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

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in support of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017. This bill seeks to establish an independent authority to monitor and manage travel and work expenses of parliamentarians. In 2015, the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, announced a review into the expenses of parliamentarians following the impromptu helicopter ride from Melbourne to Geelong taken by former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop. The understandable public outrage following that incident prompted the former Prime Minister to act, and he promised the review would fix the system. The government received the recommendations of that review and formally accepted them in February 2016. There were 36 individual recommendations and many related to the travel undertaken by parliamentarians. We are aware, based on the comments of the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State, that further legislation is on its way to implement the recommendations of the Conde review.

In addition to supporting the recommendations, the Prime Minister has announced an independent authority, similar to that which currently exists in the United Kingdom, to monitor, manage and audit parliamentarians' work and travel expenses. This announcement was again prompted by scandal, following the member for Farrer's failure to appropriately manage her travel expenses. The authority established by this bill would assume many of the responsibilities of the Department of Finance and would require the resources to process claims by parliamentarians and staff. The authority, managed by a chief executive officer, would be led by a chair, the President of the Remuneration Tribunal and members including a former judicial officer, a former parliamentarian and people with experience in corporate governance and auditing.

Labor supports the establishment of such an independent authority to oversee the system, but the coalition's dithering on these important reforms—I remind members that the review was brought down a full year ago—has contributed to further undermining Australians' confidence in those they elect to serve them. Australian families should not have to wake up to the news of another Bronwyn Bishop. They should not wake up with another reason to be fed up with what is going on in Canberra. These scandals and misuses of work expenses damage not only the individual or party but all of us in this place. From day one, the opposition has supported the recommendations of the independent review into parliamentary entitlements and the creation of an independent tribunal. The government has been sitting on the recommendations of the independent review of the expenses system for almost a year. It has been shamed into action only because of the revelations of the actions of the member for Farrer.

Today's legislation is an important step. The Labor Party has and will always stand for increased transparency and accountability in the political system. We know and respect the importance of this place, and the importance of the public's faith in those of us who are fortunate enough to have been elected to work in this place. A lot of luck goes into being elected into parliament, and those of us who are here feel lucky every day that we have the privilege to work in this place. But we have to work together on reforms to address the community's lack of faith in the existing system. It is absolutely critical that we restore that faith because, as we have seen, the numbers of rusted-on supporters and the deep tribal loyalties are not what they once were. People have become more disconnected from community life. We see this not just in the waning public membership of our mass membership organisations, declining church and union membership and declining engagement with friends and neighbours but also in disengagement from politics. The problem of us becoming disconnected is reflected in declining party membership, declining rates at which Australians cast a valid vote and declining support for major political parties. We see this not just in Australia but around the world, where the vote for centrist parties has declined and the support for populist parties has risen.

Too many Australians believe the political system is broken, and all of us in this place have a duty to fix it. We must ensure that we debate what matters and focus on the issues affecting millions of Australian families—families who have felt at times that some in this place have been acting out of self-interest, instead of for the interests of those whom we serve. These scandals make it easy for Australians to think that politicians are in it for themselves. When you look at the surveys that have been conducted by the Australian National University through the Australian Election Studies, you see a rise in disenchantment in politics. It is a problem which I wrote about back in 2002 in a book I coedited with David Burchell called The Prince's New Clothes, which was about why Australians do not trust their politicians. But since that book came out we have seen further decline in the degree to which Australians have trust and confidence in politicians. We do, collectively, need to lift our game.

Of course, the vast majority of parliamentarians respect taxpayer money, respect their duty to represent the voters, and do the right thing. But the exceptions are those that hit the front page and tarnish us all. Labor wants to see these recommendations implemented without further delay, and I commend this bill to the House.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate around entitlements reform, and I do so because this is an issue that my constituents often bring up with me in my electorate of Lindsay. And I also note a lack of speakers from the government on this bill, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017. I think the conversations of my community with me reflect the broader views around the country on this issue: they want to see more accountability and transparency from their parliamentarians, and rightly so, and they want to know what their tax dollars are being spent on and spent in a way that actually benefits their issues and their lives.

We all know that Australians are losing faith in our political system. They are losing faith in our collective ability to represent the issues that matter to them, as my colleague the member for Fenner has just pointed out. Too many people see parliamentarians as self-serving and self-indulgent, removed from the stresses and strains of ordinary life and too concerned with fringe issues that impact very little on their lives. I know this because, prior to entering this place, I was a single mum struggling to get by, and I was raised by a single mum who struggled to get by also. So I understand how people can look at parliamentarians and wonder how connected they are to ordinary people. In my former life before entering here I also ran a charity, and every cent that was spent in that charity was directed to the right causes.

