Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move all amendments on sheet 8045 together:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 8), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 14), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), after "members of parliament", insert ", Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees".

(4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 22), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(5) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 25), after the definition of claim, insert:

Commonwealth government employee means:

(a) an official (within the meaning of the PublicGovernance,PerformanceandAccountabilityAct2013) of a Commonwealth entity (within in the meaning of that Act); or

(b) an officer or employee of a Commonwealth company, within the meaning of that Act.

(6) Clause 4, page 9 (after line 20), after the definition of MPworkexpenseslaw, insert:

official travel allowance means an allowance payable to a Commonwealth judicial officer or Commonwealth government employee in connection with travel for official business.

official travel expenditure matter means:

(a) a matter relating to an official travel expense; or

(b) a matter relating to a claim for an official travel expense; or

(c) a matter relating to an official travel allowance; or

(d) a matter relating to a claim for an official travel allowance.

official travel expense means an expense incurred in connection with travel by a Commonwealth judicial officer or Commonwealth government employee for official business.

official work expense means:

(a) an official travel expense; or

(b) an expense (other than an official travel expense) prescribed by the legislative rules.

official work expense matter means:

(a) a matter relating to an official work expense; or

(b) a matter relating to a claim for an official work expense; or

(c) a matter relating to an official travel allowance; or

(d) a matter relating to a claim for an official travel allowance.

(7) Heading to Part 2, page 12 (line 1), after "Parliamentary", insert "andCommonwealthGovernmentEmployees".

(8) Clause 10, page 12 (line 5), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(9) Clause 10, page 12 (line 9), after "members of parliament", insert ", Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees".

(10) Heading to clause 11, page 14 (line 3), after "Parliamentary", insert "andCommonwealthGovernmentEmployees".

(11) Clause 11, page 14 (line 4), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(12) Clause 11, page 14 (line 8), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(13) Clause 12, page 17 (after line 35), after paragraph (1) (za), insert:

(zaa) such functions as are conferred on the Authority by section 12A;

(14) Page 18 (after line 28), after clause 12, insert:

12A Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees

(1) The Authority has the following functions:

(a) to give personal advice to:

  (i) Commonwealth judicial officers; and

  (ii) Commonwealth government employees;

about official travel expenditure matters;

(b) to:

  (i) issue general advisory documents relating to official travel expenditure matters; and

  (ii) if the Authority considers that a particular general advisory document should be published—publish that general advisory document on the Authority's website;

(c) to monitor official travel expenditure matters;

(d) to:

  (i) prepare regular reports about official work expense matters; and

  (ii) publish those reports on the Authority's website;

(e) to:

  (i) prepare other such reports about official work expense matters as the Authority considers appropriate; and

  (ii) if the Authority considers that a particular report should be published—publish that report on the Authority's website;

(f) to conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, such audits relating to official work expense matters as the Authority considers appropriate;

(g) such other functions (if any) as are prescribed by the legislative rules in relation to any of the following:

  (i) official travel expenditure matters;

  (ii) official travel expenses;

  (iii) official travel allowance;

  (iv) official work expense matters;

  (v) official work expenses.

(2) The legislative rules may prescribe modifications of this Act for its application in relation to Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees.

(3) If the legislative rules prescribe modifications of this Act for its application in relation to Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees, then this Act has effect as so modified in relation to Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees.

(15) Page 19 (after line 3), at the end of Division 2, add:

14A Funding

It is the intention of the Parliament that the Authority be funded by a levy imposed on members of parliament, Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees, in proportion to their total annual remuneration.

(16) Clause 36, page 30 (line 12), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".

(17) Clause 63, page 43 (line 4), after "Authority", insert "or Independent Parliamentary and Commonwealth Government Employees Expenses Authority".

(18) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "Parliamentary", insert "andCommonwealthGovernmentEmployees".

What my amendment does is that it simply adds to this authority the role of oversighting, in the same way as salaries and entitlements of parliamentarians are oversighted and audited for all Commonwealth government employees.

My amendments—and I will not go through them in any detail—use existing definitions of 'Commonwealth government employee' but include that as being something that the independent parliamentary and Commonwealth government expenses authority would oversight. As I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate, it includes anyone who is taxpayer funded, effectively. The bill provides for regulations to give the detail of the extent to which this is done. But, as I said, it does include all Commonwealth judicial officers, Commonwealth government employees and employees of the statutory agencies, and those who are in corporations where the taxpayers, through the ministers, are the sole shareholders.

