Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the adjournment debate, the member for Dobell raised the issue of printing entitlements. It was also raised in the MPI earlier today and through comments by the member for Wills over the last 24 hours. I want to inform the member for Dobell and others that the printing entitlement is a very important tool which allows members to communicate with their electorate. Moreover, I note that when this entitlement was introduced by Labor in 1990 the amount which could be spent was unlimited. I repeat: under Labor, the amount was unlimited. Members of this House, during that period, occasionally spent more than $200,000 in a year, more than $300,000 a year and even more than $400,000 a year. It took the courage of this government to put a limit of $125,000 on that printing entitlement, and that was over four years ago. Costs go up. Recently, I wrote to all members saying that the printing entitlement would be increased to $150,000.

The member for Wills has made a number of statements publicly about this. In fact, he made the comment on Perth radio today that $125,000 is already too high. I wonder whether the member for Wills has spoken with his colleague the member for Griffith. I do not think the member for Griffith will think that $125,000 is too high. When I looked at last year’s expenditure, I found that the member for Griffith have spent $124,999.99. The member for Griffith had only 1c left from his entitlement last year. I wonder what he could spend that 1c on.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: if the minister wishes to release the details of one MP, is he willing to release the details of all members of parliament?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. The honourable the Special Minister of State.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills made a number of other statements. I wonder whether he has spoken to the Leader of the Opposition as well, who spent almost $110,000 last year. The member for Wills also said in that interview that the previous cap was $62,000. That is absolutely wrong and completely false. There was no cap under Labor; it was unlimited. You could spend all you liked, and that is what happened. Labor drafted the regulations back in 1990 and we all remember Senator Richardson’s book about whatever it takes. Unlimited expenditure was all part of it. With all of the commentary over the last 24 hours, let us remind people outside this House who have commented on this that under Labor there was unlimited expenditure.

The member for Wills at times has also commented on postage and various other things. I know that the member for Batman at one stage said you would probably need to spend only $30,000. The member for Batman spent a bit more than that. The member for Wills spent well over double that, so obviously there is a conflict there.

This has all been cheap political point-scoring. In fact, a couple of years ago when the ALP joined the Democrats and Greens to disallow an increase to allow for inflation, they did not disallow all the things that they thought were pretty good for them—extra charters, business travel for their staff, more computers for them and mobile phones. They were very happy to take all those things, but when it came to this, they took the chance to make a political point. Even the chairman of their so-called ‘waste watch committee’ also spent over $100,000. So contrary to what the member for Wills is saying about it being all too much, so many of his own people were quite happy to do that. Let us look at the entitlement. In my electorate, the increased amount, the $150,000 entitlement for printing in order to communicate with your electorate, works out at $1.61 per elector per year. I do not think that is outrageous.

There was also talk about postage. The postage entitlement is 50c per elector per year. So members of parliament will be able to write to each elector once per year. That, in the words of the member for Wills, is excessive. I do not think that is excessive. I think constituents in electorates expect their federal members to correspond with them. In this day and age, there is a lot of information which they are looking for. Certainly members are well and truly entitled to correspond with their electorate and that is exactly what this entitlement allows them to do, to send them information. I know that members opposite have been very busy sending things over a number of years. They were very busy when under Labor you could spend as much as you liked. Members on all sides were busy.

Members of parliament send all sorts of information to their constituents. I do not think the general public would be concerned if members of parliament were able to correspond with each of their constituents once per year. That is all the postage allowance provides—50c per elector. I know that members on both sides of the House send appropriate information to constituents in newsletters: government information about pensions, seniors, veterans, child care, all of those sorts of things—the sort of information that ought to be provided. In this day and age people are very keen to receive as much information as possible and it is the role of members of parliament to provide them with the necessary information.

The ramblings of the member for Wills on radio, talking about dropping leaflets from aircraft and all those sorts of things, were sensational—and as stupid as the question from the Chief Opposition Whip today about chickens, I suppose.

In conclusion, I repeat that this government put a cap on expenditure. Under Labor there was unlimited expenditure, and people need to understand that. This government put a cap on expenditure four years ago and it is now appropriate to increase the amount because it has not been changed since. It probably will not be changed again for a number of years and that is the appropriate way to deal with entitlements.