The recurring scandals around entitlements do nothing to help people's faith in the system. It is up to us to prove to our constituents that the things we do as their representatives are valuable to them. It is up to us to improve, and to prove to our constituents that they get value for money in everything that we do.

From Bronwyn Bishop's 'choppergate' scandal to the former health minister's Gold Coast getaways, these kinds of self-indulgent abuses of taxpayer funds undermine the important work that members of parliament do, and, at a time when the average family's pay packet is stagnant and the cost of living is going up and up, the last thing Australians want to see is parliamentarians wasting taxpayer dollars. Likewise, at a time when this government is cutting support to pensioners and throwing our unemployed young people under a bus, the last thing Australians want to see is parliamentarians who are addicted to tightening the belts of others but cannot tighten their own. That is why Labor has been committed to entitlements reform for quite some time, and that is why Labor has offered to support the government to pass this important legislation.

Now this is an incredibly important point: if we do not act to improve people's faith in our political system, we leave ourselves open to extreme fringe groups who would rather spread hate and fear through our country instead of doing the important work of building and supporting our communities. So both sides of this chamber have a job to do in rebuilding people's faith in our political system.

That is why the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, established a review into MPs expenses some time ago. The recommendations from that review have been sitting with the current Prime Minister for almost a year. There were 36 recommendations given to the Prime Minister, all of which I will not go into, but it seems recent circumstances have hastened this government's overdue response to those recommendations.

In particular, the move to establish an Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority is welcome, and it promises to provide greater accountability and transparency and more uniform advice to parliamentarians about their work expenses in this place. And, as a new member of parliament, I have got to say: I personally welcome this as well. Currently the system is governed by a multitude of different acts, regulations and ministerial directions, which contributes to the opaque perception—the sense of confusion—that undermines people's trust in the system.

Of course, at the heart of the new authority has to be value for money for the taxpayer. That must be central to these reforms, because that is the expectation of the community. And that has been made very, very clear to me.

The authority will assume many of the functions of the ministerial and parliamentary services when it comes to parliamentarians' work expenses and claims, relieving the pressure on the Department of Finance and shifting the responsibility to an independent body. The independent body will be in charge of providing clear advice to MPs and their staff and remove much of the ambiguity that currently exists.

Another issue that is often brought up with me is the Life Gold Pass, which can only be described as an anachronism that fits very poorly against the backdrop of modern budgetary household pressures. Labor has been clear and unequivocal in our support for removing the Life Gold Pass because we recognise that it sits so far outside community expectations.

While I appreciate that some people will be unhappy with this change—probably the beneficiaries of the pass, I suspect—we have to remember that this is taxpayer money: money that has been earned and forfeited by someone else, quite often earning far less than a parliamentarian. We should recognise that every dollar spent in the course of our jobs representing our community is a dollar that was hard-earned by our community. I know that there are an incredible number of hardworking MPs in this place who understand this fact, and that is why there is broad support to scrap the Life Gold Pass—apart, of course, from a few rogue coalition MPs who have decided to defend it.

Now, as I mentioned before, much of this debate centres around people's faith in the system and their faith in the idea that we parliamentarians should expect from ourselves what we legislate and regulate for others. And—at a time when this government is ruthlessly chasing innocent people for fake debts, cutting pensions, ripping money out of schools and making unemployed young people live off nothing for five weeks—the absolute least we could do in this place is to subject ourselves to proper scrutiny when it comes to spending taxpayer money. This is why ordinary people are so obsessed with MPs' entitlements, because they are constantly being attacked by this Liberal government and they do not think it is fair that they end up footing the bill for the same MPs who vote to reduce their benefits.

These reforms are long overdue, and I am proud to say that I understand why they are necessary—I get it—and I represent a party that understands why they are necessary, too. We have a job ahead of us, but it is fundamentally important that people have faith in the system and faith in their elected representatives to spend their money wisely. That is the aim of this bill, and I support it.

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

I would like to make a few brief remarks building on the comments of my colleague the member for Lindsay, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I did speak earlier for the full time on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Authority Bill 2017. I said on that bill that it could be considered courageous, in the Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister sense, for any of us to get up and say anything about entitlements in the current environment. It is a bit less so on this one, as I cannot imagine that anyone in the community or anyone in this place would have any opposition. Indeed, I think there is far less room for debate about where to draw the line in relation to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017.

