Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The bill adjusts entitlements for serving parliamentarians and the bill attends to issues that affect retired parliamentarians. The bill also abolishes the gold pass.

Although the opposition will be supporting this bill through this place and will support the bill when it gets to the Senate, there are issues attached to this bill and the bill should be improved. It should be improved for its content, its purpose and its practical operability. That is why I have referred it to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. I hope that in that committee process we can improve the poor structure and purpose of the bill and that can be attended to in an effective and efficient manner.

The government's purpose here is good. Abolishing the gold pass is a good thing to do. We had closed the gold pass in 2012. We believed that that was both a safe course of action and a prudent course of action. The government's choice to abolish the gold pass is an action that is supported by the opposition and an action that is contained in this bill.

I am concerned that other changes in the bill have not been driven by or even properly considered by the Remuneration Tribunal. They should have been. Any matter affecting the entitlements and remuneration—certainly the salary and conditions—of MPs should only ever get into this place after it has been thoroughly considered by the Remuneration Tribunal and recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. Not to have the Remuneration Tribunal fully considering and recommending is a weakness. I accept that the Remuneration Tribunal has been consulted in part on these measures, but these measures do not arise organically out of the consideration by the Remuneration Tribunal.

The reason the Remuneration Tribunal is structured as it is is to simply separate decisions about MPs' entitlements and conditions from us the parliamentarians. We carefully select the Remuneration Tribunal members. Some have been members for in excess of a decade. They have in mind why decisions were made in 2008 and why they were made in 2012 and how they might relate to decisions that get made in 2014. That body of wisdom and that consideration has not been brought to bear on this bill. Politicians should not be writing their own entitlement arrangements even though on this occasion what this bill does is abolish a significant entitlement and create new entitlements in other areas.

Let us go through it in some detail. It cuts travel for dependent children. I can see no good purpose, at a time when our work and lifestyle in this place are hard enough on families, to make that change for the travel of dependent children, albeit for children aged over 18 and under 25. They are still in the category of dependent children. No parliament has ever done that.

It cuts the entitlement to travel for former prime ministers. We have never in this chamber cut an entitlement for a former Prime Minister. I was asked to do it once by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and I refused to do it. We should refuse to do it this time too. Our former prime ministers do immense good work. Even when that immense good work is in a partisan way and even when that immense good work is to support their political parties, they are still functioning in our community as former prime ministers.

I can tell you quite honestly that John Howard coming down to campaign in my electorate would be a good thing for visibility in the city of Rockingham, Kwinana or Mandurah, as it was when Bob Hawke came to Kwinana, Rockingham and Mandurah. These are good things for former prime ministers to be doing. But more important than that our former prime ministers travel our country bringing exposure to issues and communities in ways that only add to the service that they have already committed to in this place. I would not cut one single entitlement of a former Prime Minister.

The bill imposes cost-recovery onto ministers for errors made by others. The ministers may not even know of, or even reasonably be expected to know about, these errors that may have occurred by the minister's staff. The bill creates a cost-recovery process that the minister may not understand that comes from a future travel entitlement payment to that minister. This is not transparency. This is not effective governance.

No-one is standing in this place arguing in support of loosening our system, but it has to be practical and it has to be workable. The measures in this bill take it beyond the workability stage. It is not wise legislation and I would replace it if I were the minister at no additional cost to the taxpayer. I would seek advice and publish the advice from the Remuneration Tribunal. There are unwise measures in this bill and they can be fixed at no additional cost to the taxpayer and they will produce, I am convinced, better outcomes, better transparency, better management systems and hold not just members and senators accountable but also those people in the Department of Finance who sign off on travel and travel allowances for members. It was my experience as a former minister that there were occasions when my then department got things wrong. Embarrassment was created for members of parliament when the department got things wrong. I used to ask the department to apologise directly to the members and senators who had been the victims of the errors made by the department. I think that is an important point of accountability too.

I understand some retired members will challenge this legislation in the High Court. I disassociate myself from that. I am enthusiastic to support the parts of this bill that abolish the gold pass and previous legislation under my time as minister that may also be challenged in the High Court. Labor supports this bill but thinks it can be improved. It will not be improved in the High Court. In government I worked with the opposition minor parties and even the crossbenchers to introduce measures that were proposed, always proposed, by the Remuneration Tribunal. They addressed areas of salaries. They addressed areas of entitlement use. They addressed areas of accountability, and they were always agreed on the basis of the independence of the Remuneration Tribunal and, dare I say it, the integrity that was brought to the table by a genuinely bipartisan approach to resolving these issues. I congratulate the now Speaker of this place on the terrific role that she played when shadow minister.

