Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

This legislation, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017, is part of a series of measures that the government is bringing into the parliament in response to criticism about the way members of parliament use their entitlements or allowances. It follows some legislation that was debated only this morning on a similar subject.

The purpose of these bills is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority as an independent statutory authority. The bills provide that the authority's functions include advising parliamentarians on travel expenses, allowance and related expenses; monitoring parliamentarians' use of travel expenses, allowances and related expenses; administering travel expenses, allowances and related expenses, including processing of these claims; reporting on work expenses; auditing of work expenses claims; and making rulings about travel expenses and allowances where authorised by a law to do so. The authority will have up to five members, consisting of a chair, the president of the Remuneration Tribunal and at least two, but not more than three, others. I understand membership of the authority would also have to include a former judicial officer, a former member of parliament and a member with substantial experience in auditing.

The advice, monitoring, processing and rulings given by the authority to MPs will be restricted to travel expenses. The authority will be able to recover overpayments, repayments and cost-recovery payments in relation to travel expenses. I also note that there will be financial implications of this bill, which are not quantified but which will be considered as part of the 2017-18 budget.

Having said that, I want to make some general remarks about the entitlements, expenses or allowances—however one might wish to define them—of members of parliament. All members of parliament come into this place knowing full well what their remuneration is going to be and what is expected of them if elected to office. While some parliamentarians could earn better remuneration outside of parliament, it is my contention that the current remuneration is fair and reasonable.

It is also my view that that has not always been the case. By 2004, MPs' remuneration had become an election issue. Mark Latham, then Labor leader, promised to make changes to MPs' entitlements if Labor won office at that time. Prime Minister John Howard responded in a similar vein and, for all MPs elected after 2004, the rules and benefits changed. Today, there are only nine senators and 22 House of Representatives members—a total of 31 parliamentarians of the 226 in this parliament—who are on the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme and who will receive a lifetime pension on retirement. The other 195 MPs, having been elected after 2004, regardless of their length of service on leaving this place, will not receive a pension or generous travel allowances. I want to stress that—and other members have made the same point—because there is a very clear misunderstanding out there in the community about the entitlements or allowances that members of parliament receive and, quite often, it is a misunderstanding based on what previous members of parliament receive, not what the current ones are receiving. There have been changes, and those changes affect the absolute majority of the members of this place. In fact, if we use percentage figures, some 87 per cent of the current parliamentarians in this term of parliament will not receive many of the benefits which the public believe they do. Of course, I cannot speak for MPs elected to the six state and two Territory parliaments, who are all on different remuneration packages and whose allowances, at times, cause confusion with the allowances of federal MPs.

For today's federal MPs, it is not the remuneration that I believe is wrong but the deliberate misuse of allowances through an unintended interpretation of the guidelines. It is that deliberate abuse of allowances which has led to the widespread mistrust of members of parliament, something which other members speaking in this debate have also alluded to. I believe that there is a mistrust of members of parliament, and there has been, without any question of a doubt, widespread criticism of MPs and the use of their entitlements. My view is that the intent of the current guidelines is clear—and I emphasise the word 'intent'—and that the allowances provided are reasonable if MPs are to conscientiously fulfil their role. The ramifications for abusing the allowances are already serious. In today's world, where public scrutiny is easy, and where media and other MPs are quick to discredit any parliamentarian who has abused or rorted the allowances, anyone rorting the system is likely to be caught out and to then pay a heavy price. That heavy price can include the loss of parliamentary positions, including perhaps a ministerial position, and then also jeopardises the future election of that person. Those are very strong deterrents, which I believe are more effective than the 25 per cent penalty provision proposed in the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 debated earlier, and more effective than provisions proposed by crossbench members earlier as well. If the public humiliation, loss of ministry or possible loss of office is not sufficient deterrent, then nothing more is likely to make a difference.

I want to talk just for a moment about the authority itself. I welcome the establishment of the authority. If nothing else, I believe it will add some clarity to the definitions of what is an allowance or expense and what is not, and it will offer a reference point for MPs to go to. Time will tell how effective the authority will be. It is also my concern that the costs of oversight may well be higher than the savings made. But then that is the cost of transparency. However, I stress: my view is that the intent of the guidelines we have at the moment is fairly clear. Indeed, I believe the majority of members of parliament adhere to those guidelines in an honest way. Much has been made—both by the media and by those who wish to gain from it in one way or another—of the abuse of allowances. The truth of the matter is that members of parliament cannot fulfil their role as parliamentarians if they are not properly supported, and the allowances are intended to do just that—support the members of parliament in their role and in doing their work. In many cases, this is work that is done on behalf of their constituents and the people that they serve. It is a sad reflection that members of parliament are now held in such low regard by the community as a result of the actions of those members of parliament who have chosen to rort the system. And it is a choice that they make—because every member of parliament can make a decision about which expenses they claim and which they do not. Hopefully, as a result of the authority being established, there will be not only greater scrutiny but also the reference point that I referred to earlier—because it is also true that, at times, the definitions of what one can and cannot are not absolutely clear.

Labor supports this legislation because, if nothing else, it will add to the transparency and the oversight that the public has been calling for for some time. I believe that will also go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the allowance system that is provided to members of parliament.

See this speech in context