Exclusive Gun Club Linked to MP Andrew Hastie Awarded Nearly A$20,000 in Government Grants

Gun-club’s ties to MP spark fresh scrutiny

An exclusive Western Australia gun club with known links to Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has received close to A$20,000 in government funding over recent years — raising new questions about the role of MPs in nominating grant recipients.

Who got the money — and why it matters

The beneficiary is Port Bouvard Pistol and Small Bore Rifle Club, based in Dawesville within Hastie’s electorate. Hastie is formally listed as a patron and has even competed at the club.

According to documents obtained under freedom-of-information laws, the club was awarded three separate grants since 2020 via programs where MPs nominated recipients — including the government’s “Stronger Communities” and “Powering Communities” schemes. The grants reportedly funded projects like solar-panel installation and club renovations.

Club membership is described as “restrictive,” with annual fees exceeding A$1,500 and more than 300 active members — far from what some would consider a general-community group.

Conflict of interest declared — but critics raise concerns

Hastie did declare a conflict of interest in grant-application disclosures. His office maintains he had no role in the final selection process.

Still, the connection between the MP and the club — combined with the club’s exclusive nature — has raised eyebrows. Observers argue the situation illustrates how grant-allocation programs relying on MP nominations can favour well-connected organisations, even those with limited public reach.

Broader pattern and political context

This is not an isolated case. In 2020, the same club — along with other shooting-sport and religious organisations linked to MPs — received tens of thousands of dollars under the same “Stronger Communities” scheme. At the time, the arrangement triggered criticism over transparency and fairness.

That controversy previously led to scrutiny of the grants program and calls for stricter rules on conflicts of interest among MPs nominating clubs and organisations for public funding.

What’s at stake — fairness, transparency and public trust

Proponents of such grants argue they help fund community facilities that might otherwise struggle. In this case, the club says the money supported renewable energy (solar panels) and facility upgrades.

However, critics say when a club with membership fees over A$1,500 and a narrow, shooter-exclusive membership receives taxpayer funding, it challenges the definition of “community benefit.” The optics of public money flowing to a club connected to a serving MP threatens to undermine public trust in the impartiality of grant-allocation processes.

It also raises questions about whether these grants bypass competitive merit-based assessment, favouring clubs with political ties over genuinely broad-based community organisations.

What happens next — calls for reform

The revelations are likely to intensify calls for stronger safeguards in grant programs that require MP nominations. Advocacy groups, political opponents and watchdogs may push for:

• More rigorous conflict-of-interest rules and independent oversight;
• Clearer definitions of “community benefit,” excluding exclusive or membership-fee clubs;
• Transparency around how nominated clubs are assessed and selected;
• Public reporting of all grants tied to MPs’ offices, to improve accountability.

Final thought

The case of the Port Bouvard gun club illustrates a fault line in Australia’s grant-funding system: the tension between supporting local groups and ensuring fairness, transparency and public value. When taxpayer funds are routed to a selective, weapon-sport club with direct ties to a sitting MP, people are right to question whether the system privileges connections over community need.