I would say at the outset that I am entirely unclear as to why the bills were not debated concurrently, given it is possible to traverse pretty much the same ground on each bill. All I can conclude is that it helps fill the airtime here, given the government's lack of any substantive policy agenda. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that most of us, if not all of us, did not seek election to talk about expenses or to talk about ourselves—although in recent weeks we have seen those opposite spending more time talking about themselves than about the nation. I would certainly prefer it if we could focus on other issues, substantive issues, that relate to people's daily lives. I am sure everyone in the chamber would agree.

As the member for Lindsay pointed out, if the government had done its job properly in the time before I arrived in this place last July and acted on this quickly after the Bronwyn Bishop scandal then this would have been dealt with in the last parliament. We know that in August 2015, after three weeks of prevarication and a national scandal, former Prime Minister Abbott finally called an end to it and commissioned a report. We understand that that report was received by the government in February last year, a full 12 months ago. It went round and round in circles, and it was only when the member for Farrer became the January news story and some of her travel records were exposed that all of a sudden the government decided that she had to walk the plank—presumably to protect the member for Curtin and the polo misadventures—and so the story goes.

Nevertheless, we are where we are. We have had a sense in recent days as to why the delay, given the public tantrum from Senator Macdonald in the other place about the outrageous suggestion that we could see the Life Gold Pass removed. Presumably there is one ray of hope in that tantrum for the rest of us in that perhaps he is thinking about leaving the parliament soon and is focused on the next phase of his life, however long it may be.

I spoke in my earlier remarks from three perspectives. I spoke from the perspective of a new member—someone trying to make sense of all of this in a chaotic, complex environment with the incredible mishmash of rules. I also spoke as a citizen who has watched this mess unfold from outside this place for far too many years and seen it, year after year, bleed trust in this parliament and its elective representatives. I spoke of the impact that that trust deficit has on our ability to prosecute more complex arguments for national reform, which are in the public interest but which may not be popular in the short term. It is hard to get up in front of people and be taken as credible when you keep being blindsided by outrageous and stupid expense scandals. And I also spoke from the perspective of the community's expectations.

I will not further traverse that ground, lest I be cast as Mayor Quimby, one of my favourite characters from The Simpsons, who is known for quoting himself. But I do want to add one other dimension to my remarks on this: as someone who worked for over 10 years—after 10 years in a place you start losing count, but I think it was about 12 or 13 years—as a senior Victorian public servant. Generally, my time in the Public Service has been one of working within a culture of prudence and with an expectation of public scrutiny of everything you do. Notwithstanding some shameful examples that have arisen—and that are now quite rightfully being prosecuted in the courts—of education bureaucrats ripping off the taxpayer and some other incidents that have occurred, my experience in all the departments that I worked in, under all the secretaries that I worked for, was one of high integrity. That culture of prudence and the expectation of scrutiny drove a desire for clear rules. When something was not clear, there were always processes to work it out and gain agreement. It drove you insane at times, because you would say to your boss, 'I have to go here and I have to get a cab, and then we would sit down and try to figure out how it fitted within the rules. If it did not then there were always mechanisms whereby you could go to the corporate department and figure it out. If necessary, you would change the rules, because in the Public Service there was such a high value placed on making sure things were done correctly, as the taxpayer expects.

I spoke earlier about the complex mess and the lack of clarity. From my perspective, one of the most welcome things with this new Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority will be the ability to get frank, clear advice and rulings. Hurrah! No doubt the other new members I see here have been frequent callers—the member for Mayo over there is nodding—to the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services folk in the Department of Finance. They are great people and they are there to help you understand the new administrative environment you are in. They are very helpful, they are very professional, but even they are not able, in the current system, to give clear rulings. They do their best. I have taken the advice to send queries in writing so I have a record of what was said, and generally they give you a lovely, polite reply into which have been cut and pasted the impenetrably unclear rules that you have just read. Everyone in the chamber is smiling and nodding because we have all been on the receiving end of those emails.

The other issue that this will hopefully solve is that new MPs have been warned firmly and sternly by old hands that unfortunately, despite the best efforts, the department over many years is famous for contradictory advice. You ask an officer in one state, you will get an answer; you ask an officer in another state, you will get a slightly different answer; you ask someone in Canberra, and they say something that is particularly impenetrable but very wise. One MP asks for a view on something; another MP gets a slightly different situation. It is like consulting Yoda for wisdom: on one hand, you could do this; on the other hand, you could do the other. I am going to give you three Yoda quotes, because I do quite like the character of Yoda. I did not have time to Google and refresh my memory on how to do a Yoda voice, so please excuse me!

