Queensland Parliament's Overnight Stays and Dining Costs Surge
Quick Look
- Queensland taxpayers funded nearly $35,000 for 191 overnight parliamentary stays last financial year, a significant increase from the previous year.
- Additionally, extended parliamentary dining room hours cost $56,000, raising questions about transparency and public spending.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Budget estimates hearings revealed a sharp increase in overnight stays by Queensland MPs and extended parliamentary dining room hours, leading to higher taxpayer costs.
Queensland taxpayers forked out almost $35,000 last financial year for state politicians to stay overnight at parliament.
Budget estimates hearings revealed 191 total overnight stays were reported last financial year, compared to just 39 the previous year.
Members of Parliament are permitted to use accommodation at the parliamentary annexe for personal use, but such stays trigger fringe benefits tax.
The tax bill for the stays was almost $35,000 last financial year, up from just over $7,000 in the previous year.
There were 33 members who reported overnight stays, up from 13 in the 2024-25 financial year.
One MP reported 36 stays, while the next highest reported 20.
The identities of the members were kept confidential for personal reasons.
It was also revealed during estimates that the parliamentary dining room opening hours had been extended to outside of sitting weeks under the LNP government.
The cost to the taxpayer as a result was around $56,000 last financial year.
Clerk of the parliament Neil Laurie said the decision to extend the dining room's hours was "primarily motivated" by the fact that there was a "much, much larger component" of regional ministers who are in Brisbane when parliament is not sitting.
Reluctance to identify MPs
The Labor opposition asked parliamentary speaker Pat Weir if he would release a breakdown of the overnight stays reported by parties.
"I would be very reluctant to do that," Mr Weir told the estimates hearing.
"We have had instances where we have had members that have significant challenges in their lives that have stayed at this parliament.
"I have no intention to go any further than where we are."
Mr Laurie echoed the speaker's sentiment.
"We don't treat members party by party here and I don't want to start a slippery slope where we're treating members according to party rather than according to the fact that they're members," Mr Laurie said.
"I just don't want to go there, and I don't think anyone should."
Mr Laurie suggested it was unhelpful to attempt to assess the fringe benefits tax bill on an annual basis.
"I would say you don't look at a year in isolation. You look at a year in the context of a longer period of time, like 10 years."
Open Questions
- What specific personal reasons prevent disclosure of MP identities?
- What is the long-term trend of these costs over 10 years?
- How will the LNP government respond to these revelations?
