{
  "id": 19385012,
  "title": "Safe seats, shortchanged: why rural Australia bears the brunt of pork-barrelling",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/10/safe-seats-shortchanged-why-rural-australia-bears-the-brunt-of-pork",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-11-10T19:15:23.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Conversation AU",
    "slug": "the-conversation-au",
    "url": "https://theconversation.com/safe-seats-shortchanged-why-rural-australia-bears-the-brunt-of-pork-barrelling-295342"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Australia's rural communities often face a lack of funding for essential services, including healthcare, education, public transport and community infrastructure. These areas, which are typically outside of capital cities, often have fewer resources due to challenges related to vast and sparsely populated regions. However, another contributing factor to this underfunding is the practice of \"pork-barrelling,\" where public funds are allocated based on their potential to win votes rather than demonstrated need.\n\nThis often means that taxpayer money is disproportionately directed towards marginal seats that the government must win at the next election, resulting in a focus on metropolitan and outer metropolitan areas at the expense of rural communities. While the politics behind pork-barrelling are evident in states like Victoria, where the upcoming election on November 28 has reignited discussions about politically driven spending, the issue is not limited to Victoria alone.\n\nThe practice of pork-barrelling has been present in democracies worldwide for a long time and can manifest in various forms. It can involve a government promising funds for local projects in communities that they hope to win, particularly during an election campaign. Alternatively, it can manifest as bypassing competitive processes or overriding expert recommendations to benefit politically advantageous seats. While not explicitly against the law in Australia, pork-barrelling has been defended by some politicians as necessary \"investment\" in local communities.\n\nDespite the prevalence of this issue, the allocation of funds often prioritizes safe seats – those that are unlikely to change their political allegiance and therefore don't offer the same political benefits as marginal seats. According to a 2018 analysis, marginal electorates receive more than three times the funding of safe seats.\n\nThis disparity further widens the funding gap for rural Australians. Rural divisions in Queensland (Maranoa) and Victoria (Gippsland) are among the safest Coalition seats in the House of Representatives, while rural seats held by independents are also typically safe. For rural voters, this neglect can have a lasting impact, regardless of who is in government. Although Labor may not attempt to win safe seats, their pork-barrelling spending programs are unlikely to benefit these areas, as they are unlikely to win them. On the other hand, Coalition pork-barrelling programs are more likely to distribute money to these safe rural seats, whether due to lobbying or a desire to win an independent seat. The result is a systemic funding advantage for urban, marginal seats, leaving rural Australia at a significant disadvantage.",
  "summary": "Pork-barrelling does more than distort democracy. For already-stretched services outside our cities, it can deepen the funding divide.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}