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

I rise to support these bills on behalf of the opposition. The reform has been a long time coming. We have needed this reform ever since the former member for Mackellar decided that a helicopter was an appropriate form of travel. The independent review into parliamentary expenses undertaken by eminent Australians, including David Tune and John Conde, suggests a raft of recommendations to overhaul parliamentarians' expenses. We understand that further legislation to implement those recommendations is imminent and we eagerly await its introduction.

This bill is an important first step in the establishment of an independent authority to administer the work expenses framework. This authority will provide the assurance to the public that parliamentarians' expenses are being managed efficiently. It will provide the transparency and accountability required to restore faith in the system with the Australian public. Importantly for those present, it will provide an opportunity to ensure that the management of expenses is clear, concise and unambiguous. Labor supports the establishment of this authority. We support this reform in its current form and we support the passage of the bill immediately.

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

The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 is supported by the Greens. It is largely about transparency and accountability, and that is obviously essential when we look at the use of public money. But what we need to realise here is that the authority is not a panacea. It does not mean that the scandals are going to stop. The issue of MPs misusing their allowances has been perennial across many Australian parliaments, sadly. For the past three decades scandals have broken, careers have been ruined and the public have become more cynical about their MPs and about the political process, which is very detrimental to the democratic system. Every scandal has brought promises that the allowance system would be changed.

I think it is worth reminding ourselves of some of these scandals. The way the government is spinning this package of legislation is that this is now the solution to the scandals that have broken and the whole way that allowances are managed—now there is a new way. The scandals have been considerable and serious, so let's just remind ourselves. There was former minister Sussan Ley and her $13,000 for chartered flights between capital cities. There was Julie Bishop's $2,700 to attend a polo event in the Mornington Peninsula, and on top of she has gone to Derby Day, the Melbourne Cup and rugby events using entitlements. Chris Bowen and Brendan O'Connor—$10,000 was their expense account to take their families to Darwin in 2015. Probably the one that takes the cake is a gaggle of coalition frontbenchers using about $16,000 of public money to attend a number of weddings. On top of that we have Tony Burke going to Uluru—$12,000 to take his family. Another interesting one, because not all the ministers applied for public money to help them to go to this: Mr Dutton, Senator Brandis, Senator Fifield and Senator Birmingham—$7,000 to go to the Prime Minister's harbourside mansion on New Year's Eve in 2015.

I read them out because that is what has brought us here tonight on Thursday night, when most people thought they would be at home with their families. We are dealing with legislation that the government has brought in in response. Clearly they had to respond when the Sussan Ley episode ran so out of control. But again, they are not going the full distance. Yes, there is the authority, something the Greens have worked hard for and many other people have advocated for, I acknowledge—but there are not enough teeth here. There need to be penalties. There needs to be clearer compliance.

I have reminded the Senate of some of the scandals. Let's remind ourselves of the number of times there have been inquiries bringing forward recommendations. Let's run through them quickly. In 2001-02 there was an audit report on parliamentary entitlements. In 2009-10 there was an ANAO audit report on parliamentary entitlements. In 2010 there was what became known as the Bletchley report, reviewing entitlements. In 2011, just a year later—it is interesting that when you get to more recent times these reports are coming out about every couple of years—it was the Williams review, again looking at entitlements. In 2015 another ANAO audit report on the administration of travel entitlements. In 2016 we had the Australian Taxation Office ruling on the tax treatment of allowances and accommodation expense. Again in 2016, we had the Conde and Tune report, an independent report on the entitlements system. That is an extraordinary array of reports and a huge amount of work gone in with many recommendations brought forward.

We are left here with an authority bill. Again, to put it on the record solidly so that our position is not represented, we have been all the way with this authority bill. We support it strongly. But when you look at it the question comes through immediately: what is its main job? Advising, monitoring, reporting and auditing—with so little on compliance. The bill and the explanatory memorandum reveal the extent of the problem.