I draw to the attention of the Senate the new provision, 14A, which I have not mentioned before. This authority would need to be considerably expanded over an authority that is needed for the oversighting of 250-odd parliamentarians' salaries and conditions. If you were to take in the whole of the Public Service statutory agencies, you would obviously need a much bigger organisation, which has an impact on the budget, no doubt.

The amendment includes a recommendation to the parliament that this new authority—much bigger and much more expanded—would be funded by a levy imposed upon members of parliament, Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees in proportion to the total amount of their remuneration. So, the cost of this authority, which would be I suspect quite substantial, will be paid for by a levy on all Commonwealth public servants, judicial officers, parliamentarians, statutory organisation employees, and employees of other corporations where the ministers are the total shareholders. So, there would be a small levy on everyone, which hopefully would pay for the cost of that. Of course, the cost cannot be done by this bill, but the amendment does indicate that it is the intention that that is how this would be funded.

Senator Di Natale mentioned that the Greens were inclined to support this but said that they needed more information. Well, I say to you, Senator Di Natale: unless you know, you do not know. You only know if you know. And the way to know what is happening is to have this expenses authority actually have an ability to audit, to oversight—and to give advice, too, I might say. A very important part of the authority's role is to be able to give advice to parliamentarians and others on the federal taxpayers payroll about what is appropriate, what is the right official travel allowance—those sorts of things.

So, it is an amendment that I cannot imagine would raise any objection. It is relatively simple. It does not go into the ICAC proposal that has been around this chamber on and off over the years. It is not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. It is not accusing anyone of corruption. It is simply saying that, whilst we agree that this is important for parliamentarians, let's extend it to those who have entitlements and salaries that are far higher than those of most parliamentarians and who, as I said before, have the real power and authority—the ones who spend the real money—in the governance of Australia. I am happy to go through any individual clause if any senator requires further clarification, but I think the broad principles are sufficient. This sort of idea would be hugely popular out there in voter land. I am sure all voters would like to know, particularly all voters who are taxpayers—I am confident that they would love to know—just who gets what, and to make sure that all those payments are properly paid and properly used. I mentioned in particular Australia Post, the ABC and the Human Rights Commission, but there are literally hundreds of other organisations that none of us even know about. We do not know what they get paid. We do not know what their conditions are. The ability to find that information is relatively restricted, and I think an authority such as this is a good idea for parliamentarians and a good idea for all of those who are paid by the taxpayer. And I would expect that all parliamentarians, in their new accountability mode, which we have seen today, would be only too keen to extend the role of this authority to cover all employees who are paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayer.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a past life I once proposed to my colleagues a bill that no public servant would get paid more than a minister they reported to. I was reminded, however, that we have a Remuneration Tribunal that makes decisions for senior public servants. It is taken out of the hands of politicians, and I do not think that is a bad thing. The government does not support this particular amendment. As Senator Macdonald has rightly outlined, this amendment would provide the need for a substantial amount of additional resources and funding for this body, and it would be a substantially different body to the one we are proposing.

I will also say that the body we are proposing—which was announced 34 days ago, as I said—and which is hopefully going to be passed through this parliament tonight and established by the middle of the year, in a statutory sense, is really addressing an issue around parliamentarians' expenses. And while Senator Macdonald raises a number of questions, I do not think public sector expenses have reached the same level of public concern as parliamentarians' expenses. I take Senator Macdonald's point that there may not be the same degree of reporting. But there is oversight, through the Auditor-General and the PGPA Act. So, the government does not support this particular amendment.

I will also express a concern that, while the Clerk has quite rightly advised me that the amendment in 14A does not breach section 72 of the Constitution, to levy judges probably would cause a breach. So, while it is the intention of the parliament in this particular amendment, I do not think we could actually levy the judges in the way that Senator Macdonald has suggested. That said, I will say that this debate had a number of concerns along the lines of Senator Macdonald's that have been raised with me in my consultations. I am discussing this matter with Senator Cash, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, to consider the issue of transparency around the costs of senior public servants, cognisant that those determinations are made by the independent Remuneration Tribunal as well.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not keep the Senate much longer. The article that I mentioned in The Canberra Times, under the heading of transparency—for those who want to have a look at it, it is The Canberra Times, Tuesday, 7 February 2017 at page 7—amongst other things, says:

Senior public servants control most government spending. They decide which businesses are invited to tender for government work; they sit on assessment panels for contracts and jobs. Their conflicts of interest are a far greater threat to good government. Yet the public knows almost nothing of them. Their conflicts, and expenses, are disclosed in secret to agency heads and no one else.

