Do we owe Pauline Hanson a living?

Apparently we do because as taxpayers we have just paid her $213,095 for being a candidate in the last election. Running for parliament is her right and there is a case for contributing to campaign expenses from the public purse to help level the democratic playing field. But should candidates be allowed to make a handsome profit from public funding? As the law stands now, they are perfectly entitled to do so and Hanson seems to have taken full advantage of the opportunity.

The Australian Electoral Commission cheque went to "Pauline's United Australia Party", the banner under which she ran for the Senate in Queensland. Because she attracted 4.2 per cent of the vote, taking her above the 4 per cent threshold for public funding, she received $2.10 per vote, no questions asked. Normally parties or candidates spend as much as or more than they receive from the public purse and private donations. But that is not always the case. For the 2004 election, Hanson declared spending of $35,427 on her Senate campaign but received $199,886 in public funding. Hanson is not saying how much she spent on last year's election, although she is required to declare it to the AEC within the next few months. Given her campaign advertising and appearances were limited, it is likely she enjoyed another big windfall. Her profit-making, or that of her party, goes back to the 1998 election.

Aust 24 Jan 2008