The Greens, as I have said, are very pleased that the authority is about to come into place. But the failure of the government to give the authority a solid compliance system is a serious problem. I can illustrate how serious this is with a very useful submission that the Australian Federal Police put in to the inquiry that the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, called after the so-called 'choppergate' incident. This is from the Australian Federal Police. In their submission they said that the existing system made it difficult to prove misuse of public money. They called for a clear definition of 'parliamentary business' as part of an independent entitlement system with greater governance to ensure money spent was appropriate.

The AFP actually revealed that they had received 70 complaints since 2013 about MPs. Interestingly, they say most of them came from MPs from rival parties. But they said there was not much supporting evidence and, ultimately, no action was taken. The AFP said that because there was no workable definition of 'parliamentary business' it was difficult to prove misuse as, in their words:

… the arbiter in determining parliamentary business is the Member or Senator themselves.

Again, these are direct quotes from that submission.

… the AFP faces a number of impediments in proving a criminal offence (e.g. fraud) stemming from the misuse of given entitlements.

…   …   …

… proving the use of entitlements is not for the purposes of parliamentary business is difficult. The definition of parliamentary business is not outlined in legislation or any governance framework relating to parliamentary entitlements.

The AFP said that under the existing system complaints without evidence were referred to the Department of Finance and that the police kept a watching brief that could be reactivated if the department referred the matter back. Again, it is a reminder of the whole problem we have here with compliance.

So it is good news that we now have what looks like a workable definition of 'parliamentary business'. Hopefully, that will allow the AFP and other authorities to pursue complaints. That, really, is incredibly critical to how this issue is managed. If we do not achieve that, there will be growing public cynicism. When the scandals break, there will not be much that can be done about it, and that will just add to people's cynicism. They will just think it is more words and more politicians making out that they are doing something when there is not really a solution there. So I do move this as a second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate supports the establishment of a Compliance Officer position within the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority with the power to conduct an investigation if they have reason to believe that a Member of Parliament has received a payment that should not have been allowed and refer any breaches to the relevant authorities.".

That will go some way to putting on record the urgent need for this authority not only to be established but to have teeth.

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

I support the bill but I will be moving amendments in the committee stage to include in the ambit of this authority, with the appropriate adjustments being made to the bill, effectively anyone who is on the Commonwealth financial role—anyone paid for by the Australian taxpayer. I was occasioned to consider this, I might say, by an article in TheCanberra TimesI think it was last Monday. It was quoting their own editorial of some weeks prior to that. But it did raise the point: whilst there is already quite a deal of oversight for politicians—their statements of interests, their support additions in addition to their salaries, their salaries; all of this is well known to the public, with a lot of it available on FOI—the same information is not available to the public generally in relation to senior public servants and people involved in government statutory authorities like the Human Rights Commission. That just mentions one of literally hundreds of government statutory authorities and agencies, some of which are accountable to parliament by annual reports. Most of them are accountable in a sort of way through estimates. But if you ever ask for salaries or particular employment conditions for some of the statutory authority people you get obfuscation and arguments about privacy from the bureaucrats.

Whilst we are today in this mood of a greater accountability for parliamentarians, let's extend it to have that accountability in relation to the people that have the real power in the Australian government—that is, the senior bureaucrats, the judiciary, the Defence Force. Their entitlements perhaps should be able to be seen by the public. I am not suggesting that the judiciary or the Defence Force have the real power, but anyone who has been involved in government knows that government, particularly at a federal level, is such a big organisation and has so many arms and tentacles that, really, it is the Public Service under the Westminster system that really has the power. It makes recommendations to ministers, deals with contracts and deals with supply—and those things. I think it is important to include everybody in this accountability net.

I hasten to add that over the years that I have been in this parliament and my nine years in the ministry I have met some wonderful public servants. In fact, I do not think I have ever met a public servant who has given me any cause to doubt their honesty, their sincerity, their competence, their devotion to their duty. I am terribly impressed with the work our bureaucracy does for the government of the day and for the country as a whole. I am not suggesting there are causes for concern, but of course unless you know you never know, and this article in The Canberra Times did alert me to the need for there to be wider scrutiny.

