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

I move:

(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 10C(4), substitute:

(4) The recipient is liable to pay the Commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the current contravention), an amount equal to:

(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made-200% of the amount to which this section applies; and

(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made-400% of the amount to which this section applies.

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

Are you going to speak to them?

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

I would certainly like to. The amendment relates to the penalties, and it is fair to say that a 25 per cent penalty is inadequate. The public will roll their eyes and they will see it for what it is. It is a slap in the face to the public and their hard-earned taxpayer money.

In essence, a $1,000 rort would mean a penalty of just $250. A penalty under my provision would see that if you take $1,000 of the taxpayers' money inappropriately, in the first instance, you would have a $2,000 penalty and, for three offences or more, within 12 months you would be paying $4,000 back on top of that $1,000 rort. I think that is a fair penalty, because what we want to do here is restore, for the public, our integrity.

The Nick Xenophon Team is committed to greater accountability and transparency, in relation to parliamentary entitlements, and I believe that a much larger penalty is needed as a greater deterrent. We have greater deterrents in the criminal system. We do not give somebody who murders another person just three months. We recognise that there are aggregated offences and, for the same thing, what we are looking at here with repeat offending is aggregated offences. If an invalid claim is made, the penalty would either be 200 per cent or 400 per cent depending on the number of transgressions.

This amendment would increase penalties significantly, and I would like to think that both of the major parties would support this and see this for what it is. This is us being far more accountable for our own behaviour, because, when we have one person who decides to take their family on a holiday to Central Australia or they decide that they are going to take their family to Noosa, it affects us all. For those of us who do not stop and ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to spend taxpayers' money in this way, the larger penalty may force them to stop and think.

I urge this House to support this amendment, as it sends a message to our communities that says that most of us are honest, that most of us do the right thing, and that we are prepared to impose harsher monetary penalties on those of us who do not.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo. The government's position is clear: we have introduced this legislation to amend the act and we feel that the 25 per cent financial penalty for members and senators who decide to make a repayment is an appropriate penalty in the circumstances. In a sense, these changes are providing additional penalties that, to date, have not existed. So, whether or not one accepts the premise of the circumstances that the member for Mayo describes, these are penalties that will be put in place that hitherto have not been there. So our position is that these are sensible changes and a 25 per cent financial penalty will provide a significant incentive for people to ensure that their claims are correct.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As foreshadowed in my speech, the Greens will be supporting this amendment because it is a step in the right direction. When the bill comes before the Senate, we will be arguing for a targeted and potentially harsher approach because, in our view, there should be a much higher penalty for members of parliament who knowingly misuse entitlements. An inadvertent mistake might be one thing, but, when you knowingly misuse your right to travel somewhere or to claim overnight accommodation and you have gone to a place—for example, the Gold Coast—just for personal reasons, to improve your own personal financial position by perhaps buying an investment property, that is beyond the pale.

If you fleeced the company that you worked for you would go to jail, or you would face going to jail. If you took money out of the coffers of a company to improve your own personal position and your own personal standing, you would face the full force of the law—and rightly so. So the question arises: when you have a member of parliament who knowingly does something wrong and knowingly says, 'I can get taxpayer entitlement X, Y or Z and use it to improve my own personal situation,' what is the appropriate response? Why should it be any different to someone who defrauds their company or the boss that they work for and who could potentially find themselves in jail? That is a very simple question that the government should answer.

Should we not at the very least—and this is an argument that we will be pursuing in the Senate—be increasing the penalties for those members of parliament who intentionally do the wrong thing? When it comes to the following bill, we will have more to say about the expenses authority and the situation where members of parliament might get the rules wrong. We think there are steps that could be taken to fix that so that you do not incur the expense in the first place. But, if you knowingly do something that is really for personal benefit, surely the consequences should be much higher. Slipping up—okay, let's deal with that in a certain way. But, if you knowingly do something wrong, the penalties should be higher.

This government, in particular, should have some even-handedness, because, if you happen to be someone in this country who has lost their job and is reliant on Centrelink or Newstart to get yourself by until you get back on your feet again, if you miss an appointment, your money gets turned off and you go without. This government says, 'We want to make it even worse; you might have to go up to a month without any money at all'—not for having done the wrong thing but just because you find yourself unemployed. So this government is quite happy to turn around and say to people who find themselves out of a job—and it might because you are living in a town where unemployment is over 20 per cent—'You get no money at all, because you didn't turn up to an appointment,' but then effectively give what could amount to a slap over the wrist to people who have a lot of money and who are in a position to afford this kind of penalty.

