Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

The minister was not the only Queensland federal Liberal MP to get the writing bug during the last week of the Queensland state election campaign. The member for Leichhardt opened up to constituents in Brinsmead:

I am asking you after eight years of Mr Beattie and Labor if our health system has improved, if our roads are better, if education standards have increased and if power and water supplies are more reliable?

His letter goes on to attack what he sees as the various sins and shortcomings of the Beattie government, and finishes off:

In our area, Stephen Welsh is a real leader who cares about the community and understands the local priorities. Together we are working hard to make sure our community gets the representation it needs and deserves.

He wrote an identical letter to residents of Clifton Beach, except the glowing tribute at the finish was for a different candidate. He wrote:

In our area, Peter Scott is a real leader who lives in the electorate and understands the local priorities. Together we are working hard to make sure our community gets the representation it needs and deserves.

That was a form letter from a federal Liberal trying to get a state National over the line.

It was the same with the member for Herbert, writing to constituents just before the state election to attack the Beattie government; and the member for McPherson, who produced a leaflet with numerous photographs of, and references to, her state colleague Jann Stuckey, attacks on the Labor candidate for Currumbin, and a large print conclusion:

Residents can be assured that I shall continue to work closely with Jann to keep the pressure on the Queensland Government.

For the government to allow this material to be printed at taxpayer expense shows we have now entered an age where anything goes. The leaflets were totally about the Queensland state election. To claim otherwise is laughable, absurd. Pull the other leg—it plays Jingle Bells! The so-called 70-30 rule has become a joke.

Now, what is all this going to cost taxpayers? Of course it depends on whether MPs spend all their printing entitlements or not, but we are engaged in a political contest here, and it is not reasonable to expect Labor MPs not to make use of the entitlement when Liberal and National MPs clearly do. We already have one arm tied behind our back, in terms of the resources available to oppositions, without engaging in the kind of self-denial which would only make it easier for the Howard government to get re-elected. We have not come here to cooperate and meekly go along with that venture.

For 2005-06, the total possible expenditure on the printing entitlement by all members of the House of Representatives is $18.875 million. With this regulation it rises to $22.2 million—an increased cost to taxpayers of $3.325 million. Last financial year, the printing entitlement advantage held by the government over Labor was $3.325 million. With this change it will rise to $4.05 million. So the government will say that Labor MPs have the printing entitlement as well, but the truth is the size of the entitlement gives the government and its MPs a $4 million head start. And that is what this is all about. They are not interested in a fair contest.

The 2007 election will see a rerun of You’ve Got Mail, only this time it will not be starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan; it will be starring a Howard government MP in a marginal seat near you. They will have so many leaflets they will probably call out the RAAF to do an aerial leaflet drop! This is extravagant and excessive.

And, speaking of leaflet drops, the communications allowance—which we use for postage and the like—has been upped from $27,500 to $45,000 per year. Back in 1990, under the Hawke government, it was $9,000. But not content with increasing the printing entitlement and the communications allowance, the government has introduced a backdoor increase in communications allowance for MPs whose electorates exceed 10,000 square kilometres.

Clauses 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the latest Remuneration Tribunal determination—No. 18 of 2006—introduce, for the first time, the capacity for members representing an electorate of 10,000 square kilometres or more to aggregate their charter and communications allowances.

Now, I have no problem with the charter allowance. It is quite reasonable that MPs with large electorates—and Australia has quite a few of them—travel around those electorates, and have an allowance to meet their costs if they do so. But if they do not do the travel there is no reason why they should be able to hang onto that money and use it to distribute still more taxpayer funded leaflets. There is no need for that. If they do not spend the charter allowance on travel it should come back to the taxpayer. It is just another rort for incumbent government MPs.

See this speech in context