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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 10, page 12 (line 28), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(c) at least 3, and not more than 4, other members.

(2) Clause 15, page 20 (line 6), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(c) at least 3, and not more than 4, other members.

(3) Clause 16, page 20 (after line 22), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) One appointed member of the Authority must be a person (the community member) who the Minister is satisfied represents community expectations about the ethical standards to be followed by members of parliament in the use of public money.

(4) Clause 16, page 20 (line 23), omit "5 members", substitute "6 members".

(5) Clause 16, page 21 (line 4), omit "subsection (2), (3) or (4)", substitute "subsection (2), (3), (4) or (4A)".

I am moving this amendment because I think that the proposed composition of the board of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority sends the wrong message to the community. It tells them that the people we want to make decisions about our parliamentary expenses are in the top 10 per cent of income earners in Australia. We are talking about elites here. It is elites, essentially, making decisions about elites. Let's be honest—that is how the community would see it. If we proceed with the board as it is currently structured, I think we are saying collectively that we have a tin ear—we are saying that we are not aware of the growing discontent in the community of our perks and the frequent abuse of our entitlements; we are saying that we do not want to give the community a voice in determining what is a reasonable work expense for parliamentarians. We need to look for every opportunity to let the public know that we are prepared to listen, that we are prepared to implement structures that ensure a lay person can have a say about our entitlements on behalf of our ordinary people. This is about engagement. This is about transparency.

In discussions about this amendment I have been told by some that it is too hard to work out how to select a person to represent the community views. Really? There are many precedents that use a variety of procedures, including calls for expressions of interest and assessment against criteria that would enable the minister to be satisfied that the person to represent the community has ethical standards in the expenditure by parliamentarians of taxpayers' money. I do not believe that the implementation of a community member within this authority should be a problem. So I urge both sides to support this amendment, to send a clear message to the community that we are prepared to listen, that we are prepared to seek guidance about acceptable practice in expenditure on our entitlements and that we realise we have had it wrong for too long.

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

I thank the member for Mayo for her contribution, both in the early debate and also in proposing the amendment. The government does not support the member for Mayo's proposed amendment to this bill. The government believes that, by setting up this independent authority, the government is moving swiftly to ensure that public confidence is restored. I do take the member for Mayo's caution in relation to public confidence very seriously, but the government is moving swiftly to ensure that public confidence is restored to the parliamentary work expenses framework by having an independent body that is able to give authoritative advice to parliamentarians about what is within the rules.

This body will also have the ability to audit the travel expenses of parliamentarians and their staff and will have the ability to withhold or recover payments of expenses that have been claimed incorrectly. Most importantly, the significant increase in transparency, by moving to monthly reporting in a searchable database format, demonstrates the government's clear commitment to creating a system which the public can have that confidence in. In practical terms, this amendment contains a significant amount of ambiguity about what qualifications a community member who the minister is satisfied represents community expectations, about the ethical standards to be followed by members of parliament in the use of public money, would need to be appointed to that board, in contrast to the other positions specified by the Prime Minister, which are more clearly defined and are reflected in the bill before the House. I understand, and I pass on to the member for Mayo, that the Special Minister of State has advised the Nick Xenophon Team that he is willing to have further discussions regarding the composition of the board 12 months after the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority is up and running.

At this point the government does not believe an increase in the size of the board is necessary. The abolition of the Life Gold Pass, the extra penalties for voluntary repayments and the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority are the first steps in, as I described earlier, what are the biggest reforms to the management of parliamentarians' expenses in more than a generation, and the government is acting decisively in this matter.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes , 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 yes.

The question now is that this bill be agreed to.

Question agreed to.