Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few brief remarks building on the comments of my colleague the member for Lindsay, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I did speak earlier for the full time on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Authority Bill 2017. I said on that bill that it could be considered courageous, in the Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister sense, for any of us to get up and say anything about entitlements in the current environment. It is a bit less so on this one, as I cannot imagine that anyone in the community or anyone in this place would have any opposition. Indeed, I think there is far less room for debate about where to draw the line in relation to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017.

I would say at the outset that I am entirely unclear as to why the bills were not debated concurrently, given it is possible to traverse pretty much the same ground on each bill. All I can conclude is that it helps fill the airtime here, given the government's lack of any substantive policy agenda. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that most of us, if not all of us, did not seek election to talk about expenses or to talk about ourselves—although in recent weeks we have seen those opposite spending more time talking about themselves than about the nation. I would certainly prefer it if we could focus on other issues, substantive issues, that relate to people's daily lives. I am sure everyone in the chamber would agree.

As the member for Lindsay pointed out, if the government had done its job properly in the time before I arrived in this place last July and acted on this quickly after the Bronwyn Bishop scandal then this would have been dealt with in the last parliament. We know that in August 2015, after three weeks of prevarication and a national scandal, former Prime Minister Abbott finally called an end to it and commissioned a report. We understand that that report was received by the government in February last year, a full 12 months ago. It went round and round in circles, and it was only when the member for Farrer became the January news story and some of her travel records were exposed that all of a sudden the government decided that she had to walk the plank—presumably to protect the member for Curtin and the polo misadventures—and so the story goes.

Nevertheless, we are where we are. We have had a sense in recent days as to why the delay, given the public tantrum from Senator Macdonald in the other place about the outrageous suggestion that we could see the Life Gold Pass removed. Presumably there is one ray of hope in that tantrum for the rest of us in that perhaps he is thinking about leaving the parliament soon and is focused on the next phase of his life, however long it may be.

I spoke in my earlier remarks from three perspectives. I spoke from the perspective of a new member—someone trying to make sense of all of this in a chaotic, complex environment with the incredible mishmash of rules. I also spoke as a citizen who has watched this mess unfold from outside this place for far too many years and seen it, year after year, bleed trust in this parliament and its elective representatives. I spoke of the impact that that trust deficit has on our ability to prosecute more complex arguments for national reform, which are in the public interest but which may not be popular in the short term. It is hard to get up in front of people and be taken as credible when you keep being blindsided by outrageous and stupid expense scandals. And I also spoke from the perspective of the community's expectations.

I will not further traverse that ground, lest I be cast as Mayor Quimby, one of my favourite characters from The Simpsons, who is known for quoting himself. But I do want to add one other dimension to my remarks on this: as someone who worked for over 10 years—after 10 years in a place you start losing count, but I think it was about 12 or 13 years—as a senior Victorian public servant. Generally, my time in the Public Service has been one of working within a culture of prudence and with an expectation of public scrutiny of everything you do. Notwithstanding some shameful examples that have arisen—and that are now quite rightfully being prosecuted in the courts—of education bureaucrats ripping off the taxpayer and some other incidents that have occurred, my experience in all the departments that I worked in, under all the secretaries that I worked for, was one of high integrity. That culture of prudence and the expectation of scrutiny drove a desire for clear rules. When something was not clear, there were always processes to work it out and gain agreement. It drove you insane at times, because you would say to your boss, 'I have to go here and I have to get a cab, and then we would sit down and try to figure out how it fitted within the rules. If it did not then there were always mechanisms whereby you could go to the corporate department and figure it out. If necessary, you would change the rules, because in the Public Service there was such a high value placed on making sure things were done correctly, as the taxpayer expects.

I spoke earlier about the complex mess and the lack of clarity. From my perspective, one of the most welcome things with this new Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority will be the ability to get frank, clear advice and rulings. Hurrah! No doubt the other new members I see here have been frequent callers—the member for Mayo over there is nodding—to the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services folk in the Department of Finance. They are great people and they are there to help you understand the new administrative environment you are in. They are very helpful, they are very professional, but even they are not able, in the current system, to give clear rulings. They do their best. I have taken the advice to send queries in writing so I have a record of what was said, and generally they give you a lovely, polite reply into which have been cut and pasted the impenetrably unclear rules that you have just read. Everyone in the chamber is smiling and nodding because we have all been on the receiving end of those emails.

The other issue that this will hopefully solve is that new MPs have been warned firmly and sternly by old hands that unfortunately, despite the best efforts, the department over many years is famous for contradictory advice. You ask an officer in one state, you will get an answer; you ask an officer in another state, you will get a slightly different answer; you ask someone in Canberra, and they say something that is particularly impenetrable but very wise. One MP asks for a view on something; another MP gets a slightly different situation. It is like consulting Yoda for wisdom: on one hand, you could do this; on the other hand, you could do the other. I am going to give you three Yoda quotes, because I do quite like the character of Yoda. I did not have time to Google and refresh my memory on how to do a Yoda voice, so please excuse me!

See this speech in context