and pink.
“Green is for projects that actually tick off on the criteria for the fund and pink, they don’t quite.
“But if an MP wants to really push the project because it’s important for the community, then you’ve got the opportunity to do that.
“And then there are those, of course, that don’t meet the criteria at all, for whatever reason … I had no pink projects, so only green ones that actually made it into the criteria and ticked off.”
According to grant guidelines, projects were scored by the department according to their economic and social benefits to a region, the applicants’ capability of delivering the project, and the impact of government funding.
Projects that receive a score of more than 60% in all criteria were eligible for funding and submitted to a ministerial panel chaired by Joyce. Despite Webster’s claims the government “gets little say”, the panel then approved grants, in consultation with the cabinet.
The fifth round of BBRF grants, announced on Friday, awarded Coalition seats $218m, or 72.7% of the total funding.
Despite the Coalition holding more regional seats, Labor argued that the value of grants exceeded the proportion of Coalition-held seats eligible for grants, which was 60%.
Some $46m was spent in marginal non-Coalition seats, meaning the total spent in Coalition-held or targeted seats was 88%.
On Monday Joyce said “I don’t care” in response to Labor’s claim the program amounted to “pork-barrelling” after a seat-by-seat analysis found almost 90% was spent in Coalition and marginal seats.
King said the BBRF was “supposed to be an independent grants program, but instead we find that Barnaby Joyce and his Nationals mates have their fingerprints all over it”.
“How many “green” projects were denied funding because they did not suit the Coalition’s political interests?
“Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce need to immediately release these secret, colour-coded spreadsheets and apologise to the communities that they have dudded through this dodgy grants program.”
Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
When contacted by Guardian Australia, Webster backtracked on her comments on radio, saying MPs had “Buckley’s” chance of influencing the grant decisions: “My understanding is the ones selected are the ones selected.”
Asked why Coalition MPs would be given input if there was no realistic prospect of influencing grant outcomes, Webster conceded it was “possible” and referred further questions to Joyce.
Joyce’s spokesperson said: “The auditor-general would expect nothing less than for the department to categorise projects according to their eligibility and value for money.
“All selected projects were assessed against publicly available guidelines as eligible and providing value for money.”