I have mentioned it before, in another debate, but I will mention it again. The ABC is one of those so-called independent statutory authorities totally funded by the taxpayer, and so many taxpayers say to me—well, the first thing they say is, 'Why don't you sell it?' but that is not an option. But I do think it is important that the public understand just what the senior people in the ALP—in the ABC. That was almost a Freudian slip there: 'in the ALP'. Some people cannot distinguish between the ALP and the ABC, and often I am one of them. I think it is important that we understand—because it is taxpayers' money you see, Mr Acting Deputy President. It would be different if it were a commercial radio station, a commercial TV station or a newspaper which makes its own money, but, where the ABC is totally funded by the taxpayer and very, very well funded, I think it is appropriate that the public and perhaps even this parliament have some idea of which people in that organisation are receiving what sort of money.

I mentioned the incident several years ago now, when Labor was in power, when we desperately tried at estimates to find out what a prominent ABC broadcaster's salary was. I think he was in charge of The 7.30 Report at the time. The government of the day, the unions, the Labor Party and everyone obfuscated and tried and tried to prevent us getting that information, but, in what was then a bit of a test case between the power of the parliament and the power of the ABC bureaucracy, the parliament eventually won out on a sort of compromise. We got a list—not by name, I might say—or a range of salaries that were paid, as I recall, to their top three presenters, so we knew what it was. It was something in the order of $600,000 or $700,000, as I recall. I think it is important for this parliament, as representatives of the people of Australia, to be able to know what Tony Jones or Barrie Cassidy receives, for example. We only see them for a couple of hours a week on the TV, and a lot of constituents say to me, 'Well, they only work for two hours a week; what pay are they getting?' I know they work a bit more than this, but—

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

A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The senator is in breach of standing order 196 on tedious repetition. I am not sure how he—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, resume your seat. There is no point of order, if that is the substance.

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

Senator Farrell must be hearing things—it is the first time I have mentioned it in this debate. Perhaps Senator Farrell is a little bit sensitive. I did not think he was from the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, but at the time we tried to do this there was a Labor senator who was a former media alliance union person—

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

And a very good one, too.

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

Yes, who was that? I forget.

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

Senator Wortley.

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

Yes, that is right—Senator Wortley. She did her work for the union. She tried her best to make sure we could not find out what their pay was. But, as I said, I know that Barrie Cassidy and Tony Jones work more than the couple of hours a week we see them on the telly, but I think our constituents would like to know just what money they get for what jobs they do, and that seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.

Our constituents are entitled to know what I do, what I get and what my travel is, but I think we need the same for all of those who are on the taxpayers' purse. I could go through literally hundreds of statutory agencies. You do get an annual report. In the annual report, you get a range of salaries that are paid to a range of people, but the principle of us as parliamentarians—and people can be in no doubt about what Senator Farrell receives for his pay as a senior member of the opposition.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. A point of order?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. I have a point of order on relevance. Being well aware that the senator has not been relevant since some time in the mid-1990s, I ask you to draw his comments to the question before the chair.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Macdonald, you have the call. There is no point of order.

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

I might say that I would be more relevant than the person who made that irrelevant point of order. If I recall, at the 2013 election Senator Ludlam was not even elected. That is how much the people of Western Australia thought of him. But, because, very unusually, there were some missing ballots in Western Australia, we had another election and, lo and behold, Senator Ludlam was then elected, so perhaps he is not one to throw stones in the glass house in which he lives.

Again, I say I support this bill. Something along these lines would have been helpful in the past. I notice that the Greens political party, when they talk about the reason for this, as is their wont, raise every one of the few members of the Liberal and National parties who appear to have done the wrong thing. They do not, of course, because they are Greens, mention the myriad—they mention one or two, but not the literally hundreds—of Labor Party people who are in the same situation. But that is what you come to expect from the Greens, because we all know—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us about Bob Brown's boat!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, direct your comments through the chair.

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

I think he wants me to tell him about when the Sea Shepherd, which Bob Brown was involved with, spilt oil into Cairns harbour. With all of the hoo-ha about saving the Barrier Reef that the Greens go on about, there was their leader on a ship spilling oil into the Barrier Reef, for which they were rightly fined and brought to account by the courts. Is that what you wanted me to talk about, Senator Whish-Wilson? If it was, please intervene as often as you like.