So you really have to ask whether this government is prepared to be as even-handed and as tough on politicians as it is prepared to be on people who are unemployed. I reckon the answer is probably no, and that is probably why the government is not going to support this amendment. In moving this amendment, there are some very valid questions as to whether the government has the balance right, particularly when it comes to people who make claims they know in their heart were not right from the beginning.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the implementation of the panel's recommendations unaltered and unhindered. On that basis, the opposition opposes the amendment and supports the timely passage of the legislation in its current form.

Parliamentarians of every political persuasion have acknowledged that the complicated and often disjoined system of work expenses can generate genuine error by parliamentarians seeking to utilise work expenses in the course of their duties. The suite of bills proposed to reform entitlements seeks to ensure the system for claims, advice, monitoring and auditing is clear and concise. The intent of these reforms is to remove the incidence of incorrect claims altogether, following the implementation of the Independent Review of Parliamentary Expenses, led by John Conde and David Tune. We have been awaiting the government's response to that review for over a year. It was undertaken by a group of respected and eminent Australians with experience and knowledge in this area. That is why Labor will be supporting the implementation of those recommendations, unaltered and unhindered.

Importantly, for those who might seek amendment, the provisions in this bill allow for review every three years, which is, in the opposition's view, the opportune moment to reconsider changes and improvements. So, again, Labor supports the bill in its current form.

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

I would just like to briefly respond to the minister's comments in relation to my amendment. I appreciate the minister's acknowledgement that this has never been done before; we have never had a 25 per cent penalty. And so I say to the minister: do it once, do it right. Let us not go back in three years' time. I think that we are missing the community's expectation here, if we think the 25 per cent penalty is enough. It is not enough for this, and particularly if you are a repeat offender and you are rorting—this is using taxpayers' money; this is not using your own money. And so, I think the community expectation for this would be that, if this is your second, third, fourth, fifth or eighth offence of this kind, then you should be receiving a higher penalty. I think the community's expectation is that 25 per cent is far too low. We should be looking at least 200 per cent—because nothing else will ensure that we do the right thing here. We have had so many examples of this.

I have to say, I feel very strongly about this. When one of us is betraying the trust of the public, we all suffer. I know that when the recent controversy was being reported—and it was being reported relentlessly—people in my community looked at me differently. They spoke to me differently. They made requests of me differently. And I felt the contempt that they had for politicians generally being directed at me personally—even though I was not guilty of anything. It was guilt by association. And they seemed to be wondering how much I had my snout in the trough, just like other members of parliament who have been found to be doing just that. And so I would urge both sides here—our two major parties—to show some leadership in relation to this and to support this amendment.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo. I think we are all in violent agreement that a penalty regime is appropriate; we are disagreeing on where the line should be drawn. It is our position—and I fear that we are covering old ground—that the 25 per cent financial penalty is appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome the opposition's support of that penalty regime and the 25 per cent penalty—that is the position of the government and we think that it strikes the balance. Again, we will have an opportunity in the legislation to review this in due course, but I am confident and the government is confident that this penalty regime will provide the incentives necessary to ensure that all members—and can I just put on the record that the absolute bulk if not all members are very honest individuals, including those in the opposition and on the crossbench. This is an appropriate penalty regime. However, I thank the member for Mayo for her contribution.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to put on the record my strong support for what the member for Mayo is trying to achieve here, which is to make the penalties much harsher. I agree with the member for Melbourne: the penalties should be much harsher. Let us put this in perspective. If someone—anyone; a member of parliament, a business, a welfare recipient—if anyone knowingly and deliberately takes a sum of money from the Commonwealth—steals a sum of money, effectively—whether it be a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars, that is theft. That should be regarded as a criminal matter. For some reason, we have this idea that if an MP effectively steals a sum of money from the taxpayer, then we might shame them and we might ask them to pay back a little bit extra as a fine, but otherwise it is okay. How would we treat someone who tried to defraud Centrelink of a thousand dollars? The police would go after them, and put them in front of a judge. What would we do if a business tried to defraud the Commonwealth for $1,000? The police would go after them and we would try and drag them in front of a judge in a court. There is no reason for this exemption for members of parliament—that they should pay some paltry little fine, and maybe get a slap on the wrist, and maybe named and shamed.

