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

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill with mixed feelings. I am heartened to see that the government is finally taking some action to impose penalties which would provide a disincentive for parliamentarians to rort the system. But I am frustrated by the many years of inaction; the endless reviews and reports that have served to delay any action or change. In reality, it is too little, too late. In fact, it could be described as a kneejerk reaction; a form of damage control in response to the most recent scandal, with further legislation foreshadowed to be introduced later in the autumn sitting.

The last time a Prime Minister took decisive action about travel rorts was in 1997, when then Prime Minister Howard took only three days to sack three ministers over inappropriate travel claims. Of course, Prime Minister Howard was bound by a code of conduct which set out an expectation that all action by a minister should be calculated to give the public value for its money, with an expectation that they would not abuse any of their privileges. It is a sad indictment of the state of play that the code of conduct has long since been abandoned.

Since that time, the pattern in relation to expenses scandals has been predictable. Firstly, an expenses claim that has failed to pass the 'pub test' comes to light. Then there is increasing public outrage, magnified in recent times by the proliferation of social media as a mechanism to spread the story. The Prime Minister of the day toughs it out for as long as possible and the person at the centre of the controversy makes a statement that they 'acted within the guidelines'.

Sometimes money would be repaid in accordance with the `Minchin protocol'—that is, pay back the incorrect amount and no further action will be taken. If the situation festers with the public even after repayment, on a couple of occasions people have resigned from the ministry or from an office of the parliament. Then the government of the day responds by announcing a review of parliamentary entitlements, with an implied or explicit promise to implement the changes recommended in the review. Or it hastily introduces legislation to implement changes which were last announced on 9 November 2013—yes, that is right; a major part of this bill is giving effect to changes announced almost four years ago.

To be fair, almost a year after the changes were announced, the government introduced a bill to implement them—you cannot rush these things, can you?—but it failed to give it a high-enough priority, and the bill lapsed without being passed before the last election. The Nick Xenophon Team is committed to greater accountability and transparency in relation to parliamentary entitlements. It is part of our core values, the DNA of our party. In fact, I fear that my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon must feel like he is trapped in a version of the movie Groundhog Day in relation to parliamentary entitlements. In 2015 Senator Xenophon introduced a bill that would have meant harsher penalties for breaches of the entitlement rules but it was rejected by both the coalition and Labor. Senator Xenophon's bill would have led to more transparency, an independent watchdog, greater financial penalties, the public having a right to complain and monthly disclosure of pollies' perks. Significantly, he proposed a penalty of double the amount claimed if MPs are found to breach the rules, increasing to four times the amount for repeat offenders. That would have provided a much greater incentive to do the right thing than the 25 per cent loading proposed in this bill. It also amazes me that the only time the major parties agree on anything, such as rejecting Senator Xenophon's bill, is when they are acting out of self-interest.

So that claim brings me to the proposed 25 per cent loading on incorrect travel claims. In my view that it is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It is marginally better than the current system, which Senator Xenophon recently described as 'like being slapped in the face with a piece of wet lettuce'. It is a stronger disincentive if we can double the penalties of those overpaid and, as proposed in the 2015 bill, also then have extra penalties if you are a repeat offender. I want to foreshadow that I intend to move an amendment during consideration in detail to substantially increase the penalty for submitting incorrect claims. I believe this is in keeping with public expectations, and also it serves to benefit all of us as we all then have greater integrity in our communities.

Another major element of this bill is the discontinuation the Life Gold Pass for travel of all former MPs except Prime Ministers. I support this wholeheartedly. I cannot think of any reason why former MPs should be entitled to have business class travel funded by the taxpayer. There is no other circumstance that I am aware of where a retired or sacked employee has their ongoing travel paid for them by a former employer. No wonder members of the public have consistently expressed outrage over this particular perk. I listened intently to the member for Leichhardt's speech, and I would just say to him: in what other job, 20 years on, do you still get airplane travel? He did mention Queensland Rail, but let us remember: that is a business; that is not the taxpayer paying for that travel.

I would like to turn my attention to the travel entitlements for current parliamentarians. As many of you know, the Nick Xenophon Team members choose to travel economy class even though we are entitled to travel business class. We believe that travelling business class is a waste of taxpayers' money. Certainly, for flights of less than two hours it is an unnecessary indulgence. I have done a back-of-the-envelope calculation and I estimate that if parliamentarians who travel on flights of less than two hours travelled in economy instead of flying business class for sitting weeks, we would be saving over $2 million a year. That is right: we could be saving more than $2 million per year if we were required to have a seat at the back of the plane. Some people might say, 'It's only $2 million; it's not much'. In my book, that is a lot of money. My mum used to say to me that if you look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves, and this change to entitlements is something that I believe is worth pursuing. Again, it will restore public confidence in us.

I want to focus on the term 'entitlements' for a moment. The term itself is problematic, because it clearly leads to the expectation that one is 'entitled' to have travel paid for by the taxpayer, rather than it being related to a work expense. This creates a mindset of privilege and is partly what leads to people claiming to attend weddings, to claim New Year's Eve parties, sporting events and to fund family holidays. The most recent review, released in February 2016, recommends changing this terminology to refer to it as 'work expenses'. I hope that the foreshadowed legislation to be introduced later in the autumn sitting will take up this recommendation.

I would also like to spend a bit of time focussing on the rules or guidelines. There is no doubt, as has been observed in the reports of both 2010 and 2016, as well as the National Audit Office report of 2015, that the rules are complex, confusing, contradictory and difficult to follow and administer. They also allow claims that are legitimate under the rules which do not pass the pub test. The 2016 report recommended adopting a new principles based system allowing the parliamentarian flexibility to apply judgement, choice and personal responsibility when using it. If parliamentarians were able to apply judgement and personal responsibility, we would not have the travel rort scandals we are seeking to address in this parliament!

On a personal level, I am absolutely appalled that people who have sought public office with the level of public trust and personal ethics that that should entail seem to be incapable of asking themselves the simple question, 'Is this a legitimate work expense?' or that, when considering putting a claim in to attend a friend's or colleague's wedding, or a sporting event, they do not ask themselves: 'Would taxpayers expect to pay for my travel to this event?' This is at the heart of the problem with the current system. While something such as a family reunion visit might be allowed within the rules, taking one's family to Central Australia or a beachside resort is not in the spirit or the intent of the provision; neither is manufacturing business appointments to coincide with personal business. It is simply not ethical.

So I have to confess that I am sceptical about moving to a principles based system. However, the aspect that might curtail inappropriate travel expenses would be the requirement to publish travel expenses on a monthly basis on a publicly accessible website—which is the subject of another bill before the House. These provisions would provide for public scrutiny and lift the public's perception of us all. Our standing with the public is very low because of the rorting by some. I think we are actually below used car salesman. We must work towards restoring the confidence and trust of the public in us.

In summary, I think that the current system needs a complete overhaul. The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill is tinkering at the edges. It does not fundamentally change the rules around the parliamentary entitlements. We will still be operating under a system that is complex and confusing, where people make claims that are allowed under the rules but that are not in line with public expectations. Senator Xenophon recently said:

… the current rules are a joke, and they need to be changed.

I support this legislation, recognising that it is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to the next phase of reform, which has been promised in the autumn sittings, ensuring greater accountability and transparency in parliamentary entitlements. This has been a personal mission of Nick Xenophon's for many years and is now firmly embedded in the ethos of the Nick Xenophon Team as something we are 100 per cent committed to and something we will continue to fight for. I invite every member of parliament here to join me in economy class; it is really not that bad.

See this speech in context