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

It is fair to say that I did not come to Canberra to talk about parliamentary entitlements and work expenses. Indeed, few people here would say that that was their motivation. I have been told it could be considered a little courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense, to even speak on this and express a view, but I did want to share a few thoughts from three perspectives. Firstly, as a new member here, still adjusting in my transition to this chaotic and complex environment; secondly, as someone who, as a citizen with a deep interest in public affairs, has watched this mess of entitlements play out over many years and despaired at the lack of reform, the inability to fix the system and the damage that has been done to public trust and confidence in our national life; and, thirdly, relatively fresh from a long and hard fought campaign, where I spoke, for more than 12 months, to literally thousands of people. In the middle of the Bronwyn Bishop saga, I remember for a few weekends that I certainly heard the full gamut of views from the community.

Firstly, as a new member. When we are out of the spotlight of this chamber, it would be no exaggeration and fair to say that many of my colleagues, particularly us new folk—I see the member for Fremantle, a new member like myself—live in abject terror of making a mistake with a travel or expense claim. And there are two reasons for that.

The first reason is that the rules are a complex mess. The current system comprises a mishmash of legislation, regulations, rules, guidelines, determinations, unwritten conventions, ministerial decisions and so on, and it is almost impossible to get a definitive answer on some matters. There are literally hundreds of pages of documents and web pages to try and figure out what you are supposed to do. I noticed that the Prime Minister told us in the second reading speech that there are apparently eight separate handbooks that the Department of Finance has produced to explain the framework, which scared me even more, because I am still not sure that I have managed to find all of those handbooks. Like many people dealing with government, though, and we are no different in that regard, we usually just want a clear yes or no—simple: is this permitted or not?

Obviously, in the political realm, once you understand whether or not something is permitted, you of course need to overlay your own moral or personal and political judgements on that, and that is our responsibility. But you can only do that when you have a sensible understanding of what the rule actually is, what is permitted, within which you can exercise judgement. So, like all of us, I am hoping that the new framework will clear things up.

One caution, which I know still worries people, is that there will always be matters of discretion and judgement because it is impossible to codify everything in this or indeed most other businesses. And, while our first duty is to our electorates, which is where those of us who are new, in particular, spend the vast bulk of our time, I also believe that, if we take this role seriously, we have national responsibilities and need to develop national perspectives. People should expect us to be curious about developing and considering national views in the national landscape to engage with businesses, stakeholders, governments and so on. Parliamentary committees are a primary mechanism by which we do this, but at times it is necessary and legitimate to travel and meet with people elsewhere in the country to advance issues important to our electorates and to build a picture and understand how the country ticks.

The second reason that we live in abject terror is that the media coverage and public perception is now so poisonous that there is no tolerance left for even the most honest of mistakes. Aside from the rules, the forms are complex and archaic; they are full of codes and little columns; you need to go back to the websites and manuals to make sense of it all; and they are the kinds of things that you do just infrequently enough to have forgotten what you read last time, because it really is not the most important thing in your day. But the reality is that, with the best will in the world and the most perfect systems, over hundreds of people in many years, some honest mistakes will be made. It is a pity, I think, that there is no tolerance or understanding left in the system for MPs as a species, particularly for those of us who try and do our best to do the right thing, and that is a bit confronting. But I hope that the new rules and the authority which are in the bill we will debate shortly will over time reset the environment so that there is some common sense and perspective available.

The second perspective I wanted to add is that of a citizen who has watched the mess of entitlements play out over the years. I have seen a long and slow but continuing degradation of trust in the political system and in MPs, which is distressing to watch, and I mean that sincerely. I say that as someone who confesses to being a bit of a nerd for politics, public policy and democracy. Unlike many, since childhood I have always had an interest in public affairs and public service and just how the world ticks, how we shape change and approach the future. Coupled with that, like many here, is a respect for this institution of parliament. As a keen observer it was as much of a surprise to me as anyone that I came to join this place.

Now, I do not respect and have not respected every member of this place or the other place, and I do not like and have not liked or approved of the way all members have approached order to approach their role, and I do not agree with all the ideas they put forward. But I have always deeply respected the office, and that is a key distinction based on which I hope we can start to rebuild some public confidence, and start to re-prosecute and establish a distinction between the person who occupies an office at a given point in time and the office itself.

I know that is not a fashionable view, with the prevailing cynicism. But my distress at watching the degradation of trust is not just an intellectual or personal thing; I believe that trust in our political system and elected members is part of the capital of our democracy. Many policy commentators have written in recent years about what is termed 'the trust deficit', and the real-world impacts and harms that that trust deficit does to our society and country, and that this trust deficit is hampering the ability of the political system, certainly in the last decade, to progress reform, to act in the national interest and to prosecute beneficial changes which may not be popular in the short term but are good for the country. It is the kind of thing we see where there is a lack of trust and capital, under the previous Labor government, in politicians as a species. It is certainly not the only reason, but unfortunately we end up with situations where you cannot prosecute a sensible policy conversation because it is too easy to rip down the politicians leading it about how we tax the resource industry and so on.

