Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks again to the member for Mayo. I do not think it helps us to get into a debate here about who is more righteous. I think the reality is that the requirement of a repayment of any incorrect claim plus a 25 per cent penalty in my view in a rational sense should not lead to repeat offences. The whole idea that we are imposing a penalty regime that does not exist at the moment for any sane or rational member of parliament would mean that you will not have those repeat offences, and I think, in most cases of what we are talking about today, we are looking in the grey area. I take the member for Indi's point around making the regime clearer for members, and that is what the Special Minister of State is doing now and it will be in the next round of legislation that he will be proposing.

The government's position here is that we are taking a big step in trying to restore, by imposing a penalty regime, the confidence that you rightly say is lacking. We can all try to outbid each other on who is more righteous by saying it should be 100 per cent, 200 per cent, 400 per cent. In my view, in a place where we think most members and senators should be acting rationally, if not honestly, I do not think there will be those repeat offences, because a strong penalty on any overclaim will apply. It is the wish of the government that we do not see a single offence, let alone repeat offences, and I think we are in agreement that a penalty regime is the best way of doing that. We perhaps disagree on where we would draw that line, but I do not think any number of questions to and fro are going to change where we both sit. We think a 25 per cent penalty is appropriate—indeed, the opposition believes that a 25 per cent penalty is appropriate. Obviously, we will have an opportunity to review this in three years time.

Can I just say more broadly: I have been in parliament for probably less time than many of you—perhaps not you, member for Mayo—and far be it from me to defend all the members of this House or the other place, but I think, overwhelmingly, members of parliament work very hard. I do not think any of us are particularly excited about being away from our spouses and, in some cases, children. I do not think there are ministers or shadow ministers who are desperate to spend another night away from their families. I think these are duties that we take very seriously on behalf of Australians and, again, that is why we believe that a 25 per cent penalty regime is appropriate in the circumstances.

I agree with the member for Denison that, ultimately, if all members and senators act with the integrity that the Australian people expect of us then we will not even have circumstances where a penalty on the first strike is cast, let alone further penalties as you have described, member for Mayo. Our position is clear: a 25 per cent penalty regime is appropriate.

See this speech in context