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, have a go!

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

I know, I know! It would really be of no benefit because Hansard would not record my fantastic imitation of Yoda, even if I could do it! When you call the departments, trying to understand, they say: 'Do or do not. There is not "try".' If I am worried I may get something wrong, then, as Yoda would say, 'The fear of loss is the path to the dark side.' The last person I spoke to told me that was okay: 'It happens to every guy sometimes this does.' But let us hope these reforms provide clarity.

The final point I would like to make is that the world that I and many people here have come from—the world of corporate environments, government departments—is one where there is a priority placed on efficient and sensible systems. I have been stunned to discover that this area of government still runs on hard copy forms with tiny little columns that you cannot actually write in properly, and impenetrable codes that you cannot read properly on the bottom of forms, many of which say you have to fax them. I inherited an electorate office with a fax that no-one actually uses. We plugged it in, and I thought, 'We'll send off the fax.' Who uses a fax these days? But you had to fax the form back. The forms get faxed in and then lost, so we have started scanning them and emailing them. We unplugged the fax machine in the end, because some of the anti-marriage equality people were sending particularly horrid broadcasts around sodomy and all sorts of things. So we thought we had best unplug the fax in the end. We did not really need that. There is no online claims system. It is truly bizarre. I hope this is remedied quickly with the new authority as it wastes an incredible amount of time sitting there as a member of parliament—when you have got so many other things to do—trying to fill out these silly forms and fax them somewhere.

Accountability and transparency are also important, and I firmly believe that transparency improves culture and behaviour. Quite simply, it is human nature that, if we know our actions will be watched, if we know that people will see and scrutinise them, then that positively influences them. We have certainly seen that in more tragic places—for instance, in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, where a lack of transparency and accountability clearly drives unacceptable behaviours in all sorts of institutions. But I think it is true in any human collective endeavour. So it is good that, among other accountability measures, the authority will assume responsibility for the publishing of members and senators' expenses in a helpful format. That is currently done every six months in a weird sort of PDF format, but the authority will establish first quarterly and subsequently monthly reporting in a more accessible and searchable format, which our friends in the media will delight in, but I think that is actually an important part of holding us to account—that transparency in real time. There is also the requirement that, if an adjustment to certain travel plans is made or required, there will be a 25 per cent penalty.

In summary, I look forward to the establishment of the authority and dearly hope, like others in this place, that it draws a line in the sand and that in coming months and years we can start to rebuild some public trust and perhaps have a little bit more capital to prosecute things which are of great importance and in the national interest.

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

Firstly I would like to congratulate the government on bringing forward this legislation, the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is always pleasing when the government adopts a Nick Xenophon Team policy and embraces it as its own. In 2015, following the helicopter scandal, Senator Nick Xenophon introduced a bill designed to provide greater accountability and transparency in the use of parliamentary entitlements. The bill provided for an independent watchdog to administer claims, with monthly disclosure of all MPs and senators' expenses published online and the right of the public to make a complaint to the watchdog.

Back in 2015 the major parties did not support Senator Xenophon's bill, because they thought it was unnecessary at the time. It took yet another scandal, yet another time when we were all shamed by the inappropriate action of colleagues, yet another time when the community's trust in politicians was eroded, for them to change their minds. I believe we are in a precarious position with the public that we serve—and that is it: we serve them. They no longer trust us. They no longer respect us. We have had too many travel rort scandals for them to take us seriously. They look at their own lives, the rules they operate under, the way they work out their own work expenses and the way they are managed, if they are lucky enough to actually have access to work expenses, and they cannot believe the sense of entitlement that some of us have displayed. We all remember being lectured by the government, particularly by the former Treasurer, that the age of entitlement was over. Of course, they were referring to others, mainly to welfare recipients, and not particularly to members of parliament. So is it any wonder that the public rejects this message comprehensively?

