Daniel MulinoDaniel Mulino
The division of Fraser was created in 2018 after the Australian Electoral Commission oversaw a mandatory redistribution of divisions in Victoria. The seat was notionally held by the Labor Party on a margin of 20.6%, which made it a very safe seat for the party. It was duly won by Daniel Mulino for Labor in the 2019 federal election, albeit with a 5.61% swing against him. However, the 2021 Federal redistribution in Victoria has increased the notional margin for Labor to 18.1%. Wikipedia
Just to confuse everyone, the electorate in the ACT that is held by Andrew Leigh used to be called Fraser. It is now called Fenner. SEIFA data is not available for Fraser.
| 2019 | 2022 | Change | Direction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | 65 | |||
| Daniel Mulino |
Daniel Mulino |
1 |
|
Fraser |
| Under 18 | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65-79 | 80+ |
| 21% | 28% | 19% | 18% | 10% | 3% |
Grants can be filtered within each electorate by confidentiality contract (larger screens only) or selection process (all devices). Click on the icons to filter grants. Mouse over icons or links for details.
Members get access to all grants data and all analysis. Guests get access to grant data except the most recent three months. Grant data will be updated regularly while funding continues for this work.
Full details for each grant can be found by clicking on the publication date which links to the government version.
Commonwealth Grants are awarded according to one of the following processes:
open competitive funding rounds which have open and closed nominated dates, with eligible applications being assessed against the nominated selection criteria;
targeted or restricted competitive funding rounds, which are open to a small number of potential grantees based on the specialised requirements of the grant activity under consideration;
non-competitive, open processes, under which applications may be submitted at any time over the life of the grant opportunity and are assessed individually against the selection criteria, with funding decisions in relation to each application being determined without reference to the comparative merits of other applications;
demand-driven or ‘first-in first-served’ processes, where applications that satisfy stated eligibility criteria receive funding, up to the limit of available appropriations and subject to revision, suspension or abolition of the grant opportunity;
closed non-competitive processes, where, for example, applicants are invited by the entity to submit applications for a particular grant and the applications or proposals are not assessed against other applicants’ submissions but assessed individually against other criteria; or
one-off grants, which are determined on an ad hoc basis, usually by Ministerial decision.Grants can be advertised according to one of the above selection processes but this process can be over-ridden by Ministers or Cabinet. Since Jan 2018 over 130,000 individual grants across over 1,900 programs have been made. A minority of grants are awarded in an Ad Hoc manner.
The Australia Institute, which analysed grants across a small number of programs (2021), found that Ministerial Discretion had been biased toward marginal Liberal seats and has this to say about Ad Hoc grants.
The Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines (CGRG) permits the allocation of grants in certain exigencies: A one-off or ad hoc grant generally does not involve planned selection processes, but is instead designed to meet a specific need, often due to urgency or other circumstances. These grants are generally not available to a range of potential grantees or on an ongoing basis.
In the cases considered, promises made in an election campaign have been construed as circumstances that warrant an invitation only grants process rather than a planned, competitive selection process. This seems prima facie at odds with the CGRG, which require grant administrators to consider seven key principles:
- 1. robust planning and design
- 2. collaboration and partnership
- 3. proportionality
- 4. an outcomes orientation
- 5. achieving value with relevant money
- 6. governance and accountability
The Australian Govt Soliciter summarises requirements for Ministers of the Commonwealth in awarding grants:
- -a minister must not approve proposed expenditure under s 71 of the PGPA Act before officials have given the minister written advice, which meets the requirements of the CGRGs, on the merits of the proposed grant
- -a minister must record, in writing, the basis for the approval of a grant relative to the grant opportunity guidelines and the key consideration of achieving value with relevant money
- -where a minister approves a grant within their own electorate, the minister must write to the Finance Minister advising of the details (para 4.11 of the CGRGs), except where:
- -the minister is a senator or the grant is part of a group of grants awarded across a geographic region based on a formula where a minister approves a grant that the relevant official has recommended be rejected, the minister must report to the Finance Minister by 31 March each year setting out a brief statement of reasons (the basis of the approval) for approving the grant in the preceding calendar year. If the approval is for a grant within the minister's own electorate (House of Representatives members only) then the minister must also include this information when writing to the Finance Minister (para 4.11 of the CGRGs).