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

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS RESOURCES BILL 2017

Further to this Parliament's recent passage of a bill to establish the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA), I am pleased to introduce the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017.

This bill is the next step in the biggest reforms to the management of parliamentarians' expenses in more than a generation. It is the new foundation on which we will build the instruments that prescribe all future parliamentary work expenses.

This bill will see the implementation of a number of key recommendations of the review chaired by John Conde and David Tune into the parliamentary entitlements system, by streamlining the legislative and administrative framework for parliamentarians' work expenses into one single head of legislative authority—this was one of this Review's key recommendations.

A number of other recommendations of this Review will also be progressed through this Bill, including:

Through the introduction of an independent authority which can make rulings, a clear definition of 'parliamentary business' along with increased transparency, the Government is moving to restore public confidence in parliamentarians' expenditure.

As this government has previously said, the current parliamentary expenses framework is complex and challenging for both parliamentarians and the public to navigate and understand. It comprises multiple pieces of legislation, regulations, determinations, procedural rules, guidelines, conventions and decisions of executive government.

It is time for a simpler, more transparent framework that governs our use of public resources to conduct our parliamentary business.

There are many benefits in establishing a simpler parliamentary work expenses framework. A simpler, clearly defined framework will not only better guide and support parliamentarians in making confident, responsible decisions, but it will enable increased public awareness of the expenses and allowances that can be claimed.

This, in addition to the monitoring, auditing and reporting functions of the soon to be established IPEA—including the more regular disclosure of parliamentarians' expenses—will facilitate a greater degree of transparency, accountability and integrity in our use of taxpayers' money.

A simpler framework will also reduce the administrative load on parliamentarians and their employees, allowing us to spend more time doing what we are elected to do—serving our constituents and community.

New rules and obligations will be placed on parliamentarians to ensure that we spend taxpayers' money carefully, and only for purposes that relate to the duties we undertake as their parliamentary representatives.

Under a new dominant purpose test, parliamentarians will be prevented from accessing public resources under the new framework, unless it is for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. This test will be the standard that we must meet in order to claim work expenses.

In keeping with the recommendations of the review, the bill will specify that parliamentary business means parliamentary duties, electorate duties, party political duties, and for office holders—official duties. The bill will authorise the Minister to make a legislative instrument that specifies activities under each of these four duty streams.

The bill will also require us to ensure that our use of public resources achieves value for money—that public resources are used efficiently, effectively and economically. This is consistent with the obligations on Commonwealth public servants for the proper use of taxpayers' money. It is appropriate that it also applies to our use of public resources.

Parliamentarians will be personally accountable and responsible for assessing what represents value for money, and must be prepared to justify publicly their use of taxpayers' money.

Parliamentarians that claim expenses for a dominant purpose other than conducting parliamentary business or who breach conditions relating to claimable work expenses, will be personally financially liable for the costs associated with the work expenses, and subject to additional financial penalties under the penalty loading scheme.

The penalty loading scheme will impose a 25 per cent penalty loading on top of the cost of an expense or allowance that does not comply with the rules, and which is not repaid within 28 days from the date the claim was made. The penalty scheme will not apply where there was an administrative error by the Commonwealth. Nor will it apply where a travel expense or allowance was outside the rules, but in incurring or claiming that expense or allowance the parliamentarian reasonably relied on advice from IPEA.

Further to this, it must be acknowledged that it is imperative that parliamentarians and their staff are able to receive guidance and support to ensure that we access work expenses within the rules and abide by our obligations. This is particularly important in relation to the travel we undertake to fulfil our representative duties.

This bill will provide IPEA with the power to make written rulings relating to travel expenses and allowances. IPEA may provide a ruling on its own initiative or at the request of an individual parliamentarian. Rulings will conclude whether a travel expense or allowance was within the rules, including whether it was for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business, or represented value for money.

A ruling is conclusive evidence of the matters it deals with. Where a ruling finds that a parliamentarian has incurred or claimed a travel expense or allowance beyond the rules, the amount claimed or incurred will be a debt to the Commonwealth and a penalty loading will apply if not repaid within 28 days of the claim.