How do we regain the trust and respect of our communities? I believe that establishing an independent authority to administer claims for parliamentarians' entitlements is certainly a step in the right direction. If parliamentarians know that every travel claim they make will be made public then perhaps we will stop seeing attendances at sporting matches, particularly when they are interstate, or attendances at New Year's Eve parties or family holidays being billed to the taxpayer. Public scrutiny and potential embarrassment are powerful deterrents. The proposed authority has been modelled on the UK Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which has operated successfully for a number of years. In a parallel situation to our own, the UK authority was established in response to a huge expenses scandal in 2009, primarily related to claims of a second residence. The UK scandal generated significant public anger and resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings and retirements. Several parliamentarians were prosecuted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. That makes my proposal of a 200 per cent penalty pale into insignificance.

I want to focus on the composition of the board of the authority, which has been copied directly from the United Kingdom. My concern is that we do not have any representation from the community on the board. We have the President of the Remuneration Tribunal, a former MP, a former member of the judiciary and an auditor. I think, if a member of the public were looking at the composition of the board, they would be sceptical about them being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. We are talking about elites, essentially, looking at elites. We know that there will be self-selection, and I firmly believe that within this parliament we could legislate to have a member of the community, an ordinary Australian, as part of that board. So I intend to move an amendment in the consideration-in-detail stage, to change the composition of the board, to add an additional member who is a community representative. When I look around Australia, when I think of regional electorates like Indi and my electorate of Mayo, I am sure that we would have a community representative who would gladly put up their hand, somebody from regional Australia who would say, 'Yes, I would like to be on that board and I could provide great value to it.' I think it is very important that we involve the community in this process and that we open ourselves up to the community for that very reason.

In closing, I do support this bill. I am very hopeful that the government and the opposition will consider opening up this authority to be real, to be part of the community and, hopefully, by doing so, we will start to claw back some of the confidence of our community.

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

Colleagues, it gives me pleasure to speak to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and also to give notice that I will be supporting the amendments from the member for Mayo. This entitlement issue is one of great concern in my community, and I am absolutely delighted that the government has brought on this particular bill to establish the authority. But, overarchingly, I want to say, 'Government, you haven't gone far enough. There's a lot more that needs to be done.'

In setting the scene for what more needs to be done, I would like to go back in history a little bit and talk about the MP for Calare, Peter Andren, when he was an Independent in this House. He did a magnificent job, as an Independent, taking up the battle, on behalf of Independents at that stage, for much closer scrutiny of what was being given out to members of parliament under that entitlement. To Peter Andren—who has since passed—one of those very wonderful early members of parliament, I just want to acknowledge your work, Peter, and say, 'Up here, in the crossbench, we are flying the flag with real passion because we know there is a long way to go before this particular unpleasant part of how parliament works is addressed.' Up here, in the crossbench, we acknowledge this legislation, and we are going to basically vote for it, but we are going to move amendments to make it better.

In moving those amendments, we are going to pick up some of the work that those us here, on the crossbench, have already done a lot of work on. The member for Denison, last year, moved a very strong motion. He absolutely called on the government to commit to meaningful reform of the entitlements act. That was back in October. I totally support his work there. Since then, the member for Denison has taken the lead for introducing a private member's motion, an act of parliament to actually do some work on this, to audit all members and senators travel claims during this and the previous parliament and for all of us to list substantive activity taken as part of official travel. In the process of making sure we do the work to clean up the past, we will move forward to making the future better.

In making the future better there is no shortage of advice to the government. When you do the research for this particular bit of legislation you can see that there are numerous reports that the government has commissioned—but we still have not gone far enough. In 2015, there was the ANAO report; in 2011, there was the Review of the administration of parliamentary entitlement by the Department of Finance and Deregulation; and, in 2010, there was a report as well. So we have a lot of background telling us what to do.

Today I would like to concentrate on the latest report: An independent parliamentary entitlement system:Review:February 2016. In it there is a classic quote from these really wise people who did the review, and I would like to read it into parliament, because I know there are many people in my electorate who are watching this broadcast. The quote is from page 2, section 6 of the government's report. It goes:

Broadly speaking, these reviews concluded that the system, having evolved piecemeal and without adequate rationalisation, is complex, confusing, incomplete, contradictory and immensely difficult to follow and administer. The problem has worsened as demands on, and external scrutiny of, parliamentarians has increased.

It goes on:

The complexity of the system’s rules and regulations imposes stress on parliamentarians and their staff, and on those who administer the system. Parliamentarians can too easily run foul of rule interpretations or eligibility requirements. This has undermined public confidence, not only in parliamentarians, but also in the system itself.

That is true, and that is why it is really good to see that the government is taking some action. We agree.