It's inevitable that this lack of transparency encourages indulgences, and worse. Most senior public servants are, of course, upstanding and deserving of respect; indeed, some sacrifice a more luxurious lifestyle to work in government. Others, however, will succumb to temptation. A little more public scrutiny would go a long way towards reducing the number of those who do.

That is my point. I do think this authority could be expanded in a relatively simple way to bring about that accountability. Sure, there is some reporting and some accountability, as is mentioned in this article, but it is not something the taxpayers know about. I just think this is the right time to widen the net in a very broad way that can be done relatively simply. The amendments that I propose are not complex. The minister has acknowledged that I had referred to the fact that we cannot impose the cost in a bill in the Senate at this time, but it gives an intention and, really, a direction to the government that this is how you go about paying for what I accept would be a fairly substantial increase in cost. It is important that we do this.

The minister, I think, mentioned there have not been a lot of complaints. I am not sure what part of the world the minister moves in, but, everywhere I go, people raise with me the money that is paid to presenters on the ABC.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where do you go?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might say—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is some noise, not even from the chamber, just from people here.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I noticed that, and I am sure the person in the assistants' gallery knows that he should not have spoken. I ask you to continue.

Labor staffers and a Labor senator may think this is pretty funny, but, given the record of the senator that is laughing, one would think that he would be the last one to be laughing about accountability issues.

Everywhere I go, people raise with me what is paid to the ABC—their ABC, supposedly. The money that some of these ABC presenters allegedly get would be interesting. Mind you, I do not expect to get much of a run on the ABC. Well, I will get a bit of a run, just not a very favourable run, but I never do with the ABC—and who cares? There is that issue, and the awful approach of the Human Rights Commission to just one incident, the QUT issue, has had a large number of my constituents saying: 'What are they paid? What do they do? Why are we paying them to do this sort of thing?' The issue about Australia Post has already become quite public, as I mentioned. They are just three. I could spend the next 20 hours going through every agency. I will not, but I think the intention is there, so I would certainly hope that the parliament would agree to this. I cannot imagine a taxpayer out there in voter-land who would disagree with this proposal, so I am asking all senators to follow their populist bent and support this amendment, which will bring accountability right across the board.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (18) on sheet 8045 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—In respect of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017, I move NXT amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8078:

(1) Clause 6, page 10 (line 23), omit "4 offices", substitute "5 offices".

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

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

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

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

(4) 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.

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

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

This amendment was originated in the House of Representatives by our colleague the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie MP. It is a good initiative to increase the number of officers in the authority by one member, 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. My colleague Rebekha Sharkie, the Member for Mayo, outlined the fact that this authority obviously does have people with expertise—a former politician, for instance—but we say there ought to be a community member on there. A community member who can represent broader community interests and, for want of a better term, who can interpret the pub test or the cafe test or whatever test you want to put—but the test of reasonable community expectations. It would broaden out the membership of the authority. I understand that in the other place the Australian Greens supported the amendment, and the member for Indi as well, but that the major parties did not. If the position has changed I would like to know. It is not our intention to divide on this amendment, but the point we wish to make is that we think there is real scope to improve this authority by having that level of committee representation.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I explained to Senator Xenophon and the Member for Mayo in the discussion we had about this, I will not repeat the statement that was at some length made in the House of Representatives about this. I will simply say that, as was noted by the Member for Mayo, I indicated a willingness to have a discussion about this in about a year or so, after the authority is up and running. But at the moment the bill has specified a certain degree of skills that the authority needs. I am not convinced that we can find any one person to represent the community. I am not a believer that you can pick one person to represent the community like that. But I will say that I know it is moved in good faith and I have committed to having a discussion about that. We are focused on getting this up and running as quickly as possible so that members and senators have it set up under this law by midyear.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1)-(6) on sheet 8078 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8066:

(1) Page 29 (after line 24), at the end of Division 7, add:

34A Authority must refer fraud to the Australian Federal Police

(1) If the Authority suspects that a claim in relation to any of the following is fraudulent or misleading, the Authority must refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police:

(a) an MP work expense;

(b) an MP travel allowance;

(c) a designated parliamentary benefit;

(d) a MOPS travel expense;

(e) a MOPS travel allowance.

(2) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit a person's power to refer a matter to a member of an Australian police force.

(3) If:

(a) the Authority refers a matter to the Australian Federal Police under subsection (1); and

(b) the Australian Federal Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions decides not to pursue the matter;

the person who decided not to pursue the matter must notify the Authority of the reasons for the decision.

