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

It is fair to say that I did not come to Canberra to talk about parliamentary entitlements and work expenses. Indeed, few people here would say that that was their motivation. I have been told it could be considered a little courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense, to even speak on this and express a view, but I did want to share a few thoughts from three perspectives. Firstly, as a new member here, still adjusting in my transition to this chaotic and complex environment; secondly, as someone who, as a citizen with a deep interest in public affairs, has watched this mess of entitlements play out over many years and despaired at the lack of reform, the inability to fix the system and the damage that has been done to public trust and confidence in our national life; and, thirdly, relatively fresh from a long and hard fought campaign, where I spoke, for more than 12 months, to literally thousands of people. In the middle of the Bronwyn Bishop saga, I remember for a few weekends that I certainly heard the full gamut of views from the community.

Firstly, as a new member. When we are out of the spotlight of this chamber, it would be no exaggeration and fair to say that many of my colleagues, particularly us new folk—I see the member for Fremantle, a new member like myself—live in abject terror of making a mistake with a travel or expense claim. And there are two reasons for that.

The first reason is that the rules are a complex mess. The current system comprises a mishmash of legislation, regulations, rules, guidelines, determinations, unwritten conventions, ministerial decisions and so on, and it is almost impossible to get a definitive answer on some matters. There are literally hundreds of pages of documents and web pages to try and figure out what you are supposed to do. I noticed that the Prime Minister told us in the second reading speech that there are apparently eight separate handbooks that the Department of Finance has produced to explain the framework, which scared me even more, because I am still not sure that I have managed to find all of those handbooks. Like many people dealing with government, though, and we are no different in that regard, we usually just want a clear yes or no—simple: is this permitted or not?

Obviously, in the political realm, once you understand whether or not something is permitted, you of course need to overlay your own moral or personal and political judgements on that, and that is our responsibility. But you can only do that when you have a sensible understanding of what the rule actually is, what is permitted, within which you can exercise judgement. So, like all of us, I am hoping that the new framework will clear things up.

One caution, which I know still worries people, is that there will always be matters of discretion and judgement because it is impossible to codify everything in this or indeed most other businesses. And, while our first duty is to our electorates, which is where those of us who are new, in particular, spend the vast bulk of our time, I also believe that, if we take this role seriously, we have national responsibilities and need to develop national perspectives. People should expect us to be curious about developing and considering national views in the national landscape to engage with businesses, stakeholders, governments and so on. Parliamentary committees are a primary mechanism by which we do this, but at times it is necessary and legitimate to travel and meet with people elsewhere in the country to advance issues important to our electorates and to build a picture and understand how the country ticks.

The second reason that we live in abject terror is that the media coverage and public perception is now so poisonous that there is no tolerance left for even the most honest of mistakes. Aside from the rules, the forms are complex and archaic; they are full of codes and little columns; you need to go back to the websites and manuals to make sense of it all; and they are the kinds of things that you do just infrequently enough to have forgotten what you read last time, because it really is not the most important thing in your day. But the reality is that, with the best will in the world and the most perfect systems, over hundreds of people in many years, some honest mistakes will be made. It is a pity, I think, that there is no tolerance or understanding left in the system for MPs as a species, particularly for those of us who try and do our best to do the right thing, and that is a bit confronting. But I hope that the new rules and the authority which are in the bill we will debate shortly will over time reset the environment so that there is some common sense and perspective available.

The second perspective I wanted to add is that of a citizen who has watched the mess of entitlements play out over the years. I have seen a long and slow but continuing degradation of trust in the political system and in MPs, which is distressing to watch, and I mean that sincerely. I say that as someone who confesses to being a bit of a nerd for politics, public policy and democracy. Unlike many, since childhood I have always had an interest in public affairs and public service and just how the world ticks, how we shape change and approach the future. Coupled with that, like many here, is a respect for this institution of parliament. As a keen observer it was as much of a surprise to me as anyone that I came to join this place.

Now, I do not respect and have not respected every member of this place or the other place, and I do not like and have not liked or approved of the way all members have approached order to approach their role, and I do not agree with all the ideas they put forward. But I have always deeply respected the office, and that is a key distinction based on which I hope we can start to rebuild some public confidence, and start to re-prosecute and establish a distinction between the person who occupies an office at a given point in time and the office itself.