No wonder the community is sick and tired—they have absolutely had it up to here—with politics and politicians and most of the political parties. Because they think that we have got our snouts in the trough. And they think that we think we are above the law. And how can you blame them for thinking that—when we think it is okay, when the government thinks it is okay, when the opposition thinks it is okay, to have some token penalty for what amounts to theft? If a member of parliament trips around this country and, on that trip, does what any reasonable person would say is substantively a private matter, and then they sign a form to say it was for official purposes, then that is theft. That is a criminal matter. The police should be called in.

Regrettably, I am not surprised at this half-baked approach by the government and the opposition when it comes to penalties, because all of the evidence is that the government and the opposition have been dragged kicking and screaming to this day—kicking and screaming. The fact is that when former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop got into strife over the use of a helicopter and other matters—and there was an inquiry into that—there were something like 36 recommendations. It was early last year that the government announced that those recommendations would be implemented. And here we are, a year later, and they have not been implemented, and the only reason the government is moving now is because of the political pressure as a result of the former health minister. I make the point again: the government and the opposition have been dragged kicking and screaming to this point. Neither side is beyond fault here—the Labor Party: you were in government for years, you did not do anything; the Liberals and Nationals: you are now in government, and it was only the former health minister's scandal that forced you to act. What I would like to see done is exactly what the member for Melbourne has foreshadowed—that is, much tougher penalties.

How dare the government and the opposition come in here and say they will not support the sensible amendments from the member for Mayo? While I agree for the member for Melbourne—we should go much further, and it should be a criminal matter—how can you not bring yourself to support the member for Mayo's amendment? It really goes to demonstrate that you have been dragged kicking and screaming to this point in time, and that what you are doing is the bare—

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

I would ask you to address your remarks through the chair, Member for Denison.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Deputy Speaker. It just goes to show that both the government and the opposition have, indeed, been forced to come in here most reluctantly—totally against what they would rather be doing right now. They do not have their hearts in it. If Labor had their hearts in it, they would have acted on this years ago. If the government had their hearts in it, they would have acted on the 36 recommendations a year ago. They do not have their hearts in it. They do not care about this. They will keep working together to diminish reform in this area—because, quite frankly, too many of them have got their snouts in the trough. We see it all the time: members of parliament gallivanting all around the country, maybe meeting some colleague in their office for 20 minutes and then spending a weekend in that town, probably with their partner and having a lovely old time, and racking up thousands of dollars of bills on the taxpayer. That is theft and that should be a reason for the Federal Police to be called in.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to add words of support for my colleagues and briefly add a couple of other salient comments. When we had the election in 2016, a quarter of the population of Australia voted for nonparty members of parliament. In this parliament there are five of us on the crossbench who represent that quarter of voters of Australia who do not want and did not vote for parties. What we are hearing today, exactly as my colleagues have said so well, is a strong voice from the crossbench. We are saying to the parties: 'You have got it wrong.' We are saying that a quarter of the population in Australia want something done about this particular issue and it is significant. So I am adding my voice of support from the people of Indi, a traditionally conservative electorate in the country. We have seen what has happened and we do not like it. We would like the government and the opposition to do exactly what the member for Denison has just said: come together and absolutely show the people of Australia that you get the serious nature of the problem of how we behave.

There is something about bringing on the crossbenchers that makes us a little bit sensitive about this topic. Particularly for the Independents, but I also know this from my smaller party colleagues, the scrutiny that is applied to us is enormous. The scrutiny by the major parties that is applied to every single act I do is so particular. So, as other members have said, we pay particular attention to make sure we follow the rules. We pay particular attention, but not because we want to follow the rules; we do this because we know it is right and proper. We do this because we respect that taxpayers' money—paid and earned so hard by our electorate—needs to be accounted for. So I say to the very good members of parliament, the members of the government and the opposition, 'This is at your peril. If you do not listen to us, it will be upon your shoulders.' There is nothing in this particular bit of legislation for us other than representing our communities.

