Taxpayers Footing the Bill for Politician Security: A Growing Debate Down Under
The increasing number of threats directed at elected officials across Australia has ignited a crucial debate: should the public purse be tapped to fund the security of our politicians? This question is gaining traction as incidents of intimidation and alleged planning of attacks on public figures become more frequent, prompting concerns for the safety of those serving in government.
In Western Australia, a stark reminder of the escalating risks occurred earlier this year when a man was charged with allegedly plotting a terrorist attack. The targets of this alleged plot reportedly included the WA Parliament, police headquarters, and mosques, highlighting the broad spectrum of potential threats faced by public institutions and individuals.
This incident is not an isolated one. Over the past few years, several individuals have pleaded guilty to serious offences, including threatening to kill the Prime Minister and a former WA Police Minister. These threats were often linked to policy decisions, such as changes to the state’s gun laws, demonstrating how political actions can unfortunately incite dangerous reactions.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has provided concrete evidence of this alarming trend, reporting a significant 63 per cent surge in “threatening, harassing, nuisance and offensive communications” aimed at federal politicians in the last four years. While specific figures for Western Australia are not readily available, the sentiment among WA Members of Parliament (MPs) suggests a similar, if not worsening, situation.
Premier Roger Cook, speaking during budget estimates, acknowledged the evolving landscape. “We live in an increasingly complex community, and I suspect these things will become more and more prevalent as time goes on, sadly so, but that is the nature of it,” he stated. This candid admission underscores the growing unease within political circles.
Precedents and Pushing for Protection
This concern for personal safety is not unique to Western Australia. Last year, Members of Parliament in Queensland were provided with a financial allowance of up to $6,500 per parliamentary term specifically for home security upgrades. The justification for this measure, as cited by the Clerk of Queensland’s Parliament, referenced the tragic murder of a British MP in 2021, a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of political threats.
Currently, it is understood that no formal scheme exists in WA to provide state funding for politicians’ security upgrades. However, the issue has been brought to the forefront in the WA Legislative Assembly. During recent questioning from the opposition, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly revealed that he is actively advocating for such a provision.
A Heightened Sense of Risk
This push for enhanced security measures was particularly vocalised by Nationals MP Lachlan Hunter. Speaking to the ABC, Mr Hunter described a “heightened level of risk” he has personally felt since taking his seat in parliament last year. He believes that current provisions are insufficient, stating, “Members of parliament don’t have any mechanism to protect their family home or to protect their place of residence at the moment.”
Mr Hunter suggested that the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, an independent body responsible for determining parliamentary entitlements, should be the appropriate authority to address this. He emphasised the significant increase in threat levels faced by public officials and MPs in recent years, making it imperative for relevant agencies to review the situation.
Joint Appeal for Security Funding
In a joint statement, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Stephen Price, and the President of the Legislative Council, Alanna Clohesy, confirmed their efforts. They have formally urged the independent body responsible for setting politicians’ entitlements to consider making funding for security upgrades available.
“MPs are increasingly raising with us their concerns about personal safety and the safety of their loved ones,” the statement read. They further articulated that the most “efficient, timely and jurisdictionally comparable way” to address these escalating concerns is for the Salary and Allowances Tribunal (SAT) to utilise its existing powers to establish allowances for MPs.
The statement also indicated that work is underway at various levels to ensure the safety of MPs and parliamentary staff. While the SAT declined to comment, it is understood that the issue is under active consideration by the tribunal and its counterparts across the nation.
Judges’ Security: A Different Standard?
The debate is further complicated by the fact that judges in Western Australia can already access government funding for security upgrades to their homes. A spokesperson for the Department of Justice confirmed that an internal unit conducts security reviews and assessments for judicial officers. Funding is provided upon appointment, following a thorough risk assessment.
This distinction raises questions about why elected representatives, who are also subject to public scrutiny and potential threats, do not have similar access to publicly funded security measures.
A state government spokesperson commented that “Security arrangements for members of parliament are a matter for individual MPs, but WA Police investigate reports of any security incidents or concerns for safety.” The spokesperson refrained from commenting on the government’s stance regarding the submission made by the Speaker and President, reiterating that decisions on MP allowances are made by the SAT.
When approached for comment on whether WA Police had observed an increase in threats against state MPs, a spokesperson declined to provide details, citing “operational reasons.” However, they affirmed that the WA Police Force would investigate all reports of security incidents, threats, or concerns for safety. The ongoing discussion highlights a pressing need to address the security concerns of those entrusted with public office, ensuring they can perform their duties without undue fear for their safety or that of their families.
Leave a Reply