I know that is not a fashionable view, with the prevailing cynicism. But my distress at watching the degradation of trust is not just an intellectual or personal thing; I believe that trust in our political system and elected members is part of the capital of our democracy. Many policy commentators have written in recent years about what is termed 'the trust deficit', and the real-world impacts and harms that that trust deficit does to our society and country, and that this trust deficit is hampering the ability of the political system, certainly in the last decade, to progress reform, to act in the national interest and to prosecute beneficial changes which may not be popular in the short term but are good for the country. It is the kind of thing we see where there is a lack of trust and capital, under the previous Labor government, in politicians as a species. It is certainly not the only reason, but unfortunately we end up with situations where you cannot prosecute a sensible policy conversation because it is too easy to rip down the politicians leading it about how we tax the resource industry and so on.

Of course, the media play a part in this, and the narrative is written—that sort of prenarrative that we all get stuck into that we are all on the take, we are all here on the gravy train and that is our sole motivation, and so on. But the system, combined with a few MPs who do stupid and unconscionable things, then feeds this narrative. So I dearly hope that these new arrangements can draw a line in the sand, reset the issue, rebuild some trust and focus debate on more meaningful things for the people we represent.

The third thing that I want to touch on is community expectations. Having doorknocked extensively, I think it is fair to say that there are a range of views out there, many of them strongly held, as to what is considered reasonable work expenses for members of parliament. Indeed, that is an understatement. I certainly heard the full gamut of views while out and about during, as I touched on earlier, the three weeks or so that the saga ran in relation to the previous Speaker and the infamous helicopter ride. There was utter community bewilderment that anyone could think it was appropriate to ride a helicopter—a luxury helicopter, I notice; it was the upper model—from Melbourne to Geelong for a political fundraiser on a golf course. In that sense, 'entitlement' is not a misnomer; it is a completely accurate use of the word. It is a kind of peak Tory Australian version of the British Tory moats, which I think was the archetypal example that finally forced reform—welcome, beneficial reform, so we hear—with the creation of an independent authority in Britain.

There is the view, of course, at one end of the spectrum, as I said, that we are all in this for the money or the pension. I just want to put on the record that I do not get a pension. I will not get a pension. I do not get a pension. I will not get a pension. I do not get a pension. There is probably a rule about repetition; I cannot remember the standing order, but you get the point. The majority of us here now, I think, will not ever get a pension. We do not get a parliamentary pension. But the number of times that people in the street still stop us and say, 'Oh, you'll be right; you're only in this for the pension,' is astounding. For people elected after 2004, there is no parliamentary pension scheme, yet still this persists. That raises some concern for me about how long, even if we fix this system once and for all and the authority works, it is going to take to wash these scandals out of the public consciousness and rebuild that trust. But we have to start.

As one former senator put it to us in some of the briefings of new MPs last year, his view was that the reality is that nothing we could do would make some people happy. Even if we were paid nothing and walked to Canberra while people lined up to throw fruit at us, he told us, it would still be an outrage. But I actually find that, if you spend a few minutes with people and get past that rightful anger and frustration, most people—that big bit in the bell curve, in the middle of the median distribution—are pretty reasonable. They believe that good MPs work hard, travel frequently and are away from our families more than anyone would wish on others.

As someone who has travelled a fair bit for work in my previous lives—more than some, less than others—my firm view is that work travel can seem glamorous except when you actually do it. I see nodding around the chamber. Most of us have around 150,000 people in our electorates, depending on the number of noncitizens and where the boundaries are drawn—put Tassie out of the picture. That is a fair number of people, and I think most people in the community seem to accept that, if they want us to be able to return a phone call, respond to the emails, read the letters, attend to the legislation and pressures of the job and so on, it is reasonable to ensure that, while people hold elected office, they should be supported to be able to work and move around the country quickly, efficiently and safely. Having worked with MPs and ministers from all sides of politics for many years, I have always held that view myself before coming here. Having seen the lives of ministers up close and personal, I know it is a very difficult life, and I have great respect for those opposite who currently hold that responsibility and the burden that they bear, and particularly for their families. I will hold that view when I leave, maintaining that distinction, as I mentioned before, between the person and the office.

