The process for awarding federal cash has been so skewed, so warped in its logic, so riddled with double standards and contradictions, it's hard to know where to start.

In opposition, Tony Abbott complained that the process for divvying up federal funding had been politicised, promising any federal infrastructure spending above $100 million would be subject to rigorous benefit-cost analysis.

What a joke that turned out to be. After the 2013 election, Abbott wrote out cheques totalling $3 billion to the former Napthine government tp build the East West Link, having never seen a business case, with no assessment from Infrastructure Australia and, as the federal auditor-general later pointed out, against "clear advice" from the federal bureaucracy.

Labor won the November 2014 state election, having promised to tear up the contract for the road, which had been signed just eight weeks before the election.

Meanwhile, Abbott refused to fund the Andrews government's Metro Rail Project. At least the former PM was upfront, simply arguing it wasn't the Commonwealth's role to fund commuter rail, only roads.

And, as Abbott pointed out, there was nothing to stop Victoria spending the Commonwealth's asset recycling payment, offering states that sold assets bonus payments equivalent to 15 per cent of the sale price, on whatever infrastructure they liked.

Then a couple of months before this year's federal election, the federal government, now led by Malcolm Turnbull, announced a different approach. In a speech to the Centre for Independent Studies, Major Projects Minister Paul Fletcher suggested the Commonwealth wanted veto powers over state infrastructure decisions involving federal funding.

"Where the Commonwealth provides funds for a major infrastructure project it will reserve the right to impose conditions, including Commonwealth approval being required for key decisions in relation to the project," Fletcher said.

For Victoria, the comments were ominous. Victorian state and federal Liberals had long demanded that the Andrews government's $10.9 billion Metro Rail Project include a station at South Yarra – an idea that had been rejected after an assessment found it would cost about $1 billion, but would return just 20 cents for every $1 spent.

It was at this point that Victoria announced in its budget it would be fully funding the rail project on its own.

Despite this, Turnbull, in full campaign mode, attempted to nuzzle his way in. Morrison said Victoria would get $857 million from the Asset Recycling Initiative, but only if Victoria spent it on the Metro Rail Project (with a further $20 million for Victoria's Murray Basin Rail Project).

It was at this point that State Treasurer Tim Pallas wrote to his federal counterpart, Scott Morrison, informing him that Victoria had already funded the metro project. Instead he wanted the money for the Western Distributor Road Project.

Morrison bluntly rejected this request. Victoria then asked to use the money for Victoria's level crossing removal program. You might think this would be a hard one to argue with, given the unambiguous benefits for both the road and rail network. But again, Morrison said no, with the government suggesting Victoria had failed to submit business cases for the grade separations.

Even worse, now that Victoria has leased the port for a whopping $9.7 billion, Morrison is refusing to hand over the full $1.46 billion Victoria claims it is entitled to under the 15 per cent asset recycling scheme, suggesting the state is lucky to get the $877 million he set aside in the budget, given it failed to reach an agreement by June 30, which was the cut-off date.

Morrison is now accusing Victoria of "willfully misunderstanding" the intention of the scheme, claiming the payment does not apply to the sale price but to an agreed "apportionment of funds".

This is nonsense. When the scheme was announced, the written deal was that the states would be paid half of the 15 per cent upfront, based on an expected value of the asset, with the second half paid after the sale, plus "any adjustment" to account for the difference between predicted sale proceeds and the actual sale proceeds.

Where does this leave Victoria? After factoring the $877 million from the asset recycling scheme, each Victorian has been allocated an annual average of about $147 in federal infrastructure funding over the five years to 2020.

In contrast, NSW will get an average of $317 per person, and Queensland $371.

The strict rules applied to Victoria have been completely absent in the case of other states. NSW, for example, has been handed almost $2.2 billion under the Asset Recycling Initiative, including for the sale of its electricity network Transgrid, which was blocked by Morrison on national interest grounds.

In contrast to Victoria, the Liberal government in NSW was able to reach an agreement with ease, after proposing to spend the money on a Sydney Metro project and a light rail project for Parramatta. No business case? Not a worry. So long as the Baird government provides "supporting information" at some point in the future to justify the spending, all will be well.

It's hard to know why the Sydney-centric Turnbull government seems intent on short-changing Victoria when it comes to infrastructure. Perhaps it was the failure of the East West Link.

What is clear is that the playing field has become so lopsided, it is time to question whether the Commonwealth is using taxpayers' money for its own political interests, or the interests of the federation.

Josh Gordon is state political editor.