Importantly, as I have already mentioned, a debt will not exist where a parliamentarian claimed or incurred the travel expense or allowance in reliance on personal advice given by the IPEA. This ensures that parliamentarians can receive personal advice which provides them with certainty of what travel expenses and allowances they are able to claim. The Department of Finance will continue to provide advice on work expenses other than travel, but such advice or expenses will not be the subject of a ruling by the IPEA.

As the Prime Minister has previously identified, as parliamentarians we have a duty to ensure that our use of public resources meets the expectations of all Australians. Following the establishment of IPEA, this bill is the next step in a robust response to the obvious shortcomings of the existing system. The bill will provide greater clarity to parliamentarians in their use of taxpayers' money while further increasing transparency and accountability on such expenditure.

My hope is that this bill will also go some way to restoring the public's confidence in the parliamentary expenses framework which has arguably degraded the public's view of parliamentarians over recent decades.

I look forward to working with the opposition and other members and senators to ensure that this very important next step to timely reforms to parliamentary work expenses is delivered as soon as possible.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS RESOURCES

(CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017

Further to the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017, the second bill in the package of legislation to reform the parliamentary work expenses system is the Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017.

This bill makes consequential amendments to relevant legislation, including the repeal of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 and the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952, to facilitate a new simplified 'principles-based' parliamentary work expenses framework.

The bill also provides for provisions to assist with the transition from the old work expense framework, to the new work expenses framework. This includes validating expenses by parliamentarians or former parliamentarians that span the two frameworks.

The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 so that the IPEA's powers and functions are more directly referable to the new work expense framework.

The full details of amendments made by this bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 and the Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 on behalf of the opposition. This is another piece of long-awaited reform. As I have stated on previous pieces of legislation before this house, ever since the former member for Mackellar decided that a helicopter was an appropriate form of travel we have needed these reforms. The independent review undertaken by eminent Australians, including David Tune and John Conde, into the parliamentary expenses framework recommended a series of changes and improvements to the current system. Together with the recent statements of the Remuneration Tribunal, we are pleased to see these changes now being brought forward. The changes before the chamber seek to refine the definitions of 'parliamentary business', define the principles on which we base our expenses decisions and begin implementing the reforms so strongly recommended by the review. I note that the opposition knows the majority of the parliamentarians just want to abide by the rules and get on with the job, which is why the opposition gave a guarantee of speedy progression of this legislation to reform the system to restore public faith and to get on with the job.

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

The Greens strongly support the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 and the Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017. The issues of transparency and accountability with regard to how politicians use public money to undertake our work is something that we do feel strongly about. It is an issue that we have taken up regularly over many years. I will come to it later, but right up front I wanted to pay tribute to the work that former leader Christine Milne undertook in this area. She spoke in this House many times on this important issue.

We have heard from the government that the foundation of these bills is that they will build instruments that prescribe all future parliamentary work expenses. Understandably—it is the government—they want to present what they are introducing in a very positive way. They present with great fanfare that this is a new beginning. As I have said, we support it, but to get that new beginning we have to ensure that the misuse of resources does not occur and that the transparency and the accountability is real.

One of the problems with these bills is the lack of penalties. People do do the wrong things. In the future, people who may be here in these chambers already or who may yet be elected will do the wrong thing. There is less chance of that happening if there are penalties in place and much clearer compliance measures. What we know from reading these bills is that the measures do not include clear compliance and penalty provisions. That is needed for the reasons I have just given: to really put it out there so it is much clearer and people are less likely to do the wrong thing.

But we also need the penalties to help restore public confidence in us as politicians and in the very institution of parliament. I am sure one thing we would all be aware of is the deep cynicism among the public about who politicians are and what we do. I was told—and I have not got the source of it—that a poll recently found that 74 per cent of politicians are in this work for themselves. I find that really disappointing. Although I have strong disagreements with my colleagues, particularly on the coalition side and also on the Labor side—we all have our differences—I still believe by far the majority of people, within their own set of values, are here working for what they believe is the common good, irrespective of what we might think of this. But the public do not think that. The public are so deeply cynical. What becomes so damaging when the public end up in that space is that they are less likely to engage with the democratic process. So this bill is really important, but it needs more teeth.