I note, though, that community expectations now do not support generous benefits anymore for MPs after they leave elected office. That is being addressed, for example, with the abolition of the Life Gold Pass. That does mean that costs for transport and accommodation are absolutely essential if elected MPs are to do their jobs properly. Provided we are not using taxpayer funds to buy apartments or go on holidays and so on, work expenses are necessary.

And I do spare a thought for some of my colleagues who have copped, I think, some pretty unfair media—gratuitous and lazy summer media—just for doing their jobs. I did once have a job managing a couple of hundred staff across Victoria, which I know is not really a region compared to many in this place. But I have some appreciation for the difficulties of travel and transit for the MPs from regional seats. I know that my life in the city is so much easier, logistically. It is hard to comprehend for many opposite, but it is easy for some on our side who hold enormous electorates. The stories about MPs from regional seats chartering planes—shock, horror!—to move around their electorates are, I think, nonsense and lazy. I do hope to see an environment where those things are simply not media and are understood.

WA MPs always feature at the top of the travel list, as if there is something odd about that, because no-one has noticed that Perth is actually a long way away from Canberra and the flights cost more. Who knew? Or the foreign minister went overseas and therefore had a high travel bill! I would hope that an environment where the rules are clearer, where there is proper accountability and transparency, where things are audited and where these reforms strike a fair balance can start to restore public confidence.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 today. I was keen to do so primarily because my views on the scrapping of the gold pass have certainly been grossly misrepresented by various media outlets that have not even bothered to check the facts or pick up a phone and speak with me.

I appreciate the comments that were made by the previous speaker in this regard. Quite frankly, there is lazy journalism and those with their own particular agendas, or those who see themselves as commentators rather than having an obligation to report the facts. Unfortunately, it is a growing trend. I thought I would take the opportunity today to set the record straight.

Most aspects of this bill I do not really have any issue with at all. I agree with imposing a 25 per cent loading on travel claims that require a subsequent adjustment, so long as they are found to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and not an honest oversight, given the complexities as were described by the previous speaker. I think there needs to be the flexibility to accept that complexity can cause errors—quite often not in the favour of the member, but nevertheless errors. They should not be penalised for that. The bill also limits the travel provided to dependent children of senior officers to those who are less than 18 years of age. I have no issue with that either.

The bill makes other amendments to enhance parliamentary work expense frameworks, such as establishing an authority to make payments beyond entitlements in certain circumstances, and I agree that there needs to be, as I said earlier, a certain level of flexibility in this regard. So, again, I have no issues with that. And the establishment of a statutory authority to recover payments that are beyond entitlement from parliamentarians and impose that loading of up to 25 per cent on certain claims, in itself, I do not have an issue with—as long as there is clarity and transparency in any of the decisions that are made.

The bill also abolishes the Life Gold Pass for all pass holders, excluding former prime ministers and their spouses. It is the fact that this bill retrospectively removes eligibility for Life Gold Pass travel from 14 May 2014 that I have a very major issue with. To be absolutely clear, I have no issue with the abolition of the gold pass for all future travel. Members' and senators' remuneration today is very different to what it was 30 or 40 years ago. We have a new pay package now that no parliamentarian should be unhappy with, and it does not need to include side benefits such as a gold pass.

However, most politicians who are able to access that gold pass have earned it under very different conditions to what we have here now. I am talking about those that were in this place 30 or 40 years ago or more. There was an acknowledgement that a parliamentarian's salary at that point in time was very low. As a result, there were extra incentives for long service. For the average backbencher to earn the gold pass, they had to serve seven terms, a period of around 21 years. Most of the public and the media either do not know that or tend to overlook it: seven terms, or 21 years. It is a long time. We know how tough it is—and I say this to all of those that have come in here for the first time—to go through one election, let alone to earn the trust and the confidence of an electorate to win seven consecutive times. Very few politicians over the decades have managed to achieve this, given that the average political life is somewhere around six years. The overwhelming majority of people that serve in this place never, ever have access to that, and for that matter they do not have access to a lot of the other things that are often cited here—for example, even the previous superannuation scheme. Most of them never got access to that.

But we need to acknowledge that for those that did access it it was part of their package well before all of these changes happened. I accept that it should never be uncapped, and I understand that that uncapping was for senior executives and prime ministers, but nevertheless it should not have been uncapped. There is always a limit. There should be a limit, and it should be restricted to particular types of travel and be subject to regular reviews.

