Senator MINCHIN (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister)(8.34 p.m.) —The government obviously—I guess because we did not put it in our bill—does not support the proposition that there be public funding. I think there is a general understanding on both sides now that public funding and disclosure are part of the normal parliamentary electoral arrangements.

Senators will have noticed that, in their report on the 1996 election, the government members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—of which I am one—did not propose to remove or destroy the whole base of public funding. Therefore, we accept it as part of our arrangements for parliamentary elections. But in this case, where we are electing delegates to a convention—they will be there for only 10 days—we did not think it was a responsible appropriation of taxpayers' money.

The Greens are proposing the $1.50 that is set out in the Electoral Act. That could amount to up to another $15 million on top of the $60 million—or the $62 million, I think—we are up to already. I concede that part of your proposition is to ensure that payments are not to exceed expenditure, but you would have to have very significant administrative arrangements to require the disclosure of all expenditure to ensure that you had accurate records of everybody's expenses. So all candidates would have to comply with all the normal requirements in relation to disclosure of all their expenditure in order that that provision can be properly policed.

On balance, we do not think it appropriate. What we have done is provide that there be a $1,000 tax deduction, which is the tax deduction provided for local government candidates. We think that that is fair. We also propose that delegates' expenses in the form of airfares and accommodation in attending the convention for the whole 10 days would be met. On balance, we thought that that was appropriate in light of having a cost effective arrangement.