Parliamentary Updates

20 November 2024

Zali Steggall MP:

I have a question for the assistant minister.

This is in light of the speeches from both sides in relation to the state of our economy and the need to focus spending on those doing it tough. Could you please clarify to the House the process or calculation for having, the level of inquiry for having, and how it is value for money to the public to have in this legislation provision for an uncapped administrative assistance payment that equates to, on current numbers in the Australian parliament, some $4,820,000 of public money going to political parties yearly, which is made up of $2.72 million to the Labor Party per year, $1.56 million to the Liberal Party and $540,000 to the National Party for expenses, including expenditure for conferences, functions, staff, staff training, staff vehicles, office accommodation and even payment for interest on loans.

Patrick Gorman MP - (Perth - Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General and Assistant Minister for the Public Service)

Of course, where there are some variables in any election, final costings have to be done following the votes of the people. You can't provide funding for a particular vote until you know exactly how many Australians have voted in a particular election. While I wish we had 100 per cent turnout, unfortunately, that's still a goal to which we aspire. I note that the only uncapped proposal of the nature which the member just refers to that's been put to the House is, in fact, her own proposal, which had administrative funding provided to every person who is a candidate.

If you were to provide administrative funding to every person who is a candidate, which was the proposal put in the second reading amendment by the member for Warringah, that would mean that, simply by nominating yourself—it's a great return on investment—and paying your $2,000 nomination fee, you'd get $30,000 under that proposal. If we went on the numbers of the last election, that would be $36 million paid to people just for being a candidate. While I hope that no-one would nominate to be candidate in the interests of financial reward, but instead would do it out of an interest in public service, I would fear that, under the member's proposal, you'd probably have more than those 1,203 candidates for the House of Representatives that we saw at the 2022 election. That is why the government did not support that amendment.

Zali Steggall MP:

Respectfully, assistant minister, while that must have sounded nice in your head, you didn't respond to the question.

The question was: how was the amount arrived at which provides for an uncapped amount in relation to members of parliament of major parties each receiving, once elected, $30,000 in administrative assistance from the public purse each year, which equates, if one takes the current membership of our parliament, between this place and the other place, to some $4.82 million per annum from the public purse going to the three major parties for expenses, including conferences, functions, staff training, office accommodation and even payment of interest on loans?

My question to the assistant minister is: can he please indicate to the House how this is of benefit to the Australian taxpayer? How was this calculation arrived at? And how does this expense of $4.82 million to the Australian taxpayer have any relevance or equivalence to actual costs incurred by political parties to do this? Or is this just a pork barrel to enable the public to pay for elements like interest on party loans, office accommodation, staff training, staff vehicles, functions, conferences and other ridiculous items that have been included in this section?