Of course, the media play a part in this, and the narrative is written—that sort of prenarrative that we all get stuck into that we are all on the take, we are all here on the gravy train and that is our sole motivation, and so on. But the system, combined with a few MPs who do stupid and unconscionable things, then feeds this narrative. So I dearly hope that these new arrangements can draw a line in the sand, reset the issue, rebuild some trust and focus debate on more meaningful things for the people we represent.

The third thing that I want to touch on is community expectations. Having doorknocked extensively, I think it is fair to say that there are a range of views out there, many of them strongly held, as to what is considered reasonable work expenses for members of parliament. Indeed, that is an understatement. I certainly heard the full gamut of views while out and about during, as I touched on earlier, the three weeks or so that the saga ran in relation to the previous Speaker and the infamous helicopter ride. There was utter community bewilderment that anyone could think it was appropriate to ride a helicopter—a luxury helicopter, I notice; it was the upper model—from Melbourne to Geelong for a political fundraiser on a golf course. In that sense, 'entitlement' is not a misnomer; it is a completely accurate use of the word. It is a kind of peak Tory Australian version of the British Tory moats, which I think was the archetypal example that finally forced reform—welcome, beneficial reform, so we hear—with the creation of an independent authority in Britain.

There is the view, of course, at one end of the spectrum, as I said, that we are all in this for the money or the pension. I just want to put on the record that I do not get a pension. I will not get a pension. I do not get a pension. I will not get a pension. I do not get a pension. There is probably a rule about repetition; I cannot remember the standing order, but you get the point. The majority of us here now, I think, will not ever get a pension. We do not get a parliamentary pension. But the number of times that people in the street still stop us and say, 'Oh, you'll be right; you're only in this for the pension,' is astounding. For people elected after 2004, there is no parliamentary pension scheme, yet still this persists. That raises some concern for me about how long, even if we fix this system once and for all and the authority works, it is going to take to wash these scandals out of the public consciousness and rebuild that trust. But we have to start.

As one former senator put it to us in some of the briefings of new MPs last year, his view was that the reality is that nothing we could do would make some people happy. Even if we were paid nothing and walked to Canberra while people lined up to throw fruit at us, he told us, it would still be an outrage. But I actually find that, if you spend a few minutes with people and get past that rightful anger and frustration, most people—that big bit in the bell curve, in the middle of the median distribution—are pretty reasonable. They believe that good MPs work hard, travel frequently and are away from our families more than anyone would wish on others.

As someone who has travelled a fair bit for work in my previous lives—more than some, less than others—my firm view is that work travel can seem glamorous except when you actually do it. I see nodding around the chamber. Most of us have around 150,000 people in our electorates, depending on the number of noncitizens and where the boundaries are drawn—put Tassie out of the picture. That is a fair number of people, and I think most people in the community seem to accept that, if they want us to be able to return a phone call, respond to the emails, read the letters, attend to the legislation and pressures of the job and so on, it is reasonable to ensure that, while people hold elected office, they should be supported to be able to work and move around the country quickly, efficiently and safely. Having worked with MPs and ministers from all sides of politics for many years, I have always held that view myself before coming here. Having seen the lives of ministers up close and personal, I know it is a very difficult life, and I have great respect for those opposite who currently hold that responsibility and the burden that they bear, and particularly for their families. I will hold that view when I leave, maintaining that distinction, as I mentioned before, between the person and the office.

I note, though, that community expectations now do not support generous benefits anymore for MPs after they leave elected office. That is being addressed, for example, with the abolition of the Life Gold Pass. That does mean that costs for transport and accommodation are absolutely essential if elected MPs are to do their jobs properly. Provided we are not using taxpayer funds to buy apartments or go on holidays and so on, work expenses are necessary.

And I do spare a thought for some of my colleagues who have copped, I think, some pretty unfair media—gratuitous and lazy summer media—just for doing their jobs. I did once have a job managing a couple of hundred staff across Victoria, which I know is not really a region compared to many in this place. But I have some appreciation for the difficulties of travel and transit for the MPs from regional seats. I know that my life in the city is so much easier, logistically. It is hard to comprehend for many opposite, but it is easy for some on our side who hold enormous electorates. The stories about MPs from regional seats chartering planes—shock, horror!—to move around their electorates are, I think, nonsense and lazy. I do hope to see an environment where those things are simply not media and are understood.

WA MPs always feature at the top of the travel list, as if there is something odd about that, because no-one has noticed that Perth is actually a long way away from Canberra and the flights cost more. Who knew? Or the foreign minister went overseas and therefore had a high travel bill! I would hope that an environment where the rules are clearer, where there is proper accountability and transparency, where things are audited and where these reforms strike a fair balance can start to restore public confidence.

See this speech in context