Then this review goes on to make some very practical recommendations, and I would like to take a few minutes of the parliament's time to read, again, into the Hansard. This is the major recommendation, and I fully support it:

The system should—

The new system—

ensure that the relationship between the public and their representatives is one of respect and mutual support. It should be understood by all and simple to use and administer. It should ensure expenses are appropriate, sufficient and fair, be in accordance with reasonable standards and the overarching principle of ‘value for money’.

And section 12:

We believe the best way to achieve this goal is a principles-based system allowing the parliamentarian flexibility to apply judgement, choice and personal responsibility when using it, but obliging him or her to report publicly and be subject to reasonable standards of auditing so as to provide transparency and public accountability.

What wisdom! But how do we do that? Here is where I am really calling on the government to go to the next step. This report says:

To provide clarity, the rules should, to the extent possible, be consolidated into a single Act of Parliament.

One single act of parliament. So we end the piecemeal, complex, confusing, incomplete, contradictory and immensely difficult to follow and administer system and we replace it with an act of parliament. Colleagues, we have not quite got there yet. We have an authority being set up, which is this particular legislation that I support, and we have some changes made to how we administer it, but I am really calling on the Prime Minister and the government to do what his own report says and give us an act of parliament that is principle based, systemic, easy to read and well-followed.

In bringing my comments to a close, I want to talk a little bit about trust and trust in the system. To do this I want to bring to the notice of the parliament a report that has been prepared by the Museum of Australian Democracy called Who Do You Trust to Run the Country? Democracy, Trust and Politics in Australia. I acknowledge the authors of that report and the institutions: the University of Canberra, the Museum of Australian Democracy, and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. It tells us what we have been talking about today in this parliament, in the previous debate: that Australians no longer trust their politicians. What an extraordinary thing to have to say in this House: that the research of these highly respected institutions tells us that our population no longer trust us.

What we saw just a few minutes ago in this House was an effort by us crossbenchers, four of us, to say, 'We can do something to help restore trust and faith in our democracy. We saw this thing happen in this parliament, where there were 'four lonely voices'—as I think The Guardian said—against the might of all the political parties. So I say to the people of Australia: 'It is not that you cannot trust parliamentarians; I think you need to pay particular attention to that last vote, because there are clearly some people in this House that you can trust.'

The research shows us that in the 2016 election about a quarter of Australians gave their first preference vote to non-mainstream parties. The people of Australia are actually getting that the major parties are not doing a good job representing then and that, in fact, it is the crossbenchers and the minor parties that really have this sense of close relationship with our communities, a commitment to represent them and a great ability to stand up in this House, to think for ourselves and to be able to represent what our communities are saying.

What I think is so special about our independence is that the people of Indi know that I am speaking forcefully, boldly and strongly directly for them. This opinion has not gone through any party machine. I am not putting it through any personal ambition to be a minister. I am not doing deals to make this happen. I am absolutely here speaking for my community, as I know my colleagues on the crossbench are. As to this sense that we do not have the trust of our community, I say to my colleagues in the major parties, 'Get a copy of this report and have a read of it and really and seriously pay some attention to what the parties need to do to follow the leadership being provided by the Independents on this entitlements bill.' What I think would make such a big difference is if we could actually do the work that needs to be done to have one act of parliament.

In bringing my comments to a close, I speak in strong support of the amendment that is going to follow from the member for Mayo. Having the community voice on this authority is one small step to get this through the pub test—the ordinary Australian person who we represent getting their voice heard on this authority. I will bring my remarks to a close at this point and speak later when the amendment from the member for Mayo is introduced.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017, is part of a series of measures that the government is bringing into the parliament in response to criticism about the way members of parliament use their entitlements or allowances. It follows some legislation that was debated only this morning on a similar subject.

The purpose of these bills is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority as an independent statutory authority. The bills provide that the authority's functions include advising parliamentarians on travel expenses, allowance and related expenses; monitoring parliamentarians' use of travel expenses, allowances and related expenses; administering travel expenses, allowances and related expenses, including processing of these claims; reporting on work expenses; auditing of work expenses claims; and making rulings about travel expenses and allowances where authorised by a law to do so. The authority will have up to five members, consisting of a chair, the president of the Remuneration Tribunal and at least two, but not more than three, others. I understand membership of the authority would also have to include a former judicial officer, a former member of parliament and a member with substantial experience in auditing.

The advice, monitoring, processing and rulings given by the authority to MPs will be restricted to travel expenses. The authority will be able to recover overpayments, repayments and cost-recovery payments in relation to travel expenses. I also note that there will be financial implications of this bill, which are not quantified but which will be considered as part of the 2017-18 budget.

