Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Colleagues, it gives me pleasure to speak to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and also to give notice that I will be supporting the amendments from the member for Mayo. This entitlement issue is one of great concern in my community, and I am absolutely delighted that the government has brought on this particular bill to establish the authority. But, overarchingly, I want to say, 'Government, you haven't gone far enough. There's a lot more that needs to be done.'

In setting the scene for what more needs to be done, I would like to go back in history a little bit and talk about the MP for Calare, Peter Andren, when he was an Independent in this House. He did a magnificent job, as an Independent, taking up the battle, on behalf of Independents at that stage, for much closer scrutiny of what was being given out to members of parliament under that entitlement. To Peter Andren—who has since passed—one of those very wonderful early members of parliament, I just want to acknowledge your work, Peter, and say, 'Up here, in the crossbench, we are flying the flag with real passion because we know there is a long way to go before this particular unpleasant part of how parliament works is addressed.' Up here, in the crossbench, we acknowledge this legislation, and we are going to basically vote for it, but we are going to move amendments to make it better.

In moving those amendments, we are going to pick up some of the work that those us here, on the crossbench, have already done a lot of work on. The member for Denison, last year, moved a very strong motion. He absolutely called on the government to commit to meaningful reform of the entitlements act. That was back in October. I totally support his work there. Since then, the member for Denison has taken the lead for introducing a private member's motion, an act of parliament to actually do some work on this, to audit all members and senators travel claims during this and the previous parliament and for all of us to list substantive activity taken as part of official travel. In the process of making sure we do the work to clean up the past, we will move forward to making the future better.

In making the future better there is no shortage of advice to the government. When you do the research for this particular bit of legislation you can see that there are numerous reports that the government has commissioned—but we still have not gone far enough. In 2015, there was the ANAO report; in 2011, there was the Review of the administration of parliamentary entitlement by the Department of Finance and Deregulation; and, in 2010, there was a report as well. So we have a lot of background telling us what to do.

Today I would like to concentrate on the latest report: An independent parliamentary entitlement system:Review:February 2016. In it there is a classic quote from these really wise people who did the review, and I would like to read it into parliament, because I know there are many people in my electorate who are watching this broadcast. The quote is from page 2, section 6 of the government's report. It goes:

Broadly speaking, these reviews concluded that the system, having evolved piecemeal and without adequate rationalisation, is complex, confusing, incomplete, contradictory and immensely difficult to follow and administer. The problem has worsened as demands on, and external scrutiny of, parliamentarians has increased.

It goes on:

The complexity of the system’s rules and regulations imposes stress on parliamentarians and their staff, and on those who administer the system. Parliamentarians can too easily run foul of rule interpretations or eligibility requirements. This has undermined public confidence, not only in parliamentarians, but also in the system itself.

That is true, and that is why it is really good to see that the government is taking some action. We agree.

Then this review goes on to make some very practical recommendations, and I would like to take a few minutes of the parliament's time to read, again, into the Hansard. This is the major recommendation, and I fully support it:

The system should—

The new system—

ensure that the relationship between the public and their representatives is one of respect and mutual support. It should be understood by all and simple to use and administer. It should ensure expenses are appropriate, sufficient and fair, be in accordance with reasonable standards and the overarching principle of ‘value for money’.

And section 12:

We believe the best way to achieve this goal is a principles-based system allowing the parliamentarian flexibility to apply judgement, choice and personal responsibility when using it, but obliging him or her to report publicly and be subject to reasonable standards of auditing so as to provide transparency and public accountability.

What wisdom! But how do we do that? Here is where I am really calling on the government to go to the next step. This report says:

To provide clarity, the rules should, to the extent possible, be consolidated into a single Act of Parliament.

One single act of parliament. So we end the piecemeal, complex, confusing, incomplete, contradictory and immensely difficult to follow and administer system and we replace it with an act of parliament. Colleagues, we have not quite got there yet. We have an authority being set up, which is this particular legislation that I support, and we have some changes made to how we administer it, but I am really calling on the Prime Minister and the government to do what his own report says and give us an act of parliament that is principle based, systemic, easy to read and well-followed.

In bringing my comments to a close, I want to talk a little bit about trust and trust in the system. To do this I want to bring to the notice of the parliament a report that has been prepared by the Museum of Australian Democracy called Who Do You Trust to Run the Country? Democracy, Trust and Politics in Australia. I acknowledge the authors of that report and the institutions: the University of Canberra, the Museum of Australian Democracy, and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. It tells us what we have been talking about today in this parliament, in the previous debate: that Australians no longer trust their politicians. What an extraordinary thing to have to say in this House: that the research of these highly respected institutions tells us that our population no longer trust us.

What we saw just a few minutes ago in this House was an effort by us crossbenchers, four of us, to say, 'We can do something to help restore trust and faith in our democracy. We saw this thing happen in this parliament, where there were 'four lonely voices'—as I think The Guardian said—against the might of all the political parties. So I say to the people of Australia: 'It is not that you cannot trust parliamentarians; I think you need to pay particular attention to that last vote, because there are clearly some people in this House that you can trust.'

The research shows us that in the 2016 election about a quarter of Australians gave their first preference vote to non-mainstream parties. The people of Australia are actually getting that the major parties are not doing a good job representing then and that, in fact, it is the crossbenchers and the minor parties that really have this sense of close relationship with our communities, a commitment to represent them and a great ability to stand up in this House, to think for ourselves and to be able to represent what our communities are saying.

What I think is so special about our independence is that the people of Indi know that I am speaking forcefully, boldly and strongly directly for them. This opinion has not gone through any party machine. I am not putting it through any personal ambition to be a minister. I am not doing deals to make this happen. I am absolutely here speaking for my community, as I know my colleagues on the crossbench are. As to this sense that we do not have the trust of our community, I say to my colleagues in the major parties, 'Get a copy of this report and have a read of it and really and seriously pay some attention to what the parties need to do to follow the leadership being provided by the Independents on this entitlements bill.' What I think would make such a big difference is if we could actually do the work that needs to be done to have one act of parliament.

In bringing my comments to a close, I speak in strong support of the amendment that is going to follow from the member for Mayo. Having the community voice on this authority is one small step to get this through the pub test—the ordinary Australian person who we represent getting their voice heard on this authority. I will bring my remarks to a close at this point and speak later when the amendment from the member for Mayo is introduced.

See this speech in context