I bring my comments to a close and say that this debate is going to go on for a bit of time today. We have put an enormous amount of work into working with our communities. We have spoken to them, we have consulted with them and we have asked: 'What would you like us to do as Independents?' What you are getting here today is heartfelt representation. We are saying to the major parties, 'Listen to us. Listen to the quarter of Australians who don't want what's happening.' You have all heard the big debate in Western Australia about preferences and what is happening there. The community is getting behind it and saying, 'There's a pox on your parties. We don't like it.' Here is your chance today to actually do something that would be really popular with the community—really popular—to show the communities of Australia that the major parties get what they are trying to say. Hear the strong message from the crossbench. In adding my comments, I acknowledge the representation of my colleagues and I thank them for the amendments they have brought through. I am absolutely committed to supporting you on those amendments.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for Melbourne, Dennison, Indi and Mayo. The government does not propose to immediately introduce criminal penalties to this legislation. There are already provisions in place for members and senators, like any citizen, who genuinely defrauds the Commonwealth, but to suggest that a member or senator who genuinely makes an incorrect claim based on very ambiguous rules should face criminal penalties is nothing more than a stunt, in my view. One strong reason for introducing the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority is to provide clarity and certainty for parliamentarians about whether something is within or outside the rules. The government believes this is a better way of approaching things, along with other measures including increased transparency, than continuing to have the system we now have, with vague guidelines, and simply adding criminal penalties to help some on the crossbench get a headline.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That has to be responded to because that is the biggest strawman argument that I have ever heard. This portrays how this government is not serious about it. When I first got elected to this place and wanted to use a travel entitlement, I rang up everyone I could find to ask, 'Is this trip that I want to do within the rules? I'm new here and I want to know whether it's in the rules.' What I was told by the departments who were just doing their job is, 'We can't tell you whether it's in the rules. You have to make your own assessment about that, and there's no way of it being judged.' That is why, for a very long time, we have pushed for an independent authority that you are able to go to before you incur the expense as an MP and ask for a ruling about whether it is in or out. If we had an independent authority like that, I bet former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop would not have got the tick for a chopper flight to Geelong and I bet several other former ministers would not have got the tick for trips to places where they were about to purchase investment properties or the like. So there is a strawman argument being put up here. There have been pushes for reform for a very long time saying, 'Let's make the rules crystal clear and let's have an independent umpire you can go to before you incur the expense so that you've got absolutely no excuse if you get it wrong.' If we did that, the public would have an enormous amount of confidence in us because they would know that someone was overseeing what we do.

The government have finally heard what the Greens have been pushing for a while—an independent umpire who can make those assessments—and they have come part of the way towards it with their next bill that is coming up. We will have a few things to say about that. That is a good step in the right direction, but it is something they have been dragged to, kicking and screaming, because some light was shone on the behaviour of their own frontbench and backbench and the public said enough is enough. But the minister said, in his comments just then, 'No-one should go to jail for a slipup.' None of us are arguing that. We are saying two things. We are saying: make the rules clear so that there can be no excuse, and put an independent umpire in place before you incur the expense so that members of parliament have no excuse if they do the wrong thing.

We are arguing that there are people who do not unintentionally slip up. Everyone makes mistakes; whether you are working for a private company or for the public, it will happen from time to time. We are not talking about unintentional slip-ups. You can fix the rules so that they are clear and so that people have no excuse but, if—once the rules are clear—you deliberately go out and flout them, then surely you have to be held to a higher standard than someone who makes an innocent mistake. If you go out and say, 'I will use public money to get myself an investment property,' or if you say, 'I will use public money to go to a personal event that has no connection with my work,' then surely that has to be held to a higher standard than someone who just slips up because they filled in the wrong form or did not dot their i's or cross their t's.

If you want to have this argument, Minister, do not build up a straw man. Do not suggest that those of us here are saying that we want people to face potential prison sentences for making a simple mistake. No, we are not saying that. We are saying that if you know what the rules are, you have clarified the rules, and if you then use public money for private gain, what standard should you be held to? If you were working for a private company and did so, you would be charged and hauled in front of a court. If you were a welfare recipient and you did not meet the government's test, you would lose your payment. If the government is seriously saying that the penalty for someone who slips up accidently should be the same as the penalty for someone who intentionally rorts the system, then they are massively out of touch. They are massively out of touch, and they should go and listen to the kind of reform that people around this country want.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to respond to the comment from the government. Absolutely, it is true that there is confusion, but there is no argument about how broad this particular area of work is. There was a really good recommendation in the report that was tabled in February 2016—that we should overhaul the system and have one act of parliament that would bring it all together with really clear purpose, and go back to the drawing board to get rid of the confusion.