Having said that, I want to make some general remarks about the entitlements, expenses or allowances—however one might wish to define them—of members of parliament. All members of parliament come into this place knowing full well what their remuneration is going to be and what is expected of them if elected to office. While some parliamentarians could earn better remuneration outside of parliament, it is my contention that the current remuneration is fair and reasonable.

It is also my view that that has not always been the case. By 2004, MPs' remuneration had become an election issue. Mark Latham, then Labor leader, promised to make changes to MPs' entitlements if Labor won office at that time. Prime Minister John Howard responded in a similar vein and, for all MPs elected after 2004, the rules and benefits changed. Today, there are only nine senators and 22 House of Representatives members—a total of 31 parliamentarians of the 226 in this parliament—who are on the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme and who will receive a lifetime pension on retirement. The other 195 MPs, having been elected after 2004, regardless of their length of service on leaving this place, will not receive a pension or generous travel allowances. I want to stress that—and other members have made the same point—because there is a very clear misunderstanding out there in the community about the entitlements or allowances that members of parliament receive and, quite often, it is a misunderstanding based on what previous members of parliament receive, not what the current ones are receiving. There have been changes, and those changes affect the absolute majority of the members of this place. In fact, if we use percentage figures, some 87 per cent of the current parliamentarians in this term of parliament will not receive many of the benefits which the public believe they do. Of course, I cannot speak for MPs elected to the six state and two Territory parliaments, who are all on different remuneration packages and whose allowances, at times, cause confusion with the allowances of federal MPs.

For today's federal MPs, it is not the remuneration that I believe is wrong but the deliberate misuse of allowances through an unintended interpretation of the guidelines. It is that deliberate abuse of allowances which has led to the widespread mistrust of members of parliament, something which other members speaking in this debate have also alluded to. I believe that there is a mistrust of members of parliament, and there has been, without any question of a doubt, widespread criticism of MPs and the use of their entitlements. My view is that the intent of the current guidelines is clear—and I emphasise the word 'intent'—and that the allowances provided are reasonable if MPs are to conscientiously fulfil their role. The ramifications for abusing the allowances are already serious. In today's world, where public scrutiny is easy, and where media and other MPs are quick to discredit any parliamentarian who has abused or rorted the allowances, anyone rorting the system is likely to be caught out and to then pay a heavy price. That heavy price can include the loss of parliamentary positions, including perhaps a ministerial position, and then also jeopardises the future election of that person. Those are very strong deterrents, which I believe are more effective than the 25 per cent penalty provision proposed in the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 debated earlier, and more effective than provisions proposed by crossbench members earlier as well. If the public humiliation, loss of ministry or possible loss of office is not sufficient deterrent, then nothing more is likely to make a difference.

I want to talk just for a moment about the authority itself. I welcome the establishment of the authority. If nothing else, I believe it will add some clarity to the definitions of what is an allowance or expense and what is not, and it will offer a reference point for MPs to go to. Time will tell how effective the authority will be. It is also my concern that the costs of oversight may well be higher than the savings made. But then that is the cost of transparency. However, I stress: my view is that the intent of the guidelines we have at the moment is fairly clear. Indeed, I believe the majority of members of parliament adhere to those guidelines in an honest way. Much has been made—both by the media and by those who wish to gain from it in one way or another—of the abuse of allowances. The truth of the matter is that members of parliament cannot fulfil their role as parliamentarians if they are not properly supported, and the allowances are intended to do just that—support the members of parliament in their role and in doing their work. In many cases, this is work that is done on behalf of their constituents and the people that they serve. It is a sad reflection that members of parliament are now held in such low regard by the community as a result of the actions of those members of parliament who have chosen to rort the system. And it is a choice that they make—because every member of parliament can make a decision about which expenses they claim and which they do not. Hopefully, as a result of the authority being established, there will be not only greater scrutiny but also the reference point that I referred to earlier—because it is also true that, at times, the definitions of what one can and cannot are not absolutely clear.

Labor supports this legislation because, if nothing else, it will add to the transparency and the oversight that the public has been calling for for some time. I believe that will also go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the allowance system that is provided to members of parliament.

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

Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! I must say, it is a pleasure—after having called for an independent parliamentary expenses authority for years; after having said that there needs to be an independent umpire that MPs can go to to find out whether or not a future claim is within the rules or not—that finally the government and the opposition have listened to the Greens.

