There is something strange that goes on in the minds of the members of the Morrison government when they think about and make decisions about how they spend the taxpayer funds that they are the custodians of. They see a bottomless bucket of largesse that they can share around wherever it's going to win them votes or save them seats. For a bunch who rabbit on about merit and being good economic managers and who talk about their integrity, their words simply don't match their actions. They ignore proper processes, they deny impropriety and that is not what our communities deserve.

Let's look at the record. We had sports rorts, where a minister redirected funding for community sporting facilities simply to support the Morrison government's political campaigning in marginal electorates like mine. Then there was the Community Development Grants Program last year, where 75 per cent of the funds went to coalition-held seats. Now we have bushfire grants, where we see the failure of this government to stop the New South Wales government from directing combined federal and New South Wales money—bushfire economic recovery funds—to Liberal and National seats. Of the $177 million of the first round of fast-tracked funding, just $2 million, or 1.1 per cent, went to state Labor seats and no money went to state Greens seats. But this government, just as it did during the fires when it took a hands-off approach, has taken a hands-off approach to bushfire recovery and allowed New South Wales to carry on its merry way. And we had the environmental grants that were announced by government members in 2019, before the program was even opened.

That brings us to the very latest: another day, another rort—the Safer Communities Fund, where the Minister for Home Affairs deliberately took money from projects recommended after scrutiny by the department, in safe and Labor seats, and redirected it to Liberal-National and marginal seats during the 2019 election campaign. Minister Dutton cut $5.6 million in funding for 19 community safety projects. These are the projects his own department had highlighted as the top ones, measuring highly on the criteria that were set. Today, the Prime Minister couldn't even explain how the minister had followed the guidelines when he announced two projects in the earlier Tasmanian by-election, before the guidelines even existed. Apparently that's not a problem that deserves an answer in this place.

I think we deserve more. I think every member who cares about their community deserves more accountability than that. Instead of these projects being assessed and then awarded funds on their merit, nearly $6 million was redirected to 53 lower ranked projects in coalition-held and marginal seats. This wasn't an election fund they were spending. This wasn't an election promise. This was allocated grants funding that was effectively being used to buy votes rather than meet the stated purpose of the program. The Morrison government is treating this money as if it's a personal slush fund. They know it's wrong. Then they try and hide and duck and weave when they're found out.

We all know that there is always a greater demand for funds than grants programs can meet. But Minister Dutton used the funds he cut from the highest ranked applications to approve projects that the department said did not rank highly enough to be funded. To approve two projects that had been deemed unsuitable and ineligible because they'd failed to achieve even 50 per cent of the score on each of the criteria is an extraordinary feat.

There is only one reason to behave in this way. It is a deliberate strategy by these ministers and this government. They do not do what's best for the community. It's purely about doing what is best for them.

Two of these areas that were cut were parts of Western Sydney in the seats of Chifley and Greenway, my neighbours. These were areas where the councils had gone to the effort of seeking funding. Maybe, rather than bothering putting in an application in future, councils should just ask themselves or ask the government: 'Is this round of funding for safe or marginal seats?' And then they'd know if it was worth their while.