Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 10, page 12 (line 28), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(c) at least 3, and not more than 4, other members.

(2) Clause 15, page 20 (line 6), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(c) at least 3, and not more than 4, other members.

(3) Clause 16, page 20 (after line 22), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) One appointed member of the Authority must be a person (the community member) who the Minister is satisfied represents community expectations about the ethical standards to be followed by members of parliament in the use of public money.

(4) Clause 16, page 20 (line 23), omit "5 members", substitute "6 members".

(5) Clause 16, page 21 (line 4), omit "subsection (2), (3) or (4)", substitute "subsection (2), (3), (4) or (4A)".

I am moving this amendment because I think that the proposed composition of the board of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority sends the wrong message to the community. It tells them that the people we want to make decisions about our parliamentary expenses are in the top 10 per cent of income earners in Australia. We are talking about elites here. It is elites, essentially, making decisions about elites. Let's be honest—that is how the community would see it. If we proceed with the board as it is currently structured, I think we are saying collectively that we have a tin ear—we are saying that we are not aware of the growing discontent in the community of our perks and the frequent abuse of our entitlements; we are saying that we do not want to give the community a voice in determining what is a reasonable work expense for parliamentarians. We need to look for every opportunity to let the public know that we are prepared to listen, that we are prepared to implement structures that ensure a lay person can have a say about our entitlements on behalf of our ordinary people. This is about engagement. This is about transparency.

In discussions about this amendment I have been told by some that it is too hard to work out how to select a person to represent the community views. Really? There are many precedents that use a variety of procedures, including calls for expressions of interest and assessment against criteria that would enable the minister to be satisfied that the person to represent the community has ethical standards in the expenditure by parliamentarians of taxpayers' money. I do not believe that the implementation of a community member within this authority should be a problem. So I urge both sides to support this amendment, to send a clear message to the community that we are prepared to listen, that we are prepared to seek guidance about acceptable practice in expenditure on our entitlements and that we realise we have had it wrong for too long.

See this speech in context