This bill, in some form, would have been useful earlier. I will go into my amendments in more detail in the committee stage, but they simply seek to include in the oversight what we define as Commonwealth government employees and, in addition to that, members of the judiciary and people who work for statutory offices. They also seek to include an officer or an employee of a Commonwealth company, within the meaning of the act. That means an employee of any Commonwealth company for which Commonwealth ministers are the sole shareholders. We have them appear at estimates and we have annual reports from them. This involves not the cleaner or the receptionist but the senior SES officers in some of those statutory authorities. It would be interesting to see what they might receive.

Whilst the public are very interested in what politicians receive, a salary of around $200,000 a year, I know the public are horrified when they hear that the CEO of a Commonwealth government owned company, namely, Australia Post, which for years has lost money—I believe it made some money this year—gets a salary of upwards of $5 million. In these days of greater accountability, greater openness and greater transparency, I think it is important that that applies to all the elements of governance and government that are paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayer.

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

My remarks will be relatively brief. I, on behalf of my colleagues, support the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017. It has been a long time coming and it is amazing how things change. When I put up a bill in similar terms back in September 2015, the Parliamentary Expenses Amendment (Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2015, the majority report of the committee that examined the bill basically said the bill was unnecessary. The majority report stated:

… the bill was introduced to address perceived problems with the entitlements system arising from claims made by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. In the committee's view, ad hoc legislative reform is not the way to address concerns in relation to the parliamentary entitlements system. The appropriate forum for the discussion of the issues raised in the bill is the current independent review of the parliamentary entitlements system.

Well, that was not about an ad hoc issue. It was about that being the tip of the iceberg in terms of what happened with the former Speaker. I think Terry Sweetman said it very well in a piece in The Courier Mail on 23 October 2015:

It is a pattern of unacceptable behaviour for which no responsibility is taken until somebody is caught out through the curiosity or the diligence of others.

That is why this bill is important, because it is a significant improvement on what we have had in the past. I commend the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, for the work he has done on this and for his consultation across the board, as I understand it, in discussing this with his colleagues and getting it to this stage so quickly. But it is a pity—it is interesting to observe that under two years ago, when I put up a similar bill for more immediate reporting, for more transparency, nothing was done. I believe that, through faster and more detailed reporting of travel claims and much tougher penalties, it will change the political culture from one of entitlement to a practice of responsibility and prudence. But I do acknowledge that the work done by the President of the Remuneration Tribunal, John Conde AO; the former Secretary of the Department of Finance, David Tune AO; and others—former members of parliament—was a useful exercise. I did spend a fair bit of time with that panel, that committee, to give them my views, as they did with others. It seems that we now have something that mirrors, in many respects, the bill that I put up back in September 2015. In that regard, I welcome it.

I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment—which was the initiative, the idea, of the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie MP—to have a community representatives as part of the authority. That is something I commend Ms Sharkie for bringing forward. We have had a respectful discussion with the minister in relation to that, and I understand his reasons for not wanting to support it at this stage, but I think it is important to raise the issue of how you measure appropriate community standards. More regular reporting, clearer rules and preliminary determinations being made—something that is an initiative of this bill, which is very welcome—I think will all build and strengthen confidence in the system.

Finally, I make this observation: more regular reporting and more transparent reporting keeps all of us on our toes. I for one have a view that MPs who are travelling for under two hours in a plane should not be flying business class. They should save taxpayers' money and fly economy class. I understand that Senator Macdonald, Senator Scullion, Senator McCarthy and others, and all the Western Australian senators think it is not unreasonable that they fly business class for those long legs. I prefer flying economy class, but that is my choice. I think that sort of transparency is a good thing as well.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. I indicate that we will be supporting a number of the Greens second reading amendments because we think they have merit in order to advance greater levels of transparency and accountability. It seems that finally we have some substantive reforms. That is a good thing. It is something I have long campaigned for, and I am so glad that we have got to this stage tonight.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017. I will try and keep my comments reasonably brief. The Greens have had legislation before the parliament to introduce a national anti-corruption authority. I think in the last four parliaments—so, under Bob Brown, Christine Milne and now me—we have had legislation to introduce an anti-corruption authority. Part of that authority would be the creation of an independent parliamentary monitor or authority. Today one-third of that bill becomes law and I suspect it will not be long before we see the establishment of a national anti-corruption watchdog in its entirety.