However, I have to say that the majority of passholders use it for the purpose it was intended for and ensure that there is some level of community benefit. The issue is that, where there have been breaches, people have not been prosecuted. If passholders have abused it, they should have been penalised, rather than there being the kneejerk reaction that we have seen here today. In 2014 there was a high-profile incident where a handful of individuals were identified by the media as excessively using the system. Have a look at who they were. They were all former prime ministers, former senior cabinet ministers or former Speakers, all of whom had accelerated access in gaining the gold pass over the average member of parliament. In the case of the Prime Minister, the fact that you were appointed Prime Minister gave you automatic entitlement. In the case of senior cabinet ministers, you got an acceleration of three to one. So the value to those earning that was significantly less than for those that had done their seven terms, their 21 years to access it, and I think that needed to be recognised.

The decision to scrap the gold pass, in my view, was a kneejerk reaction. Instead of addressing the problem and actually defending the rights of those who in previous parliaments had earnt that as part of their employment contract, now we are going to see that this decision is going to have an impact on people that have long since left this place. At the same time, the people making this decision have made sure that they are not going to be impacted by it. It is a rather interesting scenario. For all those backbenchers who earnt it over an extended period of time, I think it is shameful to take it away from them after they have left the parliament. They are not being given the opportunity to express a point of view to defend it or put forward their case.

So my argument is on behalf of those on all sides of the chamber who have already served and are no longer with us. Yes, by all means abolish the gold pass, but if it is going to be retrospective let's take it off everybody, including former prime ministers, or let's set some time frames. Let's argue that if you have not done five years as a Prime Minister then you are not eligible. I understand that there will be some effort in the other place to make amendments of this nature. That would save even more money for the taxpayers by ruling the member for Warringah ineligible, along with the former members for Lalor and Griffith. Even the former member for Blaxland, Prime Minister Keating, would also be ineligible. Let's have it for long-serving prime ministers—five years or more—to be able to gain that eligibility.

Let's go back for a moment. We talked about the gold pass and the outrage that is expressed by the broader public about the fact that gold passes were actually attached as part of an employment contract for members of the parliament. This is not a unique situation. I am going to reflect on my own father, who joined the Queensland railways in the 1950s and spent his entire working life working with Queensland Rail. He retired in 1982 due to illness, but the thing that he was most proud of was that he had earned a gold pass, which was presented to him on his retirement.

My dad died 20 years ago, but my mum, who is now 87, still has that gold pass which allows her free travel on Queensland Rail. She does not use it, but still has pride in the achievement of her husband. Should we take it from her now in retrospect? I would argue no. And there are lots of other incidences where gold passes have been allocated for service that has been given over extended periods of time. Why should the service of members of this place it be any different—and I am talking about extended service—from anywhere else? And why should we, after they have served their time and left this place with a great deal of honour for the work they have done here, suddenly say, 'Well, we've changed our minds. Now we're going to go back and take that from you.'

As I said, gold passes are still being handed out to Queensland Rail employees, as they are across the country in many other areas. In the case of Queensland Rail it is after 25 years of continuous service. As I said, other professions also reward longevity for one company. Their spouses and dependents aged up to 16 years, or 21 if they are full-time students, are also eligible. I know it is hard for the younger generation to comprehend, given how people expect to chop and change between jobs and industries these days, that in those days things were very different.

I have also spoken to a number of former colleagues about this. Alex Somlyay, a good friend of mine—I would like to highlight his situation. Alex retired four years ago after 23 years in this place. He was one of the whips when MPs salaries were increased from $140,000 to $190,000 a year. The superannuation of previous members remained calculated on the lower level because of the benefits that were included in the package, such as gold passes and study leave. For the new members, it was calculated at a higher level because they did not have access to these additional benefits. Alex tells me that he has used his gold pass twice in four years. The first time was to come to Canberra for a function in the parliament. The second time he travelled to Melbourne to speak at a seminar about his work in the parliament. When I talk to the majority of ex-members there are similar stories.

