Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the member for Indi's amendments. I feel that by not including pork-barrelling in this bill we're operating at cross-purposes with our electorates. Certainly, during the election campaign, constituents in Goldstein primarily spoke to me about pork-barrelling. It so happens that Goldstein was the recipient of no fewer than six car parks—or should I call them car porks?—to the tune of roughly $100 million. Even though those commuter car parks were supposed assets for the electorate, there was deep recognition within the community of Goldstein that these were blatant examples of pork-barrelling by the former government. Those car parks have now been axed by the current government in the most recent budget, but it echoes for me, having now been elected, how deeply this issue ran during the election campaign. Therefore, I feel that to exclude this as an explicit element of the bill is a mistake, and from that perspective I endorse the remarks of my colleagues.

I would also add that arguably some would say, 'Well, there's a difference between pork-barrelling and corruption,' but I don't think our constituents see it that way. Particularly in an environment of cost-of-living pressure—where people are struggling to pay for fuel for their cars, to pay their electricity bills and to pay their rent or mortgages—people find it deeply troubling and offensive that business cases are not stacked up for the way that taxpayers' money is spent. There should be transparent processes around the allocation of taxpayers' funds. So with that in mind I strongly support the member's amendment and I think my community would as well.

See this speech in context