It is very pleasing to be leading the national debate on so many issues; to be shaping the direction of public policy in this country. We have seen Senate voting reform and reform of superannuation—issues the Greens have helped to put on the agenda. Indeed, negative gearing and capital gains tax reform are issues we put on the agenda well before they were popular. It is pleasing to see at least one side of politics adopt those policies. We pushed hard, through my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson, for a royal commission into the banking and financial sector. We think we are close to achieving an outcome in that area as well. It is a long list of reforms championed by the Greens, sometimes at a time when they are not popular, and then eventually adopted by parliaments, or, indeed, by one side of politics. It just goes to show that we are an ideas generator in this parliament and we are having a big influence.

This specific bill does improve the oversight and integrity of MPs' claims and entitlements. We will be supporting it, but there are a few structural flaws that we want to see improved. We would like to see, as Senator Rhiannon said earlier, the establishment of a compliance officer within the authority to be able to conduct investigations into specific claims. We want to make sure that matters are properly investigated by requiring the authority to refer any suspected wrongdoing to the AFP. The AFP would have to provide reasons why they did not pursue a prosecution against an MP who has done the wrong thing. It is very important that enforcement is part of the solution. Through this legislation, we understand it is not just laws that will need to change; it is also the culture. We believe this legislation will help shape that culture.

We know that our other amendment will fail today. In fact, we tested that earlier through a motion. We do think that it is critical that an allowance that is nominally there to provide for MPs to conduct their electorate duties be used for that purpose and not be taken as salary. It does speak to a much deeper problem that, often, it is both sides of politics that are dragged kicking and screaming to these reforms. They often do as little as they can. We would like to push them further. We think there is more that can be done.

I know that part of the reason for this bill and ramming it through the parliament tonight is that this issue is dealt with and swept off the front pages of newspapers, but until we deal with this issue fully and until there is root and branch reform, we will continue to see scandals over and over again. We will continue to do what we can by specifically pushing for reforms to the electorate allowance to make sure that every MP in this place does not take it as salary but, in fact, uses it to conduct their parliamentary duties.

With regard to the specific amendment from the Xenophon party, the amendment would require that a member of the authority be appointed to represent the community expectations and values that are expected from members of parliament. Any effort that brings politicians and people closer together, that bridges that gap and that addresses the democratic deficit that exists right across this country is something we will support.

With regard to the specific amendment from Senator Macdonald, the amendment would extend the jurisdiction of the authority to oversee the expenses of the judiciary and senior public servants. We are open to that proposal, but we have not seen any evidence that, in fact, there are structural problems or evidence of misconduct. For those reasons, while we do not rule this out in its entirety, we want more information before we can support that specific proposal.

Let me finish by foreshadowing a second reading amendment. I would like to add that the Senate notes that senators are paid an allowance of $32,000, known as the 'electorate allowance', and calls on all senators to commit to spending their electorate allowance on their electorate and their electorate responsibilities rather than using it to top up their already generous salary.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will also very shortly be foreshadowing an amendment, but I just want to say—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

You can wait a little bit longer, Senator Dastyari. As my colleague Senator Di Natali has just pointed out, the Greens are relieved to see the old parties, except perhaps the oldest member of the coalition, Senator Macdonald, finally coming to some common sense on the need to fix this broken system that we have all been stuck to in recent years, which is clearly not working for the Australian people. The best way to fix this problem is to shine some light on it. It may look like this is a short-term political reaction—some might even say a knee-jerk reaction—to some bad publicity for a couple of high-profile politicians. We have heard stories here tonight about ex-member Bronwyn Bishop and, of course, former Minister Sussan Ley.