In 2012, one measure that we changed was to remove the non-gold passed, post-service travel from 25 return trips, which is what it was from 2004—25 return trips at business class to anywhere in Australia, and that applied for five years. We replaced it with five trips to Canberra in the six months after leaving parliament. That may have been an extreme cut, but I do not think any of us could genuinely justify 25 return trips at the conclusion of parliamentary service. Those five fares in six months have changed in this bill to 10 trips per year over six years. That seems excessive when the Remuneration Tribunal had been asked to consider cost-less measures—measures that did not cost the taxpayer anything, such as making the resettlement payment a redundancy payment, a measure that would not have cost the taxpayer.

Currently, when a member or senator ceases their term of duty and are thrown out by the people—they lose an election—there is a resettlement allowance paid if you have served more than one term in the parliament, or two terms or three. Because that is paid as salary it is taxed as salary. It should be a redundancy payment. It is a cost-less measure that could be attended to that is about fairness and is about the proper equal treatment of parliamentarians as with other classes of employees, albeit employed by the parliament. I regret that I did not get an opportunity to attend to that measure; I simply did not know it existed as a problem until after the last election.

I have had raised with me since the last election the possibility of self-managed superannuation funds also being available to receive parliamentary superannuation payments. It never occurred to me that that was not the case. That is a cost-less measure. I would have done that in a blink of an eye if I had been asked. There are measures that can be done that support, enhance and assist parliamentarians that literally do not cost a cent.

Other measures that are needed could be funded through winding back the 60 post-service travel trips, and they include occupational health and safety sickness benefit insurance. It is missing for MPs and senators. An MP or a senator who is injured at work is entirely at risk for that cost themselves. I know that because I enjoyed the hospitality of the Western Australian hospital system as a consequence of a cardiac event that I sustained in the north of Western Australia in 2011 on the duty of a parliamentarian.

It should be the case that from the point of election to the point of not being a parliamentarian, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, we in this place are covered for simple occupational health and safety benefit insurance. It is a cheap thing to do, especially for a class of people such as parliamentarians and senators whereas individually the cost of carrying that insurance is quite high—on occasions for an individual as high as $6,000. We have seen former MPs and senators leave their service having been harmed. Our resettlement provisions are not adequate and should be considered by the Remuneration Tribunal in light of modern employment practices. Any changes should be funded by reconsideration of the 10 trips per year as allocated in my earlier reference.

The measures in this bill do not build upon the processes that had been created throughout what we used to call the Minchin protocol or the high-level Department of Finance processes for considering when an MP or a senator has got something wrong or has deliberately made a mistake. The process right now is under the Minchin protocol—so called because former Special Minister of State, Nick Minchin, in the late 1990s designed it. Should any of us—any of the 226 members or senators—have even a reference made in a newspaper or on a website about potential entitlement abuse, the Department of Finance looks at it. They consider it, they look at it and they make a decision as to whether or not they need to carry out a further level of investigation. It is a good system. The member is not informed until such time as the member or senator needs to be informed. The minister is not informed. It is a good process. It protects the integrity of our system and it allows all of us to know that, should a question be raised about the behaviour of any of us, there is a very good system that has survived 15 years, designed by former minister Nick Minchin in order to protect not only the taxpayer but also the integrity of parliamentarians.

The measures in this bill, unless amended, will cause ministers great concern, and that is not productive. It is not useful, and in my view it is not probity. The opposition will support the government to pass this bill. When governments wish to attend to matters such as the gold pass in this way, they deserve to have the complete support of our parliament and they will have that. We would prefer to improve the bill. As I have said, at the first opportunity I will support a full reconsideration of the measures funded by the unnecessary expenses created by this bill and on the advice of recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal will present an amending bill.

We believe better processes exist to deal with incorrect payments. I am not here referring to the 25 per cent surcharge for any incorrect claims; that is fine. I am dealing here with the processes for investigating and then allocating that decision. Transparency should also include the Department of Finance documenting the advice it gives to MPs and senators. It should provide advice and it should keep that advice on file for consistent advice's purpose. Consistent advice is important to parliamentarians. For instance, the bill requires that all travel post-service be for public benefit. It sounds good, but I do not think it would include travel to attend Gough Whitlam's funeral—and I think it should. And I am not even prepared to advise any of my friends who are former parliamentarians to seek advice from the department on whether or not they could utilise their travel to attend the funeral of the former Prime Minister; it is just too risky, and this bill makes it unnecessarily risky.

