Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 on behalf of the opposition. This bill seeks to remove the Life Gold Pass from all current passholders and future recipients. Announced previously by the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, in 2014, the removal of the Life Gold Pass has not gone without criticism in some quarters. Labor has supported reforms to the Life Gold Pass in the past and will continue to do so with our support for this bill.

The expectations of the Australian people are clear. At a time when economic insecurity is reaching an all-time high, the continuation of such an entitlement is quite simply inappropriate. It is a privilege to represent our constituents in this place, although it can be a demanding and taxing task. All in this place need to ensure that we maintain the faith and confidence of the public. Without this, our democracy can only suffer.

This bill has caused some division in the coalition. There are some members and senators who have chosen to launch a public fight to retain the Life Gold Pass. To those members, I say: it is our duty to ensure that we stand up for what matters to Australians.

The Life Gold Pass was introduced many decades ago, when train travel was the primary method of travel around the country. It may have met community standards then; it certainly does not meet community standards now. It is our duty to focus on the issues affecting communities we represent, not to defend our own self interest ahead of the national interest and the public interest. Labor understands this, and, accordingly, we will support this bill and ensure its timely passage through the parliament.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it is of convenience to the House, I am happy to speak for another minute or so.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would very much appreciate it; thank you.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I mean to be helpful, but if there is a government speaker who wants to speak, I am more than happy for them to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am here to be helpful.

This has been a public debate now for some time. It was the previous Labor government that reformed the gold pass and closed a few entries. That was something that happened when we were in office. Then the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, took it further, and this prime minister has taken it further still. But this is a case where the parliament should come together and expeditiously pass the bill—hence my brief remarks, to help ensure that expeditious passage! But obviously something else has been required on this occasion tonight.

It is the case that the gold pass simply does no longer pass the public test of what is reasonable and appropriate. We all understand that in the 1920s members were travelling long distances by train, and it may have been quite appropriate then, when it was introduced.

Of course, this will be of some controversy to former members and to those who do not receive the gold pass in the future. But I challenge members of parliament and senators: can you really defend this? Can you really stand at street-corner meetings, can you really stand in public meetings, and say: 'This is appropriate,' any longer? It is not. It is no longer appropriate. It is not the case that we could justify this to the public; nor should we, because it just simply does not pass the test of being reasonable.

I think that most reasonable Australians—well, some would go further and say that all serving members of parliament should have their travel completely abolished, and we should not receive any travel entitlements, but most would recognise that a member of parliament going about their business, travelling from city to city, would require an appropriate level of support for that work expense. But it is very difficult to justify, for the vast majority of members of parliament, that gold pass.

I think that, again, most reasonable Australians would expect and understand that former prime ministers have a special responsibility. Former prime ministers still get called upon to speak at events, to go to charities or to support different initiatives in the community, and there needs to be a degree of support for former prime ministers and, indeed, for former governors-general. But, for many of us—and I would put the vast majority of us in this circumstance—when we leave this place, our public service, to the degree that it is associated with our time in parliament, has come to an end, and so that support should also come to an end. To argue otherwise is to suggest that members of parliament need ongoing travel support, and that is simply not the case.

So the opposition will strongly support the passage of this bill. We will expedite its passage through either house of parliament, as is requested by the government, because it is a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. It is a reasonable thing to do to ensure that the Australian people have confidence in the system. We have to be able to defend each work entitlement we are given. We have to be able to explain why it is justified. We have to be able to explain that it is necessary. We have to be able to rationalise and explain the reasons for it. And certainly I can no longer do that for the gold pass. I think many members would struggle to do that for the gold pass because it simply does not pass that test—it simply just does not. Hence, you find bipartisan agreement—or, I would imagine or I would hope, unanimous agreement—through both houses of parliament that this should be passed. It should be done expeditiously, and then we can say to the Australian people that those work expenses which we have are justified to help us do our jobs, to serve our constituents, to travel to and from Canberra and to be in touch with various parts of the community. Senior ministers and shadow ministers need to travel to every state and territory through the year and not just to capital cities. I certainly take the position, in my role as shadow Treasurer, that I need to be in touch with regional Australia. I conclude my remarks by saying that the opposition supports this bill.

Debate interrupted.