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

Tony Burke.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Tony Burke. All the names have been raised in here. For those listening tonight, this kind of legislation takes a long time and it takes cooperative effort amongst political parties, including the crossbench, and it takes a lot of hard work by a lot of individuals to lead on this issue. I would like to acknowledge Bob Brown, my predecessor, when he was here. We have heard about Bob Brown's boat from Senator Macdonald today, but he did many great things in parliament, including, of course being very heavily involved in the restructuring down progressive lines of MPs' pays and entitlements and bringing them in line with community expectations. A gap still exists between the expectations of the community and what actually goes on here. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Senator Christine Milne before she left, Senator Di Natale and especially Senator Rhiannon—this is her portfolio area—who has consistently worked to raise this in the public profile, and worked in the committee system with MPs and senators to get these bills to where they are tonight. These are important reforms but they are not the end of the story. They will go some way to establishing a healthier culture in parliament and, hopefully, to cementing that perception among the public.

We have had an important debate in this country in recent weeks around executive pay. The Greens, including once again Senator Brown, who previously put up legislation to cap executive pay, feel it is necessary to not only close once again the gap between the expectations of the public and well-paid senior executives in this country but to lead by example. Supporting this kind of legislation tonight and showing the Australian people that we will lead by example on these issues is very important.

The amendment that I foreshadow is very important. Essentially it asks that the investigative work completed by the authority is reported in six-monthly reports. We want these reports to come to parliament to be tabled so they can get an airing in the chambers of parliament, be debated and peer reviewed so that the public has information on the authority's work. If the authority does good work, which we hope it will, no doubt it will hold us all to account. So if that is kept secret and there is no transparency then, Senator Ryan, unfortunately it is an obvious conclusion to draw that that public perception about us pulling up our socks is not going to change. So we would like to see support for that amendment so that these things are released every six months and so that, if there has been bad behaviour and misuse of entitlements or rorting, those things are put out into the public domain.

It is only through this resetting of culture around allowances, us being seen to walk to walk the walk and us being open to scrutiny that we will have hope of restoring trust in the institution of parliament, which is essentially why we are here tonight. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. That is noted.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017. I point out that it is not only climate change that has made this a bit of a long hot summer for Australians but also the MP scandals. They have certainly lent a fair bit of weight, impetus and urgency to the way the government is finally moving to address some of these really important issues that go to the heart of how the Australian people view us as a collective and view us as a profession. I am sure my colleagues or most of them would agree, when you get out there and ask people what they think about politicians actually the opinion is not that high—somewhere just above used car salesman and about equivalent with journalists.

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

That is because they know you.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that Senator Macdonald is piping up now because it is quite ironic that here we are debating legislation tonight which is actually designed to save the taxpayer money and the filibustering diatribes and waffle we have heard coming out of Senator Macdonald are likely to have cost us a couple of hundred thousand dollars in taxpayer funds.

I foreshadow that I will be moving amendment 8074 standing in my name. This amendment, if it were successful, would be an indication from the Senate that we collectively believe that members of parliament who have misused their expenses should pay back four times the amount that was incorrectly paid to them. This is about giving a bit of teeth and a bit of a stick to this legislation because the Australian Greens genuinely believe that is what the Australian people would like to see. Ultimately, moves such as the ones we are debating tonight—even though we have been very clear that we do not think they go far enough—we hope will go some way towards restoring a modicum of confidence in politicians from the Australian community.

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

Firstly, I would like to thank senators who have contributed to the debate and those around the parliament that have been involved in the consultation with respect to bringing this bill forward as well as for people's understanding so we can deal with it this evening. As I have noted previously, politicians must be accountable for the use of taxpayers' dollars. The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 is now the second step in the biggest reform to the management of parliamentarian expenses in more than a generation. The new authority will provide clear and consistent guidance, advice and rulings for parliamentarians to ensure that our spending of public money meets the expectations of the Australian public.

As the government has also announced, we will continue to implement the recommendations of the Conde June review in order to improve the legislative and administrative framework of the assisting existing parliamentary work expenses system. I look forward to working with other members and senators to ensure that these important and timely reforms are delivered in the coming months.