This covers the issue that Senator Richard Di Natale and I spoke about—that is, that the authority needs teeth or it needs some muscle. This is what the amendment would do. It puts in place a provision that the authority must refer fraud matters to the Australian Federal Police. If the authority suspects that a claim from an MP could possibly be fraudulent, such as an MP work expense, an MP travel allowance, a designated parliamentary benefit, or a MOPS travel expense or travel allowance, that would be referred to the Australian Federal Police.

It is very important that this is included in the legislation we have before us, otherwise it is like a toothless tiger. We actually have a major problem: we have taken a relatively big step but it is like we are really mincing our footsteps before we even get going, if we do not get this in place. So I very strongly urge the senators to support this amendment. It is an important aspect of the authority, if it is able to do the work and to rebuild confidence with the public that they can trust their politicians, that we have mechanisms to deal with any problems that arise in the use of public money.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support amending legislation specifying that the authority may refer matters to the Australian Federal Police, should they believe a claim to be fraudulent. Members and senators are not above the law, and I would expect that in the very rare circumstance that someone commits a crime they should be reported to police. No-one in this place would disagree with that approach.

The independent authority has been established to ensure that authoritative advice is given to members and senators about their claims, to audit all work expenses, and to increase transparency. It is this transparency that will ensure that more and more eyes are actually on how we behave.

I am not entirely sure how this proposal adds to transparency. This is the single most significant change to parliamentary expenses in decades—it has been brought into this parliament, and, with the assistance of senators and members, will hopefully pass the parliament 34 days later—and I do not think we, as senators and members, should be referring to it as a toothless tiger. I actually do believe it is important to rebuild and maintain public faith in expenses. There will always be a level of challenging of those and I have no problem with that, because it involves scarce public funds. But, in my final contribution, if I could urge senators to actually reflect on the fact that if we start using terms like 'toothless tiger' before this body is set up—I do not think we want to hobble it.

One can disagree—there may be little changes here and there and I think I have outlined a reasonable position as to why not. I make no accusation about the motive of others. As I said about the previous amendment from Senator Xenophon, I know that it was motivated by a genuine world view. I will simply ask that people give this authority time to work. It will come before Senate estimates. There is no more gruelling process of scrutiny in this country than the three-times-a-year hearings around Senate estimates. To be fair, substantial scrutiny will be put on this authority and the authority, I think, is aware of that. On top of that you will have monthly reporting.

So, let's give the body a chance before we actually start saying things like 'toothless tiger'. I do not think that is justified with this bill. I do not think it is justified by the commitment demonstrated by the Prime Minister and this government.

The next amendment I know the Greens are moving reflects their proposed change, which is in their second reading amendment to the electorate allowance. I do not propose to comment again. My comments earlier on stand with respect to that amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, because I understand there will not be a division on this particular amendment. I, and on behalf of my colleagues, support this amendment, but we do believe that this authority is by no means a toothless tiger, that it is a significant improvement on what there has been. We think, though, that this amendment moved by Senator Rhiannon will improve it and give it added force, but we still think that it will do a lot of good work. A final question: can the minister confirm that this authority will be appearing before Senate estimates? If not, what other mechanism is there for it to be accountable to the parliament?

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sought advice earlier to confirm that and it was confirmed to me that it is able to be called before Senate estimates.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (20:44): The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8066 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 8066:

(2) Page 43 (after line 5), after clause 63, insert:

63A Electorate allowance

Despite any provision of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, if the Remuneration Tribunal determines an electorate allowance for members of parliament, the Remuneration Tribunal must:

(a) require the electorate allowance to be deposited into a separate account of the member; and

(b) prevent the electorate allowance being taken as income by the member.

This covers the important matter of the electorate allowance. The senators would have heard from Senator Richard Di Natale on this matter earlier. This puts in place the important provision with regard to ensuring that the money in our electorate allowance is actually spent on our electorate work. That is a very basic requirement. It is extraordinary that people would disagree with it and not get those provisions in place.

To set it out: how it would work is that, despite any provision in the act that covers the Remuneration Tribunal, if the tribunal determines an electorate allowance for members of parliament, the Remuneration Tribunal must require the electorate allowance to be deposited in a separate account from that of the member of parliament and prevent the electorate allowance being taken as income by the member. So there are two simple measures: the electorate allowance goes into a dedicated account, and it is spent on the electorate. Surely that is how it should have been set up in the first place. It looks like it was a major oversight. Let us get that sorted out now.

Question negatived.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.