Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to bring a different perspective to this, if I may. I am confident that, by doing this, I will be speaking for a great many Australians. Yes, the rules have been difficult to decode and understand. Yes, there has been ambiguity. Yes, often people have in their own words complied with the rules, they have acted within their entitlement.

I fear that many people in this place have failed to understand that all that sort of talk though just appals the community. For the community, it is about what is right and what is wrong. In some ways it does not matter what the rules are, because there are some fundamental measures of right and wrong. Some people call it the pub test; I would actually rather call it the test of what is ethically right: what is the behaviour of someone with integrity versus something that is ethically wrong or the behaviour of someone who lacks integrity?

In some ways this whole discussion is irrelevant, because it really comes down to what is right and wrong. If someone travels around Australia and, on that trip, the substantive activity is private—even if they are doing some official duties around the margins and then they claim allowances for that trip—then I think any reasonable person would say that claiming those allowances is the wrong thing to do. I think that is the way a lot of people in the community are viewing this. In fact they see our preoccupation with the rules, fines and penalties in some way as a cop-out, because we are suggesting that, by needing to tighten up the rules—and we do need to tighten up the rules, unfortunately—and the time we are spending on debating this, we do not have an understanding of right and wrong and that we need these rules. Unfortunately, we do need these rules in this place, because some people do not have integrity—many people do; there are a lot of good men and women in this place, in all the parties. I am not picking on all of my colleagues. I am not saying I am better than that or I think I will have a cheap shot at the member for Melbourne for where he was sitting on the plane. I think this is an important thing, and it is in the public interest to, as we have generally done, keep the debate and the discussion at a good and civil level.

I want to make that point. It is a little vague what I am saying, but I think people get it. It is the sort of feedback I am getting in my electorate and as I travel around. It is not about the rules. It is not about whether or not the former health minister was within entitlement or outside entitlement. It was about whether or not we are doing the right thing, whether or not we are acting ethically and whether or not we are acting as leaders in the community by setting a good example.

I will talk about the business class point. I think that, if the community had confidence that we are good and competent people in this place—people of integrity, people who are focused on good public policy and we work hard—they would probably forgive us if some people sit at the front of the plane and some people do not. The problem at the moment is that respect for us is rock bottom. When they look at these things—like the former Speaker, the former health minister or other people—they sense that we are not men and women of integrity and that we need to act as people with integrity, because that is ultimately what this is about. It is about right and wrong and, if this place was populated by good people with integrity, you know what? We would not need any rules, and the community would have confidence in us that we were always trying to do the right thing.

See this speech in context