It is 34 days ago today that the Prime Minister made the announcement that we were going to have an independent parliamentary expenses authority—less than five weeks. Tonight, hopefully, we will see passage of this piece of legislation that is an important step in rebuilding and maintaining public trust in our use of scarce public resources in our job. I think that is a testament to the commitment of this government to actually implement this most significant change in a generation because there are not many examples where government can move as quickly on such important institutions.

The government will be opposing the second reading amendments. I will brief briefly refer to contributions made in the other place as well as in that earlier debate on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill. With respect to the establishment of a compliance officer position, this authority will be independent. We do intend to set it up particularly quickly. Ideally, it would be up in a formal sense by midyear. The interim authority was announced as an executive authority last Thursday by the Prime Minister; we are in the process of working on that now.

In terms of transparency, I had advised that this body is a body that can be called before Senate estimates. Now, that occurs three times a year. I might say, I think most senators would agree that the Senate estimates process is a testament to the parliament and is also probably the most scrutinising of virtually anything that does happen in the Australian public sector, along with Auditor-General's reports. That will give an opportunity for senators to ask questions and that will give an opportunity for officials to take questions on notice. I think that in itself demonstrates the government's commitment to the transparency that this body represents. This body will also have the flexibility to make certain reports if it wishes.

For the reasons I outlined in an earlier debate, we also oppose the second reading amendment that refers to higher penalties above the 25 per cent. As I have said earlier, I think the monthly reporting, in a very accessible format, is actually the greatest protection of all. Scarce taxpayer resources and effectively our public reputations are on the line in the way we spend it. I think that is actually much more important than what might be a nominal financial penalty.

Finally, with respect to the electorate allowance, I understand that this also may have been outlined in the other place. The government does not support the changes proposed by the Greens. The electorate allowance was discussed in a review by the Remuneration Tribunal in December 2011, where the current arrangements were considered appropriate. The tribunal noted in its report:

The Electorate Allowance is an expense of office allowance for senators and members to provide them with funding for costs necessarily incurred in providing services to their constituents. It is paid monthly with the member’s salary.

There is a wide discretion for individual parliamentarians in how this allowance can be spent. Indeed, part of the point of this allowance and the way in which it is delivered is to provide funds for parliamentarians to be able to meet a range of expenses which cannot necessarily been foreseen in their nature or quantum.

Members and senators may use the electorate allowance for a wide variety of reasons, as was noted in the John Conde review released last year. For example: attendance at functions in the electorate, such as tickets, donations or purchases at fetes; donations to appeals and organisations; expenses associated with patronage of an organisation; presentations for school speech days, sporting clubs, senior citizen awards, et cetera; telephone and postage costs beyond those met by the Commonwealth; newspaper and periodical subscriptions beyond those provided by the Commonwealth; subscriptions to organisations; or additional full-time, part-time or casual secretarial assistance or wages for electorate duties. How the allowance can be utilised was detailed by the Australian Taxation Office in a specific ruling for members and senators. I am sure all members are familiar with this.

I do not think it is practical—given the purpose of this allowance and the wide uses it is put to across the country by people representing very different constituencies in very different parts of our nation—or feasible to have a process whereby people seek authorisation for each particular expense—in some cases, for a particular raffle ticket. This bill coming forward in less than five weeks from the date of the Prime Minister's announcement—in 34 days—and the passage of the previous bill demonstrate this government's strong support to take immediate action on the biggest reforms of parliamentary expenses in a generation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate notes that Senators are paid an annual allowance of $32,000, known as the

electorate allowance, and calls on all Senators to commit to spending their electorate

allowance on their electorate and their electorate responsibilities, rather than using it to top up

their already generous salary.".

Question negatived.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls:

(a) for the Independent Authority to make six monthly reports on the status of their investigations of any misuse of allowances by Members of Parliament or failure to comply with certification of allowance use; and

(b) that these reports are to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament and put on a public website.".

Question negatived.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on Members of Parliament who have misused their expenses to pay back four times the amount that was incorrectly paid to them.".

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.