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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Regrettably, there are some constants in this place. One of the constants is the widespread misuse of parliamentary allowances by members of the House of Representatives and by senators. Another constant is that, when there have been episodes exposed, normally in the media, the government's response has tended to be reactionary and tended to be minimalist.

I will spare honourable members a long list of examples of the sorts of misuse that we have seen in recent years, but this morning just a very, very quick internet search threw up a number which would remind people of the problem. For example, in 2013, the late member for Canning got himself into strife when it was discovered that he had claimed travel and accommodation for him and his wife to fly from Perth to Cairns, about a $2,388 claim on the public taxpayer, and about a week after that trip his register of interests was updated to show that he had bought an investment property in Cairns.

More recently, in mid-2015, we had all of the exposes about members of parliament going to various weddings. We had former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, who had claimed to go to Sophie Mirabella's wedding, near Albury. Senator George Brandis paid money back after it was exposed that he had attended the wedding of shock jock Michael Smith. The current member for Cook and Treasurer and the current member for New England, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, both paid money back for attending weddings. The member for Warringah also went to Sophie Mirabella's wedding on the public tab, and the member for Warringah also went to the former Speaker Peter Slipper's wedding on the public tab. Admittedly some of those have been paid back—although not all, I understand—but they were only paid back when the episodes were exposed in the media.

The current Manager of Government Business, Christopher Pyne, was exposed in late 2015 as having claimed $5,000 to take his family to Sydney for a week for official duties, apparently, between Christmas and New Year's Eve. The Manager of Opposition Business—no side of politics is clean here—was exposed as having charged taxpayers more than $12,000 for a four-day trip to Uluru in 2012 for him and his family, including $8,000 for business class seats for his children. More recently, late last year, the member for Swan got himself into strife when it was discovered that he had charged taxpayers to fly his wife home after their wedding.

It goes on. There is the, I think you could probably say, still unresolved question of why the current foreign minister charged something like $30,000 to the taxpayer for getting a RAAF VIP jet to fly her and her partner back from a charity dinner in Perth. Of course, probably the example of all examples was former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, who famously charged taxpayers $5,000 to hire a helicopter to go less than 100 kilometres from Melbourne down to Geelong, although, when I say that is the most famous example, perhaps there is one more famous example now: the very recent example of former health minister Sussan Ley, who, on the taxpayer tab, went to the Gold Coast—overnight, I think—and, while there, bought an investment property. There are just so many examples. So no wonder the community is so critical of members of parliament and of senators. No wonder there is a broad and, I think, a deserved view in the community that way too many—in fact, one would be too many—members and senators have their snouts in the trough and are profiting from the taxpayer on account of their job.

I make the point again that time and time again it has been shown that governments have been slow to respond, and they have really only responded, frankly, to shut the public up. After the Bronwyn Bishop episode, the so-called choppergate, the government, to its credit, commissioned an inquiry by two senior gentlemen, Mr Conde and Mr Tune. It came up with 36 recommendations. But here we are, a year later, and it is only now that those recommendations are being implemented on account of the scandal surrounding former health minister Sussan Ley.

So we have a problem. There is no doubt we have a problem, and I do not accept that the government has gone nearly far enough with the reforms that are in the process of being implemented. Frankly—and I probably should not be this cynical but there is reason to be this cynical and sceptical—until all of those reforms are implemented in full, I will be suspicious about whether we will ever see them all implemented in full. Remember, after former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop's choppergate affair, there was an inquiry. There were 36 good recommendations made, and a year later virtually none of those recommendations had been implemented, and they were only implemented on account of this most recent scandal. In other words, the government at the time was happy to look strong and decisive and to send the message to the community that it was going to crack down on the rorting, but it turned out to be just theatre. It had its inquiry, it got its recommendations and then it just shelved them. It was happy for the matter to be behind it and for the community to think the issue was resolved. It was only after the more recent example with the Gold Coast purchase that the government thought: 'Oh, heavens! We're going to have to implement them after all.'

So I want the government to go further. The fact that the current reforms do not include any audit, for instance, of the historic use of parliamentary allowances over the last several years suggests—well, it shows—that the government, supported by the opposition, is prepared to let bygones be bygones and thinks any rorting that might have occurred in the past should be left in the past. I do not accept that. And that brings me to the substantive substance of this bill.

This bill would build on the reforms that have been announced in recent weeks and build on them on a substantive way, because all this bill requires—and I think it is quite a reasonable and achievable bill and I will be very disappointed if the government and the opposition do not support this bill—is that there be that audit, back to the 2013 election in fact. All use of parliamentary allowances by all members and senators back to the 2013 election would be audited to find out who else had their snout in the trough.

It is not good enough that we just focus on a few unfortunate souls who got busted. We should focus on all the other people who tripped around this country, for what any reasonable person would say was substantively for private purposes, and then dressed it up as official travel, signed a form to say it was an official trip and took the coin.

I tell you what, that is theft in my world and by my standards, and I am sure the member for Indi who seconded this bill would agree with me.

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

Absolutely.

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

If someone trips around this country and says it is an official trip and has the taxpayer pay for it but in reality the substantive business was personal, then that is fraud and that is theft.

That brings me in fact to the second and third components of my private members' bill. In future, whenever a member or senator puts in a claim for the payment of allowances for an official trip, he or should list on that form—and the form should be changed to allow this—and that form should list all substantive activities conducted on the trip, including private activities. That way, in future, the bureaucracy here, but also the public who would have access to those forms online, would be able to look and make their own judgement. And, if a health minister in future spends a night on the Gold Coast and has one meeting with someone about a relatively minor matter and also buys a house while they are there, then the public can judge that trip for what it is—and that is a private trip, a trip for which not one cent of public money should be claimed.

The final component is, when there is misuse, it should not be a small fine, it should not be a slap on the wrist; it should be 'call in the police'—because if any person in this country claims money fraudulently from the Commonwealth, that is theft whether, they be a Centrelink recipient, a business or a member of parliament. I call on the government and the opposition to support this private member's bill. Thank you.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I am delighted to second this motion and I reserve my right to speak.

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

The time allotted for the debate bas expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.