It is all very well for the minister to say that the Turnbull government is committed to comprehensive reforms—and I have heard him say that a number of times and I do acknowledge the work he has put into this—but, again, without those clear penalties and a willingness to enforce them—a willingness to follow through on the penalties also has to be part of this—government reforms in this area will not carry the cultural change that is needed. It is not just the words we get into this bill; it is how the place is operated and how it is seen to operate.

We see that there is a need for a compliance officer position to oversee MPs' use of their allowances. There should be offences for the misuse of allowances or disregarding reporting requirements. The compliance officer should make regular reports to parliament on the status of the investigations of any misuse of allowances.

The latest round of tidying up how allowances are managed by politicians started with a helicopter ride. Unfortunately, you find that so many of the reforms in this area start because there are scandals. I have to say that I am not convinced that what we have here is going to plug the hole on those scandals. We had the former member for Mackellar's helicopter ride to a fundraiser. The former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, did actually order the inquiry. That inquiry, chaired by John Conde and David Tune, came forward with a whole set of recommendations. One recommendation was for the body that we are now considering.

I wanted to revisit that because it has taken so long for this recommendation to be put in place. The former Prime Minister set up the inquiry, the inquiry brought down its recommendations and we got a new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth. Yes, there are a number of recommendations, but not too many to consider—I think there are just over 20. It took them more than a year to announce that they will bring forward this recommendation for the establishment of the body we are now considering. That is a good step, but the time lag is again not a healthy look. It just sends the message to the public that they are not really serious about it. Why didn't they really get on with it when the problem became so clear?

There are many aspects dealt with here. I mentioned earlier the work of my former colleague in this place Christine Milne. She and I pay tribute also to the Nick Xenophon Team, who have also done work in this area. Former senator Christine Milne was very passionate about this issue. She spoke in the parliament many times. It was on her initiative that we developed the Greens bill for a national integrity commission. Part of the national integrity commission was the office of an independent parliamentary adviser. That is something that was needed long ago. Maybe it would have prevented the crazy helicopter trip that brought such embarrassment not just to one MP but, I would argue, to the whole institution of the Australian parliament.

If we had such an adviser, they would be there to advise MPs and ministers and we could get clarity on what is sometimes a bit of a grey area in terms of some of the work that we might undertake—'Is it something that parliamentary resources should be spent on?' So we could get that clarity. Also, they would be able to assist in the ethical running of our offices and generally assist in what the standards are that the public expects regarding the right way to operate. I believe that such a position would help address that issue I spoke about earlier regarding the need for cultural change—the advancing problem that we have—which this bill only takes forward in a very small way.

We need to remember why we are here. We have different approaches to our job, but we are here to serve the Australian public. We need to ensure that, when we are using public money, it is done in a way that is accountable and transparent. We need to ensure that the money is being used in a way that advances the interests of the Australian public and is not for self-interest or being abused in any way. We need to ensure that, every time we claim an expense of the many resources and allowances that we are provided with, we and the public can be confident that these resources and allowances are being used in the right way.

We support many of the aspects that are set out here in terms of value for money and being very clear about what is parliamentary business. But the issue around the penalties is something that really needs to be revisited in detail. It is a major weakness, and we are not seeing movement from the government in this area. I acknowledge that one aspect of the bill provides that, if an MP refuses to pay back money that they owe within 28 days, there is a 25 per cent loading on their repayment. I would argue that that is not enough. It is too low, and I cannot see that it would operate as a discouragement or disincentive to MPs. These aspects need to be completely tightened up to ensure not only that the rules and procedures are followed absolutely but also that the public can be clear that the right thing is being done and that we are not going to have another morning where, when we wake up, the front page of the newspaper is about the abuse of travel allowances or the misuse of any of the other allowances that we are afforded with to undertake our work.

The whole issue of allowances is an area that needs work. I would argue that the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 is only one small step in the work that needs to be undertaken. The Greens are ready to support it, but we hope that there will be in-depth consideration of those hard issues—for example, how we can put penalties in place that will make a difference, will be enforced and will act as a disincentive to MPs who might consider doing the wrong thing.

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

This being my bill, I will take a moment to respond to some of the comments made in the debate on the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017. Firstly, I would like to thank the chamber and members of the committee who worked on this for their cooperation in allowing this bill to be brought forward today and for their cooperation and discussions that have led to its development and passage.

