thank you for all the wonderful work you do in the center. Does I’ve got the report card on the Albanese government produced by the center in the desk in my center desk, and I call I drag it out on repeated occasions. And I’m also not surprised that you’re involved in launching Dr. Helen Haines’s campaign, and I note the special relationship you have with Dr. Helen Haines and the center has. So, thank you for appearing today. I’d just like to pursue that inquiry my friend Senator Sturl made in relation to whether or not we should be surprised, given the Labor Party did so well at the last election, the the grants being made to Labor seats. It’s the case, isn’t it, that in your September 2026 report, the Center for Public Integrity actually analyzed what would be a normal distribution across all electorates, taking into account the success or otherwise of parties. And you actually found that, and I quote from page one: marginal seats in which the ALP was competitive received disproportionately high funding. Marginal ALP competitive seats received $66.5 million more than a proportional distribution would produce, whereas marginal ALP non-competitive seats and say fairly safe non-ALP seats received a combined $116.6 million less than expected. So you actually, in your analysis, you took into account what would be a normal distribution, even taking into account the electoral outcomes. That’s correct, isn’t it?
That’s absolutely correct. And I think actually, if you ask me, that is a far more important number than just the raw number of 73% of the allocations going to Labor seats, because I’m troubled about that, and I’ve referred now boringly to this is the third time to what I’m calling the Newcastle effect.
Yeah, and and look, the Newcastle effect is something I hear on the ground, not in Newcastle, but in my home state of Queensland, people in safe seats, and this is anecdote, but a lot of people have the view: I’m in a safe seat. We don’t get much because we’re in a safe seat, and that your comment reflects that. So you talked about fairness, and and again, I really congratulate the center on the analysis undertaken in that September 2026 report, because in terms of fairness, how can it be fair? How can it be fair that 45 electorates across Australia, representing 8 million Australians, receive nothing under this program, when each and every one of those electorates is facing facing in a general sense the need to have community infrastructure which supports the amenity of the people. How can it possibly be fair?
Well, it isn’t fair, and this is one of our complaints, which is if it is fair, the government need to explain why that should happen, and as I’ve said, some of the seats which missed out were on-I don’t like this sort of language-but on a measurably lower socio-economic scale, and you would think that’s where the money would be going,
and again, again, mr. Watson, the Center for Public Integrity, as part of its September 2026 report, actually tested whether or not, on a on an objective basis, looking at things like socio economic indicators, looking at measures of community connectedness, whether or not on an objective basis there was anything to support the mal distribution of funds across electorates, and it’s true to say, isn’t it, that your analysis indicated that on the objective evidence and the analysis undertaken by the center, it didn’t explain the malapportionment.
That’s correct. 100% correct.
Yep. So that deals with. Oh, sorry. The last issue, with fairness, I should raise as a Queensland senator, and and you touch upon this. And thank you again for the work that’s been done on page four of the report, September 2026 report. Again, looking at normalized differences, the senator found that Queensland received out of this total 560 million received 64 million dollars less on a normalized difference basis than any other than what it should have received. Is that correct, mr. Watson? Tell me it’s not so.
100% true, but I’m used to Queenslanders whinging about this.
Well, this is why Exhibit A, mr. Watson.
It’s often forgotten that there’s been a strong secessionist movement in Queensland over the years, and even no longer. And so Queenslanders might be sitting there saying, “We’re just a giant version of Newcastle. It does seem that that number to me was a standout number. I just couldn’t work that out.
Well, it’s extraordinary, and and it’s very disappointing. I mean, my office is located in the Greater Ipswich region. It’s got very some of the highest population growth of any region in this country, people are struggling in a cost of living crisis, and and and they need that community infrastructure. So very very profoundly disappointing in relation to that unfairness. I want to move to the issue of transparency, and this has also touched upon.