Because we cannot get the advice that helps parliamentarians and senators do their job well, sometimes there are things that we just cannot do. The bill cuts the ability of former Prime Ministers to function. We have never thought this dignified or useful. We should not be cutting the ability or capability of our former Prime Minister's, even to campaign. I know that if any us or if any journalists contact a former Prime Minister, any of our former Prime Minister's would say: take it away. They are decent people. They deserve to be protected by us. They do not deserve to be cut by us.

I would like to see our former Prime Ministers travel. I would like to see Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, John Howard, Paul Keating, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd all active and travelling our country. Let's not cut the ability of our former MPs to function in our community or in our political community. Let's make their travel and their ability to function unlimited, as annoying as that would be to all of us on occasions. But enjoyable it would be to the fabric of our political community and our broader community to see these men and women continuing to do their work in our community and for our community. The bill introduces even more bureaucracy, paperwork and cost. It does nothing to make the work of MPs or ministers or officers of the parliament more effective.

In conclusion, I want to work with the government to fix this bill. By all means pass it if you need to but let's do better than that. Let's improve its effect upon MPs and senators, fix some of the problems and save some money. Get the gold pass abolished and do some good, and do it on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal not on the thoughts and the whims that have come to us in the form of this bill. When this bill is put to a vote, the opposition will support it and support it to a person. I tell the government: we can do better, we should do better and we are prepared to do better. Through the Senate committee, I hope that is one very good way that we can make this bill do better.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which will reduce the life gold pass travel entitlement before abolishing the scheme for all other than former Prime Ministers. The bill will also strengthen the rules governing parliamentarians' expenses.

The issue of parliamentary salaries, allowances and entitlements generates much interest and comment in the community and, of course, much interest and comment around this building. In my own electorate of Hume, I often receive correspondence, calls and personal approaches from constituents on this issue. Many believe that current parliamentary entitlements are out of step with what the community thinks is reasonable. I accept that some of this commentary and feedback is driven by a level of cynicism in the community in relation to politicians and political life. But for me, as the federal member for Hume, I never forget that it is the taxpayers of Australia that pay my salary. I know that the majority of my constituents work hard each day to meet their commitments and to pay their bills at the end of every week and every month. As their local representative, I know they want me to work hard and act with integrity to ensure that their lives and burdens get easier, not harder. I know that most reasonable constituents do not begrudge my salary if they believe I am quite literally busting a gut for them. And that is what I seek to do every day.

I am delighted to report that one year into this job, I know what most representatives in this House do for their constituents every day. Some of the very best work in this place goes completely unnoticed but that is the nature of public service. I think that some of the cynicism about politicians stems from the lack of transparency about how we spend our time and that is something which I seek to address with, amongst other things, very regular Facebook posts. But it is crucially important that the remuneration and benefits we receive are in line with community expectations and are in line with changing employment patterns outside of this parliament.

We know that many former parliamentarians have a very successful career beyond their time in this place, often facilitated by the experience and networks they developed while here. Years ago, one career was enough. But these days many of us have a series of careers, and that is a good thing. This legislation is simply one of a series of reforms in this area over the last 10 years intended to bring parliamentary remuneration and entitlements more into line with changing community expectations and changing employment arrangements.

In relation to superannuation, a very common bone of contention for some of my constituents, changes have previously been made to the parliamentary contributory superannuation scheme. This was a defined benefit scheme which provided for rates of retiring allowance varying from 50 per cent of parliamentary allowance after eight years' service up to 75 per cent parliamentary allowance after a service of 18 years or more. The changes closed the scheme to new members from 2004 and moved parliamentarians to an accumulation scheme under the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004. I believe this is in line with most of my constituency in their own employment agreements and so it was a good reform.

Senators and members can have their superannuation paid to a complying superannuation fund or to a retirement savings account of their choice, subject to the same rules that apply to employees in the private sector and public service, and it has the same preservation age. It is true that the contribution from the Commonwealth at 15.4 per cent of salary, is, I acknowledge, more generous than most employer schemes.

In relation to MPs' entitlements, in 2009 the Australian National Audit Office highlighted the shortcomings in the management of these entitlements. The ANAO said that it was difficult to understand and manage for both the parliamentarians and the Department of Finance, which administers the entitlements.