The thing that the general public has to realise is that for most of us when we finish in this job, the last thing we want to do is get on another aeroplane! I have spent 20 years travelling to this place for up to about 20 weeks of the year, and then flying around my electorate. It is about eight hours of travel from when I leave my home to when I get down here. And then of course there is all the committee work by aeroplane. And in my electorate—as the previous speaker mentioned, one of the larger ones—I have to travel from my home base in Cairns up to the outer islands of the Torres Strait, which is only four kilometres from the mainland of Papua New Guinea. So I spent a lot of time on small aeroplanes. I spend a lot of time in helicopters and on dinghies, and on a whole range of other transport to get to these places. In my retirement, I can assure you, the last thing that I want to see on a regular basis is an aeroplane, unless there is a good cause for me to travel!

While I think it is disappointing that the government has removed the gold pass in this, at least I am still here to make noise in this parliament about this issue. My key concern is that we are establishing a very dangerous precedent of retrospectivity that can apply to anything in the future. When governments see themselves with a problem and they can just take away something that individuals have earned over the years, that is something the Liberal Party has stood against. It has certainly argued against retrospectivity.

Next time, it may not be the politicians who are affected—and yet we are allowing this to happen. The prospect of retrospectivity has now been established through a Liberal government, with the full support of the opposition. Let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you never know where this is going to end.

At the same time, it is interesting that we have another piece of legislation that has just been introduced and this is the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017. In light of the controversy regarding the former minister for health, this bill aims to prevent future inadvertent or purposeful misuse of entitlements. It has been raised after numerous travel claim controversies et cetera. What is interesting about this one is that it is going to cost more to establish this than what they claim the savings are in relation to the abolition of the gold pass—which, over a short time, would have died out naturally with those who have received it in the past. I just find it amazing that they would actually do this.

I have to say that Ministerial and Parliamentary Services have always done a pretty good job, and if there are any issues it is because of the ambiguity of the guidelines. I have always thought that the Remuneration Tribunal was an independent body responsible for determining financial packages. So I think we had it pretty well okay. This legislation would establish another bureaucracy.

To conclude, the most disappointing thing about this is that I am accused of arguing purely in my own self-interest. People forget that I argued against retrospectivity in the superannuation debate, and people applauded that—the public and the media. As a result, we had some success in getting changes. Now I stand to make the same argument and people criticise me, because this one is different—no, it is not different. I am being consistent. But I also point out that at the same time as the government and the opposition are freely allowing retrospectivity on this issue, the government is working hard to avoid the same sort of reform in the paid parental leave legislation, where they are actually deferring it to avoid retrospectivity in that case. There is no consistency. I know my vote will not make a difference on this issue, but I think it is important to put my objections on the record. I do not support this bill.

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

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill with mixed feelings. I am heartened to see that the government is finally taking some action to impose penalties which would provide a disincentive for parliamentarians to rort the system. But I am frustrated by the many years of inaction; the endless reviews and reports that have served to delay any action or change. In reality, it is too little, too late. In fact, it could be described as a kneejerk reaction; a form of damage control in response to the most recent scandal, with further legislation foreshadowed to be introduced later in the autumn sitting.

The last time a Prime Minister took decisive action about travel rorts was in 1997, when then Prime Minister Howard took only three days to sack three ministers over inappropriate travel claims. Of course, Prime Minister Howard was bound by a code of conduct which set out an expectation that all action by a minister should be calculated to give the public value for its money, with an expectation that they would not abuse any of their privileges. It is a sad indictment of the state of play that the code of conduct has long since been abandoned.

Since that time, the pattern in relation to expenses scandals has been predictable. Firstly, an expenses claim that has failed to pass the 'pub test' comes to light. Then there is increasing public outrage, magnified in recent times by the proliferation of social media as a mechanism to spread the story. The Prime Minister of the day toughs it out for as long as possible and the person at the centre of the controversy makes a statement that they 'acted within the guidelines'.

Sometimes money would be repaid in accordance with the `Minchin protocol'—that is, pay back the incorrect amount and no further action will be taken. If the situation festers with the public even after repayment, on a couple of occasions people have resigned from the ministry or from an office of the parliament. Then the government of the day responds by announcing a review of parliamentary entitlements, with an implied or explicit promise to implement the changes recommended in the review. Or it hastily introduces legislation to implement changes which were last announced on 9 November 2013—yes, that is right; a major part of this bill is giving effect to changes announced almost four years ago.