This has been longstanding Greens policy because the rules up till now have been vague. That has been no excuse for members of parliament or ministers who have deliberately done the wrong thing—when just any simple test would tell you it is not right to use entitlements for your own private benefit, as opposed to for the public good. But we have said that there is a case—and we have made this case for many years—that, before an expense is incurred, there should be someone that members of parliament can go to. We have said that for a couple of reasons. One is that—as I said in a speech earlier today—when I first came into this place, I wanted to get some guidance as to whether or not a flight that I was about to pay for was within entitlements. I went and asked the department, and the department said: 'We cannot tell you. You are going to have to make that assessment.' And I said: 'Who determines whether I am right or wrong?' And they said: 'No-one.' That is not a situation that members of parliament should be in. There should be clear rules, and in most other workplaces that is the way it is. It is clear what is in and what is out. That should be the case here. It is not just from the perspective of members of parliament that this will make a difference; it will make a big difference for the public because, if the public knows that there is a place you can go to first, whenever anything is in doubt, to get advice or a ruling—if the public knows that, then there is absolutely no excuse for someone who then does the wrong thing afterwards. I bet that if former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop had gone to this body and asked, 'Can I get a chopper down to Geelong?' they would have said no. And I bet that if some former members or ministers had asked, 'Am I allowed to do a trip to look at an investment property or go to a wedding?' they would have said no. So, if this new body does its job, it is not only going to be helpful for people here but, more importantly—and this is the reason that we have advocated this for so long—the public will know that there is no longer any excuse.

What is concerning about this bill is that, as is often the way with these things, the government picks up an idea, picks up the concept of having an independent watchdog, and then defangs it. With this bill we see an advisory authority that, sadly, will not have the teeth that it should have. We should be doing more than giving advice to members of parliament, because if we want to do the second thing that I spoke about, regarding giving the public confidence, the public needs to know that the body that oversees the politicians has some teeth. Sadly, it does not at the moment. There is nothing in this bill about compliance and nothing about penalties. Without some muscle the authority might look good on paper, but, in terms of consequences, if there is misuse, it will be a failure. There needs to be a clear distinction drawn in the public mind between a slipup—and there would not be many excuses for a slipup after this body comes into place, but of course slipups will still happen; everyone accepts that—and intentional misuse of what is, at the end of the day, public money.

Given the lack of oversight in how expenses are incurred in this job, there is a very strong case for this body having some teeth—not just having advisory and audit aspects but some teeth. When this comes to the Senate we will be making the case that the legislation needs to change so that the body has some teeth. The government may find, if all it does is the minimum it thinks is necessary to get the public off its back from its perspective, that is not going to be enough because people can smell whether what you are doing is genuine. People will know whether this is just a sop to try to get past the latest issue of parliamentary entitlements and scandals and there is hope that the media and the public debate will move on to something else or whether it is genuine reform. As I said, the idea is very good, because it has been a Greens' idea for some time, but we want it to have some teeth. So I would urge the government, as this bill progresses through the parliament, to consider some sensible amendments to the bill to ensure that the body does have teeth and that it is a watchdog, not a lapdog. We have to make sure that the body has the power to not only do some investigations but do something if they find that there has been some wrongdoing.

As I said at the start, when it comes to the Liberal government, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The time has come for them to pick up a Greens' idea. I am glad that they have seen the merit in something we have been arguing for for a very long time, and arguing for publicly, but do not just pick up half the idea; pick up the whole idea because then you will go a very long way to restoring the public's trust in all of us here as politicians.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017, I would firstly like to thank the members who have contributed to this debate. As noted previously, politicians must be held accountable for the use of taxpayers' dollars and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 is the first step in the biggest reforms to the management of parliamentarians' expenses in more than a generation. This new authority will provide clear and consistent guidance, advice and rulings for parliamentarians to ensure that our spending of public money meets the expectations of the Australian public.

As the government has announced, we will also continue to implement the recommendations of an independent parliamentary entitlements systems review in order to improve the legislative and administrative framework of the existing parliamentary work expenses system. I look forward to working with the opposition and other members and senators to ensure that these important and timely reforms are delivered. The consequential amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 contained in the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 will ensure that the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, which will be established under the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017, will be able to provide confidential advice to parliamentarians and their staff with respect to travel expenses and allowances. This will ensure that parliamentarians and their staff engage early with the authority which will be able to provide frank and independent advice with respect to travel expenses and allowances.

Once again, I thank all members for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. There being no further speakers, I put the question that the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.