The audit supported a review of the entitlements framework and greater transparency in the system. Before this, entitlements had not been comprehensively reviewed since 1971. In December 2009 in response to the ANAO report, the government set up a committee to review parliamentary entitlements, chaired by a former senior public servant, Barbara Belcher. The report from this review, the Belcher review, drew a distinction between remuneration and tools of trade, or entitlements, such as office facilities and transport. It recommended that salary be dealt with by the Remuneration Tribunal, while entitlements would be dealt with by a single piece of legislation. The government accepted the recommendations of the Belcher review, and from August 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal was given the power to determine parliamentary base salary and is required to publish reasons for its decision on parliamentary remuneration. Under legislation the parliament does not have the power to disallow parliamentary remuneration determinations made by the tribunal. In other words, our remuneration is no longer in our hands.

Further in December 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal made a number of recommendations, including: the parliamentary base salary be set at $185,000; the prospective closure of the Life Gold Pass Scheme; termination of the overseas study travel entitlement; greatly limited severance travel entitlement; severance of the link between pensions under the old superannuation scheme and current parliamentarians' salaries. These recommendations were accepted and legislation to effect these changes came into effect March 2012.

Since coming to office, this government has been exploring opportunities to make sensible changes to the parliamentary entitlements framework, including those of former parliamentarians, to ensure that we deliver value for money, openness and transparency. This is always an extremely tricky area. I fully acknowledge that we are impacting many who have made an enormous contribution to this country over a long period of time. Former parliamentarians from all sides of politics deserve our greatest respect. And, as a parliamentarian myself, I now understand the scale of the commitment so many of these people make to our country.

But travel entitlements beyond the life of a job are unusual in this day and age. Community standards and expectations are changing dramatically, and it is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to pay for something that they cannot expect from their own employment relationships. In addition, it is increasingly true that parliamentarians can expect a career, often a lucrative career, beyond their time in this place.

Some of my constituents argue that former parliamentarians should be constrained in some way, particularly with respect to lobbying. However, I will always defend the right of former parliamentarians to remain involved in the political process. They have a wisdom and experience that makes them extraordinarily valuable to society for many years beyond their time here.

The changes announced in November 2013 and in the 2014-15 budget and encompassed in this legislation reflect community standards, ensuring that taxpayers' money is well spent. This bill amends the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 and changes the title to the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Act 2002 to better reflect the intent of the legislation. It will reduce, remove and reform travel entitlements for holders of the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement for both current and former senators and members.

Specifically, the bill: imposes time limits on using the entitlements; and imposes limits on access to the entitlements, including closing it to people who have not met the qualifying periods before 14 May this year, and mandating that no-one can access benefits under the scheme, except for a former PM, if they retire from 1 January 2020 onwards. The bill reduces the number of trips per financial year under the entitlement for the time it is still in operation. The bill removes the ability of spouses and partners to access the entitlement, other than retired former PMs, and removes the entitlement to travel by a spouse or partner of the PM or a sitting former PM.

Lastly, and importantly, the bill requires that all parliamentary retirement travel, including travel by the spouse or de facto partner of a retired former prime minister, be for the public benefit. That is an extremely important aspect of this; it should always be for the public benefit. That means that in practice it does not include travel for a commercial or private purpose.

This current legislation will also amend the parliamentary entitlements framework to: impose a 25 per cent penalty on travel claims that require subsequent adjustment more than 28 days after being first submitted; limit the entitlement provided to the dependent children of senior officeholders to those who are less than 18 years of age. Just to clarify that: a senior officeholder is a minister, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House or Leader of the Opposition.

At this point I thought it might be useful to complete a scorecard in relation to the main bugbears of community members and many of my constituents, in relation to MPs' entitlements once this legislation is in place. The first and most common complaint is that MPs and senators pensions are too generous. On this point I think the changes made to MPs' superannuation, moving to an accumulation plan or nominated superannuation fund, addresses this key concern. I do acknowledge that there are MPs and senators who entered politics 25 or 30 years ago who have accrued entitlements under previous arrangements, and that for many in the community this remains a concern. However, I would emphasise that, wherever possible, we should respect a defined benefit scheme established some time ago. Those parliamentarians came into and in many cases left this place with a legitimate expectation that their defined benefit scheme would remain intact.

The next complaint I often get is that politicians should no longer vote themselves a pay rise. Again, the changes made in 2011 move this power to the Remuneration Tribunal, which now determines base salaries and is required to publish reasons for its decisions, as I said earlier.

Lastly, I often hear that politicians should not be entitled to a gold pass for travel. Of course, the purpose of this legislation is to reduce that entitlement and to set up a path to the eventual termination of the scheme. So, clearly, some important changes have been made and we are heading strongly in the right direction.