To be fair, almost a year after the changes were announced, the government introduced a bill to implement them—you cannot rush these things, can you?—but it failed to give it a high-enough priority, and the bill lapsed without being passed before the last election. The Nick Xenophon Team is committed to greater accountability and transparency in relation to parliamentary entitlements. It is part of our core values, the DNA of our party. In fact, I fear that my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon must feel like he is trapped in a version of the movie Groundhog Day in relation to parliamentary entitlements. In 2015 Senator Xenophon introduced a bill that would have meant harsher penalties for breaches of the entitlement rules but it was rejected by both the coalition and Labor. Senator Xenophon's bill would have led to more transparency, an independent watchdog, greater financial penalties, the public having a right to complain and monthly disclosure of pollies' perks. Significantly, he proposed a penalty of double the amount claimed if MPs are found to breach the rules, increasing to four times the amount for repeat offenders. That would have provided a much greater incentive to do the right thing than the 25 per cent loading proposed in this bill. It also amazes me that the only time the major parties agree on anything, such as rejecting Senator Xenophon's bill, is when they are acting out of self-interest.

So that claim brings me to the proposed 25 per cent loading on incorrect travel claims. In my view that it is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It is marginally better than the current system, which Senator Xenophon recently described as 'like being slapped in the face with a piece of wet lettuce'. It is a stronger disincentive if we can double the penalties of those overpaid and, as proposed in the 2015 bill, also then have extra penalties if you are a repeat offender. I want to foreshadow that I intend to move an amendment during consideration in detail to substantially increase the penalty for submitting incorrect claims. I believe this is in keeping with public expectations, and also it serves to benefit all of us as we all then have greater integrity in our communities.

Another major element of this bill is the discontinuation the Life Gold Pass for travel of all former MPs except Prime Ministers. I support this wholeheartedly. I cannot think of any reason why former MPs should be entitled to have business class travel funded by the taxpayer. There is no other circumstance that I am aware of where a retired or sacked employee has their ongoing travel paid for them by a former employer. No wonder members of the public have consistently expressed outrage over this particular perk. I listened intently to the member for Leichhardt's speech, and I would just say to him: in what other job, 20 years on, do you still get airplane travel? He did mention Queensland Rail, but let us remember: that is a business; that is not the taxpayer paying for that travel.

I would like to turn my attention to the travel entitlements for current parliamentarians. As many of you know, the Nick Xenophon Team members choose to travel economy class even though we are entitled to travel business class. We believe that travelling business class is a waste of taxpayers' money. Certainly, for flights of less than two hours it is an unnecessary indulgence. I have done a back-of-the-envelope calculation and I estimate that if parliamentarians who travel on flights of less than two hours travelled in economy instead of flying business class for sitting weeks, we would be saving over $2 million a year. That is right: we could be saving more than $2 million per year if we were required to have a seat at the back of the plane. Some people might say, 'It's only $2 million; it's not much'. In my book, that is a lot of money. My mum used to say to me that if you look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves, and this change to entitlements is something that I believe is worth pursuing. Again, it will restore public confidence in us.

I want to focus on the term 'entitlements' for a moment. The term itself is problematic, because it clearly leads to the expectation that one is 'entitled' to have travel paid for by the taxpayer, rather than it being related to a work expense. This creates a mindset of privilege and is partly what leads to people claiming to attend weddings, to claim New Year's Eve parties, sporting events and to fund family holidays. The most recent review, released in February 2016, recommends changing this terminology to refer to it as 'work expenses'. I hope that the foreshadowed legislation to be introduced later in the autumn sitting will take up this recommendation.

I would also like to spend a bit of time focussing on the rules or guidelines. There is no doubt, as has been observed in the reports of both 2010 and 2016, as well as the National Audit Office report of 2015, that the rules are complex, confusing, contradictory and difficult to follow and administer. They also allow claims that are legitimate under the rules which do not pass the pub test. The 2016 report recommended adopting a new principles based system allowing the parliamentarian flexibility to apply judgement, choice and personal responsibility when using it. If parliamentarians were able to apply judgement and personal responsibility, we would not have the travel rort scandals we are seeking to address in this parliament!

On a personal level, I am absolutely appalled that people who have sought public office with the level of public trust and personal ethics that that should entail seem to be incapable of asking themselves the simple question, 'Is this a legitimate work expense?' or that, when considering putting a claim in to attend a friend's or colleague's wedding, or a sporting event, they do not ask themselves: 'Would taxpayers expect to pay for my travel to this event?' This is at the heart of the problem with the current system. While something such as a family reunion visit might be allowed within the rules, taking one's family to Central Australia or a beachside resort is not in the spirit or the intent of the provision; neither is manufacturing business appointments to coincide with personal business. It is simply not ethical.