Minister, I would be really keen to hear your response to that. What is the government's plan for giving us an act of parliament to cover off on this topic? I have not seen in any of the literature I have been reading, nor in any of the briefings that we have had, that there is any commitment from the government to implement that recommendation in the report—one act of parliament that covers it all off and makes it clear. So often in this parliament, when we try to fix things up, we make something like a smorgasbord of everything. I think in this particular instance we need to do exactly what your report has said—develop one act of parliament. Let's clear it all up, let's simplify it and let's stop trying to fix it by adding little pieces at the side that will make it even more confusing and more hard. I welcome your comments, and I would be really keen to hear your advice on when the government is going to accept that particular recommendation.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Indi. The government is conscious that we want all senators and members to have a very clear understanding of what is within and what is not within entitlement. I think we can all agree that the current set of arrangements certainly provides for a lot of grey area, and that is one of the reasons the Special Minister of State is doing a lot of work at the moment—to try and make that as clear as possible. That will be expedited, though I cannot give an exact time frame.

As for the criminal penalty regime that has been proposed by some members, if anybody, any citizen, knowingly defrauds the Commonwealth, ordinary criminal provisions will apply. But it is our view that a penalty regime of 25 per cent, that could include inadvertent errors, is appropriate and is enough of an incentive to ensure that everybody gets their own house in order and makes sure that those mistakes are not made.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, I have a question for the minister. If the minister says that the existing arrangement is enough, does the minister believe that the recent scandals that we saw over the summer—where members of parliament used public money to improve their own personal position with investment properties—amount to something that should attract the attention of the criminal law, or does the minister believe that that is the kind of activity that should only be dealt with by a 25 per cent penalty?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne and, as I passed him in business class when walking down to my economy seat on a plane from Melbourne to Canberra, I did not realise he was such a bastion of purity on these issues—not to mention your carbon footprint, member for Melbourne, in a business class seat compared to mine in an economy seat. Our position is very clear. We think that a 25 per cent penalty regime which, up until today, has not existed, will provide sufficient incentives for members to ensure that they do not make those inadvertent errors. And, if any citizen, senator or member knowingly, deliberately defrauds the Commonwealth, the ordinary criminal law will apply. How hard is that for the member to understand? It will ordinarily apply.

Our position is very clear. A penalty regime of 25 per cent will provide the incentives to ensure that all of us scrutinise our entitlements in a way that, clearly, in isolated circumstances, has not been the case in the past.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to bring a different perspective to this, if I may. I am confident that, by doing this, I will be speaking for a great many Australians. Yes, the rules have been difficult to decode and understand. Yes, there has been ambiguity. Yes, often people have in their own words complied with the rules, they have acted within their entitlement.

I fear that many people in this place have failed to understand that all that sort of talk though just appals the community. For the community, it is about what is right and what is wrong. In some ways it does not matter what the rules are, because there are some fundamental measures of right and wrong. Some people call it the pub test; I would actually rather call it the test of what is ethically right: what is the behaviour of someone with integrity versus something that is ethically wrong or the behaviour of someone who lacks integrity?

In some ways this whole discussion is irrelevant, because it really comes down to what is right and wrong. If someone travels around Australia and, on that trip, the substantive activity is private—even if they are doing some official duties around the margins and then they claim allowances for that trip—then I think any reasonable person would say that claiming those allowances is the wrong thing to do. I think that is the way a lot of people in the community are viewing this. In fact they see our preoccupation with the rules, fines and penalties in some way as a cop-out, because we are suggesting that, by needing to tighten up the rules—and we do need to tighten up the rules, unfortunately—and the time we are spending on debating this, we do not have an understanding of right and wrong and that we need these rules. Unfortunately, we do need these rules in this place, because some people do not have integrity—many people do; there are a lot of good men and women in this place, in all the parties. I am not picking on all of my colleagues. I am not saying I am better than that or I think I will have a cheap shot at the member for Melbourne for where he was sitting on the plane. I think this is an important thing, and it is in the public interest to, as we have generally done, keep the debate and the discussion at a good and civil level.