The other important piece of context here is the budget. The government made a number of difficult decisions in the budget. I have said before in this House that we seek to address two fundamental problems in the budget. The first is the $50 billion deficit in the last financial year, alongside debt expected to reach $667 billion if there is no intervention. But the last government left a far more insidious legacy, of fast rising expenditure—particularly in areas like health and welfare.

This is the most dangerous problem we face, because expenditure rising faster than revenue over an extended period drove the US and Europe into deep and sustained economic crises. The government is working very hard to turn that around, to get spending into line with tax revenue. It is totally inappropriate that we should keep borrowing from our children and grandchildren to fund expenditure today. I fear that those opposite intend to pass the buck to our children and our grandchildren. If not, it must be that they intend to raise taxes; time will tell. My money is on a sharp increase in taxes if Labor ever gets into power in the coming years. But as each day passes, the need for fiscal responsibility becomes even clearer.

For instance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Phil Bowen, recently commented that commodity prices could fall faster than expected, increasing our budgetary challenge. I think that this prospect is now very real, particularly with respect to iron ore prices. His key point, I believe, was not to cry wolf or to inject a flavour of panic. He was identifying the need for prudent budgets which include building a sensible buffer—a sensible buffer—against economic shocks.

There is much in this bill that some current and past parliamentarians do not love, and understandably so. But the process of bringing our remuneration and benefits into line with community standards and expectations is an important one, and one that I strongly endorse. I commend this bill to the House.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.

In making what will be a relatively brief contribution today I would like to start by reflecting on one very important point: members of parliament are elected to serve the community. And, in the case of members of the House of Representatives, they are elected to serve their electorates. Members of parliament are duty-bound to serve with integrity, honesty and transparency. The standards which apply to members of parliament are high, and so they should be. Australians deserve no less.

I digress for one moment, noting that the former member for Corangamite was in the House today. It reminded me of the failure of the former member for Corangamite to serve with integrity when he ran a very dishonest campaign in relation to a particular—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the member for Corangamite to withdraw that. Those imputations are not acceptable. The standing orders clearly say that you cannot impugn a member or claim that his motives are improper, and that is what you have just done.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not impugning a member. I am reflecting on—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just said that he ran a dishonest campaign and the statement you made before that was impugning him.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not a member, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. He is a former—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a former member and—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have asked you to withdraw it!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, the record does stand—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have asked you to withdraw it!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will reluctantly withdraw it—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No! Unreservedly!

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's have some more bullying from that side!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because there is no question in relation to the conduct of the former member for Corangamite. It is unfortunate that you have made that ruling, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, but in light of the fact that you have I will withdraw it.

In any event I think that the people of Corangamite understand how important it is to serve with integrity. The Australian community needs to have every confidence that their elected representatives are serving in a way which also delivers value for money and openness. I think that most people in the community understand that most members of parliament work hard. They understand that politics is pretty much a 24/7 business and that the commitment to public service requires a commitment to long hours and the capacity to deal with many issues concurrently.

In the electorate of Corangamite, which I am honoured to represent—a large regional electorate of more than 7½ thousand square kilometres and consisting of some 166 different communities—there is much work to be done to build a strong and prosperous economy and a safer and more secure Australia. Of course I work to be a strong local voice for the people of Corangamite.

Australians understand that members of parliament, when doing their job, have legitimate business expenses. But Australians have a right to expect that the parliamentary entitlements system is robust and transparent, and reflects community standards. This bill will make changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements Framework as announced by the government on 9 November 2013. It will also reduce parliamentarians' retirement travel entitlements as announced by the government in the 2014-15 budget.

The bill will amend the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 in order to impose a 25 per cent penalty loading on travel claims that requires subsequent adjustment more than 28 days after being first submitted, including a legal right of recovery of the 25 per cent penalty loading. It will also limit the travel entitlement provided to the dependent children of senior officeholders to those who are less than 18 years of age.

This bill also amends the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 in order to: reduce the travel entitlements for holders of the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement for both current and former senators and members; remove spouse travel, except for retired former prime ministers; and require all parliamentary retirement travel to be for the public benefit. As the member for Hume has said in his contribution today, that is a very important component of the changes in the bill. The bill also establishes a statutory basis for recovering overpayments to address the risk that certain payments made in the administration of entitlements may constitute a breach of section 83 of the Constitution.