So I have to confess that I am sceptical about moving to a principles based system. However, the aspect that might curtail inappropriate travel expenses would be the requirement to publish travel expenses on a monthly basis on a publicly accessible website—which is the subject of another bill before the House. These provisions would provide for public scrutiny and lift the public's perception of us all. Our standing with the public is very low because of the rorting by some. I think we are actually below used car salesman. We must work towards restoring the confidence and trust of the public in us.

In summary, I think that the current system needs a complete overhaul. The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill is tinkering at the edges. It does not fundamentally change the rules around the parliamentary entitlements. We will still be operating under a system that is complex and confusing, where people make claims that are allowed under the rules but that are not in line with public expectations. Senator Xenophon recently said:

… the current rules are a joke, and they need to be changed.

I support this legislation, recognising that it is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to the next phase of reform, which has been promised in the autumn sittings, ensuring greater accountability and transparency in parliamentary entitlements. This has been a personal mission of Nick Xenophon's for many years and is now firmly embedded in the ethos of the Nick Xenophon Team as something we are 100 per cent committed to and something we will continue to fight for. I invite every member of parliament here to join me in economy class; it is really not that bad.

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

After three years of broken promises, the government has finally found the courage to abolish the Life Gold Pass travel perks for former politicians. The end of the gold pass scam really is a victory for the strength of public opinion. This scam has been hanging around like a bad smell for years and would still be in place had it not become untenable for MPs to be associated with what really is an elitist scheme. Whilst this is an important step and one the Greens will support, we think it should go further. We do not understand what reason there is for an exemption so that some members of parliament should still continue to get it.

More importantly, there does need to be a thorough overhaul of the so-called entitlement system. Really, members of parliament should not be expecting to get additional entitlements—allowances for work related expenses that are in the public interest, yes, but entitlements, no. We need to clean up and reform electoral funding so that big business cannot make big donations to political parties. As we are seeing at the moment in parliament, then they get to write the laws and in some instances get to rewrite the laws of this country. If we really want to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions, we need to get the big money out of politics, we need to get it out of donations during election campaigns, we need to ensure that expenses that are claimed by parliamentarians are legitimate and we need a much more thorough overhaul of the system than we are currently seeing from this government. Members of parliament, of course—it should not have to be said—use public money to do their job, and they are doing it on behalf of the public and for the public, so accountability to the public should be an integral part of any allowance scheme.

This gold pass scheme that is the subject of this bill has been a long time under our blame. It was first introduced in 1918 and originally provided unlimited domestic travel to former members of parliament, but since 2002, in response to growing public disquiet over the scheme, the reach of the gold pass has been reduced, but not always with the unanimous support of current and former MPs. In that year, the pass was changed to limit retired MPs to 25 return flights a year. In 2012, this was further reduced to 10 return flights. The Gillard government wound up the whole scheme for MPs who retired after 2012. Last year, four former federal members of parliament lost a High Court challenge that they were hoping would ensure they retained their Life Gold Passes that entitled them to free travel. In the notorious 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget, the government committed to further reduce the gold pass for all former members except prime ministers, but the changes under this plan were not due to be in place until 2026. But, even with that extended time line, the government failed to take the legislation through both houses, despite having cross-party support that would have ensured the passage of the bill.

When current Prime Minister Turnbull became Prime Minister, he continued to drag the chain, and the government was all over the place. Then, in the second half of 2016, the then Special Minister of State promised the bill would be introduced before Christmas, and that did not happen. But after a woeful summer, during which the rorting of the system was exposed for all to see, even this government was no longer able to sit on its hands and was forced into action. At the end of last year, before the scandals broke, the Prime Minister claimed that his government was too busy to deal with the gold pass legislation. When you remember that there was a period towards the end of last year where the Senate ran out of legislation to deal with, you really wonder whether the government would have done this at all had it not been for the exposure of so many scandals.