I want to make that point. It is a little vague what I am saying, but I think people get it. It is the sort of feedback I am getting in my electorate and as I travel around. It is not about the rules. It is not about whether or not the former health minister was within entitlement or outside entitlement. It was about whether or not we are doing the right thing, whether or not we are acting ethically and whether or not we are acting as leaders in the community by setting a good example.

I will talk about the business class point. I think that, if the community had confidence that we are good and competent people in this place—people of integrity, people who are focused on good public policy and we work hard—they would probably forgive us if some people sit at the front of the plane and some people do not. The problem at the moment is that respect for us is rock bottom. When they look at these things—like the former Speaker, the former health minister or other people—they sense that we are not men and women of integrity and that we need to act as people with integrity, because that is ultimately what this is about. It is about right and wrong and, if this place was populated by good people with integrity, you know what? We would not need any rules, and the community would have confidence in us that we were always trying to do the right thing.

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

I just wanted to make a couple of extra remarks. I would like to ask the minister, through you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough: does the minister recognise that a flat penalty of 25 per cent for the first offence, for the second offence and for the 20th offence will not restore the community's faith in us, which they currently do not have? We are at such a loss in this place as far as community respect for us goes. It will provide very little thought or understanding within the community that we are trying to address this.

Does the minister believe that that is an acceptable penalty when there are repeat offences? It could happen; it has happened before. We only just saw it in the summer where, unfortunately, we had a health minister who was found to have travelled many, many times. Even though that was within the rules of entitlements, it affected every single one of us in here and it brought us down below choppers. It brought us down, and people have such little respect for us so that I think we need to, as a parliament, look a little closer at ourselves and be a little tougher on ourselves for the benefit of all of us, for the benefit of the wider community.

As the member for Denison said, this is about right and wrong. This is about us being able to very clearly see when something is right or wrong and act as leaders in our community, which is what we are supposed to be when we walk into this place. At the moment, the community has very little faith and very little trust in us, and these measures are about restoring that trust.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks again to the member for Mayo. I do not think it helps us to get into a debate here about who is more righteous. I think the reality is that the requirement of a repayment of any incorrect claim plus a 25 per cent penalty in my view in a rational sense should not lead to repeat offences. The whole idea that we are imposing a penalty regime that does not exist at the moment for any sane or rational member of parliament would mean that you will not have those repeat offences, and I think, in most cases of what we are talking about today, we are looking in the grey area. I take the member for Indi's point around making the regime clearer for members, and that is what the Special Minister of State is doing now and it will be in the next round of legislation that he will be proposing.

The government's position here is that we are taking a big step in trying to restore, by imposing a penalty regime, the confidence that you rightly say is lacking. We can all try to outbid each other on who is more righteous by saying it should be 100 per cent, 200 per cent, 400 per cent. In my view, in a place where we think most members and senators should be acting rationally, if not honestly, I do not think there will be those repeat offences, because a strong penalty on any overclaim will apply. It is the wish of the government that we do not see a single offence, let alone repeat offences, and I think we are in agreement that a penalty regime is the best way of doing that. We perhaps disagree on where we would draw that line, but I do not think any number of questions to and fro are going to change where we both sit. We think a 25 per cent penalty is appropriate—indeed, the opposition believes that a 25 per cent penalty is appropriate. Obviously, we will have an opportunity to review this in three years time.

Can I just say more broadly: I have been in parliament for probably less time than many of you—perhaps not you, member for Mayo—and far be it from me to defend all the members of this House or the other place, but I think, overwhelmingly, members of parliament work very hard. I do not think any of us are particularly excited about being away from our spouses and, in some cases, children. I do not think there are ministers or shadow ministers who are desperate to spend another night away from their families. I think these are duties that we take very seriously on behalf of Australians and, again, that is why we believe that a 25 per cent penalty regime is appropriate in the circumstances.

I agree with the member for Denison that, ultimately, if all members and senators act with the integrity that the Australian people expect of us then we will not even have circumstances where a penalty on the first strike is cast, let alone further penalties as you have described, member for Mayo. Our position is clear: a 25 per cent penalty regime is appropriate.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan, Ms Sharkie and Mr Wilkie voting aye.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be agreed to.

Bill agreed to.