Australians understand that parliamentarians have an important job to do and that that costs money. I certainly concur with the member for Hume in emphasising that parliamentarians on all sides of politics make a very important contribution. But let us be blunt, Australians do not like any suggestion that politicians have their snout in the trough. Our government's decision to apply a 25 per cent penalty loading on travel claims that require substantial adjustment sends a very clear message that any mistakes, oversights or, unfortunately, abuses, as has been alleged in the past, by members of parliament with respect to travel claims will not be tolerated. There will be a penalty and it is one that our government takes seriously.

Our government's decision to remove, cease, limit and reduce travel entitlements once an MP retires also demonstrates a commitment to adapt to changing community standards. As the member for Brand said today in his contribution, abolishing the life gold pass over time is a good thing to do. Special entitlements, of course, have been preserved for former prime ministers, and that is appropriate. The member for Brand has been critical of the cut in the entitlements of former prime ministers, but I wish to remind the House that former prime ministers will continue to be entitled to 30 trips per year for life and 20 trips per year for the former Prime Minister's spouse or de facto partner.

The Special Minister for State has explained each of these measures in detail in the second reading speech to the bill. I do not propose to go into much more detail than has already been done in this debate. I simply say, in my view, the people of Corangamite and Australians more broadly will appreciate the efforts of this government to tighten up the access to various entitlements, to add an extra layer of accountability and transparency, and to send a very strong message that being an elected representative comes with appropriate limitations on the cost to the taxpayer.

In getting Australia back on track and in getting our budget back on track, each of us has to make a contribution. That includes, of course, members and senators of the Australian parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. This bill gives effect to the changes announced by the government on 9 November 2013 that require amendments to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 and to the changes announced in the 2014-15 budget that require amendments to the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002.

Firstly, in relation to the changes announced in November 2013: the bill limits the domestic travel entitlement of dependent children of senior officers from those under 25 to those under 18 years of age. The bill establishes a 25 per cent penalty loading on any adjustment of a parliamentarian's claim for prescribed travel benefits, other than where the adjustment is made within 28 days of the claim or was the result of an administrative error by the Department of Finance.

In addition, the bill establishes a mechanism to minimise the risk that payments made in the course of administering the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 or the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 breach section 83 of the Constitution. This mechanism is comparable to mechanisms included in other acts, such as the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. As part of this mechanism, the bill establishes a statutory right for the recovery of payments that are beyond entitlement from parliamentarians or former parliamentarians. The bill also establishes a statutory right for the recovery of the 25 per cent penalty loading.

Secondly, the bill amends the title of the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 to the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Act 2002 to better reflect the entitlement, following the amendments contained in this bill. The bill removes eligibility from parliamentarians who did not meet the qualifying period for parliamentary retirement travel on or before 13 May 2014, other than for the spouse or de facto partner, or surviving spouse or de facto partner of a retired former Prime Minister.

The bill also removes eligibility for parliamentary retirement travel from spouses and de facto partners of retired parliamentarians, as well as sitting senators and members, who have met the qualifying period for parliamentary retirement travel. The bill requires that parliamentarians, other than former prime ministers, who met the qualifying period for parliamentary retirement travel on or before 13 May 2014 retire before 1 January 2020 in order to access the entitlement. The bill requires that all parliamentary retirement travel, including travel by the spouse or de facto partner of a retired former Prime Minister, be for the public benefit.

The bill ceases parliamentary retirement travel for former ministers, other than former prime ministers, presiding officers and leaders of the opposition—that is, senior officeholders—who left the parliament on or before 13 May 2008. The bill limits the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement of senior officeholders who left the parliament after 13 May 2008 to 10 return domestic trips per year from their retirement date to whichever is the lesser of six years or the second end of a parliament that occurs after their retirement.

The bill ceases parliamentary retirement travel for former parliamentarians, other than senior officeholders, who left the parliament on or before 13 May 2011. The bill reduces the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement of former parliamentarians, other than senior officeholders, who left the parliament after 13 May 2011 to five return domestic trips per year for three years from their retirement or the next end of a parliament that occurs after their retirement, whichever is the lesser. The bill removes the current restriction on a prime minister who enters or re-enters parliament on or after 6 March 2012 becoming eligible for parliamentary retirement travel. The bill reduces the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement of a retired former prime minister to 30 return domestic trips per year. The bill also reduces the entitlement of a spouse or de facto partner of a retired former prime minister who qualified for parliamentary retirement to 20 return domestic trips per year.

These are sensible reforms to improve accountability in the spending of taxpayers' money, which will strengthen the parliamentary entitlements system. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.