But the good news is that the government has come to its senses. It has been dragged there kicking and screaming by the public and by parties in parliament who have been calling for reform in this area for a very long time, including the Greens. The gold pass repeal is no longer on the shelf gathering dust while the government dithers. The gold pass itself is now going to be consigned to the dustbin of history, and this will be a small step in restoring public confidence in how members of parliament undertake their work.

On the question of penalties that has been raised and was going to be agitated further, and on the question of amendments that will come up in this bill and another bill, I say that, when these bills come before the Senate, the Greens will be pursuing amendments consistent with our policy that there needs to be greater scrutiny and accountability of expenses that are claimed and that there ought to be fewer perks paid to members of parliament who have retired. So we will be pursuing those amendments when we get there, and we will be having a lot more to say about the bills when the matters come before the Senate.

I will end my contribution here, but I will say more during the amendment stage. I foreshadow that here in this place I will be happily supporting the amendments moved by the member for Mayo. You will find that, when it comes to the Senate, we will argue that it should even go further, but the amendments that are to be moved by the member for Mayo here are a good step in the right direction and they deserve to be supported. But I will say that, if the government were serious and really wanted to restore faith in our institutions, we would not have to be dragged kicking and screaming and then taking the minimal action possible. What we would be saying is, 'It's time for a thorough overhaul of the relationship between money and politics,' and we would be looking around the world at how they do it elsewhere. We would be saying, 'Perhaps the answer lies in public funding of election campaigns with limits on how much can be spent.' That would be a discussion that we would have to have with the Australian people, because it would involve putting more money into elections. But, if you said to people, 'Look, you're already tipping in an enormous amount of money into elections anyway,' and if the quid pro quo of publicly-funded elections is that donations are excluded and private money has less of a sway over what happens, I think a lot of people would accept that. That happens in other countries around the world, so perhaps we ought to look at that.

We ought to look more broadly at caps being made on donations into the electoral process and, perhaps, even as they do in some states around the country, caps on how much you can spend in a particular electorate. That would level the playing field, and that would stop some of the incentives for money coming in, in the first place—if there was less that you could actually spend during the course of an election campaign.

Until we reform this system, everyone is forced to play by a set of some pretty broken rules. It is the rules that need to change. It would give the public much more confidence if we were able to have that kind of rigorous examination of the connection between money and politics, in this place. Until we fully fix that, a lot of people are going to have a lot of doubts about the integrity of this place, and that is enormously disappointing for Australia, for us and for democracy as a whole.

This bill is worthy of support. We have been calling for this for a very long time. We could have seen action on this a while ago if the governments, at the time, had supported the Greens, but, in some senses, on this bill, better late than never. But we should be amending it so it goes further.

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

I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill implements changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 and Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002, consistent with reforms announced in November 2013 and in the 2014-15 budget respectively.

In addition to previous announcements, the bill accelerates the termination of access to travel under the Life Gold Pass scheme. The bill ceases Life Gold Pass travel on the day it commences for all current pass holders, including spouses and de facto partners, other than retired former prime ministers and their spouses or de facto partners, and renames the remaining benefit as Parliamentary Retirement Travel. The bill continues Parliamentary Retirement Travel for qualifying current and future retired former prime ministers and their spouses or de facto partners; however, the amount of travel and the purpose of the travel will be limited even further. The bill reduces Parliamentary Retirement Travel by retired former prime ministers from 40 to 30 domestic return trips per year and from 40 to 20 domestic return trips per year for their spouses or de facto partners. The bill requires that parliamentary requirement travel undertaken after 14 May 2014 be for the public benefit.

In relation to the changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990, the bill reduces the qualification age for travel provided to the dependent children of senior officers, ministers, presiding officers and opposition officeholders from under-25 to under-18 years of age. The bill also imposes a 25 per cent loading on any claim for a prescribed travel benefit that requires subsequent adjustment, unless the adjustment is as a result of an administrative error made by the administering department or the adjustment is made within 28 days of the original claim. The bill establishes a mechanism to minimise the risk that payments made in the course of administering parliamentary-work expenses will breach section 83 of the Constitution. The mechanism includes a statutory right for the recovery of payments that are beyond entitlement as well as the 25 per cent penalty loading where applicable.

This bill contains sensible reforms to improve accountability, in the spending of taxpayers' money, which strengthen the parliamentary work expenses framework. Once again, I want to thank all members for their contribution, and I commend the bill the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.