I have been in this job since August last year, and I think anyone who has been around politics will know that the occasional scandal or negative story about expenses, entitlements and travel has been something that predates more than just the last 18 months, two years or indeed three years. This bill is a significant bill because it brings together a lot of legacy legislation, different regulations and different acts of parliament—things that I will not describe as hodgepodge but rather as things that developed over time to deal with the new needs of members of parliament and also, occasionally, the need to act in response to a misuse or a mistake. It is a significant piece of work, because one of the pieces of legislation that is being amended is older than me.

I will agree with one sentiment expressed by Senator Rhiannon—if it does not do her too much damage for me to agree with her on something!—and that is that this has been an issue developing over a long period of time. This has been an issue that has damaged the institution of parliament over a long period of time. But it is an issue that I and the government have seized upon.

So far this year, with the consent of this place, we have finally abolished the Life Gold Pass—which was promised for nearly three years; abolition was immediate, so that people who had it lost it—because it did not meet community standards. We have actually established, for the first time—and it is now an executive agency and, from 1 July, will be a statutory independent agency—the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. I will say to Senator Rhiannon, as to a number of the requests that you have made: the ability to receive advice and to oversee, and the power of audit, are vested in that parliamentary expenses authority that this parliament brought in within a month of the Prime Minister's announcement. That does reflect the cooperation of other people in this parliament, but it also reflects that the can was not kicked down the road by this government—not by me; not by the Prime Minister. We said we were acting and we were committed to action, and this is the third tranche of legislation dealing with these problems this year.

With respect to the Conde report, it did take some time, Senator Rhiannon. I was not in the portfolio until August last year. However, it did take a substantial period of time to draw together all the different legislation and regulations, as it will when we have to bring out the update to the parliamentary expense regulations that will be a consequence of this, because we do not want any inadvertent consequences; we do not want inadvertent loopholes; we do not want inadvertent restrictions.

I will say, however, that I do not agree that fines are the best way to discipline members of parliament. In this place, we vote on gravely serious matters, whether that be national security policy or taxation policy. We need to give members of parliament the flexibility to do their jobs. When people say to me: 'Why don't you just have a travel budget? Why don't you have stricter rules?' I say: 'How does that work for someone from Melbourne versus someone from north-western Australia—for Senator Dodson, or someone like you, Mr Acting Deputy President Back, from Western Australia?' And I do not think that, if we are going to be voting on such issues of national import, we cannot be trusted to make a judgement on how we use these business expenses to go about our jobs, to meet with stakeholders and to go to committee meetings et cetera.

The best discipline is the regular reporting that we are bringing in, because, as people have rightly noted, it is the six-monthly reporting that has actually drawn public attention to this in the past. That is going quarterly, immediately, and, as we update the information technology, which is more than a decade old in some cases, that will become monthly. That regular reporting and the ability of the public to access that online will be the best forms of discipline.

But we also need to be careful. Not everything that is written up in the newspapers is a misuse. Sometimes there can be an innocent mistake. Sometimes there can be a slip of judgement. Not everything is a conspiracy. And that is why, in the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority that goes with this, we have actually provided the power to provide advice and to provide binding rulings.

How it plays publicly and how it is going to be received by the public is a judgement we should all be capable of making—after all, we are all elected officials. But I hasten to say that part of the issue around the standing of members of parliament is the bidding war that happens as members of parliament seek to convict people in a court of public opinion before all the facts are known.

As someone who has to deal with the queries we get, I will say: some of the stories I have seen, particularly, I might say, about members from regional Australia and the travel costs they incur, I think paint them in an unfair light and do not fairly represent the travel burden on them, nor their correct use of entitlements, nor the fact that—to ensure that people living long distances from Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney can actually see a member of parliament—there are going to be substantial travel costs involved, and I am more than happy to defend those. So I think we have just got to be careful to ensure that one error of judgement is not a career-ending moment, or that, if there is one genuine mistake in applying the rules—which tends to happen more often than conspiracy does, I think—we do not leap to a conclusion about the motives of that person. That is why we have put in place an independent authority with the capacity to provide advice confidentially and to provide rulings.

Finally, I genuinely thank those who have facilitated the passage of this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.